Blog Smith is inspired by the myth of Hephaestus in the creation of blacksmith-like, forged materials: ideas. This blog analyzes topics that interest me: IT, politics, technology, history, education, music, and the history of religions.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Monday, December 26, 2011
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters: ‘TEA PARTY CAN GO STRAIGHT TO HELL'
“I’m not afraid of anybody,” Waters told the crowd. “This is a tough game. You can’t be intimidated. You can’t be frightened. As far as I’m concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell.”
08.16.11: Rep. Maxine Waters
REP. WATERS TO BLACK VOTERS: WE DON‘T CRITICIZE OBAMA BECAUSE YOU ’LOVE’ HIM
‘THE 12 DAYS OF CHRISTMAS’ (THE OBAMA VERSION) & OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CHRISTMAS PARODIES
12 Day of Obummer Christmas
A Barack Obama Christmas Carol
Socialism’s Coming to Town
The Obama Christmas Carol
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Lesson on Your Social Security Card History
Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary, now it is no longer voluntary.
2) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program, now it is 7.65% on the first $90,000.
3) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year, now it is no longer tax deductible
4) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, under Johnson the money was moved to the General Fund and spent.
5) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be taxed.
Since many of have paid into FICA for years and are receiving a Social Security check every month--and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away'--you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Illegal immigrants moved to this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments. The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it.
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away.
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
Friday, December 23, 2011
America as an Islamist Colony
"Contrary to the conventional wisdom, it is the Middle East where the institution of empire not only originated (for example, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Iran, and so on), but where its spirit has also outlived its European counterpart. . . . The birth of Islam, by contrast [to Christianity], was inextricably linked with the creation of a world empire and its universalism was inherently imperialist. It did not distinguish between temporal and religious powers, which were combined in the person of Muhammed, who derived his authority directly from Allah and acted at one and the same time as head of the state and head of the church. This allowed the prophet to cloak his political ambitions with a religious aura and to channel Islam's energies into `its instrument of aggressive expansion, there [being] no internal organism of equal force to counterbalance it'" (pp. 2, 6, Islamic Imperialism: A History, Efraim Karsh, Yale University Press [2007]).
Islam is not about conversion; Islam means submission.
How do Islamists view America?
August 4, 2011
"It should be us, with our understanding of Islam, our principles, colonizing the United States of America." Tariq Ramadan
Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Hasan al-Banna, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood, spoke in Texas. Ramadan is a Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies in the Faculty of Oriental Studies at Oxford University. An online poll provided by the American Foreign Policy magazine in 2009 placed Ramadan on the 49th spot in a list of the world's top 100 contemporary intellectuals.
According to Ramadan, who is arguably the most articulate Islamist spokesperson, America is a colony for Islam; in American history, the colonists rejected Britain's claims to determine their financial and personal affairs.
Today, specifically 21 June 2011, Islamist colonies are forming in America. For example, note the following article in the NYTimes:
Shariah Compliant: Major D.C. Complex Won't Lease to Banks, Bars
"But as it happened, their [the developers] hesitancy on bank branches meshed with the policies of their financial partners, who adhere to the restrictions of Shariah, or Islamic law, including the ban on collecting interest."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/realestate/commercial/washingtons-citycenterdc-project-is-finally-under-way.html?_r=4&scp=7&sq=citycenter&st=cse
These Sharia zones and colonizing moves are to be expected, given the fact that much like the “Communist Goals for U.S.A. Takeover” that were written on January 10, 1963, the Muslim Brotherhood also developed their own strategic goals or Master Plan in 1991 for their cultural invasion of the United States and their intention to turn the U.S. into a Muslim nation.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/20.pdf
After reading the document, you may conclude that the Communist Goals and then these goals developed by the Muslim Brotherhood, share many similarities. The reason for that is explained in the 17th Muslim Project tactic, "Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” [i.e., Left-wing or Liberal] organizations that share similar goals."
Left-Islamist Alliance
A Left-Islamist alliance is firmly in place. Today in the White House there are three members of the Muslim Brotherhood that influence Obama's policies.
Rashad Hussain
Hussain, is a lawyer and the U.S. Special Envoy to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC). In February 2010, Cal Thomas asked Who is Rashad Hussain? He stated that Hussain’s appointment to the OIC “should be of serious concern to Congress and the American public.”
