Thursday’s shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, has all Americans reeling. The President does not want us to jump to conclusions, but the Obama administration has already jumped to a very dangerous conclusion, that Americans must be prevented from speaking the truth, the obvious, plain, TRUTH, that we have just suffered a second major attack on U.S. soil by Islamic terrorists. Meanwhile, early reports have the FBI say, “Any link to terrorism is not being discussed.” Not being discussed? Whom do they work for? Not the American people, not the soldiers who were shot, or their families or their loved ones! While relatives of the Ft. Hood murderer are out talking to the media, and telling us that Nidal Malik Hasan is a normal, loyal American, the President is giving them room to make their case by telling us to shut-up about alternative characterizations of the Islamic supremacist. The line is going to be: he was disturbed, he was harassed. It’s our fault 13 people died at Fort Hood. America is a terrible, racist country and needs correcting. But everyone knows this; they have learned it in our schools. The shooter was known to be sympathetic to terrorists. Why was he still an officer in the U.S. Army? The answer is political correctness. This PC culture is not new and it’s not rational, (unless you hate America and all it stands for). Thanks to the major institutions of society, the press, education, most churches, and the U.S. Army, political correctness is deeply embedded in our society. But it has huge costs, this is just the most expensive to date. Thursday afternoon, the cost was a second major terrorist attack leaving 13 dead and 25 wounded American soldiers. On 9/11, terrorists had to steal an airplane to launch their attack on the Pentagon. They were prevented from that bloody intent by alert civilians. Thursday, America’s brave young men and women were sitting ducks – the terrorist was inside the Fort enjoying the full support of his U.S. Army chain of command. How could this have happened? How could a radical Islamist be allowed to stay in our Army, keep his job as a psychiatrist at Walter Reed Hospital, and even counsel wounded warriors returning to the U.S. for rehabilitation? Our country is at war with Islamic terrorism, but it’s in denial. After 9/11, there was more concern at my college that Islamic members of the student body and faculty not be tainted by the horror that had just taken place at the World Trade Center, than there was for the victims. It was amazing and disgusting, but just what one would expect who has followed the progress of this wicked doctrine that prevents people from speaking and in some cases, even thinking the truth about the deadly intentions of terrorists and their supporters. We wring our hands in dismay that perfectly innocent Japanese and German citizens fell under suspicion during World Wars I and II and suffered discrimination as a result. However we are now going to the other extreme, failing utterly to protect ourselves and our children from those who will, if they can, kill us, overtake our government, and enslave us, every man, woman and child of us. Now we’re hearing that the shooter was afraid of harassment for his religious beliefs. This sounds just like the excuses for 9/11. We were to blame because we invaded their country, and defiled it by waging war on their fellow Islamists. My country, our country, is at war with Islamic terrorism and does not want to admit it. War is ugly; it means knowing your enemy and taking defensive as well as offensive actions. Political correctness is just a way to undermine the hearts and minds of patriotic Americans and it has costs, high costs. In this war, we must not let our own government play the part of Tokyo Rose. We must oppose all forms of New Speak and/or mind control. We must fight to win.
• Unemployment at 10.2%
• President’s top economic advisor admits this is by government design.
• White House intends for unemployment to go down in an election year.
Unemployment this morning topped 10.2%, even though the number seeking employment has declined. Many have just given up. Likewise, and more troublesome, the average hours worked in a week is at its lowest in decades – 33 hours. That suggests employers are going to just expand hours worked in the future, instead of hiring new people. So the unemployment number will stay high for a while.
On January 18, 2009, Obama’s top economics advisor Larry Summers said Barack Obama’s stimulus plan would keep unemployment below 10% and could be deemed to have failed if it crossed 10%.
On July 17, 2009, Larry Summers said
“Both administration and independent forecasts predicted that only a very small part of the total job creation expected from the Recovery Act would take place within six months,” he continued. “Indeed, a Council of Economic Advisers’ study predicted that only 10 percent of the total job impact of the Recovery Act would take place during calendar year 2009. Given lags in spending and hiring, the peak impact of the stimulus on jobs was expected not to be achieved until the end of 2010.”
In other words, an ever growing number of Americans have to sit on the unemployment line until next year by government design. Why? So in 2010, Barack Obama and the Democrats can run on falling unemployment numbers. They’d rather you starve now so they can have recovery happen in an election year.
We’re all political pawns to Barack Obama.
One more thing: remember, outside economists say passing the Democrats’ health care plan will slow the recovery further, stagnate wages, and increase unemployment. Do we want to do that?
Sincerely yours,
Erick Erickson
Editor, RedState.com
Dear MoveOn member,$3,578,117!
That’s how much progressives pledged this week to fund primary challenges against any Democratic senator who blocks an up-or-down vote on health care reform with a public option.
