The Obama administration has now started their first, out in the open, assault on gun owners!
On December 7, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”
The UN’s past attempts to enact a Small Arms Treaty have claimed that such an agreement was needed in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” The truth is that the Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.
Ultimately, the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU. Based on pass attempts, it is Based on pass attempts, it is certain that the treaty would, at a minimum, require that signatories—
--Enact tough licensing requirements
--CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms
--BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons
--Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry
Remember that if the President signs and the Senate ratifies a treaty, it becomes the law of the land; overriding the Constitution and all State Laws to the contrary. (Article V, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution).
There’s no time to waste.
The last thing the gun-grabbers in Washington, D.C. and the UN want is for the American citizen to have time to react and mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical legislation.
They’ve made that mistake before, and we’ve made them pay, defeating EVERY attempt to ram the “Treaty on Small Arms” into law since the mid-1990s.
We may have only have a few days or weeks to defeat the treaty. You can be certain Germany, Great Britain, France, Communist China and the rest of the anti-gun members of the United Nations are going to vote for the treaty!
There’s no longer a pro-gun Republican Senate or a Republican President to kill ratification of the treaty.
So our ONE AND ONLY CHANCE of stopping the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty” is during the ratification process in the U.S. Senate. It takes 67 Senate votes to ratify a treaty. With 40 Republicans, that should be easy, right?
Unfortunately, we have a number of Republican Senators that can’t be counted on to stand-up for what is right for America.
Contact your Senator's now! Let them know that there is a price to be paid if they vote to deny American citizens a RIGHT guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution!
Comments are invited!
Send Feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Gores “Undeniable Truth” Is An Undeniable HOAX! A LIE! A Fraud!
It has now been confirmed that the only undeniable truth about Al Gores “An Undeniable Truth” is that in is an undeniable HOAX! A LIE! A Fraud!
We now have the E-mails confirming that ‘Global Warming’ scientists created ‘false’ data, manipulated computer models, destroyed data and reports, and conspired to discredit the works of legitimate climate scientists! It would appear that many of these same corrupt scientists also misused public tax dollars!
There was a time when a juicy scandal of this magnitude would have journalists screaming to be assigned to cover it. But that was way back when there were actual journalists. The news is now covered by Obama Ass Kissers (OAK) who are far more interested in pushing propaganda than the truth.
Most of the media outlets have chosen to ignore the issue rather than to attempt to explain it away. The New York Times and some others have taken a phony high ground of ignoring the facts because “they were stolen and not intended for the public to see”.
That is laughable, unless you overlook the fact that the Times celebrated the printing of the names of CIA operatives, during the Cold War? That list resulted in the death of many of those operatives. They are always gleeful over the printing on any military secrets that endanger American troops. The truth is that the E-mails were obtained via the United Kingdom’s “Freedom of Information Act”. They were not "hacked" or "stolen".
Other media found plenty of ink or airtime to cover the infidelity problems plaguing professional golfer Tiger Woods and the two White House party crashers. Yet, they were not at all concerned about pending climate-regulations that could cost Americans trillions of dollars. The investigation of a scandal exposing fraud in global-warming research might cost them a seat on Air Force I or at a news conference. It is so much safer for them to help with the cover-up.
Two major universities have at least temporarily removed prominent academics from heading major climate research facilities, and are conducting investigations.
Considering that either the‘Cap and Trade’ Bill or the ‘Copenhagen Climate Control Treaty’ will destroy the U.S. economy, one would think this to be great news.
Not so fast!
The Marxist in the White House and his 32 America bashing Czars want control over your life and life style. To be certain that the goal of total control is obtained, Obama has directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement the same draconian regulations on the pretense of protecting us from CO2!
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court was duped into ruling that CO2 was a health risk and can be regulated by the EPA. The Courts should bar the EPA from taking any steps with regard to Global Warming or CO2 emissions until the matter has been reevaluated!
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
.
We now have the E-mails confirming that ‘Global Warming’ scientists created ‘false’ data, manipulated computer models, destroyed data and reports, and conspired to discredit the works of legitimate climate scientists! It would appear that many of these same corrupt scientists also misused public tax dollars!
There was a time when a juicy scandal of this magnitude would have journalists screaming to be assigned to cover it. But that was way back when there were actual journalists. The news is now covered by Obama Ass Kissers (OAK) who are far more interested in pushing propaganda than the truth.
Most of the media outlets have chosen to ignore the issue rather than to attempt to explain it away. The New York Times and some others have taken a phony high ground of ignoring the facts because “they were stolen and not intended for the public to see”.
That is laughable, unless you overlook the fact that the Times celebrated the printing of the names of CIA operatives, during the Cold War? That list resulted in the death of many of those operatives. They are always gleeful over the printing on any military secrets that endanger American troops. The truth is that the E-mails were obtained via the United Kingdom’s “Freedom of Information Act”. They were not "hacked" or "stolen".
Other media found plenty of ink or airtime to cover the infidelity problems plaguing professional golfer Tiger Woods and the two White House party crashers. Yet, they were not at all concerned about pending climate-regulations that could cost Americans trillions of dollars. The investigation of a scandal exposing fraud in global-warming research might cost them a seat on Air Force I or at a news conference. It is so much safer for them to help with the cover-up.
Two major universities have at least temporarily removed prominent academics from heading major climate research facilities, and are conducting investigations.
Considering that either the‘Cap and Trade’ Bill or the ‘Copenhagen Climate Control Treaty’ will destroy the U.S. economy, one would think this to be great news.
Not so fast!
The Marxist in the White House and his 32 America bashing Czars want control over your life and life style. To be certain that the goal of total control is obtained, Obama has directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement the same draconian regulations on the pretense of protecting us from CO2!
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court was duped into ruling that CO2 was a health risk and can be regulated by the EPA. The Courts should bar the EPA from taking any steps with regard to Global Warming or CO2 emissions until the matter has been reevaluated!
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Austin Hill: Obamanomics Isn't Producing Jobs! Gosh, How Can This Be?
