'In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe ?'
Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, theNetherlands , at the Four Seasons, New York , introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem .
Dear friends,
Thank you very much for inviting me.
I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic.. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.
First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe . Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem .
The Europe you know is changing.
You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.
All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe . These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions ofEurope , street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.
There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe . With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.
Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam , Marseille and Malmo in Sweden . In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.
In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.
Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear 'whore, whore'. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.
In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.
In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels , because he was drinking during the Ramadan.
Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya , Israel . I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.
A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe . San Diego Universityrecently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.
Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France . One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.
The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in theNetherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey .
Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers'. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.
Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.
The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.
Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.
Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I supportIsrael . First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.
This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines , Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan , Lebanon , and Aceh in Indonesia . Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.
The war against Israel is not a war against Israel . It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel , Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.
Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel , they can get everything. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, theNetherlands , 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a danger greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome , Athens andJerusalem .
Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe , American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe 's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.
We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.
Please take the time to read and understand what is written here, Please send it to every free person that you know, it is so very important.
it sucks, but of course not for the reason mentally retarded conservatives claim
Everyone hates these half-assed Obama plans, however cons hate them for imaginary reasons
and normal people understand why they suck, they are catered to the rich and the established, investor class
it's so funny, cons and libs are both sick of Obama, but retardo cons still think their is "communism" in Obama's totally corporate friendly plans
it is amazing how fucking stupid conservatives are
and Carl Lee, the biggest loser, ditto-head sheep of them all, is hated yet keeps coming back on here for abuse
I wonder how muslims would feel if in the US a group forms to kill as many random innocent muslims as they kill our innocent people? Does anyone remember Los Pepe's in Columbia? It was a group of citizens that got together and started bombing Pablo Escobar's family members, associates and business interests in response to what he did to their society. Escobar quickly realized that he could not perform his vicious acts without retaliation certain to come and he never knew where Los Pepe's would strike next. Will the next Pepe's groups be in the US?
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and "ADVANCEMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH" and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony.....
Mayflower Compact
The Mayflower Compact was the first governing document of Plymouth Colony. It was written by the colonists, later together known to history as the Pilgrims, who crossed the Atlantic aboard the Mayflower. Almost half of the colonists were part of a separatist group seeking the freedom to practice Christianity according to their own determination and not the will of the English Church. It was signed on November 11, 1620 by 41 of the ship's more than one hundred passengers, in what is now Provincetown Harbor near Cape Cod.
Reasons for the Compact
The Mayflower was originally bound for the mouth of the Hudson River, in land granted in a patent from the Crown to the London Virginia Company. The decision was made instead to land farther north, in what is now Massachusetts. This inspired some of the "strangers" (colonists who were not members of the congregation of religious dissenters leading the expedition) to proclaim that since the settlement would not be made in the agreed-upon Virginia territory, they "would use their own liberty; for none had power to command them...."To prevent this, many of the other colonists decided to establish a government. The Mayflower landed at Plymouth (so named by Captain John Smith earlier) in November 1620. The settlers named their settlement "Plimouth" (also historically known as "Plimoth", an old English spelling of the name) after the major port city in Devon, England from which the Mayflower sailed.
The Mayflower Compact was based simultaneously upon a majoritarian model (even though the signers were not in the majority) and the settlers' allegiance to the king. It was in essence a social contract in which the settlers consented to follow the compact's rules and regulations for the sake of survival.]
The original document was lost, but the transcriptions in Mourt's Relation and William Bradford's journal Of Plymouth Plantation are in agreement and accepted as accurate. Bradford's hand written manuscript is kept in a special vault at the State Library of Massachusetts. Bradford's transcription is as follows:
In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc.
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.
The 'dread sovereign' referred to in the document used the archaic definition of dread; meaning awe and reverence (for the King), not fear.
Signers
The following list of 41 male passengers who signed was supplied by Bradford's nephew Nathaniel Morton in his 1669 New England's Memorial. There are no surviving first-hand accounts of this information.[citation needed]
1. John Carver
2. William Bradford
3. Edward Winslow
4. William Brewster
5. Isaac Allerton
6. Miles Standish
7. John Alden
8. Samuel Fuller
9. Christopher Martin
10. William Mullins
11. William White
12. Richard Warren
13. John Howland
14. Stephen Hopkins
15. Edward Tilly
16. John Tilly
17. Francis Cooke ( [sic])
18. Thomas Rogers
19. Thomas Tinker
20. John Ridgdale
21. Edward Fuller
22. John Turner
23. Francis Eaton
24. James Chilton
25. John Craxton (sic)
26. John Billington
27. Joses Fletcher (sic)
28. John Goodman
29. Digery Priest (sic)
30. Thomas Williams
31. Gilbert Winslow
32. Edmund Margeson
33. Peter Brown
34. Richard Bitteridge (sic)
35. George Soule
36. Richard Clark (sic)
37. Richard Gardiner
38. John Allerton
39. Thomas English
40. Edward Doten (sic)
41. Edward Leister
The same list in the same order but with some corrections was provided by Thomas Prince in his 1736 A Chronological History of New-England in the form of Annals. Prince added the title Mr. to ten names, which he found in a list at the end of Governor Bradford's folio manuscript: Carver, Winslow, Brewster, Isaac Allerton, Samuel Fuller, Martin, Mullins, White, Warren, and Hopkins. He attributed the lack of Mr. Bradford to Bradford's modesty. He also added Capt. to Standish. He corrected the spelling of five names: John Crackston, Moses Fletcher, Degory Priest, Richard Briterige, and Ed Dotey. In addition, he spelled Francis Cook and Richard Clarke. However William Bradford's journal Of Plymouth Plantation is definitive that both Francis Cooke and Richard Clarke both had an "e" at the end of their last name.
