A “Punishment” Gladly Taken

Sitting here on this Lord’s Day morning, I was thinking about my 3 year old grandson, Robert.  I was recently informed by my bride, that Grandma and I will be keeping him Friday night.

I began thinking about the miracle of my own special daughter, who will be 24 in July, and Robert, whom we almost lost, due to his mother’s diabetes, which almost ended my daughter-in-law’s life as well.

I have trouble wrapping my head around the thought processes of those who do not understand the sanctity of human life.  Like, for instance, President Barack Hussein Obama and his Science Czar, John Holdren.

Remember this little heartfelt speech?

Holdren holds similar views.

Holdren’s official title is Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Holdren co-wrote a 1973 book, Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions, with infamous population control advocate Paul Ehrlich.

On page 235 in the book in chapter 8, titled “Population Limitation”, Holdren and his partner wrote:

To a biologist the question of when life begins for a human child is almost meaningless. To most biologists, an embryo (unborn child during the first two or three months of development) or a fetus is no more a complete human being than a blueprint is a building.

…The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being. Where any of these essential elements is lacking, the resultant individual will be deficient in some respect.

Obama’s Science Czar also wrote that legal scholars don’t view unborn children as human under the U.S. Constitution until “it is born”.

From this point of view, a fetus is only a potential human being

Historically, the law has dated most rights and privileges from the moment of birth, and legal scholars generally agree that a fetus is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of the United States Constitution until it is born and living independent of its mother’s body.

Holdren co-wrote another book with Ehrlich in 1977, Ecoscience. 

In it, they argued that

Human values and institutions have set mankind on a collision course with the laws of nature. Human beings cling jealously to their prerogative to reproduce as they please—and they please to make each new generation larger than the last—yet endless multiplication on a finite planet is impossible. Most humans aspire to greater material prosperity, but the number of people that can be supported on Earth if everyone is rich is even smaller than if everyone is poor.

Also, in Ecoscience, Holdren and Ehrlich argue that America should be de-developed. In other words,countries like the U.S. should have their economies destroyed and their wealth redistributed to the poor at home and abroad.

Sound familiar?

He and Ehrlich go on to say that

The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.

Holdren seems to be in agreement with the Princeton University “ethicist” (and nutjob) Peter Singer, that infants up to the age of two or so are not really human beings, and so can be aborted post-natal.

My hands are shaking as I post the following garbage from the mind of Peter Singer.  He was asked:  Would you kill a disabled baby?

Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion. One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby.

Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection than the life of a fetus.

About killing a baby with Down Syndrome, he said:

We may not want a child to start on life’s uncertain voyage if the prospects are clouded. When this can be known at a very early stage in the voyage, we may still have a chance to make a fresh start. This means detaching ourselves from the infant who has been born, cutting ourselves free before the ties that have already begun to bind us to our child have become irresistible. Instead of going forward and putting all our effort into making the best of the situation, we can still say no, and start again from the beginning.

Charming, isn’t he? 

It should be noted that Holdren now disavows everything that he co-wrote with Paul Ehrlich in those two books. 

Notwithstanding Holdren’s denial of his long-published opinions, the fact that Obama chose this man to be in his Administration speaks volumes.

Psalm 139:13-14:

13  For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. 14 I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are Your works, and my soul knows it very well.

Couric Gone. Palin Still Here.

Formerly perky, flaming Liberal CBS News Anchor Katie Couric will be leaving the network this June when her contract expires.

The faded Media Darling’s 75 million dollar contract will not be renewed by  new CBS News Chairman, Jeff Fager.

Couric took over the legendary anchor seat at the CBS Evening News, after bolting from NBC’s Today Show in 2006.

She replaced disgraced former anchor, Dan Rather, who was fired after falsifying National Guard Documents in an effort to keep President George W. Bush from being re-elected.

Sources say that Couric is testing the waters in an attempt to land her own nationally syndicated program.

Veteran CBS anchor Scott Pelley, currently a “60 Minutes” correspondent, is the odds-on favorite to replace her.

Couric’ extraordinary journalistic endeavors include having a colon/rectal exam on national TV (Now, there’s an image I did not need.) and, of course, the edited interview from September of 2008 with former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, which Liberals still salivate at the mere mention of, and hold up as some sort of Edward R. Murrow moment.

Ms. Couric, in obtaining my degree in a Radio, TV, and Film, I studied Mr. Murrow.  Sweetie, you ain’t him.  Not even close.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is doing quite well for herself.  On 3/23/11, she did a great interview with Greta van Susteren on Fox News where she reflected on her trip to Israel and Obama’s Kinetic Military Action in Libya.

Just for fun, I conducted a purely unscientific survey, in order to calculate all the horrible damage Liberals claim that Katie Couric’s little interview did to Sarah Palin.

I went to their individual Facebook pages, because if Ms. Couric is so wonderful, that should be reflected in the national barometer of popularity known as Facebook, shouldn’t it?

Well, now that I’ve stopped laughing, here’s how the numbers stacked up, in terms of Facebook fans:

Katie Couric  58,016

Sarah Palin  2,846,468

Now, let’s get scientific.  According to mediabistro.com, the evening news ratings for the week of March 14, 2011, were as follows:

NBC                 ABC                   CBS

• Total Viewers:   9,140,000    7,950,000     5,990,000

• Ages 25-54:        2,810,000    2,240,000      1,890,000

At the same time, in the world of Cable News , for the fourth straight week, Fox News Channel was the number two channel in all of cable in primetime, behind only USA network, averaging 2.114M total viewers.