Obamanomics Isn't Producing Jobs! Gosh, How Can This Be?
by Austin Hill
“As Obama holds jobs summit, frustrated left complains about slow growth.” This headline appeared at Foxnews.com last Thursday, and it was at least the fourth time in a week that I had noticed America’s left-wing expressing concern over the Obama economy.
The weeklong liberal’s lament seems to have started last Sunday with Arianna Huffington. While noting Obama’s televised address about Afghanistan, the liberal pundit stated that instead, the President should be addressing the nation about a “jobs bill.” And with this, the unhinged Huffington then cried out “Can someone in the White House Priorities Department please hit reboot?”
Well, a “jobs bill” has already been thrust upon us. It was loosely referred to as an “economic stimulus” bill, it had a staggering price tag of a reported $787 billion, it became law in February, it was lauded as a “major legislative victory” for President Obama.
And less than three weeks ago the Obama Administration was still crowing about the numbers of jobs that had either been “created or saved” by that very stimulus bill.
But things seem different now. To put it in contemporary liberal media terms, “the narrative about Obama” has begun to change. And it seems that even the most ardent of Obama fans – that is, the American left wing -is waking up and realizing that the Nobel Peace Prize-winning man who some regard as quasi-deity, may nonetheless not know what he’s doing with economic policy.
I’m not saying “I told you so” about Obamanomics. I could not have predicted months ago how good or bad the economy would be right now, and those who claim to predict such things often overlook an essential reality : economic activity is, by its nature, unpredictable, and risky.
But I have noted over the last couple of years Barack Obama’s approach to economic policy, which is, to say the least, “heavy-handed,” and I have also noted his apparent disdain for private sector enterprise. And I did state earlier this year that what was shaping-up to be the President’s economic platform was not something conducive to economic growth and job creation.
And now, to paraphrase the President’s former Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s “chickens” appear to be coming home “to roost.”
If that sounds harsh, consider the economics of Barack Obama over the past couple of years. Among others, he campaigned on themes of: A) raising taxes on oil companies to get even with them for their so-called “windfall profits;” B) “reigning-in” executive salaries; C) raising the capital gains tax rate; D) “cracking-down” (whatever that means) on both the insurance, and pharmaceutical industries; E) raising income tax rates on high-income earners (the definition of “high-income earner” has been raised and lowered repeatedly in the past 24 months); and E) that elusive promise of making both healthcare, and a college education, “universal.”
Since becoming our President, Barack Obama has, in no particular order: A) alleged that Medical Doctors sometimes perform unnecessary procedures merely for the sake of enhancing their salaries; B) sought greater ability for his Administration to seize private banks; C) engaged in a public campaign of maligning the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ; D) forced the Chrysler corporation into a bankruptcy (if G.M. fell into bankruptcy, Chrysler got “pushed”) that defied both bankruptcy law and accounting rules, by requiring some of Chrysler’s creditors to accept payments of less than 30 cents on the dollar (by law those creditors were entitled to 100% payment of the debt); and E)ordered his “Executive Compensation Czar” to mandate anywhere from 50 to 90% salary cuts for executives of bailout-receiving companies.
Some Americans may look at this list (which is not, by any means, conclusive) and determine that the President’s approach to economics is, at worst, benign, and at best, helpful. But this is, again, to ignore yet another essential truth about economics: in order for economic growth to take place, participants in the economy must be willing to take risks, and to invest, with the prospect of earning a “return” on their investment if their enterprise is successful.
And the President has dis-incentivized this necessary risk-taking. Roughly 11 months into his Presidency, Obama has consistently threatened and impugned successful individuals and enterprises, and Americans who have dared to disagree with him. And despite what Obama’s Manufacturing Czar Ron Bloom (and communist dictator Mao Tse-Tung) say about how “justice comes from the barrel of a gun,” American economic growth most certainly does not. When government’s “guns” get drawn, investors, entrepreneurs and businesses run and hide – that is, they seek to minimize their risks by not investing, not hiring, not creating new things, and thus - they don’t produce “economic growth.”
After last week’s White House “jobs summit,” the President claimed that he is "open to every demonstrably good idea” that might create jobs, yet noted that “we also though have to face the fact that our resources are limited."
Barack Obama may be surprised by what a tremendous “resource” the American people can be - if he could only get out of our way.
E-mail: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
.
by Austin Hill
“As Obama holds jobs summit, frustrated left complains about slow growth.” This headline appeared at Foxnews.com last Thursday, and it was at least the fourth time in a week that I had noticed America’s left-wing expressing concern over the Obama economy.
The weeklong liberal’s lament seems to have started last Sunday with Arianna Huffington. While noting Obama’s televised address about Afghanistan, the liberal pundit stated that instead, the President should be addressing the nation about a “jobs bill.” And with this, the unhinged Huffington then cried out “Can someone in the White House Priorities Department please hit reboot?”
Well, a “jobs bill” has already been thrust upon us. It was loosely referred to as an “economic stimulus” bill, it had a staggering price tag of a reported $787 billion, it became law in February, it was lauded as a “major legislative victory” for President Obama.
And less than three weeks ago the Obama Administration was still crowing about the numbers of jobs that had either been “created or saved” by that very stimulus bill.
But things seem different now. To put it in contemporary liberal media terms, “the narrative about Obama” has begun to change. And it seems that even the most ardent of Obama fans – that is, the American left wing -is waking up and realizing that the Nobel Peace Prize-winning man who some regard as quasi-deity, may nonetheless not know what he’s doing with economic policy.
I’m not saying “I told you so” about Obamanomics. I could not have predicted months ago how good or bad the economy would be right now, and those who claim to predict such things often overlook an essential reality : economic activity is, by its nature, unpredictable, and risky.
But I have noted over the last couple of years Barack Obama’s approach to economic policy, which is, to say the least, “heavy-handed,” and I have also noted his apparent disdain for private sector enterprise. And I did state earlier this year that what was shaping-up to be the President’s economic platform was not something conducive to economic growth and job creation.