new york craigslist > manhattan > community > politics
new york craigslist > manhattan > community > politics
new york craigslist > manhattan > community > politics
new york craigslist > manhattan > community > politics
new york craigslist > manhattan > community > politics
new york craigslist > manhattan > community > politics
new york craigslist > manhattan > community > politics
new york craigslist > manhattan > community > politics
new york craigslist > manhattan > community > politics
new york craigslist > manhattan > community > politics
new york craigslist > manhattan > community > politics
new york craigslist > manhattan > community > politics
new york craigslist > manhattan > community > politics
new york craigslist > manhattan > community > politics
new york craigslist > manhattan > community > politics
new york craigslist > manhattan > community > politics
new york craigslist > manhattan > community > politics
new york craigslist > manhattan > community > politics
new york craigslist > manhattan > community > politics
new york craigslist > manhattan > community > politics
Regardless. The Israeli position with the U.S. is a cross party line position with subtle nuance in approach. US. relationship to Israel is based on American strategic interests in that region, not because conservatives, Bush and Republicans are looking forward to Chanukah and Passover. Yeah right, the right wing driven by Christian fundamentalist embrace the bosom of Judiasm? Yeah they do, so long as they think we're coming home to their Christ the King.
Obama is best we can have at this time . If the fanatic angry Muslim world which we know is part of but certainly not representative of all Muslims, can't connect with this President, then how the hell will they will President Palin, Huckabee or Gingrich?
You're singular in your message and perspective. You probably think a Jew supporting Obama isn't a good Jew, doesn't get it or has been sold by an image.
How wrong you are. It's you that has been sold by this very narrow view of geopolitical diplomacy.
If you were right things would have improved during the last hurrah of the neo cons. They were made worse.
Don't assume that the 38 Democrats who voted against Nancy Pelosi's extremist version of health care reform wouldn't have supported it if their votes had been needed. The days before the final passage on Saturday were not filled with stirring appeals to get Democrats to back the bill so much as an auction to decide whom to let off the hook.
Knowing that the bill will likely be political suicide for any red state Democratic congressman, particularly if he is a freshman, the House leadership had to negotiate with its members to assure that the 38 defectors were the ones who needed political cover the most. That there would be 38 Democrats who would oppose the bill was preordained. Who they would be was the subject of negotiations right up to the wire.
Any real chance that the bill could have been defeated ended with the approval of the anti-abortion amendment. But there still remained the question of how to keep the marginal Democrats in Congress and the party in power.
The chicanery and deception that led up to the vote underscores the myth of the moderate Democrat. The entire Democratic caucus -- with pitifully few exceptions -- was committed to passing the health care bill. Had it needed all 258 Democrats to vote yes, the bill would have come awfully close.
But the Democratic margin in the House meant that the leaders did not need 258 Democrats, they only needed 219. So they let the most marginal among them off the hook, allowed them to vote against the bill, preserving their chances at re-election.
The real question facing the voters is whether they will be deceived by this sleight of hand in which moderate Democrats pretend that the bill was passed over their objections. Will the voters buy their claims that it became law despite their best efforts?
Once, the voters might have fallen for this trickery. But not now. The electorate is far too well informed to believe that any Democratic congressman really opposed this bill.
The days of the Democrats who live in red states and who let this bill pass -- whether they nominally voted for it or not -- are numbered and their political careers are about to come to an end. They could not and would not read the handwriting on the walls of New Jersey and Virginia, and are about to suffer the fate of their ancestors in 1994 who disregarded similar warnings
In the Senate, where 60 votes are needed, there can be no such shell games. All Democrats must report for duty for this bill to pass. So Sens. Lieberman, Bayh, Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Conrad, Dorgan, Tester, Baucus, Johnson and Hagan have a serious decision to make. They have no place to hide.
And should Harry Reid invoke the reconciliation option, he would face other defections from Democrats who realize that they, too, might one day be in the minority and need the filibuster to maintain their relevance in the future.
For now, all Democrats should compare the results in Virginia and New Jersey in 1993 and in 2009.
In Virginia, in both years, an incumbent Democrat sat in the state house but was not permitted to run again. In both years, the Republican won the governorship by identical 58 percent to 41 percent margins.
In New Jersey, in both years, the incumbent Democratic governor sought another term and lost. In 1993, by 49 percent to 48 percent and in 2009 by 49 percent to 45 percent.
A prominent Columbia architecture professor punched a female university employee in the face at a Harlem bar during a heated argument about race relations, cops said yesterday.
Police busted Lionel McIntyre, 59, for assault yesterday after his bruised victim, Camille Davis, filed charges.
McIntyre and Davis, who works as a production manager in the school's theater department, are both regulars at Toast, a popular university bar on Broadway and 125th Street, sources said.
The professor, who is black, had been engaged in a fiery discussion about "white privilege" with Davis, who is white, and another male regular, who is also white, Friday night at 10:30 when fists started flying, patrons said.
McIntyre, who is known as "Mac" at the bar, shoved Davis, and when the other patron and a bar employee tried to break it up, the prof slugged Davis in the face, witnesses said.
"The punch was so loud, the kitchen workers in the back heard it over all the noise," bar back Richie Velez, 28, told The Post. "I was on my way over when he punched Camille and she fell on top of me."
The other patron involved in the dispute said McIntyre then took a swing at him after he yelled, "You don't hit a woman!"
"He knocked the glasses right off my face," said the man, who would only give his first name as "Shannon." "The punch came out of nowhere. Mac was talking to us about white privilege and what I was doing about it -- apparently I wasn't doing enough."
McIntyre had squabbled with Davis several weeks earlier over issues involving race, witnesses said. As soon as the professor threw the punch Friday, server Rob Dalton and another employee tossed him out.
"It was a real sucker punch," Dalton said. "Camille's a great lady, always nice to everybody, and doesn't deserve anything like this."
Davis was spotted wearing sunglasses yesterday to conceal the black eye. Reached at her Columbia office, she declined to comment on the alleged attack.
McIntyre was released without bail at his arraignment last night.
"It was a very unfortunate event," he said afterwards. "I didn't mean for it to explode the way it did."
he ran to the press about the monitoring of the emails
do the homework con. How do youthink the media knows about the emails? This dickess, traitor ran to the press
He should be arrested and impeached, he revealed FBI activity to the media.