The fact that Katie Couric failed to live up to expectations at CBS is not entirely her fault .  It is the fault of the political ideology which she shares with every other broadcast news anchor.

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., founder and editor-in-chief of The American Spectator magazine, wrote the following in an editorial on February 21, 2011:

Over the past two years the Democrats showed their true colors. Faced with an entitlement crisis, they actually rang up additional trillion-dollar deficits. We now face the entitlement crisis and a budget crisis, and the Liberals have no answer for it beyond tax and spend. They still have support in the media, but even here they are faced with opposition from Fox News, talk radio, and the Internet. Even the Europeans are facing up to the cost of the welfare state, but the Liberals can only spend and tax, though their taxes appear futile against our towering debt.

As a political movement Liberalism is dead. Its acolytes do not have the numbers. They do not have the policies. They have 23 seats in the Senate to defend in 2012 (against the Republicans’ 10) and Republican control of still more state houses and legislatures will give them even more seats in the House of Representatives in the future. Liberalism, R.I.P. Even Liberals do not call themselves Liberal today. They identify themselves as Progressives. It is fooling no one.

And yet, Liberals, anonymously identifying themselves as ” Moderates” or  “Fiscal Conservatives”, still continue to infiltrate every Conservative Internet Website that they can, in order to try to  stop America’s Political Pendulum from its enevitable swing back to the Right.

Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty commission wrote the following in a March 4, 2011 article titled Americans Don’t Want a ‘Truce’ on Social Issues, posted on wsj.com:

Consider recent polls from the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI). They reveal that tea party supporters, while motivated by the fiscal crisis, are also overwhelmingly socially conservative: Sixty-three percent oppose abortion, found PRRI, and 64% oppose same-sex marriage, found Pew.

PRRI also found that 22% of voters identify with “the conservative Christian movement” but only 11% identify with the tea party. This dovetails nicely with the fact that 32% of voters in the 2010 election described themselves in exit polls as pro-life, pro-family conservatives. They voted 78% for Republican candidates, delivering House Republicans their new majority.

…The millions of social conservatives and tea party voters firmly believe that Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. They expect pro-life, pro-family legislation and they want deep cuts in federal spending, including an end to ObamaCare and its replacement with pro-life, free-market health-care reform. They expect commitments to this effect from their presidential candidates.

Take a quick look at this from gallup.com, posted on 12/16/10:

Political Ideology of U.S. Adults -- Detailed Responses, 2009-2010

…While the political pendulum in Washington can swing widely, Americans’ political ideology, like their party identification, tends to shift more gradually. Such a shift has been underway in recent years. While the changes are not large, they are unmistakable. Moderates are growing fewer in number while the percentages of conservatives and liberals have expanded. Conservatism has gained ground among Republicans and independents, while the growth in liberalism is strictly among Democrats.

And that, gentle reader, is why Katie Couric has gone down in flames and Sarah Palin is still standing.

As Rush Limbaugh always says:

Conservatism wins.

The Power Behind the Throne

What made President Pantywaist go from chicken to chickenhawk last week and decide to enter into a war, err, excuuuse me, Kinetic Military Action, against Libya? Speculation is running wild that it is all because of Samantha Power.

Who?, you ask.

Samantha Power was first heard of nationally during her tenure on Obama’s Presidential Campaign, when she called the future president’s then-opponent Hillary Clinton “a monster”.

She must know Bill.

Anyway, Power is Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs of the National Security Council (since January 2009) and an advisor to President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm). She also just happens to be married to Cass Sustein, Obama’s Regulatory Czar, who wrote in his 1993 book The Partial Constitution that:

A restriction on access to abortion turns women’s reproductive capacities into something to be used by fetuses. … Legal and social control of women’s sexual and reproductive capacities has been a principal historical source of sexual inequality.

…Restrictions on abortion, surrogacy and free availability of pornography are troublesome.

…I do not mean to oppose equality to liberty. … Liberty does not entail respect for all ‘choices.

But, I digress…

It has been reported in the New York Post and elsewhere that Power was extremely instrumental in convincing Obama to authorize the Kinetic Military Action against Libya.

Power and others in last Tuesday night’s meeting told the president that the United States couldn’t stay on the sidelines as Kadhafi committed genocide while putting an end to his people’s revolt.

Power joined now-Secretary of State Clinton in that view.

In opposition to the ill-planned WAR were strange bedfellows National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, Power’s boss and a staunch Liberal, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush Administration.

What seems to have pushed Obama to, in his mind, man up, was not some heartfelt concern for our national interest, but, was instead, being the president of the world that he is, an allegiance to a concept put forth at the United Nations euphemistically titled “responsibility to protect,” or R2P.

This is a wonderful decree from the hypocrites at the UN, calling for the creation of a new international moral standard to prevent violence against civilians.

There’s been one for thousands of years already, you international idiots. It’s called Christianity.

Where Power fits in to this moral crusade comes from the fact that she has a background in genocidal studies.

Per whorunsgov.com:

The journalist, activist and former Harvard professor burst onto the foreign-policy scene in 2003 with her book “A Problem from Hell”, which accused the United States of intentionally ignoring genocides. The work helped make her one of the foremost thinkers on human rights.

