.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

BUSTED: The Obama Pentagon flat-out lied about the SEAL team timeline (ACTUAL DELAY, 52 HOURS)

With all the back-and-forth between Somali time and D.C. time, a lot of people let this slip through the cracks (including me).

The "SEAL pals" email circulated by Rear Admiral Lou Sarosdy (USN ret.) claimed that Obama did not authorize SEAL teams to assist in the rescue of Captain Philips until 36 hours after these resources were requested by the captain on the scene. In their rebuttal campaign last week, anonymous Pentagon sources claimed that the USS Bainbridge did not arrive at the hijacking of the Maersk Alabama until Friday April 10th.

It actually arrived on scene at 4:00 AM on the 9th, local time, which in Washington was 8:00 PM on the 8th. It seems that reporters and editors let the date claim slide on the assumption that the time difference would shift the times the way it would have to shift the times to fit the Pentagon's claim, when it actually shifts them the other way. In fact, the Pentagon just flat-out lied about the Bainbridge's arrival time.

On the other end, the Pentagon used Washington time to make it sound as if Obama's authorization came on Friday, when it actually came at 4:00 AM Saturday morning local time. Thus the actual delay, local time to local time, was 4:00 AM Thursday to 4:00 AM Saturday: 48 hours!

Our "fact checkers" are not checking the facts

Obama's Pentagon rebuttal crew talked to three reporters: Bill Gertz at the Washington Times, Jim Miklaszewski at NBC and Joe Miller at Annenberg's FactCheck.org. Here is Miller's statement of the Obama Pentagon's rebuttal:
Although Phillips was taken hostage on April 8, the Pentagon didn’t actually take charge of the situation until the U.S.S. Bainbridge arrived on the scene on April 10. At that point, Pentagon officials told us, the captain of the Bainbridge requested the resources to resolve the situation. By 8:00 p.m. (Washington time) on April 10, President Obama had authorized the redeployment of a SEAL team from Kenya to the Bainbridge. Pentagon officials told us that the request worked its way up and back down the chain of command in a few hours, not a day-and-a-half, as the e-mail states.
Thanks are due to Mr. Miller for pinning down the time of the first SEAL-team authorization. Other sources offer redundant documentation of the Bainbridge's arrival on-scene in the early AM local time on the 9th, not on the 10th, as the Pentagon claimed. According to CNN, the USS Bainbridge arrived on the scene of the hijacking "before dawn Thursday." AP's timeline is more specific:
4:00 a.m.: U.S. Navy destroyer U.S.S. Bainbridge reaches the Maersk Alabama.
After opening with the statement that the Bainbridge arrived before dawn, the CNN report goes on to say that the Bainbridge arrived at 8PM, but this seeming discrepancy is easily resolved. 4:00 AM Wednesday morning in Somalia was 8:00 PM Tuesday evening in Washington. (There is a 9 time-zone difference between Washington and Somalia, but the "spring forward" during daylight savings chops it to 8. This is why some televisions stations continued to refer to "Tuesday's hijacking." They first reported it here in the States on Tuesday the 7th.)

CNN was specific about the Navy taking over the scene the moment they arrived:
"When the Navy comes in, they're in charge," Speers [a spokesman for the Maersk Alabama] told CNN.
And according to Joe Miller:
At that point [when the Bainbridge arrived], Pentagon officials told us, the captain of the Bainbridge requested the resources to resolve the situation.
So the request for the SEAL teams went up the chain of command not long after 4:00 AM local time on the 9th. If authorization to send the nearby Kenya-based SEAL team over did not come until 4:00 AM Saturday, as Miller's Pentagon sources told him, then no, the request did not "work its way up and back down the chain of command in a few hours," as they also claimed. It took TWO FULL DAYS!