It’s a huge sum, and the clearest signal yet that any Democrat who helps Republicans filibuster health care reform will face an enormous backlash from the grassroots.
Here’s another way to make sure conservatives think twice before joining with Republicans: Many of these senators hold coveted committee chairmanships that give them significant power within the Senate.
Our friends at Democracy for America have launched an open letter urging Senate Democrats to strip committee chairmanship from any Democrat who filibusters health care. Will you join in? Clicking below adds your name:
The message of the letter is simple. It says, “If ANY member of the Democratic Caucus joins a Republican filibuster of healthcare reform with a public option, the Caucus must immediately strip that Senator of all Committee Chairmanships.”
In the Senate, the majority caucus has control over who chairs committees. Committee chairmanships are highly coveted because the chairperson has a lot of power over which bills get considered and what’s in them.
But chairing a committee is a privilege, not a right. So if a member of the Democratic Caucus joins with Republicans on the most important vote in a generation, then they certainly don’t deserve a position of power controlled by Democrats. The Democratic Caucus needs to make that clear to its members.
The fact that 66,000 MoveOn and Democracy for America members pledged more than $3.5 million to a primary challenge makes clear just how angry they’d be with any Democrat who helps Republicans doom health care reform. But as conservative Democrats decide what they’re going to do, they should know that it’s not just the grassroots they’d have to worry about if they filibuster, but also their colleagues.
Can you sign the open letter to the Democratic Caucus? Clicking below will add your name.
Thanks for all you do.
–Justin, Laura, Kat, Daniel, and the rest of the team
Want to support our work? We’re entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way.
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. This email was sent to Thomas Ravenel on November 5, 2009. [Redacted]
Fire ‘em all! Don’t know where this came from but as if we did not suspect it… Folks we need to forward this to everyone we know to get the word out about these people that are being paid by our tax dollars.
Nothing else needs to be said. This is one of their THREE DAY WORK WEEKS that we all pay for. I am ready to start from the beginning by voting out all elected officials and not letting any of them stay in office for more than two terms. No more lifelong healthcare, retirement, voting in their own pay raises, taking perks on our taxes, etc.
House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, pictured standing, far right, speaks while colleagues Rep. Barbara Lambert, D-Milford and Rep. Jack F. Hennessy, D-Bridgeport, play solitaire Monday night as the House convened to vote on a new budget. (AP)
The guy sitting in the row in front of these two… he’s on Facebook, and the guy behind Hennessy is checking out the baseball scores.
These are the folks that can’t get the budget out by Oct. 1, Seriously!!!So, we’ve got a 30 day budget extension. Well, guess what, 30 days from now we will be in the same boat. I guess this makes it easy for the news ‘reporters’ as all they have to do is recycle the same headlines from this week and from 2 years ago. And these yo-yo’s will still be playing SOLITAIRE!!!
Open Letter to Governor Sanford and the General Assembly — A Call to Action: Keep the Gitmo Detainees out of the Lowcountry
A Call to Action
By Michael S. Smith II
Dear Gov. Sanford and Members of the S.C. General Assembly,
Pursuant to a discussion I recently had with an expert on terrorism and radicalized Islam I wonder if you are familiar with a legal case that has been kept all too quiet in North Charleston, a case regarding a Naval Weapons Station employee who was caught with loads of ammunition, grenades and other materials smuggled off the base and stored nearby for sale on the black market?
According to my source, this arrest was made in the past year. However, nothing much has been released about the case since the arrest was made in Berkeley County. My source learned of this matter from a law enforcement officer who was involved in the now well-known arrest (in Goose Creek, S.C.) of the suspected terrorists who were thought to be plotting an attack on the weapons station.
If you are familiar with this matter it is time to start speaking up.
If you are not familiar with the details surrounding this arrest, please advise your staffers to gather information about it for you.
Such security breaches at Charleston area federal facilities serve as perfect examples for why it makes no sense for Gitmo detainees to be sent here.
Beyond this, look at the historical examples of just how closely-tied so many Gitmo detainees actually are to al-Qa’ida (i.e. within months of their releases many former Gitmo detainees are popping up on the Feds’ radars as suicide bombers and “suddenly” significant players within al Qa’ida’s cells and affiliated terrorist organizations based in AFPAK and the Horn of Africa).
Keep in mind these are the low-level detainees who have been released.
Just imagine what we don’t know about the ones still being detained.
While you think about this, please consider why Charleston — a thriving seaport city with myriad significant defense-oriented installations and the headquarters of a high-profile law firm involved with terrorism cases — could very quickly become a top target for al Qa’ida and other Islamist organizations if those detainees are sent here.
Please also keep in mind the negative impact this move will have on the state’s very successful business development efforts of late.