Of course, her book held America responsible for the world’s genocidal tragedies, including the 1915 attempt by the Turkish government to kill off the Armenians.  Here are a couple of quotes:

The United States had never in its history intervened to stop genocide and had in fact rarely even made a point of condemning it as it occurred. – Preface, xv

America’s lack of response to the Turkish horrors established patterns that would be repeated. Time and again the U.S. government would be reluctant to cast aside its neutrality and formally denounce a fellow state for its atrocities. Time and again though U.S. officials would learn that huge numbers of civilians were being slaughtered, the impact of this knowledge would be blunted by their uncertainty about the facts and their rationalization that a firmer U.S. stand would make little difference.

The Northwest Center for Holocaust, Genocide, and Ethnic Education in the Woodring College of Education at Western Washington University offers this summary of Power’s book:

Ms. Power starts by elaborating upon history and etymology of the term “genocide” and then examining several genocides starting with the Armenian genocide at the beginning of the twentieth century and ending with the atrocity in Kosovo in 1999. Chapters are devoted to the Holocaust, the fate of the Armenians, the Genocidal Convention, Cambodia, Iraq, Bosnia, Rwanda, Srebrenica and Kosovo. Final chapters carefully examine the failures of American foreign policy.

Power is a huge advocate of R2P. As a member of the National Security Council, she has been

trying to figure out how the administration could implement R2P and what doing so would require of the White House going forward.

Evidently, Hil has jumped on the bandwagon.

And, since Scooter is her boss, she may not have had any choice in the matter.

However, the question remains: Why did Obama dither around so long in making his decision, as he did in sending troops to Afghanistan?

I guess, going on vacation on the American public’s dime is easy. Actually doing your job as the President of the United States is hard.

A War By Any Other Name

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, which was taken after President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) and his Coalition of the Unwilling began bombing Libya, a mere 17 percent of Americans view our man Scooter as a strong and decisive military leader.   Almost half of those that responded think that Obama is a cautious and consultative commander-in-chief and more than a third label him as indecisive in military matters.

Gee, DiNozzo, ya think?

On the heels of his months-long dithering over Afghanistation, where he eventually decided to send 30,000 more troops, Obama is entering a Spring of Discontent, coming from not just the GOP, but from his formerly sycophantic fellow Democrats.

Even the Dems can see that there are no clear-cut mission goals, nor has Obama and his Administration presented any sort of exit strategy, except to vagualy state that we’ll only be over there for “a few days” (we’re on Day 6 and counting).

While 60 percent of those polled supported the bombing in protection of Libyan citizens, 70 percent wanted to go further, and remove Kadhafi, Quadaffi, Gaddafi, oh, what the heck, the Libyan Madman.

The survey was conducted on March 22 from a nationally representative sample of 975 adults.

Only 7 percent supported deploying ground troops.

In the polling sample, 48 percent thought that Obama’s leadership as commander in chief was “cautious and consultative,” 36 percent thought it was “indecisive and dithering,” and 17 percent (evidently on medication) described Obama’s leadership as “strong and decisive”

House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner is not terribly impressed by Scooter’s leadership skills. He said today that he was

troubled that U.S. military resources were committed to war without clearly defining … what the mission in Libya is and what America’s role is in achieving that mission.

Good news, Speaker Boehner. We’re not at WAR. We’re in the middle of a Kinetic Military Action.

Some idiotic, desperately spinning Obama Administration lackeys informed congressional aides behind closed doors earlier this week that America is not at war Libya.

And Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes avoided the question like a sinner avoiding church during a Wednesday conversation with reporters aboard Air Force One.

I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone. Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end. But again, the nature of our commitment is that we are not getting into an open-ended war, a land invasion in Libya.

So, we’re not bombing Libya, we’re performing an Emergency Excavation Service?

What in the world does the term Kinetic Military Action mean?

From merriam-webster.com:

Definition of KINETIC

1: of or relating to the motion of material bodies and the forces and energy associated therewith

2a : active, lively b : dynamic, energizing

Definition of MILITARY

1a : of or relating to soldiers, arms, or war b : of or relating to armed forces; especially : of or relating to ground or sometimes ground and air forces as opposed to naval forces

2a : performed or made by armed forces b : supported by armed force

3: of or relating to the army

Definition of ACTION

a (1): an engagement between troops or ships (2): combat in war <gallantry in action>

So, we have a lively Armed Forces in an engagement between troops or ships?

Sounds like a WAR to me.

Oh, hold on, Scooter, I get it now.  This is not a Blog, it’s a bunch of words written on an Internet site, conveying my opinions, being read by the American public.

Hey, this is fun!

I don’t drive a car.  I drive a 4 wheel assemblage of metals and plastics which, on 4 vulcanized round objects, transports me from place to place on an asphalt-topped path.

YEAH, THAT’S THE TICKET!

Have Obama and his Administrative Academic-Pinheaded Cretins lost their ever-loving minds?

Gentle Reader, this is what happens when one has been educated beyong their intelligence. You start believing that you are so much more intelligent than anyone else, you can call a cow Secretariat and the American public will believe you.

The problem with that presumption is, while the American public do not all possess Doctorates from Ivy League Schools, they recognize bull when they hear it.

Obama and his Administration have dug themselves a hole.  Their Coalition of the Unwilling is falling apart and they are finding out that high-level bombing is fine for knocking out runways and such, but not very effective in protecting Libyan citizens from the Madman’s hired thugs in the streets of Libya.  They are also slowly figuring out that Americans, politicians and otherwise, were not exactly mesmerized by the optics of the American Commander-in-Chief declaring WAR on Libya while on vacation in Rio.