Republicans are not interested in fighting terror, they are only interested in blaming "libs" and scoring political points
I know your a Republican and scared of your own failure. This idiot has leaked stuff 4 times now
all for cheap political points
He should be arrested, charged with treason, impeached immediately and hung in public
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2009-11-11, 9:29AM EST
Reply to: comm-rhhrs-1460940616@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
Rep. Pete Hoekstra [R MI) leaked the fact that the FBI was monitoring the radical cleric in Yemen that the Ft Hood terrorist was emailing
now the cleric radical knows he was being monitored by the feds
brilliant.
I agree certain liberals do anything to deny that Islam sucks ass and breeds murder, the denial is astonishing. I'm really tired of the "few bad apples" and "don't jump to conclusions" crowd
however nobody seems to care that Rep. Pete Hoekstra fucked up big time revealing an FBI investigation on national television, now the whole world knows
Location: fucking cons, fuck everything up
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
"Who calls a shot like that?" Palin demanded on Friday. "Who makes a decision like that?"
As Fox News anchor Bret Baier noted: President Bush, that's who.
Baier commented on the not-so-hidden subtext of Palin's speech: "Unsaid but implied was that the new Democratic White House was behind such a move to secularize the nation's currency." Baier added: "In actuality the coin's design was commissioned in 2005, when Republicans controlled congress, and then was approved by then President Bush."
I agree certain liberals do anything to deny that Islam sucks ass and breeds murder, the denial is astonishing. I'm really tired of the "few bad apples" and "don't jump to conclusions" crowd
I'm amazed by the cries of "p/c", when the entire image you have in your head of muslims has been based off to that "p/c" media you are saying needs to cough it up. Who do you think showed you footage of the Major dressed in Muslim headwear at a time unrelated to the shooting, over and over again? Who do you think put out hearsay about who he may have known and what he may have said as if it were fact? Did you see the transcript of the lecture yet? Or just short vague mentions of what he was talking about? He's a pyschologist, did you ever think the army had him training soldiers and other pyschiatrists on "extremist" thinking? And do you think for a second the army wouldn't instantly dishonorably discharge him if he said "infidels should be beheaded and their blood boiled"..who in the public would question that? Here's the moment where you spare the liberal insults if you're a conservative, because you and i both know that they wouldn't. And let's not pretend the military is ever in tune with being p/c. Ever hear of "don't ask, don't tell"? Tell me, did you get to see the emails to the "radical cleric" to see what they say inside? While taking in all the hearsay from the "anonymous officials" did you skip over the parts where they said that the emails were related to pyschology rather then terrorism? The cherry-picking and turning of hearsay into fact is exactly why the media is playing it the way they are. Because they don't want to look like the bigots they helped create, to the average person who doesn't look at the wood for the tree. Who doesn't absorb the fact that media is pouring it on like we're all mindless sponges while at the same time talking like they're being analytical
One reads and hears with increasing disbelief and anger that we don't know the motive or motives of Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army major who fired over 100 shots at his fellow American soldiers in order to murder and maim as many as possible. Hasan ended up allegedly murdering 13 people, but government and Army spokesmen and the mainstream media claim they just can't figure out why he did this. They are, however, certain that it was not an act of terrorism.
Sunday's New York Times "Week in Review" article about Nidal Hasan was titled "When Soldiers Snap." The gist of the article was that Maj. Hasan had snapped -- even though he had never been in combat. He snapped in advance. Just two sentences in the article were devoted to the possibility that his motives were in any way relatable to his Muslim faith
As Chris Matthews put it, "it's unclear if religion was a factor in this shooting." To Matthews, not only was it unclear if Hasan's Islamic faith was "the" factor, it was unclear if it was even "a" factor.
Likewise, on NPR, Tom Gjelten offered the novel explanation that Hasan, who has never been in combat, may have suffered from "pre-traumatic stress disorder" because he anticipated having traumatic distress. "Was he an example," Gjelten seriously asked, "of these soldiers who are literally freaked out by what they are likely to face when they are deployed?"
And on Fox News, Geraldo Rivera, said, "I don't know what motivates him ... as far as I know ... he's a sociopath; he's a criminal. He could have had a toothache and gone off because of that."
The deaths and maiming at Fort Hood are heartbreaking and angering. But ultimately far more injurious to America than the act of evil that caused those deaths and injuries is the massive self-deception American society engages in out of fear of being called bigoted, racist or "Islamaphobic."
Any American who is not prepared to lie to himself has reason to believe that Hasan's religious views were prominent, if not exclusive, factors for why he slaughtered fellow American soldiers. The motives appear as clear as any could be.
Chuck Medley, Fort Hood's director of Emergency Services, told Reuters that Hasan yelled "Allahu Akbar" -- the Arabic incantation of "Allah is the greatest" yelled by Islamic terrorists before they slaughter people -- just before the shooting,
Dr. Val Finnell told The Associated Press that he and other classmates participating in a 2007-2008 master's program with Hasan at the Uniformed Services University had complained about his comments, including that the war on terror was "a war against Islam."
Another classmate told the AP that he complained to five officers and two civilian faculty members at the university. He also wrote to Pentagon officials that fear in the military of being seen as politically incorrect prevented an "intellectually honest discussion of Islamic ideology" in the ranks.
Other classmates who participated in a 2007-2008 master's program at a military college said they, too, had complained to superiors about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's anti-American views, which included his giving a presentation that justified suicide bombing and telling classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution.
And ABC News now reports that Hasan had attempted to contact al-Qaida.
It is a given that the vast majority of American Muslims are loyal Americans. But that's not the only given.
It is equally a given that a certain percentage of Muslims in and outside of the military are Islamists who want Americans dead and America Muslim.
It does the majority of Muslims no favor to deny the existence of the minority. And Muslim Americans do themselves no favor by denying it. Unfortunately, Muslims are theoretically represented by groups like CAIR whose values are correctly seen by most Americans as suspect.