According to Front Page magazine, there are troubling ties about Hussain.
The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report examined Envoy Hussain's history of engagement with the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood; e.g., he called the Al-Arian Case “Politically Motivated Persecution.” According to the Daily Report there are in Hussain's official biography several alarming affiliations.
"The first is that in October 2000, Hussain spoke at a conference sponsored by the Association of Muslim Social Scientists, which was listed in an internal Muslim Brotherhood document as one of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends,” and the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding of Georgetown University, which receives Saudi funding and is directed by prominent Muslim Brotherhood," and Roman Catholic professor, John Esposito.
In 2003, Hussain was a fellow at the Paul and Daisy Soros Foundation. Paul Soros is billionaire “philanthropist” George Soros’ brother. Additionally, in the FrontPage article about troubling ties noted above, Hussain “played a role” in the Muslim Students Association’s annual conference back in 2004. This group, too, was connected to the Muslim Brotherhood (in fact, it was founded by the Brotherhood) in 1963.
It was at this conference that Hussain spoke with the daughter of Professor Sami Al-Arian. Al-Arian was convicted of being a leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad; he later admitted to being a Muslim Brotherhood member as well. At the event, Hussain defended Al-Arian and claimed that his legal ordeal was essentially “politically-motivated persecution.”
In addition, Hussein has been active in Muslim Brotherhood circles. In May 2009, Hussein also spoke at a conference which was allegedly sponsored by Islamic Brotherhood affiliates. Thomas writes, “it is unsettling to see someone with Hussain’s background representing the United States to nations that may harbor or fund terrorists and want to destroy Israel and America.”
Dalia Mogahed
Mogahed is the Senior Analyst and Executive Director at the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies.
In 2009, Obama nominated Mogahed to sit on his Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. According to DiscovertheNetworks.org, she co-authored the book “Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think” with the dhimmi apologist Esposito. Here, though, is where much of the controversy surrounding her stems from:
In early October 2009, Mogahed was interviewed on a British television program hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party, which seeks to facilitate the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of a worldwide Islamic state governed by Sharia law. Bsis and another guest (also a member of Hizb ut Tahrir) stated that Sharia should be “the source of legislation” for all nations in the world; they also repeatedly condemned the “man-made law” and the “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism” that existed in Western societies. Mogahed did not dispute any of their assertions.
Critics were upset over Mogahed's refusal to take a stand against these claims. But, even more bizarre was her discussion during the interview of the West's take on Sharia law (and her defense of it). DiscovertheNetworks.org notes:
Instead, Mogahed stated that the Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified,“ and that the majority of Muslim women around the world associate Islamic Law with ”gender justice.“ ”I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of Sharia than the common perception in Western media,” she said.
Who Speaks for Islam--What Do a Billion Muslims Really Think?
Levantine Cultural Center and OneNation present an evening with Dalia Mogahed, co-author of the Gallup book "Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think," and Obama appointee on Muslim affairs. She is joined by "24" showrunner/writer Howard Gordon in a conversation moderated by KPFK radio host Dr. Nile El Wardani.
In early 2010, Tablet Magazine called Mogahed, “The most important person shaping the Obama Administration’s Middle East message.” In the article, concern over her potential inability to distinguish between radicals and moderates is cited. The Investigative Project on Journalism has documented Mogahed's comments as well, claiming that she has been a staunch defender of both the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).
She has claimed that it would not be fair be unfair to see these groups become “disenfranchised” because of “misinformation” that is perpetuated. She has been quoted claiming that "there is a concerted effort to silence, you know, institution building among Muslims. And the way to do it is [to] malign these groups. And it's kind of a witch hunt."
These individuals appear sympathetic to the causes and goals that Islamism embraces. Earlier this year, Robert Spencer reiterated the Obama administration's connections with the Muslim Brotherhood:
Obama first reached out to the Brotherhood when he chose the leader of a Muslim Brotherhood-linked group that had been named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case to give a prayer during his inauguration ceremonies. Ingrid Mattson, then-president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), offered this prayer at the National Cathedral on Obama's Inauguration Day--despite the fact that the ISNA has admitted its ties to the Brotherhood.
