PASTORS HOLD VIGIL OUTSIDE GROUND ZERO TO PROTEST LACK OF CLERGY AT 9/11 CEREMONY
What this report does not tell us is that of the 186 Muslim arrests almost certainly all of them were Muslims that believed in and adhered to an Islamist ideology. Since this report we have seen upwards of another 28 terror-related arrests of Muslims including the likes of Faisal Shahzad -- the Times Square bomber -- and Pvt. Naser Abdo who was preparing a second attack on Fort Hood who both claimed to be "Muslim soldiers" fighting for the ummah (Muslim nation).
A federal grand jury in North Carolina indicted him and seven other men in 2009 on charges that they conspired to carry out terrorist activities around the world. Two of the men have pleaded guilty, and the trial of four others is set for September 19.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=2348489119776
The original "Alice" by Mott The Hoople
Israel's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Danny Ayalon explains the historical facts relating to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The video explains where the terms "West Bank", "occupied territories" and "67 Borders" originated and how they are incorrectly used and applied. Also follow on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DannyAyalon and http://facebook.com/DannyAyalon
"The comments of Prime Minister Harper should be saluted. He's the first Western leader who has come up with the clarity that has been missing in the last ten years.
Had Prime Minister Harper been the President of the United States we would have won the War on Terror by now. But instead we've got someone in the White House today who's apologizing, and in fact giving the impression that it was the United States that attacked muslims, not vice versa."
. . .
[in response to lawyer Paul Champ]
"These sharia Bolsheviks, these bleeding-heart white liberals are a dime a dozen in Canada, and what they do not understand is that as a muslim I am the first line of defence - the islamists will get me and slit my throat long before Mr. Champ ever comes into the picture. I would gladly exchange my position with his white privilege and then discuss this issue. Let him go to Pakistan."
This is the audio of Ronnie Bryant at a public meeting in Birmingham on July 20, 2011. The recording was made on my iPad just to have a record of correct quotes, so the audio quality is poor since it wasn't intended for broadcast purposes.
“If they want to create jobs, provide health insurance, and increase revenue,” Bryant said in reference to the federal government, “they need to back down on the regulatory burden. It’s like pulling an iron ball with a chain. I’m not saying to make it go away—just the stuff that’s not pertinent or useful.”
Terry Douglas, who owns two mines in Jasper with Bryant, said it costs them about $250,000 per mine in permit fees alone and that paperwork and regulatory inspections are a constant presence (as well as an additional revenue strain). When asked about typical concerns surrounding coal mining—including companies skirting health and safety regulations—Douglas said it “doesn’t make sense” to let safety lapse and risk losing miners to illness or injury when it would only cost more to train new personnel.
“We take care of our equipment and take care of our people,” Douglas said. “The regulations make coal miners out to be criminals; but we’re not outlaws. Coal mining is an art. I have a civil engineering degree; Ronnie has a mining engineering degree. It’s not wildcat whiskey we’re making; this is drinking whiskey we got.”
Bryant pointed to less stringent environmental regulations in countries such as China, saying that the U.S. is falling behind even though it has abundant resources. “But you can’t get to them,” he said, adding that while there are concerns over dwindling wildlife populations, “people are becoming the endangered species.”
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, regional administrator for EPA’s Southeast Region, attended the Birmingham public hearing but could not be reached for comment.
“Nearly every day without fail…men stream to these [mining] operations looking for work in Walker County. They can’t pay their mortgage. They can’t pay their car note. They can’t feed their families. They don’t have health insurance. And as I stand here today, I just…you know…what’s the use? I got a permit to open up an underground coal mine that would employ probably 125 people. They’d be paid wages from $50,000 to $150,000 a year. We would consume probably $50 million to $60 million in consumables a year, putting more men to work. And my only idea today is to go home. What’s the use? I see these guys—I see them with tears in their eyes—looking for work. And if there’s so much opposition to these guys making a living, I feel like there’s no need in me putting out the effort to provide work for them. So…basically what I’ve decided is not to open the mine. I’m just quitting. Thank you.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0AqYH6MSos&feature=player_embedded
How many times can you ask about Iraq (as if Afghanistan and Libya haven't happened)? Immigration "reform," and all the candidates answered how many times that they are against the Dream Act, yet, the Telemundo guy kept asking, "just a follow-up" to promote his view, education, these and other favored leftist causes. Did the commentators realize they were talking to Republicans? How about the dolt who asked, `What does it indicate that the audience clapped when asked about the [severe in Texas] death penalty?' He wants to imply the audience is made up of barbarians; the fact of the matter is that people overwhelmingly favor a severe application of the death penalty, regardless of how anyone else feels about it. Why don't these commentators know that?