Americans are worried by the fact that there are Muslim Americans whose beliefs compel them to murder non-Muslim Americans. But what is even more worrisome is that American Muslim groups (and their supporters on the left) deny this.
The "Ugly Truth" General Discussion Board
Political
Republican
Democrat
Conservative
Liberal
Moderate
Religion
Conspiracy Theories
Aliens
Chemtrails
UFO's
Movie Reviews
Anything and Everything Goes
"U.S. Homeland Security officials are working with groups around the United States to head off any possible anti-Muslim backlash following the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas."
The Department of Homeland Security is in good company in its confusion. Gen. George Casey, the Army's top general, also worried that "this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I've asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that." And President Obama cautioned against "jumping to conclusions."
The backlash trope is trotted out after every episode of terrorist violence. But it is as false as it is dangerous. This image of a nation on a hair trigger for violence against Muslims is a calumny. Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, though millions were inflamed by grief and outrage, there was no broad-based "backlash" against Muslim Americans. There were a handful of crimes including the murder of a Sikh who may have been mistaken for a Muslim, a few broken windows, some insults, and some hurt feelings. But the overwhelming majority of Americans did not seek out scapegoats, nor engage in vigilantism.
The repeated invoction of this libel has had an effect, though. It has succeeded in intimidating many Americans about the proper bounds of discussion. Gen. Casey reinforces this timidity when he frets that "our diversity" may be a casualty of the attack at Fort Hood. He and the Obama administration are obscuring the real challenge Americans face.
Our challenge is not to transcend the demons of vengeance clawing at our souls. Our challenge is to deal intelligently with a threat that arises from religious convictions. Non-bigoted observers can see that while the vast majority of th world's Muslims are not extremists, a significant minority are. And it matters what people believe.
We don't like to pass judgment on others' religious convictions. That's fine. But when a religious belief spurs violence and mass murder, it becomes political, and it becomes a proper concern of the military and security services.
Worldwide, Muslims believing themselves to be advancing the faith have committed more than 14,000 acts of violence just since 9/11. You know the litany: Madrid, London, Bali, Jerusalem, Mumbai, Amman. The list is long and bloody -- and it includes many innocent Muslims.
Many hit home. In 2003, Hasan Akbar, a Muslim convert, rolled a grenade into the tent of his fellow soldiers in the 101st Airborne Division on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. In June, Abdulhakim Muhammad, another convert, killed one Army recruiter and wounded another in Little Rock. Naveed Haq shot six women at the Seattle Jewish Federation office in 2006.
Federal agents have thwarted planned terror attacks on Fort Dix, N.J., folded up a terror ring in Lackawanna, N.Y., and uncovered plots against the nation's financial centers, the World Bank, the Sears Tower, the New York subway system, the Los Angeles airport, the Israeli Consulate in Los Angeles, 10 airliners landing in the U.S. (the liquid bomb plot), JFK airport, the Brooklyn Bridge, and the Prudential Building in Newark, N.J., among others.
So shall we arrest all the Muslims in America? That's the caricature that is encouraged by the "backlash" peddlers. Obviously not. But what we must do is to discriminate -- that is, to make distinctions based on what kind of Islam Muslims embrace. We have created a climate in which members of the military were afraid to raise questions about the bald and blatant Islamist comments Major Nidal Hasan expressed over many years. He was overhead saying, "maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Times Square." He was caught proselytizing his patients. He argued frequently to colleagues that the U.S. was engaged in a "war against Islam."
Yet no one raised a red flag. Might be interpreted as anti-Muslim bigotry. And so the military took no action against a man who loudly advertised his extremist sympathies. Thirteen Americans paid for that with their lives. If any good were to come out of the Fort Hood massacre, it would be a new clarity about what we are fighting. Islamism is the enemy. Moderate Muslims are allies in the cause. We should no more shrink from confronting and battling Islamism than we would from any of the "isms" we destroyed in the 20th century. Muddled thinking and misplaced delicacy have proved deadly.
By now, the script should be disturbingly familiar. Whether in the Middle East, or increasingly in America, a fanatical Muslim blows up or goes on a shooting spree, killing many. This is quickly followed by "condemnations" from "Muslim civil rights groups," like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). We are then warned by the president and some newspaper editorials not to jump to conclusions, or to stereotype. Yasser Arafat wrote this script, which he used with great success throughout his bloody career as a terrorist.
Suddenly, the issue of gays in the military doesn't seem as important as jihadists in the military.
If you were an enemy of America, not only would you fight overseas and develop nuclear weapons (Iran), you would also engage in an even more effective strategy by striking at America's underbelly. This is our most vulnerable region because we now tolerate virtually everything, indulge in political correctness and subscribe to a bogus belief that if radical Islamists can see we mean them no harm, they will mean us no harm.
The federal government at all levels has hired and promoted Muslims to influential positions. It requires "sensitivity training" for federal employees, including those who work at the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Last week, the House Judiciary Committee, dominated by liberal Democrats, defied the White House and removed from the USA Patriot Act a tool for tracking non-U.S. citizens in anti-terrorism investigations. As our enemies grow stronger and more emboldened, they see us becoming weaker and less committed.
No amount of evidence -- from Koran verses urging the killing of "infidels," to cries of "God is great," reportedly shouted by the alleged Ft. Hood shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan -- will cure our self-deception. Sun Tzu famously wrote that all war is deception. But it takes two to deceive and the United States is behaving like a willing partner.
People claiming to know Hasan told interviewers he made frequent statements against the wars and the U.S. presence in Islamic countries. Rep. Michael McCaul, Texas Republican, told reporters after he was briefed on the shootings that Hasan "took a lot of advanced training in shooting." Why would a psychiatrist need advanced training in shooting unless he believed in murder as therapy? Shouldn't that, coupled with his statements about "the aggressor" and other actions -- including his preference for Muslim clothing -- have alerted someone in authority that he might be a time bomb waiting to go off? Yes, absolutely. But who wants to jeopardize a career by raising such questions and becoming the target of "civil rights groups" and politically correct dupes? Intimidating Americans into silence when they know better is also a very effective strategy when fighting a war.