And now, to paraphrase the President’s former Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s “chickens” appear to be coming home “to roost.”
If that sounds harsh, consider the economics of Barack Obama over the past couple of years. Among others, he campaigned on themes of: A) raising taxes on oil companies to get even with them for their so-called “windfall profits;” B) “reigning-in” executive salaries; C) raising the capital gains tax rate; D) “cracking-down” (whatever that means) on both the insurance, and pharmaceutical industries; E) raising income tax rates on high-income earners (the definition of “high-income earner” has been raised and lowered repeatedly in the past 24 months); and E) that elusive promise of making both healthcare, and a college education, “universal.”
Since becoming our President, Barack Obama has, in no particular order: A) alleged that Medical Doctors sometimes perform unnecessary procedures merely for the sake of enhancing their salaries; B) sought greater ability for his Administration to seize private banks; C) engaged in a public campaign of maligning the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ; D) forced the Chrysler corporation into a bankruptcy (if G.M. fell into bankruptcy, Chrysler got “pushed”) that defied both bankruptcy law and accounting rules, by requiring some of Chrysler’s creditors to accept payments of less than 30 cents on the dollar (by law those creditors were entitled to 100% payment of the debt); and E)ordered his “Executive Compensation Czar” to mandate anywhere from 50 to 90% salary cuts for executives of bailout-receiving companies.
Some Americans may look at this list (which is not, by any means, conclusive) and determine that the President’s approach to economics is, at worst, benign, and at best, helpful. But this is, again, to ignore yet another essential truth about economics: in order for economic growth to take place, participants in the economy must be willing to take risks, and to invest, with the prospect of earning a “return” on their investment if their enterprise is successful.
And the President has dis-incentivized this necessary risk-taking. Roughly 11 months into his Presidency, Obama has consistently threatened and impugned successful individuals and enterprises, and Americans who have dared to disagree with him. And despite what Obama’s Manufacturing Czar Ron Bloom (and communist dictator Mao Tse-Tung) say about how “justice comes from the barrel of a gun,” American economic growth most certainly does not. When government’s “guns” get drawn, investors, entrepreneurs and businesses run and hide – that is, they seek to minimize their risks by not investing, not hiring, not creating new things, and thus - they don’t produce “economic growth.”
After last week’s White House “jobs summit,” the President claimed that he is "open to every demonstrably good idea” that might create jobs, yet noted that “we also though have to face the fact that our resources are limited."
Barack Obama may be surprised by what a tremendous “resource” the American people can be - if he could only get out of our way.
E-mail: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Austin Hill: I'm Not An Attorney, But Eric Holder Is Dangerous!
I'm Not An Attorney, But Eric Holder Is Dangerous
by Austin Hill
I'm not an attorney.
For better or worse I didn't go to law school, but rather, I instead went to graduate school to study philosophy.
But you don't need to be an attorney - or a philosopher - or the Attorney General or the President of the United States or a Representative or a Senator - you don't even need to be a community organizer to understand what I understand.
In fact, if you are one of "those" that I just listed, there's a good chance that your station in life will blind you from seeing and understanding the reality that is intuitively obvious to "the rest of us." And the reality is that as President Obama and Attorney General Holder seek to award five Sept. 11 conspirators, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, with the full rights of American citizens in a civilian trial, the United States is being undermined.
Not being an attorney makes me a mere "layperson" for many in the legal profession, and therefore, unqualified to comment on the matter. But this "layperson" thinks that the legal profession should be embarrassed, and ashamed, of the lack of reasoning underlying Mr.Holder's decisions.
In the interest of "fairness"- and hopefully as a means of bringing clarity to the situation - let's get some things straight from the get-go. The five 9-11 conspirators in question have been held all these years in a facility known officially as the "Guantanamo Bay camp." And the use of the word "camp" matters profoundlyI
If the Guantanamo Bay facility were, for example, a "prison," then it follows that those being held there would be "criminals." If, on the other hand, the Guantanamo Bay facility were defined as a "POW camp," then those being detained there would be "enemy soldiers," and would be subject to "rules of war" set forth in international law.
Yet, in fact, the thugs at Guantanamo Bay are neither "criminals," as we have historically defined them in the West, nor are they "enemy soldiers" or "prisoners of war." They are something the likes of which we have never dealt with before, and as it appears to this mere layperson, neither U.S. law nor international law adequately contemplate how they should be addressed.
Some of this legal ambiguity was evident in the public rhetoric of our previous President. George W. Bush frequently stated during his eight years in office that the U.S. was engaged in a "war on terror," while at the same time claiming that our nation's mission was to "hunt down the terrorists and bring them to justice." To us laypeople, that seemed like a U.S. President assuring the world that America would be the "good guys" even while under duress, yet at the same time we would not allow ourselves to be undercut.
But in legal-speak, it would seem that Bush's remarks could be construed as contradictory. By legal definition, a war is not a legal proceeding, and what happens on the battle field is not the same thing as what happens in a criminal investigation.
So now we're in the era of Obama. And while in the face of a Muslim Army Major murdering 13 of his fellow soldiers President Obama insists that we must not "rush to judgment," Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder has nonetheless "judged" after ten months that these five 9-11 conspirators need a civilian trial.
And Mr. Holder's vacuous responses to even the simplest of questions should be deemed "unacceptable" by all Americans - even attorneys.
What happens to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, if he is acquitted? "Failure is not an option" Mr. Holder explained in a Senate inquiry. Oh yeah? What about that thing called "due process?" Has the outcome of this trial been pre-determined? Are we to understand that "the fix is in?"
Even a lay person like me can see that the outcomes of court trials are often highly unpredictable.
Has an enemy combatant ever been granted a civilian trial before? Holder assured the inquiring Senators that he would "have to look at that" - which meant that either he hasn't "looked at that," or that the honest answer would not support his decision. And how could Holder be so certain of a conviction in a civilian trial, when Mohammed had already plead guilty in a military tribunal? Holder couldn't answer that either.