Obama didn't ask Mattson to explain the ISNA's links to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. On the contrary: He sent his senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett, to be the keynote speaker at the ISNA’s national convention in 2009.
A third appointee, Azizah al-Hibri, was appointed in June 2011. Al-Hibri is an Obama appointee and has participated in a seminar sponsored by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), which the Muslim Brotherhood says is a "like minded" organization.]
The Three Views of Islam
There are three points of view relative to Islam. The point of view depends upon how you think about Momammed. If you believe Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, then you are a believer. If you don't, you are a non-believer. The third viewpoint is that of an apologist for Islam. Apologists do not believe that Mohammed was a prophet, but they are tolerant about Islam without any actual knowledge of Islam.
First Amendment
Islam is a religion and Muslims have Freedom of Religion under our First Amendment. To deny any of Islam's religious demands is unconstitutional, so we must do whatever they ask, if it is religious.
As a point of contrast, throughout American history, both Jews and Catholics assimilated into American culture by restricting their religious requirements within their own communities. For example, eating kosher and educating children, ideas that could have a political component to them if inflicted upon the American people as a whole, were confined within their own communities, eating kosher within the Jewish community and as a family unit, or educating their children within parochial schools respectively for the Catholics.
But often "religious" demands by Islamists have a political component which restricts the liberties enjoyed by the Kafir (Arabic for "concealer," one who conceals the truth of Islam: cf. Bukhari 1,7,331). Islam demands that the state serve its every need. This demand is the requirement for political submission by Kafir governments.
Kafirs must learn the difference between religion and politics. The demand for Sharia compliance and law calls for us to take political action. The Sharia demands may be religious, but it requires a political action and support of the state to happen.
We should all react to Islamism's political demands with a political response.
Making It Easy and Necessity
Kafirs do not have to accommodate Islam's demands.
The Sharia has two principles that provide guidance in the situation when Muslims cannot practice their pure Islam under Sharia. The technical name is tayseer, meaning "lightening one's burden" or "making it easy" (Koran 4:28).
When the circumstances are difficult and Sharia law is not in force, a Muslim's burden is lightened. This leads to the concept of darura, necessity.
If it is necessary, what is forbidden is permitted. If a Muslim is hungry and there is no halal (Sharia compliant) food, then he can eat any food. If a Muslim is where they cannot pray, then the prayer can do done later. If Sharia law has not been implemented, then a Muslim may handle pork, for example, with no consequences.
In short, according to the Koran, if Muslim demands are not met, there is no harm to their religious practice.
Article 6
Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution states that the Constitution is the highest law of the land and cannot be subjugated to any other legal code. The fundamental claim of Sharia is that it is the highest law in the world and that all other legal codes must submit to Islamic law. There is a massive contradiction that is being ignored as Sharia law is being implemented under the guise of Freedom of Religion.
As a Constitutional matter, no aspect of Sharia should be allowed.
Islam is not about conversion; Islam means submission.
How do Islamists view America?
August 4, 2011
"It should be us, with our understanding of Islam, our principles, colonizing the United States of America." Tariq Ramadan
Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Hasan al-Banna, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood, spoke in Texas. Ramadan is a Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies in the Faculty of Oriental Studies at Oxford University. An online poll provided by the American Foreign Policy magazine in 2009 placed Ramadan on the 49th spot in a list of the world's top 100 contemporary intellectuals.
According to Ramadan, who is arguably the most articulate Islamist spokesperson, America is a colony for Islam; in American history, the colonists rejected Britain's claims to determine their financial and personal affairs.
Today, specifically 21 June 2011, Islamist colonies are forming in America. For example, note the following article in the NYTimes:
Shariah Compliant: Major D.C. Complex Won't Lease to Banks, Bars
"But as it happened, their [the developers] hesitancy on bank branches meshed with the policies of their financial partners, who adhere to the restrictions of Shariah, or Islamic law, including the ban on collecting interest."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/realestate/commercial/washingtons-citycenterdc-project-is-finally-under-way.html?_r=4&scp=7&sq=citycenter&st=cse
These Sharia zones and colonizing moves are to be expected, given the fact that much like the “Communist Goals for U.S.A. Takeover” that were written on January 10, 1963, the Muslim Brotherhood also developed their own strategic goals or Master Plan in 1991 for their cultural invasion of the United States and their intention to turn the U.S. into a Muslim nation.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/20.pdf
After reading the document, you may conclude that the Communist Goals and then these goals developed by the Muslim Brotherhood, share many similarities. The reason for that is explained in the 17th Muslim Project tactic, "Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” [i.e., Left-wing or Liberal] organizations that share similar goals."