At least I have an excuse for missing this the first time round

I didn't follow the hijacking story until I read the "SEAL pals" version of what really happened of the coast of Somalia. When I then read the Pentagon's "SEAL pals" rebuttal in the Washington Times, I saw that it actually confirmed most of the "SEAL pals" claims. In particular, it expressly confirmed the perverse Rules of Engagement, where if the pirates ever left Captain Philips unguarded, our sailors were not allowed to rescue him by taking them out. "Obama's order not to rescue hostage confirmed by National Security Advisor and Pentagon," as I titled my response to Gertz' Pentagon exclusive.

That response did not address the claimed 36 hour delay, but Gertz, Miller and Miklaszewski all made the Pentagon's rebuttal of the 36 hour delay the centerpiece of their articles. So how did these supposed fact checkers all fail to check the most easily checkable facts at the heart of their own story? Faced with conflicting claims about the timeline, they simply reported what the two sides said, without making any attempt to see check and report on who was right.

Gertz got played the worst. His Obamagon sources denied that there was ANY delay in sending the Kenya-based SEAL team:
As soon as the Pentagon took charge on April 10 with its warship the USS Bainbridge on the scene, Mr. Obama first authorized a few Navy SEALs from a base in Africa to deploy to the Bainbridge and take necessary action. The team was flown by transport aircraft and parachuted to waters near the warship, officials said.
48 hours becomes zero hours, and Gertz reportorial curiosity is not raised enough to check the very first fact: when the Bainbridge actually arrived on-scene.

Miklaszewski's malfeasance

If Gertz was the least curious reporter, Miklaszewski was the most dishonest, because he KNEW when the Bainbridge arrived. Miklaszewski is NBC's designated "Pentagon correspondent." As such, he narrated most of NBC's updates on the hijacking. In his April 8th report, about the crew regaining control of the Maersk Alabama but losing Captain Philips, he noted that the USS Bainbridge was "a half day away," so he knew when it would get there, and the Nightly News' April 9th edition (without Miklaszewski) reported that: "The USS Bainbridge arrived in the early hours of this morning."

Despite knowing that the USS Bainbridge arrived before dawn on Thursday, Miklaszewski's report on the Pentagon's rebuttal effort (helpfully titled "SEAL EMAIL CRITICIZING OBAMA IS BOGUS") only said that the Bainbridge arrived on Thursday, leaving open the possibility that it arrived late Thursday. Similarly with Obama's authorization of the first SEAL team, which "Mik" only relates as having been issued on Friday, leaving open the possibility that it was issued early Friday.

Even if the Pentagon did not give Miklaszewski a specific time for the first SEAL-team authorization as was given to Joe Miller (8:00PM Washington time), Miklaszewski knows full well that if the authorization came early Friday, he would have been told. Thus he had to know that the 36 hour delay was at least in the ballpark: from early AM Thursday to at least mid-day Friday. Still he simply related the Pentagon assertion that the "SEAL pals" claims were false, with every line of his report written in an Obama-defending style (along with that BOGUS headline).

Neither did Miklaszewski speak up when the Pentagon told Gertz and Miller that the Bainbridge did not arrive until the 10th. Miklaszewski knew that was mis-information, as did numerous other reporters who covered the hijacking, yet they have all covered it up by omission.

Corrections are not enough: the media needs to tell the public about the Obama Pentagon's disinformation campaign

Like NBC, Joe Miller was also affirmative in declaring Admiral Sarodsy's "SEAL pals" report to be false:
Q: Did Obama delay the rescue of Captain Phillips?
A: No. Military officials say that the claims being made in a widely circulated chain e-mail are false.
So much for FactCheck.org. All of these outfits not only need to issue corrections, they need to trumpet the true story here: that the new Obama Pentagon put out completely wrong information in an express attempt to counter correct information from our own soldiers about the Obama administration's untenable decision-making.

By engaging in such a concerted rebuttal effort, Obama's Pentagon is acknowledging that if the claimed delay is true, it is devastating. As Gertz described their mission:
They sought to dispel Internet reports that the military was delayed from taking action by indecision inside the White House.
That they made such a focused effort to distribute false information is BIG NEWS, and it needs to be reported.