And then there was our President, Barack Obama, who also stated that KSM will be convicted and executed. But what did that mean? Was this the President merely expressing confidence that his vision would become reality, as politicians so often do? Or was this the Executive Branch of our government pr-determining what the judicial branch will and will not do?
To those in the legal profession - where are you at with all of this? Are we talking here about a mere "show trial?" Is the American Bar Association okay with the Executive Branch running over the top of the judiciary?
For us mere "laypeople," the thought of President Obama and Eric Holder pre-determining the outcomes of civilian trials is a very chilling proposition.
E-mail Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpioneless.com
.
by Austin Hill
I'm not an attorney.
For better or worse I didn't go to law school, but rather, I instead went to graduate school to study philosophy.
But you don't need to be an attorney - or a philosopher - or the Attorney General or the President of the United States or a Representative or a Senator - you don't even need to be a community organizer to understand what I understand.
In fact, if you are one of "those" that I just listed, there's a good chance that your station in life will blind you from seeing and understanding the reality that is intuitively obvious to "the rest of us." And the reality is that as President Obama and Attorney General Holder seek to award five Sept. 11 conspirators, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, with the full rights of American citizens in a civilian trial, the United States is being undermined.
Not being an attorney makes me a mere "layperson" for many in the legal profession, and therefore, unqualified to comment on the matter. But this "layperson" thinks that the legal profession should be embarrassed, and ashamed, of the lack of reasoning underlying Mr.Holder's decisions.
In the interest of "fairness"- and hopefully as a means of bringing clarity to the situation - let's get some things straight from the get-go. The five 9-11 conspirators in question have been held all these years in a facility known officially as the "Guantanamo Bay camp." And the use of the word "camp" matters profoundlyI
If the Guantanamo Bay facility were, for example, a "prison," then it follows that those being held there would be "criminals." If, on the other hand, the Guantanamo Bay facility were defined as a "POW camp," then those being detained there would be "enemy soldiers," and would be subject to "rules of war" set forth in international law.
Yet, in fact, the thugs at Guantanamo Bay are neither "criminals," as we have historically defined them in the West, nor are they "enemy soldiers" or "prisoners of war." They are something the likes of which we have never dealt with before, and as it appears to this mere layperson, neither U.S. law nor international law adequately contemplate how they should be addressed.
Some of this legal ambiguity was evident in the public rhetoric of our previous President. George W. Bush frequently stated during his eight years in office that the U.S. was engaged in a "war on terror," while at the same time claiming that our nation's mission was to "hunt down the terrorists and bring them to justice." To us laypeople, that seemed like a U.S. President assuring the world that America would be the "good guys" even while under duress, yet at the same time we would not allow ourselves to be undercut.
But in legal-speak, it would seem that Bush's remarks could be construed as contradictory. By legal definition, a war is not a legal proceeding, and what happens on the battle field is not the same thing as what happens in a criminal investigation.
So now we're in the era of Obama. And while in the face of a Muslim Army Major murdering 13 of his fellow soldiers President Obama insists that we must not "rush to judgment," Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder has nonetheless "judged" after ten months that these five 9-11 conspirators need a civilian trial.
And Mr. Holder's vacuous responses to even the simplest of questions should be deemed "unacceptable" by all Americans - even attorneys.
What happens to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, if he is acquitted? "Failure is not an option" Mr. Holder explained in a Senate inquiry. Oh yeah? What about that thing called "due process?" Has the outcome of this trial been pre-determined? Are we to understand that "the fix is in?"
Even a lay person like me can see that the outcomes of court trials are often highly unpredictable.
Has an enemy combatant ever been granted a civilian trial before? Holder assured the inquiring Senators that he would "have to look at that" - which meant that either he hasn't "looked at that," or that the honest answer would not support his decision. And how could Holder be so certain of a conviction in a civilian trial, when Mohammed had already plead guilty in a military tribunal? Holder couldn't answer that either.
And then there was our President, Barack Obama, who also stated that KSM will be convicted and executed. But what did that mean? Was this the President merely expressing confidence that his vision would become reality, as politicians so often do? Or was this the Executive Branch of our government pr-determining what the judicial branch will and will not do?
To those in the legal profession - where are you at with all of this? Are we talking here about a mere "show trial?" Is the American Bar Association okay with the Executive Branch running over the top of the judiciary?
For us mere "laypeople," the thought of President Obama and Eric Holder pre-determining the outcomes of civilian trials is a very chilling proposition.
E-mail Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpioneless.com
.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Confirmed: It's A Hoax!
The development of Scientific knowledge depends on the use of accurate, complete, and unfiltered data.
Anything short of this falls in an area ranging from junk science to criminal fraud!
It was announced this past Thursday (Nov. 11, 2009) that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails reveal communications between scientific researchers and “Global Warming” advocates located all around the Earth These e-mails reveal an organized conspiracy to conceal factual data, to falsify data, and to destroy data (in violation of U.S. and U.K. laws on “Freedom of Information”).
Examples:
1. Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."
Mr. Mann has admitted that he was party to this conversation. This should come as a surprise as Mr. Mann has a history of “careless” and “questionable” findings.
2. In another exchange of messages, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"
3. In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a ‘Freedom of Information Act’!"
4. Mr. Jones admits cover-up as he complained to a colleague, "I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails." He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn't be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.
The e-mails that these advocates of global-warming theory refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed, therein revealing that the whole concept of man-made global warming is a HOAX!
The Liar-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, who promised to restore Integrity in Science, has ignored this revelation, probably because it serves to undermine his efforts to redistribute America’s wealth, to loser nations around the world
The New York Times published an article confirming the authenticity and accuracy of the e-mails, but stated,
“We don't condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.“
This from a newspaper that exposed CIA operatives, resulting in several killings, never misses an opportunity to expose secret U.S. Military Operations (that endanger our troops), or the reveling to our enemies how we are tracking them or eavesdropping on their communications.
If this administration, or either House of Congress has any integrity whatsoever, there will be an immediate t.ermination of the “Cap and Trade Act”, and the Copenhagen Accords will be placed on permanent hold.