So now, they’re trying to soften the political reality that their lack of real world experience and poor administrative skills has created, by coming up with an unintentionally comedic term for the poorly-handled prosecution of a WAR.

May God protect our Armed Forces. 

Romney: Romneycare Good. Obamacare Bad.

Yesterday, Former Governor of Massachusetts and potential Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney wrote the following op ed post for nationalreviewonline.com:

If I Were President: Obamacare, One Year In

March 22, 2011 8:20 P.M. By Mitt Romney

If I were president, on Day One I would issue an executive order paving the way for Obamacare waivers to all 50 states. The executive order would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health-care solutions that work best for them.

As I have stated time and again, a one-size-fits-all national plan that raises taxes is simply not the answer. Under our federalist system, the states are “laboratories of democracy.” They should be free to experiment. By the way, what works in one state may not be the answer for another. Of course, the ultimate goal is to repeal Obamacare and replace it with free-market reforms that promote competition and lower health-care costs. But since an outright repeal would take time, an executive order is the first step in returning power to the states.

Back in 2006, Romney was singing a different tune as he signed a massive health-insurance overhaul into law as Governor of Massachusetts. “Romneycare” was packed with subsidies, exchanges, and mandates to extend coverage to the uninsured. Four years later, it became the model for the national nightmare known as Obamacare.

David Boaz, vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute once said:

As President Obama himself has pointed out, Romney is the guy who created the prototype for Obamacare. How can he lead the charge against a health-care plan that is modeled on his own?

Appearing at a Lincoln Day dinner in the early voting state of New Hampshire on Saturday, March 5th, Romney spoke on what he perceives as the difference between the passage of Romneycare and his pre-campaign promise to repeal Obamacare if he is elected president.

Romney proclaimed:

Our approach was a state plan intended to address problems that were in many ways unique to Massachusetts.

Our experiment wasn’t perfect-some things worked, some didn’t, and some things I’d change. One thing I would never do is to usurp the constitutional power of states with a one-size-fits-all federal takeover.

I would repeal Obamacare, if I were ever in a position to do so. My experience has taught me that states are where health care programs for the uninsured should be crafted, just as the Constitution provides. Obamacare is bad law, bad policy, and it is bad for America’s families.

So, what is the truth concerning Romneycare?  Well, according to this article, posted on wsj (Wall Street Journal).com on January 21st, 2010:

Using the Census Bureau’s current population survey, University of Kentucky economist Aaron Yelowitz and Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute studied RomneyCare between 2005 and 2008—that is, two years on either side of its passage. The share of uninsured residents did fall to 5.4% in 2008 from 9.8% in 2005 (though the authors argue this reduction is overstated).

But Messrs. Yelowitz and Cannon show that most of the new coverage was concentrated among people earning under 300% of the federal poverty level, or about $66,000 for a family of four. Those happen to be the same people who qualify for subsidies in the heavily regulated insurance “connector,” the prototype for the “exchanges” that Democrats were contemplating before Mr. [Senator-Elect Scott] Brown so rudely interrupted.

Coverage for adults in this group increased by 14.2 percentage points—which merely proves that “universal” coverage isn’t much of a problem if health care is cheap for consumers. But another way of thinking about it is that the subsidies amount to a taxpayer-funded insurance discount. The same increase in coverage might be achievable if health care were less expensive. But rather than deregulate and reform the private market to lower costs, Mr. Romney and Democrats defaulted to the same public transfer payments that define ObamaCare.

…Meanwhile, although Mr. Romney promised that his plan would lower costs, the liberal Commonwealth Fund reports that Massachusetts insurance costs have climbed anywhere from 21% to 46% faster than the U.S. average since 2005. Employer-sponsored premiums are now the highest in the nation.

Let’s go a step further.  In 2008, in a debate in New Hampshire, Romney said:

I like mandates…The mandate works.

He was speaking about the individual mandate in Romneycare requiring the purchase of health insurance by every citizen of Massachusetts.

Sound familiar?

According to a survey by the state Division of Health Care Finance and Policy, 98 percent of Massachusetts residents had health insurance in 2010; a March 2011 report issued by Gallup put the figure close to 95 percent. However, that did not happen without a cost.  An analysis from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation found that state spending on health care reform grew from $1.04 billion in 2006 to about $1.75billion in 2010.

This hypocritical argument from Governor Romney appears, at present, to be ringing hollow with potential Republican voters.

Hopefully, the GOP will realize For Whom the Bell Tolls.

When You’ve Lost Calypso Louie…

Did you hear about what Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said about to the man he once told an audience of young people was “The Messiah”.  No? Watch this:

Per the Chicago Sun Times, Calypso Louie (as the great El Rushbo has named him) said recently at the annual Saviours’ Day convention at the Allstate Arena in Rosemont, Illinois that Moammar Gadhafi has always been a friend and he won’t distance himself from the Libyan dictator.

And the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama’s Pastor, who he sat under for 20 years, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, loves Minister Louis Farrakhan:

In fact, Jeremiah Wright traveled with Farrakhan to visit Gadhafi in 1984.

 Obama’s former Pastor and Mentor said about the trip:

When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit [Gadhafi] with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”

Farrakhan, a close friend and associate of Wright, has been financed by Kadhafi, including a $5 million interest-free loan in 1985.