Sound minds not brainwashed by our own "re-educators" should have seen this coming. Though born in America to Jordanian immigrant parents, Hasan described himself as a "Palestinian." He got into trouble by attempting to proselytize some of his patients.
Most top federal agencies, including the Pentagon and DHS, now have offices of "civil liberties," offices recommended by the 9/11 Commission to focus on "outreach" to the Muslim community. In this, they follow efforts by the Bush administration, which dispatched Karen Hughes to tell Muslim women in Saudi Arabia that American women are so free they can drive their own cars. The Saudi women were not impressed.
It's one thing to be suckered by others. It's quite another to sucker yourself.
How much longer will we tolerate fighting this war as if it were a minor crime wave? Our enemies are fighting to win and they are fighting everywhere, including within our borders. People trained to appear nonthreatening, until the threat becomes obvious and it is too late to do anything about it, are infiltrating our government and society at every level.
It is irrelevant that some have put the number of radicalized Muslims worldwide at 10 percent. Even if that figure is accurate, one hundred million jihadists can cause a lot of damage, as they plot the destruction of Western democracies. Other wars have been won with far fewer soldiers and far fewer dupes.
The Obama Administration has not refuted any of these following issues, but they have told us all to just disregard the misinformation coming from pundits like Glenn Beck.
You don’t need to watch it all at once, but please watch it all.
Lord Monckton believes Nobel Peace Prize was given to Obama for his cooperation and signing of UN Treaty to cede American Sovereignty and begin a World Government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40
Glenn Beck : Medicare Refused More People than Any Insurance Company
(medicare figures about 6 ½ minutes in – probably exaggerated, but where is the debate from the Whitehouse?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB3InUulfII
Congress deliberately permitted AIG bonuses to be paid, and then publicly scolded them as a diversion – made them their scapegoats.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uhn1SgpmdE
Some Clips from the Mainstream Media and the Left: (what are they saying?)
This is CNN helping congress to personalize animosity toward execs who accepted frivolous bonuses – WHICH CONGRESS INTENTIONALLY ALLOWED! If they were really journalists they would have pointed out that the Government was fully responsible for this huge theft of our tax dollars. Congress robbed us with the stimulus bill they passed, and then funneled the huge portion of bonus money to AIG and then isolated and personalized an attack on them for their greed. THE GOVERNMENT WAS THE OVERSEER!! THE GOVERNMENT STOLE OUR MONEY!! CNN is not reporting for the people.
Keith Olbermann: Sarah Palin Glen Beck are dangerous Liars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALg_pQZiUbs&feature=related
Van Jones Calls Republicans Assholes -- And He is Right!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLUW4QED2-0&feature=related
Interviews of Tea Party protestors. They singled out the ones who sounded dumbest, but was that the best they could do? We can at least see clearly here that the protestors are not violent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y
Listen to this Tool. He watches a Glenn Beck episode and just heckles it in the background. It was a good episode I had seen before. He took some cheap shots at the guest and then went on to shout it out as Astroturf (did you watch it?). He then arrogantly stated why a Public Option in Healthcare would give him more economic freedom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y
I just can’t seem to find anything that makes sense that is in favor of the Obama Administration agenda…can you? Please show me if so.
Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.
This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, "Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted."
No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill.
In an email exchange Gheen said that the November 14 rallies were put together rapidly to catch any backlash that would come from Gutierrez if he files his proposed legislation. Gheen made it clear that these upcoming rallies are a precursor, “We plan larger scale operations in the Spring,” he wrote back.
The last time comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens was put forward was in June 2007 under former President George W. Bush. The bill was defeated when the Senate vote fell 14 votes short of the 60 required to move it forward.
While it is no secret that America’s immigration system is broken, and this longstanding system breakdown adversely affects America’s national security and economy, the latest Rasmussen Report shows, “By a 70% to 22% margin, voters say that gaining control of the borders is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers already in the country.”
However, despite the wishes of voters, legalizing illegal aliens inevitably seems to become the dominate topic in the immigration debate. It also appears in impending legislation aside from Gutierrez’s proposals. Before President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration, for instance, in January 2009, Vermont’s Senator Patrick Leahy introduced the tough-titled “Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act of 2009,” S. 9. However, in Sen. Leahy’s introduction it is revealed that a wall with Mexico should be “reconsidered” because it is a “symbol of fear and intolerance,” and “harsh penalties and more enforcement” are not a realistic solution to address illegal aliens.
Then there is Senator Charles “Chuck” Schumer, a co-sponsor of S. 9, who also serves as the Chairman of the powerful Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security. His voting record, documented by Ontheissues.org, suggests he is a staunch illegal aliens advocate.
Quote:
Sen. Schumer:
Voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared “sanctuary cities”. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)
Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)
Voted NO on limiting immigrant benefits & controlling borders more tightly. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on prohibiting illegal immigrants from receiving FEMA benefits. (Jul 1994)
Co-sponsored providing funding for social services for noncitizens. (May 2006)
Rated 8% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance. (Dec 2006)
More evidence that legalizing illegal aliens is on the horizon appears in an October 1 interview in the New York Times with the new director of the United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS), Alejandro Mayorkas. Mayorkas said that the agency “is already planning ahead for the possibility of giving legal status to millions of illegal immigrants.”
This all might be good news for amnesty advocates but here is the bad news — which should concern both points of view on this issue. The notion that the USCIS, tasked in part to keep America safe by keeping unscrupulous people out, is a competent agency and therefore will be equipped to process millions of illegal aliens should amnesty become law is fiction and entirely absurd when one examines the USCIS’ record. For starters, America’s $2.6 billion a-year immigration agency amassed a twenty-year backlog of applications under both Democratic and Repubican administrations. It loses files. Even worse, it is riddled with crime and corruption where bribery, be it for money, gifts or sex is part of their record of achievement that has put America’s national security in jeopardy and arguably contributed to the illegal alien problem in the first place. To expect competency from this troubled bureaucracy could prove to be an exercise in self-defeat.