Anything short of this falls in an area ranging from junk science to criminal fraud!
It was announced this past Thursday (Nov. 11, 2009) that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails reveal communications between scientific researchers and “Global Warming” advocates located all around the Earth These e-mails reveal an organized conspiracy to conceal factual data, to falsify data, and to destroy data (in violation of U.S. and U.K. laws on “Freedom of Information”).
Examples:
1. Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."
Mr. Mann has admitted that he was party to this conversation. This should come as a surprise as Mr. Mann has a history of “careless” and “questionable” findings.
2. In another exchange of messages, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"
3. In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a ‘Freedom of Information Act’!"
4. Mr. Jones admits cover-up as he complained to a colleague, "I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails." He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn't be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.
The e-mails that these advocates of global-warming theory refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed, therein revealing that the whole concept of man-made global warming is a HOAX!
The Liar-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, who promised to restore Integrity in Science, has ignored this revelation, probably because it serves to undermine his efforts to redistribute America’s wealth, to loser nations around the world
The New York Times published an article confirming the authenticity and accuracy of the e-mails, but stated,
“We don't condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.“
This from a newspaper that exposed CIA operatives, resulting in several killings, never misses an opportunity to expose secret U.S. Military Operations (that endanger our troops), or the reveling to our enemies how we are tracking them or eavesdropping on their communications.
If this administration, or either House of Congress has any integrity whatsoever, there will be an immediate t.ermination of the “Cap and Trade Act”, and the Copenhagen Accords will be placed on permanent hold.
.To see a related video click here
Note: This Video was made proir to Hoax revelation!
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Austin Hill: Syimulus Dollars, TARP Funds, And A Flu Shot Fiasco
Stimulus Dollars, TARP Funds, And A Flu Shot Fiasco
by Austin Hill
Where did the swine flu vaccinations go?
.
They went the way of the "stimulus money" - that is to say, they were sent here, and shipped there. And, of course, they were "administered" and "disbursed" and "distributed" by high ranking officials who work in very important positions in vital departments of our U.S. Government.
.
But nobody in our government - no one, specific individual - can say with certainty how many flu shots there are, or where they are, or where they might be headed. And the same is true for the billions of dollars that were entailed in President Obama's all-important, so-called "stimulus bill."
.
On a weekend where the U.S. Congress is inching closer and closer to legislating (against the collective will of the American people, I might add) a government-run healthcare system, the flu shot fiasco should provide a vivid illustration of just how inept government is - our U.S . Federal Government specifically in this case, but government, in general, as well - at distributing vital goods and services.
.
Owing to the discovery of "swine flu" here in the U.S. by the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano declared a "Public Health Emergency" during the last week of April. A few days after making her "emergency" declaration, Secretary Napolitano, in a seeming contradiction, stated in a press conference on May 4th that the "swine flu" is actually no more dangerous than "the regular flu."
.
Then in July, federal health officials stepped-up the "emergency" rhetoric again by announcing that 160 million doses of a swine flu vaccination would be available by the end of October. On October 7th, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius assured Americans that the vaccination is "safe and secure" and admonished all Americans to get a shot. And on October 25th, President Obama himself declared, not a "Public Health Emergency," but this time a "National Emergency" over the swine flu.
.
Yet by October's end, the promised 160 million doses of swine flu vaccination had only amounted to 30 million known vaccinations in the U.S., prompting Senior Obama Adviser David Axelrod to declare on national television that "we overpromised." This, of course, prompted Secretary Sebelius to jump back in to action, so she penned an op-ed for the Nashville Tennessean newspaper assuring readers that, as a mother, she herself "understands the frustration and anxiety that parents feel" when they can't get a vaccination, and declared that "without question, we need significant improvements in vaccine production..."
.
Depending on whose count you accept, somewhere between two and four thousand Americans have died from the flu this year. That's more than the number of lives lost in the carnage of Hurricane Katrina. Yet in both scenarios, our U.S. Federal Government has demonstrated an incredible inability to respond to the needs of the American people - even, as in the case of the swine flu vaccinations, when it has made explicit promises to do so.
.
President Obama's so-called "economic stimulus bill" highlights this incompetence as well. Minutes after Vice President Biden delivered remarks in Phoenix last Monday about how the numbers of jobs that have allegedly been "created or saved" by the stimulus bill, the Obama Administration was stung with analysis from ABC News revealing that Biden's remarks - and information posted on the Administration's recovery.gov website (a website that cost the Administration $18 million to create) - were false. Both were reporting alleged "jobs" in congressional districts that don't exist, and the website was even listing "stimulus success stories" from congressional districts in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands - two U.S. territories that don't have any congressional districts at all. And as of today, roughly nine months after the passage of the bill, the national unemployment rate is even higher than President Obama predicted it would be had the Congress NOT passed his bill.
.
So where is the "stimulus" money? What happened to that crucial $787 billion that President Obama had to spend, to "get the economy rolling again?" We are told that only a portion of the money has been spent thus far, yet the Obama Administration has taken legal steps to prevent Obama's "recovery czars" from being questioned about the money by Congress.
.
Recklessness and incompetence of this magnitude, with such enormous amounts of other people's money, would be grounds for immediate termination among private sector executives and managers. And the problem doesn't begin and end with Democrats: recall that the $700 million "TARP" program was created by Republican President George W Bush last year, and Bush himself was the first to violate the intended purposes of the program by handing-over nearly $14 billion in loans to Chrysler and G.M. (Obama continued doing this after he took office, until the two companies met their inevitable fate of bankruptcy).
.
Government does NOT exercise wise stewardship over economic and material resources. It's sad that each new generation has to re-learn this basic truth, but Americans are in a painful process of re-learning it again right now. And the managers overseeing these resources - the President, and the Congressional leadership - deserved to be fired for failing to uphold their most basic fiduciary responsibilities.
.
.
Remember this the next time you go to vote.
.
.
Email: Austin Hill
.
.