Left-Islamist Alliance
A Left-Islamist alliance is firmly in place. Today in the White House there are three members of the Muslim Brotherhood that influence Obama's policies.
Rashad Hussain
Hussain, is a lawyer and the U.S. Special Envoy to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC). In February 2010, Cal Thomas asked Who is Rashad Hussain? He stated that Hussain’s appointment to the OIC “should be of serious concern to Congress and the American public.”
According to Front Page magazine, there are troubling ties about Hussain.
The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report examined Envoy Hussain's history of engagement with the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood; e.g., he called the Al-Arian Case “Politically Motivated Persecution.” According to the Daily Report there are in Hussain's official biography several alarming affiliations.
"The first is that in October 2000, Hussain spoke at a conference sponsored by the Association of Muslim Social Scientists, which was listed in an internal Muslim Brotherhood document as one of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends,” and the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding of Georgetown University, which receives Saudi funding and is directed by prominent Muslim Brotherhood," and Roman Catholic professor, John Esposito.
In 2003, Hussain was a fellow at the Paul and Daisy Soros Foundation. Paul Soros is billionaire “philanthropist” George Soros’ brother. Additionally, in the FrontPage article about troubling ties noted above, Hussain “played a role” in the Muslim Students Association’s annual conference back in 2004. This group, too, was connected to the Muslim Brotherhood (in fact, it was founded by the Brotherhood) in 1963.
It was at this conference that Hussain spoke with the daughter of Professor Sami Al-Arian. Al-Arian was convicted of being a leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad; he later admitted to being a Muslim Brotherhood member as well. At the event, Hussain defended Al-Arian and claimed that his legal ordeal was essentially “politically-motivated persecution.”
In addition, Hussein has been active in Muslim Brotherhood circles. In May 2009, Hussein also spoke at a conference which was allegedly sponsored by Islamic Brotherhood affiliates. Thomas writes, “it is unsettling to see someone with Hussain’s background representing the United States to nations that may harbor or fund terrorists and want to destroy Israel and America.”
Dalia Mogahed
Mogahed is the Senior Analyst and Executive Director at the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies.
In 2009, Obama nominated Mogahed to sit on his Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. According to DiscovertheNetworks.org, she co-authored the book “Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think” with the dhimmi apologist Esposito. Here, though, is where much of the controversy surrounding her stems from:
In early October 2009, Mogahed was interviewed on a British television program hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party, which seeks to facilitate the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of a worldwide Islamic state governed by Sharia law. Bsis and another guest (also a member of Hizb ut Tahrir) stated that Sharia should be “the source of legislation” for all nations in the world; they also repeatedly condemned the “man-made law” and the “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism” that existed in Western societies. Mogahed did not dispute any of their assertions.
Critics were upset over Mogahed's refusal to take a stand against these claims. But, even more bizarre was her discussion during the interview of the West's take on Sharia law (and her defense of it). DiscovertheNetworks.org notes:
Instead, Mogahed stated that the Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified,“ and that the majority of Muslim women around the world associate Islamic Law with ”gender justice.“ ”I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of Sharia than the common perception in Western media,” she said.
Who Speaks for Islam--What Do a Billion Muslims Really Think?
Levantine Cultural Center and OneNation present an evening with Dalia Mogahed, co-author of the Gallup book "Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think," and Obama appointee on Muslim affairs. She is joined by "24" showrunner/writer Howard Gordon in a conversation moderated by KPFK radio host Dr. Nile El Wardani.
In early 2010, Tablet Magazine called Mogahed, “The most important person shaping the Obama Administration’s Middle East message.” In the article, concern over her potential inability to distinguish between radicals and moderates is cited. The Investigative Project on Journalism has documented Mogahed's comments as well, claiming that she has been a staunch defender of both the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).
She has claimed that it would not be fair be unfair to see these groups become “disenfranchised” because of “misinformation” that is perpetuated. She has been quoted claiming that "there is a concerted effort to silence, you know, institution building among Muslims. And the way to do it is [to] malign these groups. And it's kind of a witch hunt."