ALIPAC’s mission is to conduct rallies and protests across America. “We hope that these events combined with our lobbying efforts and support for campaigns will stop these attempts to destroy America through mass illegal immigration and amnesty.”
For more information on Tea Parties Against Amnesty click here.
It's likely she will be make more money when it's all said and done. "Going Rogue" catapulted to No. 1 on Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.com after HarperCollins announced in late September it had moved up the release date of 1.5 million copies
Here's a US serviceman, a Muslim, who brings two privately owned handguns (a Glock and a .22 peashooter) onto a military base, and, while under fire, kills 13 and wounds 30. It would be the act of a superhuman to be able to accomplish a 50% kill rate while firing and reloading two handguns simultaneously in a firefight, while outnumbered against trained military personal on their own base.
Now, he's in a coma, and can't answer for himself. Very convenient.
The fallout? Muslims and privately owned firearms are demonized, the public is being whipped into one of its paranoid frenzies with emotionally charged TV reports and screaming headlines, the President is parroting his spin. And people, fearful that a "Muslim with ties to al-Qaeda" (as recent headlines howled) killed "our boys" on a military base on US soil, will practically beg for more of our freedoms to be taken away so we can have more "security."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2009-11-09, 6:18AM EST
Reply to: comm-hmrm9-1457636114@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
Bill Cosby Reacts To Professor Gates' Arrest
From the president to everyday people, the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. is the talk of the town.
Actor/comedian Bill Cosby cautioned people who weren't at the scene of the arrest from ...
Gates has powerful friends, Obama is one of them. ...
Contact: Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)
www.AgainstAmnesty.com
(866) 703-0864
The Obama administration's gutting of key immigration and border security programs combined with a push for amnesty legislation by the Hispanic Caucus in Congress has led to a national organization calling for Tea Parties Against Amnesty & Illegal Immigration to be held across America on Saturday, Nov. 14!
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, also known as ALIPAC, is a multi-party and multi-ethnic national organization founded on 9/11 in 2004 to oppose illegal immigration and amnesty, while supporting border security and the enforcement of our existing immigration laws.
Avishai Raviv, Eyal, and Yitzhak Rabin
Avishai Raviv was an Israeli government agent provocateur (whose code name was "Champagne" for the bubbles of incitement he created to tarnish the right-wing Israelis) who goaded Yigal Amir to assassinate Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (although this is hotly disputed by investigative reporters like Barry Chamish)...
Shimon Peres Charged with the Murder of Yitzhak Rabin?
We, the undersigned, leaders of major Jewish groups and organizations, hereby sorrowfully acknowledge our lack of leadership in pursuit of justice for slain Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
Even as more and more realize oppressive political correctness is damaging our nation and killing our people, we still hold ourselves hostage to it. We can't criticize Obama on his policy agenda without absurd accusations of racism, and now our authorities' first instinct after the mass murder at Fort Hood is to victimize the identified shooter -- Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan -- rather than to protect our soldiers.
The military is the last place we should expect political correctness to flourish. We recognize, after all, that our armed forces exist primarily to safeguard our national security, not as a laboratory for social experimentation. Or do we?
Forget "don't ask, don't tell" policy for now. I'm referring to the reaction of the Army's top brass to the Fort Hood slaughter in the news conference and television interviews following the shooting.
The first question to Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey (and Army Secretary John McHugh) was whether he believed "this was a wake-up call to the nation that the Army is simply too small to carry out the tasks that it's been given." "You've been having suicide rates that are off the charts," the reporter went on. "Your soldiers are under great stress from multiple deployments."
Our military manpower is a legitimate concern, but I think it would be more appropriate for this type of question to come up in the context of whether we have the troops necessary to perform our missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Instead, it surfaced in relation to whether an overly stretched Army might have contributed to causing this mass murder.
Instead of telling the questioner it's far-fetched, if not outright absurd, to suggest that a soldier committed multiple homicides because he was stressed from an overstretched Army, Gen. Casey dignified the question by responding that our Army has 70,000 more soldiers than it did five years ago and beaming about the Army's new "comprehensive soldier fitness" program, which helps soldiers build resilience and strength to deal with adversity.
A follow-up question was even worse. "Sir, some other counselors are saying this is just the tip of the iceberg. Suicide rates are now higher this year than they were last year. How concerned are you about this danger to recruits?"
Notice that the questioner's concern wasn't over the danger to soldiers of suicide murderers, but of suicide -- that is, what danger soldiers are to themselves as a result of military stress.
What are these people smoking? How lopsided has our thinking become that we view this murder through the prism of the shooter's stress and victimhood rather than focus on how to prevent such murders in the future? Besides, the shooter didn't commit suicide here.
Forget "don't ask, don't tell" policy for now. I'm referring to the reaction of the Army's top brass to the Fort Hood slaughter in the news conference and television interviews following the shooting.
The first question to Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey (and Army Secretary John McHugh) was whether he believed "this was a wake-up call to the nation that the Army is simply too small to carry out the tasks that it's been given." "You've been having suicide rates that are off the charts," the reporter went on. "Your soldiers are under great stress from multiple deployments."
Our military manpower is a legitimate concern, but I think it would be more appropriate for this type of question to come up in the context of whether we have the troops necessary to perform our missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Instead, it surfaced in relation to whether an overly stretched Army might have contributed to causing this mass murder.
Instead of telling the questioner it's far-fetched, if not outright absurd, to suggest that a soldier committed multiple homicides because he was stressed from an overstretched Army, Gen. Casey dignified the question by responding that our Army has 70,000 more soldiers than it did five years ago and beaming about the Army's new "comprehensive soldier fitness" program, which helps soldiers build resilience and strength to deal with adversity.
A follow-up question was even worse. "Sir, some other counselors are saying this is just the tip of the iceberg. Suicide rates are now higher this year than they were last year. How concerned are you about this danger to recruits?"