.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
.
by Austin Hill
Where did the swine flu vaccinations go?
.
They went the way of the "stimulus money" - that is to say, they were sent here, and shipped there. And, of course, they were "administered" and "disbursed" and "distributed" by high ranking officials who work in very important positions in vital departments of our U.S. Government.
.
But nobody in our government - no one, specific individual - can say with certainty how many flu shots there are, or where they are, or where they might be headed. And the same is true for the billions of dollars that were entailed in President Obama's all-important, so-called "stimulus bill."
.
On a weekend where the U.S. Congress is inching closer and closer to legislating (against the collective will of the American people, I might add) a government-run healthcare system, the flu shot fiasco should provide a vivid illustration of just how inept government is - our U.S . Federal Government specifically in this case, but government, in general, as well - at distributing vital goods and services.
.
Owing to the discovery of "swine flu" here in the U.S. by the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano declared a "Public Health Emergency" during the last week of April. A few days after making her "emergency" declaration, Secretary Napolitano, in a seeming contradiction, stated in a press conference on May 4th that the "swine flu" is actually no more dangerous than "the regular flu."
.
Then in July, federal health officials stepped-up the "emergency" rhetoric again by announcing that 160 million doses of a swine flu vaccination would be available by the end of October. On October 7th, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius assured Americans that the vaccination is "safe and secure" and admonished all Americans to get a shot. And on October 25th, President Obama himself declared, not a "Public Health Emergency," but this time a "National Emergency" over the swine flu.
.
Yet by October's end, the promised 160 million doses of swine flu vaccination had only amounted to 30 million known vaccinations in the U.S., prompting Senior Obama Adviser David Axelrod to declare on national television that "we overpromised." This, of course, prompted Secretary Sebelius to jump back in to action, so she penned an op-ed for the Nashville Tennessean newspaper assuring readers that, as a mother, she herself "understands the frustration and anxiety that parents feel" when they can't get a vaccination, and declared that "without question, we need significant improvements in vaccine production..."
.
Depending on whose count you accept, somewhere between two and four thousand Americans have died from the flu this year. That's more than the number of lives lost in the carnage of Hurricane Katrina. Yet in both scenarios, our U.S. Federal Government has demonstrated an incredible inability to respond to the needs of the American people - even, as in the case of the swine flu vaccinations, when it has made explicit promises to do so.
.
President Obama's so-called "economic stimulus bill" highlights this incompetence as well. Minutes after Vice President Biden delivered remarks in Phoenix last Monday about how the numbers of jobs that have allegedly been "created or saved" by the stimulus bill, the Obama Administration was stung with analysis from ABC News revealing that Biden's remarks - and information posted on the Administration's recovery.gov website (a website that cost the Administration $18 million to create) - were false. Both were reporting alleged "jobs" in congressional districts that don't exist, and the website was even listing "stimulus success stories" from congressional districts in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands - two U.S. territories that don't have any congressional districts at all. And as of today, roughly nine months after the passage of the bill, the national unemployment rate is even higher than President Obama predicted it would be had the Congress NOT passed his bill.
.
So where is the "stimulus" money? What happened to that crucial $787 billion that President Obama had to spend, to "get the economy rolling again?" We are told that only a portion of the money has been spent thus far, yet the Obama Administration has taken legal steps to prevent Obama's "recovery czars" from being questioned about the money by Congress.
.
Recklessness and incompetence of this magnitude, with such enormous amounts of other people's money, would be grounds for immediate termination among private sector executives and managers. And the problem doesn't begin and end with Democrats: recall that the $700 million "TARP" program was created by Republican President George W Bush last year, and Bush himself was the first to violate the intended purposes of the program by handing-over nearly $14 billion in loans to Chrysler and G.M. (Obama continued doing this after he took office, until the two companies met their inevitable fate of bankruptcy).
.
Government does NOT exercise wise stewardship over economic and material resources. It's sad that each new generation has to re-learn this basic truth, but Americans are in a painful process of re-learning it again right now. And the managers overseeing these resources - the President, and the Congressional leadership - deserved to be fired for failing to uphold their most basic fiduciary responsibilities.
.
.
Remember this the next time you go to vote.
.
.
Email: Austin Hill
.
.
.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Pray To Save The Nation!
.
.
Pray For Obama
Psalm 109 :8*
.
.
..
*May his days be few,
may another take his place.
.
.
.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WqtchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Austin Hill: Obama Has A "Boundaries" Problem
Obama Has A "Boundaries" Problem
by Austin Hill
Does President Obama have “boundary” problems?
That’s a fair question, because of his apparent unwillingness – or perhaps it’s an inability – to confront the deadly threat posed by many self-described Muslims.
I say “many self-described Muslims,” because I’m not interested in debating who is a “real Muslim,” or whether or not “all Muslims” pose threats to civilized society. I simply want to pinpoint a serious problem facing our President, and our nation, and in so doing I am taking people at their word. There are self-described Muslims in our midst who want to destroy America, and the President should not pretend otherwise.
President George W. Bush repeatedly asserted that Muslims are “peace-loving” people, and President Obama has made this idea a central theme of his presidency. Yet Bush was also willing to confront what he called a “radical ideology with an unalterable objective, to enslave whole nations and intimidate the whole world” (those were Bush’s words, not mine), and it just so happens that this “radical ideology” emanates from people who identify themselves as Muslims. Call it “militant Islam,” call it “Islamo-fascism,” call it what you will – it is dangerous and deadly. And thus far, President Obama seems committed to ignoring it.
Borrowing a popular metaphor from the realm of family psychology, I have previously noted that Obama is ignoring the “elephant in the living room” – the obvious problem that is out in the open and that everybody can see, but nobody wants to acknowledge. Yet there may be more wisdom to glean from the world of psychology that can illuminate Obama’s dilemma, and this, in turn, may help enlighten us all.