These individuals appear sympathetic to the causes and goals that Islamism embraces. Earlier this year, Robert Spencer reiterated the Obama administration's connections with the Muslim Brotherhood:
Obama first reached out to the Brotherhood when he chose the leader of a Muslim Brotherhood-linked group that had been named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case to give a prayer during his inauguration ceremonies. Ingrid Mattson, then-president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), offered this prayer at the National Cathedral on Obama's Inauguration Day--despite the fact that the ISNA has admitted its ties to the Brotherhood.
Obama didn't ask Mattson to explain the ISNA's links to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. On the contrary: He sent his senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett, to be the keynote speaker at the ISNA’s national convention in 2009.
A third appointee, Azizah al-Hibri, was appointed in June 2011. Al-Hibri is an Obama appointee and has participated in a seminar sponsored by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), which the Muslim Brotherhood says is a "like minded" organization.]
The Three Views of Islam
There are three points of view relative to Islam. The point of view depends upon how you think about Momammed. If you believe Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, then you are a believer. If you don't, you are a non-believer. The third viewpoint is that of an apologist for Islam. Apologists do not believe that Mohammed was a prophet, but they are tolerant about Islam without any actual knowledge of Islam.
First Amendment
Islam is a religion and Muslims have Freedom of Religion under our First Amendment. To deny any of Islam's religious demands is unconstitutional, so we must do whatever they ask, if it is religious.
As a point of contrast, throughout American history, both Jews and Catholics assimilated into American culture by restricting their religious requirements within their own communities. For example, eating kosher and educating children, ideas that could have a political component to them if inflicted upon the American people as a whole, were confined within their own communities, eating kosher within the Jewish community and as a family unit, or educating their children within parochial schools respectively for the Catholics.
But often "religious" demands by Islamists have a political component which restricts the liberties enjoyed by the Kafir (Arabic for "concealer," one who conceals the truth of Islam: cf. Bukhari 1,7,331). Islam demands that the state serve its every need. This demand is the requirement for political submission by Kafir governments.
Kafirs must learn the difference between religion and politics. The demand for Sharia compliance and law calls for us to take political action. The Sharia demands may be religious, but it requires a political action and support of the state to happen.
We should all react to Islamism's political demands with a political response.
Making It Easy and Necessity
Kafirs do not have to accommodate Islam's demands.
The Sharia has two principles that provide guidance in the situation when Muslims cannot practice their pure Islam under Sharia. The technical name is tayseer, meaning "lightening one's burden" or "making it easy" (Koran 4:28).
When the circumstances are difficult and Sharia law is not in force, a Muslim's burden is lightened. This leads to the concept of darura, necessity.
If it is necessary, what is forbidden is permitted. If a Muslim is hungry and there is no halal (Sharia compliant) food, then he can eat any food. If a Muslim is where they cannot pray, then the prayer can do done later. If Sharia law has not been implemented, then a Muslim may handle pork, for example, with no consequences.
In short, according to the Koran, if Muslim demands are not met, there is no harm to their religious practice.
Article 6
Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution states that the Constitution is the highest law of the land and cannot be subjugated to any other legal code. The fundamental claim of Sharia is that it is the highest law in the world and that all other legal codes must submit to Islamic law. There is a massive contradiction that is being ignored as Sharia law is being implemented under the guise of Freedom of Religion.
As a Constitutional matter, no aspect of Sharia should be allowed.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
AIM takes up a collection for the poor at…Occupy D.C.
AIM takes up a collection for the poor at…Occupy D.C.
WATCH GAZA TERRORIST REACT TO VIDEO OF HER FAILED SUICIDE BOMBING ATTEMPT TO KILL ISRAELIS
WATCH GAZA TERRORIST REACT TO VIDEO OF HER FAILED SUICIDE BOMBING ATTEMPT TO KILL ISRAELIS
The President Can Kill You or Jail You Indefinitely on His Own Discretion: Prof. Jonathan Turley
Jonathan Turley, Law Professor of George Washington University, answers a caller from South Carolina.
