This is why:
Written by a Russian apologist teaching in the US. Peachy.
What does it tell you when the country with more nuclear missiles aimed at us than even China wants Barry to win? Barry has already told them, just wait, he will have more “flexibility” to weaken our defenses once he is reelected…
This is to be expected when the government pounds industry with environmental and work rule regulations, when unions use work rules as weapons, when the legal system allows frivolous lawsuits to the nth degree, when the government makes sure energy costs go higher and higher… all having the effect of forcing industry out of the country…
In another sign that the economic recovery under President Obama is not producing gains for average Americans, median household incomes fell 1.1% in August to $50,678, according to a report released Tuesday by Sentier Research.
Since the economic recovery started in June 2009, household incomes are down 5.7%, the Sentier data show, and they are down more than 8% since Obama took office.
From J. Hickey:
By Force of Patriots is a work of fiction which eerily seems both real and possible. The portrayal of a group of citizens concerned about their loss of constitutional rights sets the tone for one of the best reads in this genre. I found the aspect of a group of patriots divided by the desire for violence against a more rational approach to change the course of the country intriguing. Some of the critiques didn’t like the inclusion of romance but, though minor in my appraisal, I found it to be an anchor of reality. Those that seem to think it contains racial bias are totally off base. There are racially motivated threats in the beginning made by the ‘leader’ of the group who is angry and motivated by violence. The true heroes in the end are both African American and Caucasian. This is a great read albeit sobering. If you are concerned about where the country is headed it is definitely a must read.
Why can’t this man acknowledge the depravity of Islam? Well, it’s pretty simple, actually.
It’s his religion.
Although his administration in recent days acknowledged that the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were caused by a terrorist act on Sept. 11, Mr. Obama didn’t mention terrorism as the likely cause in front of the international audience. He focused much of his speech instead on promoting religious tolerance and free speech, blaming the anti-Islam film for the anti-U.S. outbursts while cautioning that there is never an excuse for violence.
This is interesting. Our fighter aircraft are now so advanced that the presence of a human in the cockpit constitutes the limiting factor of the plane’s capabilities. And, it appears the current F-22 is pushing those capabilities… I’d says this is good news and is a sign of just how good we’ve gotten at building state-of-the-art fighter aircraft…
Now we just need to build super pilots!
This is wonderful.
This is another brilliant piece. Fuzzy writes that we must understand, when we point out the left’s hypocrisy or inconsistency, they just look at us and say, “Duh. Of course.” It phases them not–not because they think we are wrong–as indeed they know we are right. It bothers them not because it’s actually part of their plan.
I consider this to be a piece very consistent with my two articles on Alinsky Rules 13 and 14. We are moving the ball forward, I think, on a very important area. We are learning how to defeat leftist doublespeak and thought police.
Thoughtful comments are WELCOME.
Plus, there is more in this very rich article… Here is a snippet:
Conservatives often and quite naturally (and accurately, for that matter) point to the flawed moral relativism of both leftists and Ron Paul libertarians when it comes to Islamofascists and terrorism. Yet we often forget (again, I include myself here; much of this blog is dedicated to pointing out the “hypocrisies” of the 0 administration) that the 0 “Democrats” are not democrats at all, they are Marxists and as such reject not only our free market economy (well, it’s not now, I guess, but it’s what we want to restore) but also anything that resembles individual freedom, be that freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Remember, there is no greater enemy of Marxism than God; God means freedom, a power higher than government, real hope, real strength in a people. Marxism cannot work, of course, but it certainly can’t work on a free, hopeful people who depend on God and not government especially if they are free to express their divergent opinions (divergent opinions are labeled “sedition” and “treason.”). Leftists revere Mao and Che, they denounce American values and our Constitution; they hate everything we love and love everything we recognize as evil.
While it’s important to point out the vast chasm between what they say and what they do, how they unfairly apply their “justice” and “values,” it’s even more important that we not imagine it will make any difference to them. They intend, and are fully aware that they intend, to make inequality, censorship, tyranny the order of the day, of the world. The people we need to show this to are those Americans who’ve not yet awakened, and we cannot show them the true horror of what leftists have in store for America if we merely point to apparent “hypocrisy.” We must also point out that it’s not actually hypocrisy at all, that unequal justice and unequal application of laws and socio-cultural norms is a part of their plan. Their entire agenda is build on what we think of as a double standard. It doesn’t make sense to us because we believe in equal justice, in equal opportunity, in . . . well, equality.