Later that year, Kadhafi spoke by satellite to Farrakhan’s Saviour’s Day Convention in Chicago.

But, I digress…

During this recent speech, Farrakhan,77, had to admit that no leader has ever been loved by 100 percent of his people and went on to say that if Gadhafi is persecuted for crimes against humanity, the same should apply to former President George W. Bush for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As I  noted earlier, Farrakhan visited Gadhafi in the 1980s and in 1996 accepted a humanitarian award from him.

Calypso Louie, speaking to around 18,000 of his cult that Sunday, shared a vision concerning America:

What you are looking at in Tunisia, in Egypt, in Yemen, in Jordan, in Libya, in Bahrain will soon, very soon be in all the nations of the world . . . and even sooner take place in America.

What you see happening there, you’d better prepare because it will be coming to your door, America.

I hope that President Obama will remember his instructions to all nations — be careful how you attack and kill innocent people who are protesting. Take your own words into your bosom and be reminded when it comes to your home.

His mind-numbed followers gave him several wild standing ovations during the four-hour speech.

Farrakhan joked:

Don’t leave until I close — that might be a year from now.

Teach on! 

his sycophants responded.

Farrakhan had nothing but praise for fellow cultist L. Ron Hubbard and his Church of Scientology, saying that he was impressed with the church’s method of “auditing”which he compared to therapy.

He also proclaimed that Hubbard had a mission to “civilize white people,” adding that Hubbard “is so exceedingly valuable to every white person on this earth.”

Scientology books were available for sale at the Savior’s Day event, but the Nation of Islam Leader said that he was not converting to Scientology.

Farrakhan’s speech also included his usual diatribe, featuring a focus on the common beliefs of Christians and Muslims who he said “should not be at war with one another,” explaining how the Nation of Islam believes that white people were created from blacks 4,000 years ago on an Aegean island by a black scientist, and on problems affecting the black community, including street gangs.

He then slammed the overtly sexual performances of pop star Rihanna, proclaiming the performances as “filthy” and that people who enjoyed such antics were “swine,” a description he also applied to homosexuals and lesbians.  He also criticized immigrant Muslims in the Chicago area for moving to white suburbs and looking down at black Muslims.

Calypso Louie said that during Black History Month, schools should teach from Nation of Islam books that say Jewish people took advantage of blacks.

In other words: Same ol’, same ol’.

He also gave the dire warning that non-believers and the sinful would face the wrath of God through high-technology UFOs or “wheels” that he has often described in previous addresses.

Again: Same ol’, same ol’.

Obama’s dithering  appears to be eroding away at his Far Left Wacko Base.  Now, considering that Liberals only make up about 18 % of America’s population, that probably is not a very high percentage of voters.  But, still, it is possible that whatever Moderates and Independents out there who are still unsure about how they are going to vote in 2012 will finally realize who it is that Obama has actually been community organizing for these past two years and vote Republican.

Michele Obama in picture with Khadijah Farrakhan, Louis Farrakhan’s wife

…That is, if the Republican Elite don’t nominate another Dole or McCain.

Arab League to Obama: Hey, Waitaminute!

Before President Barack Hussein Obama and a “coalition” of UN allies came riding to the rescue of the citizens of Libya, the U.S. President had the support, and possibly, a mandate from the League of Arab Nations.

Per thefreedictionary.com:

[The League of Arab Nations], popular name for the League of Arab States, formed in 1945 in an attempt to give political expression to the Arab nations. The original charter members were Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan (now Jordan), Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. A representative of Palestinian Arabs, although he did not sign the charter because he represented no recognized government, was given full status and a vote in the Arab League. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was granted full membership in 1976. Other current members include Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea (pending in 1999), Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, and the United Arab Emirates.

When the state of Israel was created in 1948, the league countries jointly attacked it, but Israel resisted successfully. The league continued to maintain a boycott of Israel and of companies trading with Israel. The summit conferences of 1964–65 established a joint Arab military command, which proved unsuccessful in implementing a united strategy for the liberation of Palestine. Egypt’s membership was suspended from 1979 to 1989 because of its treaty with Israel, and the league’s headquarters were moved to Tunis. In 1988 the league endorsed the PLO’s plan for a negotiated settlement with Israel, and in 1991 Cairo once again became its headquarters. In 2002 the league for the first time offered Israel normal relations with Arab countries if it met certain conditions, but many of those conditions were not acceptable to Israel.

For many years, closer political unity among members was hampered by a division between pro-Western member countries and neutralist or pro-Soviet ones; more recently the division has been between militant Islamic fundamentalists and Arab moderates. The league ultimately supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War Iran-Iraq War, 1980–88, a protracted military conflict between Iran and Iraq. It officially began on Sept. 22, 1980, with an Iraqi land and air invasion of western Iran, although Iraqi spokespersons maintained that Iran had been engaging in artillery attacks on but was divided over the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 First Persian Gulf War, Jan.–Feb.  In 1993 the league issued a statement condemning all forms of terrorism. 

Now that the war against Kadhafi has begun, the League appears to be having second thoughts.

The League’s Secretary general, Amr Moussa, is now whining about the amount of bombing that the coalition forces are doing in Libya. He announced Sunday that he was going to call for a league meeting to possibly rescind their approval of the war.