That patriot, a self described Democrat, begins speaking at the 14:12 mark. I suggest sliding there to hear his comments, if not the entire video. Then, at 15:44 Turley responds:
It’s actually worse than them coming into your house. I don’t mean to ruin your day, but President Obama just stated that he is going to maintain a policy that he can have any American Citizen killed, without any charge, without any review except his own.
If he’s satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world, including the United States. Two of his aides were just at a panel a couple of weeks ago and they reaffirmed; they believe American Citizens can be killed on the order of the president anywhere including the United States.
That has left civil libertarians’ heads exploding, because you’ve now got a president who says he can kill you on his own discretion; he can jail you indefinitely on his own discretion, and the response of the American people is one big collective shrug and yawn.
And I don’t think the framers would ever have anticipated that. They truly believed the Citizens would hold their liberties close and that they wouldn’t relax those fingers, but they are.
And now the point that you had made about, the question about privacy and the new generation: we’re not gonna get any help from Congress. Congress has never had a good record on privacy or constitutional issues. But the only positive thing… we’ve had three polls in the last year and they all show the same thing. The America people say that they are more afraid of the government than they are, outside forces like terrorists. So, there’s this disconnect; the majority of Americans are actually very concerned about the lost of rights. But Congress, both Democrats and Republicans can’t move harder against privacy, I mean they, and this part of the cynical calculation. I think President Obama made this calculation early on, that no one would be on the right (sic) of him on terrorism and national security and he has taken the majority of the Democrats with him on that.
That patriot, a self described Democrat, begins speaking at the 14:12 mark. I suggest sliding there to hear his comments, if not the entire video. Then, at 15:44 Turley responds:
It’s actually worse than them coming into your house. I don’t mean to ruin your day, but President Obama just stated that he is going to maintain a policy that he can have any American Citizen killed, without any charge, without any review except his own.
If he’s satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world, including the United States. Two of his aides were just at a panel a couple of weeks ago and they reaffirmed; they believe American Citizens can be killed on the order of the president anywhere including the United States.
That has left civil libertarians’ heads exploding, because you’ve now got a president who says he can kill you on his own discretion; he can jail you indefinitely on his own discretion, and the response of the American people is one big collective shrug and yawn.
And I don’t think the framers would ever have anticipated that. They truly believed the Citizens would hold their liberties close and that they wouldn’t relax those fingers, but they are.
And now the point that you had made about, the question about privacy and the new generation: we’re not gonna get any help from Congress. Congress has never had a good record on privacy or constitutional issues. But the only positive thing… we’ve had three polls in the last year and they all show the same thing. The America people say that they are more afraid of the government than they are, outside forces like terrorists. So, there’s this disconnect; the majority of Americans are actually very concerned about the lost of rights. But Congress, both Democrats and Republicans can’t move harder against privacy, I mean they, and this part of the cynical calculation. I think President Obama made this calculation early on, that no one would be on the right (sic) of him on terrorism and national security and he has taken the majority of the Democrats with him on that.
GM Inflates Chevy Volt Stats With Fleet Sales
December 19, 2011- Mark Modica, an Associate Fellow of the National Legal and Policy Center, discusses GM's apparent goosing of Chevy Volt sales figures. Mark is interviewed by Neil Cavuto on the Fox News Channel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
The original article, which has generated an incredible amount of hits, has mysteriously disappeared: 24 November 2014. http://www.wnd.com...
-
Assessment
-
SherAli Tareen, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at Franklin and Marshall College, was awarded an American Academy of Religion’s 201...
-
This inaugural episode in series 1 (Paul and his communities) uses incidental autobiographical references in Paul’s letters as an avenue int...
-
Londoner
-
Rockefeller, Prager University Rockefeller
-
Why is Modern Art so Bad? 5:49 For two millennia, great artists set the standard for beauty. Now those standards are gone. Modern ar...
FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed/Site Meter
Where From?
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Handy Tools, Links, etc.
Share |
CIO and Strategy & Business magazines
Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science
SD Times: Software Development News
SC Magazine for Security Professionals
Missile Defense
33 Minutes
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.
Recent Comments
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of this blogger. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but not hostile, libelous, or otherwise objectionable statements. Original writing only, please. Thank you.
Blog Smith Headline Animator
National Debt Clock
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
The Religion of Peace
Portrait of Thinking Hero
1844-1900
Check out:
Chicks dig readers.