They do not.
The religion of Peace:
On the heels of the Muslim terrorist group Ansar al-Sunna’ demanding a section of the Norweigian capitol be ceded to them as a fundamentalist Muslim nation or face terrorist attacks that would rival 9/11, a Muslim imam is calling for the beheading of all those who fail to fast during Ramadan.
An interesting piece today at American Thinker asks why they hate us. Bruce Walker does a pretty good job explaining, but it is in combination with two adroit comments that the full picture appears.
Mr. Walker basically posits that they hate us because we are good. And in that he is right. However, one comment (“From Missouri”) noted that what separates us is our adherence to Judeo-Christian teachings, and all those who hate us (including most Democrats), detest same.
So far so good. But, then “Shadow” noted that:
They fear Western society will open the eyes of the oppressed in their society and cause a revolt against the tyrants.
So, to combine the thoughts, I commented:
Shadow, I think you are on to it, and your post, taken with the comment “From Missouri,” fills in an important piece of the puzzle. They hate us because we are good, as Mr. Walker concludes, but we are good because our foundation is in the Bible. And that is what separates us and guides us in creating the economic, political, and legal systems the Muslims hate.
Here is a great description applicable to me and likely most folks who blog about current events. This, from the Award-Winning Fuzzy Logic:
but what’s been happening has left me enraged, so much so that I simply wasn’t able to formulate even a rant. Imagine! I’m calm now, and ready to write, but it turns out that I’m too late (day late, dollar short. Yet again. Heh.). There are loads of far better writers and thinkers out there who’ve said what I would have liked to have said or what I meant to say or what I would have said if I’d blogged sooner,
Her stuff is really good to read.
This is my latest article in its entirety, now publishable here because it’s gone to American Thinker’s archives.
By now, most people know of the latest episode of Islamists frothing at the mouth over what they claim is an insult to the Prophet Muhammad. Specifically, they are enraged by a movie titled “Innocence of Muslims.” The movie’s trailer was recently dubbed into Arabic and posted on YouTube. Four people have been killed already and, almost certainly, the violence is not over.
Much has also been made of an early statement by the U.S. Embassy that chastised those who, “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims” with such an “abuse” of the right of free speech.
Robert Stephenson adroitly noted in American Thinker, notwithstanding the upside-down fact that the law-abiding must apologize for making Muslims mad, we must recognize that:
A human being is not absolved of responsibility because of a certain religious following.
While this certainly ought to be true, it clearly isn’t in the case of Islam.
I wrote about this in American Thinker when I discussed an Arab festival in Dearborn, Michigan, where Christians were arrested one year and the next year threatened with arrest for upsetting the delicate sensitivities of Muslims. Recall what the Dearborn police said to the Christians protesting the festival:
Part of the reason they are throwing things [at you] is you tell them stuff that enrages them.
Ah, so the Dearborn police have established a new principle of American/Arab law. Do something to upset Muslims, and you are responsible for their irrational, illegal response. Or, more generally, do something that someone, somewhere, views as offensive, and you, not the ultra-sensitive, are examined for fitness.
We see this growing in our culture (sorry for the pun). It’s even being codified in new social codes of conduct.
For example, Illinois State University’s Code of Student Conduct, “To Be an Illinois State University Student,” notes that there are “non-negotiable values” including “civility” and an appreciation of “diversity” and “social responsibility.” Recognized for its absurdity by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) in its “September Speech Code of the Month,” the Code states, in relevant part:
These values are the hallmark of the University, and will be protected diligently. . . . When individual behavior conflicts with the values of the University, the individual must choose whether to adapt his or her behavior to meet the needs of the community or to leave the University.
As FIRE noted:
[B]y the plain language of this policy, if a student’s expression or behavior deviates from the university’s definition of what it means to appreciate diversity or be socially responsible, that student may be asked to leave the university.
Is there any question we are witnessing a denuding of our First Amendment? Is there any doubt that our education system, our political system, and even our government are teaching us that old, out-dated ways of doing things must yield to a New World Order where no one can offend certain protected classes of people, and where Muslims must be allowed to throw violent and even murderous temper tantrums?
We might legitimately ask: Where is this headed?
Here’s a glimpse.
ABC News reported that Afghan President Hamid Karzai issued the following statement on the violence over the movie, “Innocence of Muslims”:
Desecration is not a part of the freedom of expression, but a criminal act that has now badly affected the righteous sentiments of 1.5-billion Muslims all over the globe.