According to Moussa, the Arab League’s March 12th approval of a no-fly zone was given in order to stop Kadhafi’s air force from attacking civilians. According to him, the heavy bombing and missile attacks, including on Tripoli, the capital, and on Libyan ground forces, were not part of the deal.

What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone. And what we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians.

Moussa issued his statement because some of the 22 Arab League members were apparently shocked by what they have seen and want to take back their approval. They don’t want to be seen as supporting the infidels by the rest of the Arab (Muslim) world. the leaders and people of the Middle East have always gone off at the first hint of Western intervention, even though, in this case, they all know that Kadhafi is a madman.

The removal of the League’s endorsement would be a serious blow against Obama and his coalition. They’ve been using the Arab League decision as a justification for obtaining a U.N. Security Council resolution two days before going to war with Kadhafi.

Most of the Arab nations are keeping their mouths shut as the prosecution of the war begins its second day.

The usual Peanut Gallery all expressed their displeasure with the war, including Arab Presidents Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, Evo Morales of Bolivia and former Cuban president Fidel Castro. They, of course, claim that the coalition is attacking Libya in order to get their hands on Libya’s oil reserves.

Russia and China have also come out against the war.

I’m shocked.

Despite Obama’s announcement that all the Arab Nations are on board, Qatar is the only one that has announced that it would participate in the campaign.

Qatar’s prime minister, Hamad bin Jasim al-Thani, told reporters that the kingdom made its decision in order to “stop the bloodbath” that he said Kahdafi was inflicting on rebel forces and civilians in opposition-controlled cities.

However, Qatar has not said exactly what their contribution will be to the coalition’s action.

But, hey, even if Obama’s support among the League of Arab Nations crumbles around him, he still has one Arab Leader who loves him:  The one he’s sent us to bomb.

In a letter, sent to Obama before the war began in earnest, Libyan leader Moammar Kadhafi wrote:

To our son, his excellency, Mr Baracka Hussein Obama. I have said to you before, that even if Libya and the United States of America enter into a war, god forbid, you will always remain a son. Your picture will not be changed.”

Does  that have anything to do with the announcement that Admiral Mullen made yesterday, when he stated on Fox News that our goal was not to oust Kadhafi from power?

Naw, probably not.

A Weird War

As you and I slept, American Armed Forces began Operation Odyssey Dawn.

Per reports, heard this morning on Fox New’s Fox and Friends, Admiral Mullen has announced that stealth bombers from our shores hit Libya’s runways last night, dropping dozens of bombs, and crippling the madman’s Moammar Kadhafi’s ability to launch airstrikes against his own people.

The Pentagon has also announced that 114 Tomahawk cruise missiles have been launched from U.S. and British ships in the Mediterranean, hitting more than 20 Libyan targets along the Mediterranean coastline.

Our country has at least 11 naval vessels in the Mediterranean, including three submarines, two destroyers, two amphibious warfare ships and the USS Mount Whitney, a command-and-control vessel that is the flagship of the Navy’s 6th Fleet. Also in the area are Navy P-3 and EP-3 surveillance aircraft.

The U.S. military strikes are supposed to clear the way for European and other planes to enforce a no-fly zone designed to ground Kadhafi’s air force and cripple his ability to inflict further violence on rebels, according to U.S. officials said.

President Obama gave the go-ahead for limited military action against Libya Saturday.

He did not ask for a vote from Congress, as, in his mind, a UN consensus trumps whatever his country’s elected representatives think.

In his statement from his vay-cay in Brazil, he said:

We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy.

The president also assured us that the U.S. will not be deploying ground forces into Libya.

Is it just me, gentle reader, or, did you also think that it was inappropriate for the President of United States to announce that we were going to war, while he was on a trip with his family in Brazil?

Explosions and gunfire were heard in the Libyan capital of Tripoli Sunday morning as Kadhafi proclaimed on state-run radio that the allied bombings were “acts of terrorism”.

He also claimed that all of Libya’s people were now carrying weapons to defend the nation:

We will not leave our land and we will liberate it.

The madman announced that he has opened up the weapons depots to Libyans, and he said that everyone is armed with “automatic weapons, mortars, bombs.

It is now necessary to open the stores and arm all the masses with all types of weapons to defend the independence, unity and honor of Libya.

We promise you a long war.

I thought Obama said that this would only take “a few days”?

Pro-Kadhafi forces are fighting back, firing anti-aircraft weapons back at the allied forces bombing them. Thousands of these forces have gathered in the huge

Bab al-Aziziya military camp in Tripoli where the madman lives to protect against attacks.

According to a New York Times report, supporters have also packed the interior halls of Kadhafi’s compound as human shields, offering to protect the leader against bombings.

And yet, on Fox and Friends this morning, Admiral Mullen said that the goal was not to oust Moammar Kadhafi from his throne of power.

Then, what are we doing? The Libyan rebels do not have the firepower to oust the madman on their own. Given the opportunity, Kadhafi’s thuggish ground forces will murder them all while they sleep…and their loved ones, too.

President Reagan knew exactly who Kadhafi was. He called him “the mad dog of the Middle East”

But, I digress…

British forces have launched air attacks on Libya early Sunday, U.K. defense officials said.

Our other “allies” are not quite so bold. NATO is trying to decide whether the alliance will join in on the strikes in Libya. According to diplomats sources, NATO’s military planners are due to present final action plans to the North Atlantic Council on Sunday.

Libya’s state television claims that 64 people have been killed during the military attacks. So far, that report cannot be verified.