The leftist media is promoting Romney and Perry, nominating them as they did last night, front and center. This is for two main reasons; they favor Romney because they see him as `presidential' meaning he has the looks (since Kennedy, Kerry, Obummer, et. al.), a primary leftist criteria during the nomination process. Romney is obviously an empty suit, like Obummer, so the left can deal with him; likewise, the left media likes Perry because then you can have conflict among Republicans, just as Gingrich called them out on.
Then, you place Bachmann, who the left dismisses, on one side, and then Paul, on the other, because he is provocative. These two foils will highlight the imagined conflict between Republicans, the TEA party perspective, and the libertarian, respectively. The others are dismissed completely. Cain can not be taken seriously because the left wing media can not understand an intelligent, articulate African-American business man who belongs to the TEA party. In the leftist perspective, Cain is a throwback to the racists of the past as in Black Like Me by John Howard Griffin. Huntsmann is another empty suit and a progressive Republican, also looking presidential, but he has polled so poorly he is insignificant. Gingrich of course is a committed ideologue and the left does not want to take him seriously, and Sanctorum fits in that category as well. Thus, the further away from the impression the left would like viewers to have, promoted candidate--Romney--and conflict ridden--Perry, you are going to get short shrift. The left does not encourage debate and discussion and it is little wonder that the debaters appeared to have little to offer or anything new.
The silent candidate is the news media itself. The media wants to leave a viewer with the impression that the Republican challengers to the Obummer have nothing interesting to say, offer, or have any solutions to the severe problems facing our country. The media is the critical factor in the presentation of ideas. The debate, if you can call it that, confirms Marshall McLuhan, "The Medium is the Message."
The genuine battle is the difficulty of presenting fairly complex principles and ideas in the medium of television. The ones with ideas and principles are Sanctorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, Paul, and Cain. Respectively, voters will choose between them depending on their inclinations. The more Romney talks the dumber he sounds: he's an Obama clone. Of the principled group, Bachmann is the only credible candidate in terms of electability, although she is going to be Palinized relentlessly in the lamestream media; Paul is certainly a principled individual but his age will work against him, age discrimination is acceptable in the media and too big a factor for him to overcome (progressive Republican McCain suffered the same fate). Paul's primary effort is simply based on his libertarian ideals which attract many people to his cause once they hear him. Note how MSNBC rigged the Post-debate poll results to suppress the popularity and appeal of Paul:
http://hillbuzz.org/2011/09/08/msnbc-rigs-post-debate-poll-results-to-suppress-ron-paul-media-bias/
At this point the primary will be between Bachmann, who will be hounded relentlessly and tarnished repeatedly and so will appear "dirty" and suspect, which, if you think about it, is ironic since she is such a squeaky clean candidate she is almost a Canadian. On the other hand, Republicans will look towards the stealth candidate Perry, who has flip-flopped before on issues dear to those who maintain rightist or conservative principles, introduced an Islamic curriculum in Texas, and could really be suspect; and yet, he will be portrayed in the media as enough of a challenger to Obummer, pitting the Texan Bush-sound alike against the media hero, Obummer. Perry is enough of a compromise that Republicans, progressive and conservative could vote for him; at the same time, progressives could hold their noses and still work with him if he won in 2012.
Its a Bachmann vote if you actually think a dedicated and competent person is worthwhile; its a Perry vote if you figure this is about the best that can be expected out of the Republican party. Perry is going to have the lamestream media promoting him so the media can sell the Bush-like challenger vs. our Anointed One spin.
Jim Gossett with another take on the Obama economic plan.
Share |
CIO and Strategy & Business magazines
Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science
SD Times: Software Development News
SC Magazine for Security Professionals
Government Technology: Solutions for State and Local Government in the Information Age
What's Running is a great tool so that you can see what is running on your desktop.
Process Lasso lets you view your processor and its responsiveness.
Online Armor lets you view your firewall status.
Avast is a terrific scrubber of all virus miscreants.
ClamWin is an effective deterrent for the little nasty things that can crop into your machine.
Ad-Aware is a sound anti-virus tool.
For all your electronic appliance needs research products on this terrific site.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
A tax on toilet paper; I kid you not. According to the sponsor, "the Water Protection and Reinvestment Act will be financed broadly by small fees on such things as . . . products disposed of in waste water." Congress wants to tax what you do in the privacy of your bathroom.