(Also keep in mind: the law enforcement officer who was my source’s source advised he and his colleagues found more than just fireworks in the trunk of the car pulled in Goose Creek.)
South Carolinians do not expect you to play nice about the prospect of Gitmo detainees being moved to Charleston. Furthermore, I encourage all of you and your colleagues to request briefings about those detainees from Sen. DeMint’s and Sen. Graham’s offices.
Once you’ve been apprised of what you should know — not just that which you “need to know” — please share with the press information available to you that reveals just how problematic it may be to make Charleston the future detention place for Gitmo detainees. Your constituents deserve to know exactly why this is.
Finally, as an alternative to Charleston or other such well-known cities in the United States becoming the places where those detainees are sent, please encourage the Obama administration to allow the FBI to create an off-the-map, “black” site to use as the new facility where Gitmo detainees may be kept — if, that is, it is actually necessary to send them somewhere within our country’s borders.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Smith II
Charleston, S.C.
What Health Care Reform Means For: The Uninsured
By Olga Pierce
(Using results from a questionnaire we did with American Public Media’s Public Insight Network, we’re looking at how the proposed health care reforms will actually affect people facing common health care coverage situations. This is the first in a series.) Anne Johnson lost coverage for herself and her 18-year-old son in February when she lost her job as a secretary at a solar energy company, where she was earning about $25,000 per year.
Find out how health care reform will impact the uninsured.
Taxpayers Lose $2.3 Billion with CIT Bankruptcy
By Paul Kiel
CIT, which specializes in lending to small and midsize businesses, got bailout money last December, a vote of confidence from regulators and the Treasury that CIT could survive and use the money to boost lending. CIT filed for bankruptcy protection on Sunday, and part of its plan to heal itself is wiping out the taxpayers’ $2.33 billion stake in the company.
Read the story.
Editorial Picks: Today’s Investigative Stories from Around the Web
Scrutiny Scant as DC Paid Felon Millions in AIDS Contract
Washington Post
Nonprofit Company Makes Its Owners Wealthy
Los Angeles Times
CBO: Few Americans Would Sign Up For Public Health Insurance Plan
Nov 02, 2009
The New York Times: “More and more, the Great Health Care Debate of 2009 is a numbers game. And the longer the debate goes on, the squishier the numbers seem to get. For months, many leading Democrats, including President Obama, have pushed for the creation of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers. A main argument was that a public plan would save people money. It would not be under pressure to earn profits, pay high private-sector salaries or deny needed care.” After the release last Thursday of the House Democratic leaders’ health care bill, the Congressional Budget Office said “the public plan would cost more than private plans and only six million people would sign up” (Herszenhorn, 11/1).
The Associated Press: Coverage numbers regarding the Democrats’ legislative push “for a government insurance plan to compete with private carriers are finally in: Two percent. That’s the estimated share of Americans younger than 65 who’d sign up for the public option plan.” That statistic “is raising questions about whether the government plan will be the iron-fisted competitor that private insurers warn will shut them down or a niche operator that becomes a haven for patients with health insurance horror stories.” The CBO also said the plan would likely attract a “less healthy pool of enrollees” and would likely have premiums higher than the average for private plans (Alonso-Zaldivar, 11/1).
Kaiser Health News: The actual figure estimated to enroll in the public option would be about six million. “And that number could shrink because states may decide to opt out of a public insurance plan, an escape clause that’s likely to be included in the Senate plan. … The CBO reasoned that the plan may not be able to offer a price advantage — in part because the House bill requires a government-backed insurer to negotiate payment rates rather than dictate them to hospitals and doctors… If the number of people in the public plan turns out to be six million in 2019, that would work out to an average of 120,000 per state. But that number probably would be smaller in the smallest states, perhaps totaling just tens of thousands.”
“Predicting the states’ responses is tricky, even where Republicans and conservative Democrats predominate. Some say the consumer appeal of a public plan could trump criticism that government plans would eventually drive out competition and lead to the federalization of health care” (Pianin, Carey and Appleby, 11/1).
The Wall Street Journal reports that costs could be driven up in the public option because of increased utilization of services by public option enrollees and that the “payment rates the government negotiates with health-care providers would, on average, be comparable to those paid by private insurers, eliminating a cost-saving advantage many Democrats aimed to give the plan. The CBO says its findings aren’t conclusive” (Adamy, 10/31).
This is part of Kaiser Health News’ Daily Report – a summary of health policy coverage from more than 300 news organizations. The full summary of the day’s news can be found hereand you can sign up for e-mail subscriptions to the Daily Report here. In addition, our staff of reporters and correspondents file original stories each day, which you can find on ourhome page.
The North Carolina Jihad Cell and the Quantico Marine Base Plot
The NEFA Foundation has released the 22nd report in the “Target: America” series, a PowerPoint presentation on the jihadist network operating in Raleigh, North Carolina and a plot, involving members of that cell, to attack the U.S. Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia.