There are a total of 25 coalition ships in the Mediterranean, 11 of which are U.S. warships.

It is the largest international military action since the beginning of the Iraq war, launched almost exactly eight years ago.

Fox News is now reporting that Russia is demanding that America and our allies stop this war against Libya. 

Let’s review.  After 31 days of sitting around and making vague threats while Libyan madman Moammar Kadhafi murdered his own countrymen, the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, seen here shaking hands with Kadhafi at the G2 Summit, his administration, and a coalition from the UN, who, just recently, suspended Libya from their Human Rights Council on March 1st, made the decision to prosecute a “limited war” against the madman Moammar Kadhafi.

The goals of this war are uncertain, as Admiral Mullen announced this morning that Kadhafi may still be in power when this conflict is over. 

Everything about this “limited war”, the timing, the “coalition”, and the prosecution, smells like week-old fish.  Meanwhile, our Best and Brightest are the ones over there in harm’s way.

What in the Wide, Wide World of Sports is a-goin’ on here?

From World Leader to World Follower in 2 Short Years

As I sit here on a Saturday afternoon, watching, as a war brought about by procrastination unfolds in Libya, I’m struck by a sad and chilling thought: 

 The United States of America has gone from being a World Leader to just another World Follower in two short years.  And President Barack Hussein Obama is pleased as punch. 

His quest to destroy the idea of American Exceptionalism has brought us to this moment in history.

I wrote the following in my post, North Korea, the UN Human Rights Council, and Glass Houses, published November 23, 2010:

The U.N. Human Rights Council has presented our nation with 228 recommendations from 56 countries urging the U.S. to improve human rights for Native Americans, end the death penalty, eliminate racial disparities, stop torture, ratify key international treaties and more.

The council’s first review of the U.S. rights record took place Nov. 5 as part of the Universal Periodic Review, a mechanism by the U.N. General Assembly in 2006 to review human rights records of all 192 U.N. member states every four years. And the Obama administration, which doesn’t seem to like their own country very much, was more than happy to cooperate.

America joined the U.N. Human Rights Council in 2009, ending a boycott of the hypocritical council by President George W. Bush.

Per heritage.org:

The HRC was created in 2006 to replace the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, a body that had failed to hold governments accountable for violating basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. During negotiations to establish the HRC, many basic reforms and standards to ensure that the council would not simply be a repeat of the commission did not receive sufficient support in the General Assembly. As a result, the HRC has been no better—and in some ways, worse—than the commission it replaced.

Anticipating this outcome, the Bush Administration decided not to seek a seat at the Geneva-based council in 2006. Based on its subsequent disappointing record, the U.S. again declined to seek a seat in 2007 and 2008. The Bush Administration also withheld a portion of the U.S. contribution to the U.N. regular budget (equivalent to the part of the U.S. contribution allocated to the HRC) and distanced itself from the council’s proceedings except in instances of “deep national interest.”

The 30-member U.S. delegation was given an hour to present its report and respond to questions. Eighty-five countries had signed up to try to verbally tear down the United States, but there was time for only 56 to present. The results of the ensuing dog and pony show were compiled in a draft “outcome document” that was adopted by the U.N. Human Rights Council on Nov. 8.

The U.S. will review the recommendations and present a formal response at the March 2011 session of the Human Rights Council.

Both countries and politically-driven Progressive organizations with an axe to grind against America presented a bunch of issues and recommendations involving anything that they could think up to try to harm America’s reputation. They were especially critical of our treatment of indigenous peoples.

Take this garbage for what it’s worth.  The Heritage Foundation reports that, during its review:

North Korea asserted that it “comprehensively provides” for fundamental rights and freedoms, including “the right to elect and to be elected, the freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, demonstration and association, the rights to complaints and petitions, work and relaxation, free medical care, education and social security, freedoms to engage in scientific, literary and artistic pursuits, and freedoms of residence and travel.”

These outrageous lies were accepted and approved by the majority of member states in the U.N. Human Rights Council.

The endorsement of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and its full implementation was recommended by several countries, including such paragons of virtue as Mexico, Nicaragua, the Bolivian Republic of Venezuela, Egypt, Sudan, Iran, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea).

One of the countries that passed judgement on America, that I did not list in my blog that day, was the one that Obama has authorized military action against, Libya.  They were suspended from the Human Rights Council on March 1st, 2011.  From this morning’s post:

…In the face of this injustice, the United States and the international community moved swiftly. (31 days later is swiftly?) Sanctions were put in place by the United States and our allies and partners. The U.N. Security Council imposed further sanctions, an arms embargo, and the specter of international accountability for Qaddafi and those around him.

…Once again, Qaddafi chose to ignore the will of his people and the international community. Instead, he launched a military campaign against his own people. 

And yet, in United Nations Human Rights Council Hearings, beginning in May, and concluding in November of 2010, this is one of the nations that United States President Barack Hussein Obama and his administration saw fit to pass judgement on America.

Barack Hussein Obama does not believe in American Exceptionalism and his judgement shows it.

This is a Cease-Fire?

Libyan forces are continuing to shell and launch airstrikes against the rebel capital of Benghazi, after an announcement by madman Moammar Kadhafi that he was going to call off the dogs and begin a cease-fire.

Figuratively thumbing his nose at the United Nations, Kadhafi proclaimed that the United Nations resolution authorizing international military intervention in Libya was “invalid.”