A criminal act?
While this is not the statement of a representative of the United States, when one can be expelled from school for undefined “uncivil” comments, when Christians can be arrested for passing out religious tracts, when the violent acts — the actual crimes of the “offended” — form the basis for punishing the “offender,” how far are we from that standard?
With Obama genuflecting to Muslim leaders around the world, with him supporting the creation of radical Muslim regimes, and with his administration supporting and spewing all manner of leftist drivel (see Saul Alinsky’s Rule 13) aimed at shutting down conservative voices, we might as well accept that our First Amendment has already been revised. Published first here, the new First Amendment now reads:
Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; provided, however, the right to commit Illegal acts against people who offend shall not be infringed.
Mr. Reddy blogs at www.cameronreddy.com. His controversial thriller, “By Force Of Patriots,” crystallizes the social, political, and legal issues created by this type of upside-down, leftist dogma. It’s available at Amazon.com
It is a federal government, and specifically an Executive branch that writes laws, that so threatens our nation. If you have read my novel you know this in detail.
This is a good article from Today’s American Thinker.
If Obama is defeated, and I expect he will be, Romney’s economic policies will have a better chance of producing an economic recovery. Obama’s economic policy amounted to nothing but the hot air of hope and change coupled with payoffs to political friends. But an economic recovery (if one is even possible) does not end the real problem facing this country.
The underlying and seemingly unsolvable problem is the emasculation of the Constitution. That enabled the Rule of Man to trump the Rule of Law. That is the underlying cause of our economic problems. Government has become too large, too powerful and too intrusive. Sadly, history shows that lawmakers never relinquish power willingly. Indeed, today many believe government should be even more powerful to deal with the problems of a modern society.
What a great quote about the Soviet papers… Pretty much true in America, now, with leftists dominating the media…
There was a joke in the old Soviet Union about the two state-run Moscow newspapers, Pravda (truth) and Izvestia (news). There is no truth in news, Russians used to say to each other, and there is no news in truth.
Originally, Mr. Woos gave my book two stars and he pretty much trashed it. Still, he indicated he would try to finish it and I encouraged him to do so, indicating that he might come to a different conclusion by the time he got to the end.
Well, check this out. This man has character and class. I hope he looks me up as I’d love to forge a friendship.
First off, I would like to say that I finally finished the book and I need to make a couple of statements. Mr. Reddy asked for and deserves a new review once I finished it and has been a gentleman even after I dissed this effort. As a writer myself, I understand how harsh comments can hurt. I also want to retract the words “Sad” and “sucks”, neither were helpful and I apologize.
Secondly, Mr. Reddy asked me about the news articles in the Kindle edition of the book, Cameron, I never could read them. I have no idea what they added to the storyline. Just an FYI.
Lastly we come to the book… at times, especially the last 90%, I didn’t want to put it down, at other times I made myself go through it like I do when I go to the dentist. The plot was interesting but the book spent far more time attempting to incorporate a romantic angle than fleshing out the other aspects. I loved the military coup portion of the plot and would rather have seen that much more developed than Anne’s sexual wishes. This could have been a great book, as it is it is a good book. In the end I would raise my opinion to a 4 instead of a 2. Last comment, some of the weapon and training details become a bit much, the audience this book is aimed at already are familiar with those details. I could care less who manufactured the super duper fighting knife that someone carried, I just want to know what the subject did with it. Some of it begins to sound like an advertisement. Anyway, my first review was not fair, this is a fun read and I offer my apologies to Mr. Reddy.
The plot thickens on how Barry got a SSN issued by Connecticut…
Gilbert’s theory is that the SSN problem is related to the question of Obama’s birth certificate, which is required to get a SSN. Lacking a valid birth certificate, Obama was forced to buy an SSN so he could get his first job at the Baskin Robbins in 1977. In this theory, Obama was sold an SSN that was Connecticut-based so it couldn’t be traced back to the Hawaii office.
This is a wonderful piece by Skip Coryell.
Enter the world’s newest bully. Just as Hitler was the greatest threat to the world in the 1930s, so now, radical Islam is the greatest threat to world peace. . . .
I will tolerate others who believe differently than I. As a Christian, I will love you. But once you try to hurt me or my family, all bets are off. I lock-n-load. In short, if you try to hurt the ones I love, because they won’t convert to your religion… I will kill you.