Notice that the questioner's concern wasn't over the danger to soldiers of suicide murderers, but of suicide -- that is, what danger soldiers are to themselves as a result of military stress.
The NY Times reported that NY State, desperate for cash, is pursuing tax debtors more aggressively than ever before, doubling the number of cases it is investigating and seeking to collect from delinquents. Those who aow big tim range from JPMorgan Chase to an out-of-business convenience store on the Bowery.
So why so long? Why was NY State allowing this delinquency? Were there kickbacks to elected officials? Was there even more corrpution beyond this?
STOP CUTTING SERVIOCES< STOP RAISING MASS TRANSIT< STOP TAXING THE LITTLE GUY
Americans love freedom too much to become socialists or communists and Americans are not so stupid as to believe that is actually what the Obama administration is trying to do. I've read the dictionary definitions and reality does not fit. We are generally smart enough to know the difference between free market capitalism, socialism and fascism... but GW Bush did get into office TWICE...so any reasonable person must conclude the American people aren't all THAT smart.
A lot of people think the Obama Administration wants absolute power and total control of the people, their finances, their health care and the rest of their lives. This is ABSURD. And some are very successful at convincing people to be very afraid. They are used to these tactics and are trying to scare people because it WORKS. Sarah Palin is one LOONY DAME who doesn't CARE TOO MUCH FOR FACTS. And I am surprised Sen. John Baynor doesn't know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States...with these kinds of people running the GOP and the RNC, no wonder those two organizations are LOSING CONSERVATIVES who see the fringe has really TAKEN OVER THEIR PARTY.
I saw signs last week at a republican sponsored protest that said Obamacare was the same as the HOLOCAUST. ONLY THE HOLOCAUST IS THE HOLOCAUST. Shame of republicans for trying to make people think otherwise! COMPARING PRESIDENT OBAMA TO HITLER and his death camps IS NOT RATIONAL. People who advocate in this manner ARE SICK.
What is really going on is the establishment that guards the STATUS QUO when it comes to health care is actually very concerned THEIR DAYS OF WINE AND ROSES are over.
Remember, the American people DISGUSTED at GOP control and incompetence and optimistic about a new young, smart president who actually has a lot of ideas, ELECTED BARACK OBAMA into the White House to CHANGE not just how business is done but to actually GET BUSINESS DONE. This means action on health care and a dignified, graceful END TO THE TWO WARS. The two wars are BIG FIRES STARTED BY THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION and they were not interested in putting them out. Now that Obama has to, he CANNOT DO IT ALL IN ONE YEAR.
IT IS NAIVE FOR ANYONE TO THINK THESE BIG COMPLICATED PROBLEMS ALL COULD BE SOLVED IN A YEAR. And the right wing of the GOP wants America and President Obama to FAIL so hopefully THEY CAN GET ANOTHER EIGHT YEARS OF INCOMPETENT RULE where little if anything was done for the American people. Remember the Abramoff scandals? ( The republicans were too busy SERVING THEMSELVES to notice the economy was tanking. )
However, if you are still unemployed and can't find good money even with that degree, don't despair. The economy WILL TURN AROUND but more importantly, someone needs to show you that most recessions are jobless and that it is really naive to think one man, even if he is the president of the U.S. , can actually create millions of full-time, long term jobs that will be well-paying and provide health insurance at little or no cost to you. Even if he said so...HE IS A POLITICIAN!!!!
I just want health care reform, hopefully with a public option. One of the best thinks about a public option other than giving the insurance companies REAL COMPETITION, is that if it passes and becomes law, for the first time, people wouldn't have to stick with a REALLY bad job just because they need the health care insurance for their families. Think new financial regulations that ACTUALLY PROTECT CREDIT CARD HOLDERS AND OTHER CONSUMERS. For the first time in a long time, Washington DC is passing laws that BENEFIT THE CONSUMERS FOR A CHANGE. CORPORATE AMERICA HATES THAT.
A PUBLIC OPTION, WE CAN AFFORD IT. WE SHOULD HAVE IT. DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE FROM THOSE WHO BENEFIT FROM THE STATUS QUO. Much of their anger is canned and paid for. Grass roots tea parties are successful because the people are lied to and tend to believe what they are told without checking out the facts first.
Remember the whole controversy over "death panels"-the idea, as President Obama dismissively put it, that greater government control over medicine would cause bureaucrats to "pull the plug on grandma"?
Well, for weeks now Britain's newspapers have been filled with articles about the National Health Service pulling the plug on grandma.
The latest is the story of a woman who had to fight her doctors for weeks after they withdrew care from her 80-year-old mother. According to the London Times:
Hazel Fenton, from East Sussex, is alive nine months after medics ruled she had only days to live, withdrew her antibiotics, and denied her artificial feeding. The former school matron had been placed on a controversial care plan intended to ease the last days of dying patients.
Doctors say Fenton is an example of patients who have been condemned to death on the Liverpool care pathway plan. They argue that while it is suitable for patients who do have only days to live, it is being used more widely in the NHS, denying treatment to elderly patients who are not dying.
Fenton's daughter describes the NHS system for dealing with very ill elderly patients as "a subterfuge for legalized euthanasia of the elderly." In other words, a death panel.
This is just the latest story. For some time, British newspapers are always filled with reports about the failures of the National Health Service, but the barrage has intensified in recent months. A sampling:
From the Daily Mail, October 13: "A grandfather who beat cancer was wrongly told the disease had returned and left to die at a hospice which pioneered a controversial 'death pathway.' Doctors said there was nothing more they could do for 76-year- old Jack Jones, and his family claim he was denied food, water, and medication except painkillers. He died within two weeks. But tests after his death found that his cancer had not come back and he was in fact suffering from pneumonia brought on by a chest infection."