In July 2009, a North Carolina grand jury indicted seven U.S. citizens and one legal permanent resident, charging the men with providing material support to terrorists and conspiracy to murder persons abroad. A September 2009 superseding indictment charged two of the men with the Quantico plot, alleging they shifted their focus to a domestic target after the group’s plans to wage jihad overseas were unsuccessful. In furtherance of the plot, the alleged leader of the conspiracy, Daniel Boyd, conducted reconnaissance on the Marine base and possessed weapons intended for the attack. During their search of Boyd’s house, authorities seized 26 weapons and more than 27,000 rounds of ammunition. Boyd, whose two sons were charged in the material support indictment, claims to have trained and fought in Afghanistan in the early 90’s and also led a small group practicing military tactics and the use of weapons on private property in N.C. in July 2009. In addition to radicalizing his two sons, Boyd also allegedly played a key role in the recruitment of others in the network. As David S. Kris, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, remarked: “This case underscores the potential threat that U.S. citizens with foreign fighter experience pose upon returning to the United States, specifically in terms of inciting other U.S.-based individuals to follow their example. They return from conflict zones with combat experience, a network of contacts overseas and strong credibility with…recruits seeking an authority figure.” Notably, Daniel Boyd’s father was a U.S. Marine Corps Captain decorated with 4 Purple Hearts, his brother reportedly “works for the Pentagon,” and his truck was adorned with a “Support our Troops” bumper sticker.
This PowerPoint report includes numerous government photographs of weapons, ammunition, and other items seized by the FBI during the search of Boyd’s house and excerpts from the Facebook pages of certain conspirators. Accompanying the report, the NEFA Foundation is releasing a revealing FBI summary of an interview with Daniel Boyd’s son Dylan, which provides further insight into the network.
Also visit www.Nefafoundation.org
Review originally published in The Post and Courier, November 1, 2009.
Reviewer Michael S. Smith II, executive editor of The Ethical Standard
Sunday, November 1, 2009
THE AGE OF REAGAN: The Conservative Counterrevolution, 1980-1989. By Steven F. Hayward. Crown Forum. 753 pages. $35.
Regarding the complexity and depth of the character of the 40th president, neo-conservative journalist Midge Decter once forecast, “It will, one day, take a truly gifted writer, perhaps a novelist, to solve the puzzle of such a man.”
Twenty years since his presidency ended, few gifted writers other than Steven F. Hayward have come close to piecing that puzzle together.
“The Age of Reagan” is Hayward’s massive second installment in his voluminous effort to illuminate not just the details of his protagonist’s personal life and political career, but also the dynamism of Reagan’s truly exceptional — and at times perhaps prescient — albeit frequently misunderstood wisdom of forethought. For Hayward, “Reagan’s variety of future-oriented optimism rooted in historical attachment has become almost unrecognizable in the age of postmodernism that is openly contemptuous of history and historical experience.
“Indeed,” Hayward continues, “the dominant theme and focus of this narrative is to survey and tie together the massive number of arguments Reagan opened up on nearly every front of American political life.”
In so doing, Hayward brings into focus the brilliance of Reagan’s leadership by highlighting his efforts to steer America’s future onto a path that eventually would expedite the conclusion of the Cold War faster than most analysts imagined possible. An equally, if not more, important component of his manuscript is, of course, Reagan’s struggle to reshape economic philosophies at home in ways that would yield unprecedented levels of prosperity for Americans. An outcome, Hayward argues, realized after his presidency ended.
Hayward painstakingly dissects the economic conundrums of the late 1970s and early ’80s in order to reveal the driving forces therein, with much emphasis placed on the entrepreneurialism inherent in Reagan’s efforts to combat them.
Not to worry: Hayward’s latest is not a policy wonkish dramatization of the machinations behind the so-called “sausage-making” that was the legislative process during the Reagan era. Nor is it an exercise in economic philosophical pontifications. Yes, that process and Hayward’s analyses of the economic environment preceding and during Reagan’s presidency are central elements of the book. Yet in its entirety, this work is instead a gripping analysis of Reagan’s efforts to steward America’s future, while frequently struggling to reshape the values of even his own political party.
When Ronald Reagan entered that office, Hayward explains, “The sense of national crisis,” for many Americans, was quite “palpable.” As former Reagan staff member and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels later remarked, before leaving that office, Reagan turned his presidency into that which “the Kennedy years remain for liberals: the reference point, the breakthrough experience — a conservative Camelot.”
With “The Age of Reagan,” Hayward has achieved an unparalleled feat in what may be the finest account of that experience, an account that cries out for the attention of our current president and his advisers.
Copyright © 1995 – 2009 Evening Post Publishing Co..
SCHotline
RSS - Posts