But what does this have to do with “boundaries?” Well, “Boundaries: When To Say Yes, When To Say No, To Take Control Of Your Life,” is a wildly successful “self-help” book authored by Southern California-based Clinical Psychologists Dr. John Townsend and Dr. Henry Cloud. Originally published in 1992, it has been translated into multiple languages, and sold in excess of a million copies, and I suspect it might offer some insight for our President.
Drawing from the concept of boundaries within the physical world – “property lines” as the Doctor’s refer to – Townsend and Cloud explain how this concept applies to a proper understanding of the human individual: “Boundaries define us” the Doctors write. “They define what is me, and what is not me. A Boundary shows me where I end, and where someone else begins, leading me to a sense of ownership…”
As Townsend and Cloud explain it, a proper understanding of one’s self, which necessarily requires a proper grasp of one’s personal “boundaries,” leads one to take responsibility for things that lie within one’s boundaries. My talents, my problems, my relationships, my feelings, my needs – these are all things that belong to me, and, thus, are all things that I must take responsibility for. Additionally, the Doctors explain that while individuals must be responsible for themselves, they must also be responsible to others with whom they are in relationships. And if people do not assume responsibility in these sorts of ways – or if people make the mistake of trying to take responsibility for things that do not lie within their boundaries - then, according to Townsend and Cloud, things can get severely out of whack.
So, beyond the fun and enjoyment of engaging in a bit of psychobabble, what does any of this have to do with our current President? Well, if we can apply the “boundaries” concept to the office that Barack Obama currently occupies, then we can say that Obama has responsibilities to the people of the United States of America. Whether or not he likes our nation and its heritage, his task is to defend America and its interests. And the interests of the entire world do not lie within Obama’s boundaries – in fact, sometimes the interests of the world are in conflict with the American interests that he must uphold.
Similarly, President Obama is not responsible for the entire Muslim world. He has spent considerable time and effort (and political capital) assuring the Muslim world that Americans are not their enemies, reiterating that American values and Muslim values are compatible, and treating Muslim terror suspects more nicely than his predecessor. Yet he is not deity, and he cannot simply speak things into existence. Similarly, it is not his job to convince the Muslim world to like us. His priority must be to fulfill his responsibilities to the United States, and to ensure that our collective national “boundaries” aren’t violated, and that our nation doesn’t get incinerated.
It’s interesting that the Psychologists Townsend and Cloud use an economic principle - the principle of private property ownership - to metaphorically illustrate a very basic and essential principle of human development. And for a President whose economic policies reflect a flagrant disrespect for private property rights, this concept of “personal boundaries” may seem foreign to Barack Obama.
But how much longer can America afford to wait, while President Obama figures out where his boundaries are?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
.
by Austin Hill
Does President Obama have “boundary” problems?
That’s a fair question, because of his apparent unwillingness – or perhaps it’s an inability – to confront the deadly threat posed by many self-described Muslims.
I say “many self-described Muslims,” because I’m not interested in debating who is a “real Muslim,” or whether or not “all Muslims” pose threats to civilized society. I simply want to pinpoint a serious problem facing our President, and our nation, and in so doing I am taking people at their word. There are self-described Muslims in our midst who want to destroy America, and the President should not pretend otherwise.
President George W. Bush repeatedly asserted that Muslims are “peace-loving” people, and President Obama has made this idea a central theme of his presidency. Yet Bush was also willing to confront what he called a “radical ideology with an unalterable objective, to enslave whole nations and intimidate the whole world” (those were Bush’s words, not mine), and it just so happens that this “radical ideology” emanates from people who identify themselves as Muslims. Call it “militant Islam,” call it “Islamo-fascism,” call it what you will – it is dangerous and deadly. And thus far, President Obama seems committed to ignoring it.
Borrowing a popular metaphor from the realm of family psychology, I have previously noted that Obama is ignoring the “elephant in the living room” – the obvious problem that is out in the open and that everybody can see, but nobody wants to acknowledge. Yet there may be more wisdom to glean from the world of psychology that can illuminate Obama’s dilemma, and this, in turn, may help enlighten us all.
But what does this have to do with “boundaries?” Well, “Boundaries: When To Say Yes, When To Say No, To Take Control Of Your Life,” is a wildly successful “self-help” book authored by Southern California-based Clinical Psychologists Dr. John Townsend and Dr. Henry Cloud. Originally published in 1992, it has been translated into multiple languages, and sold in excess of a million copies, and I suspect it might offer some insight for our President.
Drawing from the concept of boundaries within the physical world – “property lines” as the Doctor’s refer to – Townsend and Cloud explain how this concept applies to a proper understanding of the human individual: “Boundaries define us” the Doctors write. “They define what is me, and what is not me. A Boundary shows me where I end, and where someone else begins, leading me to a sense of ownership…”
As Townsend and Cloud explain it, a proper understanding of one’s self, which necessarily requires a proper grasp of one’s personal “boundaries,” leads one to take responsibility for things that lie within one’s boundaries. My talents, my problems, my relationships, my feelings, my needs – these are all things that belong to me, and, thus, are all things that I must take responsibility for. Additionally, the Doctors explain that while individuals must be responsible for themselves, they must also be responsible to others with whom they are in relationships. And if people do not assume responsibility in these sorts of ways – or if people make the mistake of trying to take responsibility for things that do not lie within their boundaries - then, according to Townsend and Cloud, things can get severely out of whack.
So, beyond the fun and enjoyment of engaging in a bit of psychobabble, what does any of this have to do with our current President? Well, if we can apply the “boundaries” concept to the office that Barack Obama currently occupies, then we can say that Obama has responsibilities to the people of the United States of America. Whether or not he likes our nation and its heritage, his task is to defend America and its interests. And the interests of the entire world do not lie within Obama’s boundaries – in fact, sometimes the interests of the world are in conflict with the American interests that he must uphold.
Similarly, President Obama is not responsible for the entire Muslim world. He has spent considerable time and effort (and political capital) assuring the Muslim world that Americans are not their enemies, reiterating that American values and Muslim values are compatible, and treating Muslim terror suspects more nicely than his predecessor. Yet he is not deity, and he cannot simply speak things into existence. Similarly, it is not his job to convince the Muslim world to like us. His priority must be to fulfill his responsibilities to the United States, and to ensure that our collective national “boundaries” aren’t violated, and that our nation doesn’t get incinerated.