From the same day's Daily Telegraph: "At around 4am on Monday, a friend of mine was woken by a call from the private care home in south-west London where her 98-year-old grandmother is resident.... 'She needs to go to hospital. Do you want that? Or would you prefer that we make her comfortable?' Befuddled by sleep, she didn't immediately grasp what was being asked of her.... Then, the chilling implication of the phone call filtered through-she was being asked whether her grandmother should be allowed to die.... My friend is reeling.... Had she really been asked to pronounce a possible death sentence on her grandmother, a woman with no underlying ailment other than old age?"
Most of the recent British stories concern the Liverpool Care Pathway, an NHS-approved system in which doctors are encouraged to withdraw medical support for patients they deem too infirm to live. But in early September, a group of doctors sent a letter to the Daily Telegraph arguing that "the scheme is causing a 'national crisis' in patient care.... 'Forecasting death is an inexact science,' they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death 'without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.'" Dr. Peter Hargreaves says, "What they are trying to do is stop people being overtreated as they are dying. It is a very laudable idea. But the concern is that it is tick box medicine that stops people thinking."
For an especially infuriating example of this "tick-box medicine"-which is not just applied to the old-see a heart-breaking report in the September 10 edition of the Daily Mail:
Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday. Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy-almost four months early. They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment. Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.
She was shocked to discover that another child, born in the US at 21 weeks and six days into her mother's pregnancy, had survived. Amillia Taylor was born in Florida in 2006 and celebrated her second birthday last October. She is the youngest premature baby to survive.
I understand that extremely premature babies have very low survival rates and a high risk of serious medical complications. But the decision about whether or how much to treat an infant should be made by the parents in consultation with their doctors-not according to the orders of some faceless medical board. Yet that's what happens when your doctor is reduced to just another bureaucrat ticking off boxes on government paperwork.
This is how an alleged "right" to government-provided health care leads to the denial of care. As government health-care budgets inevitably spiral out of control, hospitals find themselves with insufficient resources, so a centralized health-care bureaucracy tries to control costs by making sure patients are granted or denied care according to predetermined rules drafted by a medical rationing board. Britain has one, the National Institutes for Health and Clinical Excellence, known by the Orwellian acronym NICE--and President Obama wants to create a similar board in the US to provide "guidance" about which treatments are "cost-effective" and should be allowed.
In such a system, the patient has little or no control precisely because he is not the one paying the bills, so no one has to listen to him. That's what happens when people surrender their actual right to health-care, the right to contract for it privately with doctors and insurance companies, in exchange for an illusory "right" to whatever care the government chooses to provide-or withhold.
The British press may be roiled by this story, but you won't read about any of this in American newspapers. Hence, the current health-care debate has taken on a dramatic irony worthy of a great work of fiction. Just as America is debating whether to give the government a dominant role in health care, Britain is agonizing over the horrific consequences of just such a government-controlled system. But no one in America knows about this, because our press wants to pretend it doesn't exist.
In a good thriller, the protagonists would learn the real story just in time to save themselves from disaster. Perhaps Americans will find out what is happening in Britain in time to stop ObamaCare. But in a tragedy, knowledge of the future we can expect under government control would arrive too late, after we have already signed over our lives to the state.
Last Thursday, a "lone wolf" shouted his allegiances to Allah... and opened fire. When the Fort Hood carnage was over, 13 people were murdered and 30 more injured, making it the deadliest mass murder on a military base in our history.
Last Friday, unemployment in America hit 10.2 percent, coming in higher than the experts expected. This, after Democrats in Congress spent almost a trillion dollars in so-called stimulus (including the pork), and after Obama said unemployment would not top 8 percent. This news followed the Obama White House touting an internal report -- full of misleading hype -- over jobs they've "created" or "saved."
Last Saturday, House Democrats cheered after securing a vote to destroy the best health care delivery system in the world and replace it with a massive, big government, trillion-plus-dollar job-killing monstrosity.
And this. On Sunday, Obama's chief of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, speaking to students in the United Arab Emirates, assured them that her agency is hard at work to prevent any anti-Muslim backlash in response to the Ford Hood rampage. That's right: to Democrats, we bigoted Americans are the problem.
Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.
The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors' own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.
It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration's claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.
The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail the past two weeks, with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen randomly throughout the country taking part. Responses are still coming in, and doctors' positions on related topics — including the impact of an overhaul on senior care, medical school applications and drug development — will be covered later in this series.
Major findings included:
• Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration's claims that doctors are part of an "unprecedented coalition" supporting a medical overhaul.
It also differs with findings of a poll released Monday by National Public Radio that suggests a "majority of physicians want public and private insurance options," and clashes with media reports such as Tuesday's front-page story in the Los Angeles Times with the headline "Doctors Go For Obama's Reform."
Nowhere in the Times story does it say doctors as a whole back the overhaul. It says only that the AMA — the "association representing the nation's physicians" and what "many still regard as the country's premier lobbying force" — is "lobbying and advertising to win public support for President Obama's sweeping plan."
The AMA, in fact, represents approximately 18% of physicians and has been hit with a number of defections by members opposed to the AMA's support of Democrats' proposed health care overhaul.
• Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.
More than 800,000 doctors were practicing in 2006, the government says. Projecting the poll's finding onto that population, 360,000 doctors would consider quitting.
Also, just because a "liberal" says President Bush doesn't like or care for black people, doesn't mean all liberals believe it or that its even TRUE!! Just because three liberals or three conservatives say something doesn't make it so.
The Bush Administration never thought there would be such need for an agency like FEMA, an agency in good standing when Bill Clinton was president. They were NOT good stewards of the government they reigned over for eight years and POLITICIZED EVERYTHING. They corrupted every agency they touched. They don't believe in good government so when they got into power, they made sure the government screwed up everything thanks to cronyism and nepotism and putting people into high office with little more than party loyalty as their credentials. G.W. Bush deserved all the scorn he got because he and his administration COULD have done better but didn't. Perhaps too busy with their Iraq Adventure.
Many claim that they knew, that electing Barack Obama President was only the opportunity to bring about change. However, is this the hope and change they were all looking for?