This nutjob claims that he sent a message to President Barack Hussein Obama, explaining why he is attacking rebel cities:

If you found them taking over American cities by the force of arms, tell me what you would do.

Even though you’re insane, Kadhafi, Americans have asked that same question.

Kadhafi also gave a letter to the French and British leaders, and the U.N. secretary general. In it, he told them that their resolution violates the U.N. charter and warning the leaders that they would “regret” any intervention:

Libya is not for you, Libya is for the Libyans.

Ol’ Moammar’s communiques came on the heels of rebels shooting down a warplane Saturday, last seen bombing the outskirts of Benghazi, sending up a massive black cloud of smoke.  According to an Associated Press reporter, the plane went down in flames and the reporter heard the sound of artillery and crackling gunfire in the distance.

A 50-year-old woman in Benghazi summed up the feelings of the Libyan people:

Where is France, where is NATO? It’s too late.

Don’t worry, ma’am.  The dynamic Leader of the Free World, United States President Barack Hussein Obama, is coming to your rescue…31 days after the Libyan Revolution began.

Obama spoke from the White House yesterday afternoon concerning the Libyan situation and the UN Resolution. Here are some highlights (with some additional comments):

…Over the last several weeks, the world has watched events unfold in Libya with hope and alarm. Last month, protesters took to the streets across the country to demand their universal rights, and a government that is accountable to them and responsive to their aspirations. But they were met with an iron fist.

…Moammar Qaddafi clearly lost the confidence of his own people and the legitimacy to lead.

…Innocent civilians were beaten, imprisoned, and in some cases killed. Peaceful protests were forcefully put down. Hospitals were attacked and patients disappeared. A campaign of intimidation and repression began.

…In the face of this injustice, the United States and the international community moved swiftly. (31 days later is swiftly?) Sanctions were put in place by the United States and our allies and partners. The U.N. Security Council imposed further sanctions, an arms embargo, and the specter of international accountability for Qaddafi and those around him.

…Once again, Qaddafi chose to ignore the will of his people and the international community. Instead, he launched a military campaign against his own people. 

Well, duuuh, Scooter.  A leopard cannot change his spots.

…And just yesterday, speaking of the city of Benghazi — a city of roughly 700,000 people — he threatened, and I quote: “We will have no mercy and no pity” — no mercy on his own citizens.

…Now, here is why this matters to us. (Evidently, not too much.) Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qaddafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue. The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners. The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered.

…And that’s why the United States has worked with our allies and partners to shape a strong international response at the United Nations. Our focus has been clear: protecting innocent civilians within Libya, and holding the Qaddafi regime accountable.

In other words, Scooter waited for other countries to take the lead.  How…courageous.

…Yesterday, in response to a call for action by the Libyan people and the Arab League, the U.N. Security Council passed a strong resolution that demands an end to the violence against citizens. It authorizes the use of force with an explicit commitment to pursue all necessary measures to stop the killing, to include the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya. It also strengthens our sanctions and the enforcement of an arms embargo against the Qaddafi regime.

And it only took ya 31 days.

…Now, once more, Moammar Qaddafi has a choice. The resolution that passed lays out very clear conditions that must be met. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Arab states agree that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop. Qaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya.

So far, he’s blowing y’all off, Scooter.

…Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable. These terms are not subject to negotiation. If Qaddafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences, and the resolution will be enforced through military action.

Well, he doesn’t seem too scared, so far.  President Reagan knew exactly how to handle this barbarian.

…In this effort, the United States is prepared to act as part of an international coalition. American leadership is essential, but that does not mean acting alone — it means shaping the conditions for the international community to act together.

Y’know, Scooter, I don’t think that you know what the word “leadershp” means.

…I have no doubt that the men and women of our military are capable of carrying out this mission. Once more, they have the thanks of a grateful nation and the admiration of the world.

Yes, they are our Best and Brightest…and they deserve a better CIC.

…I also want to be clear about what we will not be doing. The United States is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya. And we are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal — specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya.

…Now, the United States did not seek this outcome. Our decisions have been driven by Qaddafi’s refusal to respect the rights of his people, and the potential for mass murder of innocent civilians.  It is not an action that we will pursue alone. Indeed, our British and French allies, and members of the Arab League, have already committed to take a leadership role in the enforcement of this resolution, just as they were instrumental in pursuing it. We are coordinating closely with them. And this is precisely how the international community should work, as more nations bear both the responsibility and the cost of enforcing international law.

To dream the impossible dream…

…This is just one more chapter in the change that is unfolding across the Middle East and North Africa. (Can you say, Caliphate?) From the beginning of these protests, we have made it clear that we are opposed to violence. We have made clear our support for a set of universal values, and our support for the political and economic change that the people of the region deserve. But I want to be clear: the change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power; ultimately, it will be driven by the people of the Arab World. It is their right and their responsibility to determine their own destiny.

Sharia for everybody!

…Let me close by saying that there is no decision I face as your Commander in Chief that I consider as carefully as the decision to ask our men and women to use military force. Particularly at a time when our military is fighting in Afghanistan and winding down our activities in Iraq, that decision is only made more difficult. But the United States of America will not stand idly by in the face of actions that undermine global peace and security. So I have taken this decision with the confidence that action is necessary, and that we will not be acting alone. Our goal is focused, our cause is just, and our coalition is strong. Thank you very much.

See y’all later, I’m taking Moochelle, MuDear, and the kids to Rio.