It’s interesting that the Psychologists Townsend and Cloud use an economic principle - the principle of private property ownership - to metaphorically illustrate a very basic and essential principle of human development. And for a President whose economic policies reflect a flagrant disrespect for private property rights, this concept of “personal boundaries” may seem foreign to Barack Obama.
But how much longer can America afford to wait, while President Obama figures out where his boundaries are?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
We Honor All That Have Served, The Veteran's
Generations of Valor
Marilyn Ferguson
Of all the lessons in this life
We must remember this
The many men who gave their lives
When war had gone amiss.
.
A bright young soldier far from home
Tried to find his way
A lanky lad so strong and brave
Gave up his life today.
.
A young recruit in army gear
.
A young recruit in army gear
Sent out across the sea
Took a bullet to the chest
Died for you and me.
.
Air Force fighter in the sky
Smoke was all around
Frightened voice cried out for help
Before they shot him down.
.
Navy sailor dressed in blue
.
Navy sailor dressed in blue
Rides upon the sea
Missile launched, ship went down
Perished in the sea.
.
Other soldiers, Semper Fi
Came home in distress
Legs were severed, vision gone
Their lives were such a mess.
.
Many soldiers fought and died
.
Many soldiers fought and died
Upon a distant shore
The men who marched on foreign soil
Are heroes of the war.
.
The nightmares of the ones who live
Can never be erased
In bed at night, they toss and turn
Memories are encased.
.
Untarnished by the hands of time
The years blend into one
Two soldiers join together
A father and a son.
.
Their kindred hearts are tightly knit
They share and reminisce
United in a bond of love
When war had gone amiss.
.
.
.
.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Austin Hill: "Tolerance" And The "Other" American Muslin Tragity
"Tolerance," And The "Other" American Muslim Tragedy
by Austin Hill
“... America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings...”
Those remarks were uttered by President Barack Obama on June 4th of this year. And I wish I could believe that they were accurate.
by Austin Hill
“... America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings...”
Those remarks were uttered by President Barack Obama on June 4th of this year. And I wish I could believe that they were accurate.
Obama was, of course, speaking at Cairo University, and making good on his campaign promise of “delivering a speech from the capitol of a Muslim nation.”
Yet, despite the immense power of Obama’s oratory skills (and his incredible confidence in his skills), he nonetheless appears to be merely human, and does not seem to possess the supernatural ability to “speak things into existence.”
Thus, Obama simply declaring that America and Islam “overlap,” and that Muslims and Americans share “common principles of justice and progress,” does not guarantee that this “sharing” and “overlapping” actually occur.
By now, the horrific profile of Army Major Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is widely known. And despite President Obama insisting that we must not “jump to conclusions” about this American Muslim man, the picture is still horrifying: an American soldier who openly disagreed with the policies of two American Presidents (the “Hawk” George W. Bush and the “Dove” Barack Obama), who complained about deployments, and made “outlandish statements” against his nation and its government, was nonetheless allowed to rise through the ranks of the U.S. Army.
The obvious question – the “elephant in the living room,” to use a term from the world of family psychology – is “why was this kind of behavior tolerated and apparently overlooked?” And the only obvious answer, at least at this point, is simply “because he is a Muslim.”
Our government and our President will make their “conclusions” when they make them. The rest of us who are private citizens and who want our unique American style of human freedom to continue, must begin communicating clearly, and honestly, about the Islamic problem in our midst. And that means getting beyond the “kid glove” approach we typically utilize in speaking about minority groups, and being willing to speak the truth about Muslims – even if that results in “hurt feelings” for some, or cries of "intolerance" from others.
The unwillingness (or perhaps it’s a matter of inability) to speak the truth on these matters is often painfully apparent in both local and national media. Several days before Major Hasan became a mass murderer, a series of misconstrued, soft-pedaled press conferences and news reports unfolded in Phoenix, Arizona about a man who murdered his own daughter by running over her with his Jeep suv.
Faleh Hassan Almaleki, an immigrant from Iraq living in the Phoenix suburb of Peoria, had become angry about his 20 year old daughter Noor Almaleki. Noor had set-up accounts for herself on Myspace.com and Facebook.com, had posted “alluring” photos of herself on a webpage for aspiring actresses and models, and was living with her boyfriend and her boyfriend’s mom. This all meant that Noor had become “too westernized” for the tastes of her Muslim father, so Faleh Hassan Almaleki ran over his daughter (along with the boyfriend’s mom) as a means of committing an “honor killing.”
Before dying, Noor was hospitalized and remained in a coma for several days. And just like the Muslim men we have seen on video recordings who hide their identities with masks when beheading “infidels,” Faleh Hassan Almaleki sought to “hide” by fleeing the country after he ran over his daughter.
Immediately after the incident, the Peoria police department briefed the local media. And in what seemed to be an overarching attempt to avoid saying anything that may have cast the Muslim father in a bad light, it was explained that the motive for the crime appeared to have centered on the fact that the daughter was living in such a way that she was inconsistent with “her family’s values.” Shortly thereafter, the statewide Arizona Republic newspaper published a report entitled “Lifestyle May Have Put Woman In Hospital.”
A 20 year-old woman in Arizona who was in pursuit of a job, a college degree, and a husband of her own choosing was murdered by her own dad. Yet, law enforcement and media professionals, perhaps in an attempt to express “tolerance” or to show respect for the “diversity” of Islam, were suggesting that Noor’s choices and “lifestyle” were to blame for her death.
Generally speaking, American non-Muslim fathers don’t run over their children with their cars and call it “honorable.” And American non-Muslim military personnel don’t intentionally kill their fellow soldiers. There is a pattern of very dangerous, deadly behavior with Muslims in America and around the world.
.
Americans must awaken to this reality, whether or not our President does.
Americans must awaken to this reality, whether or not our President does.
.
.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