The second word-of-sailor account adds to the devastation

The 36 hour delay that was correctly reported in the "SEAL pals" account is damning enough, but a second word-of-sailor report, circulated by Captain Raymond "Buddy" Wellborn USN, is even more damning if true, giving the reason for the two day delay:
He [Obama] reportedly questioned his staff, "Will 'my' FBI people get there before the Navy does?"
This is consistent with the crazy don't-shoot-if-Philips-is-unguarded ROE. Obama WANTED to preserve the hostage situation so that he could negotiate with the pirates, give them the status of a place at the table, and make some kind of concessions to them, probably some rules of engagement that we would promise to abide by in future. The engagements that these promises encouraged would then, of course, be settled by yet further negotiation.

This is the fundamental fact that all the REAL information points to: Obama WANTED to negotiate with the pirates, and he wanted to establish this as a modus operandi going forward. Vice Admiral Gortney, who commands the Naval forces in the Middle East, was perfectly clear about the Obamagon's plan (and his own devotion to it):
Authorities went through "a deliberate, slow deliberate process to let the negotiation process work itself out to a nonviolent end," he said. "And unfortunately, that did not occur."
Imagine thinking it "unfortunate" that instead of having to negotiate with the pirates, we were able to take them out? As Obama always means by "change," the world is turned upside down.

The second authorization (delay time 50+ hours)

In addition to specifying 8:00 PM EDT Friday for Obama's authorization to send in the Kenya-based SEAL teams, Joe Miller's Pentagon sources specified a slightly later time for Obama's authorization for bringing in the SEAL sniper team from Norfolk VA:
Later Friday night, the Pentagon requested that SEAL Team 6 – the Navy’s counter-terrorism unit, which is also known as United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group or DEVGRU – also be deployed to the Bainbridge. Obama approved that request, as well.
Jim Miklaszewski's sources dated this second authorization to Saturday morning, but that discrepancy with Miller's late-Friday account can be reconciled by the time zones. Miller was explicitly talking Washington time, and late Friday in Washington is Saturday morning in Somalia.

It is only in regards to the second authorization that Gertz' Pentagon sources were willing to admit ANY Obama delay, claiming that Obama issued the second authorization "in a matter of hours" after CENTCOM passed on the request. That would probably be close to midnight, which would bring the delay on this INITIAL request to 52 hours (4:00 AM Thursday to 8:00 AM Saturday, local time).

Remember, the original request from Bainbridge Captain frank Castellano was for the Norfolk specialty teams, at least according to the "SEAL pals" report (which was correct, if a bit conservative, on the 36 hour delay):
1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.
And why wouldn't Castellano request the Norfolk specialists from the outset, when they turned out to be just what was needed (at least under the hyper-restrictive ROE that Obama's people at CENTCOM insisted on)?

Obama and Obama's people at CENTCOM are the same thing

The Pentagon tried to slip their deception through by pretending that the only delays that can be attributed to Obama are the time it took for him to authorize the SEAL teams once the Obama people at CENTCOM finally decided to pass these request on to him from below. As Gertz' sources put it, Obama approved CENTCOM's request for authorization "in a matter of hours." Yes, but only after talking with them for almost two days about to WHETHER to make a request for authorization.

The only way Gertz and Miklaszewski could fall for such an obvious diversion is if they wanted to. Like Eason Jordon in Baghdad, they know that the key to future access is to play ball with current access (plus whatever Chris Matthews-like "thrill going up my leg" favoritism they may have for Obama themselves).

Well they really shamed themselves this time, but they and their employers can still redeem themselves if they will not just issuing corrections for the false information they helped the Pentagon put before the public, but actually do their jobs and report the truth about the Pentagon's disinformation campaign against its own soldiers.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Under the Bush Doctrine, we would have to invade ourselves

"U.S. plans to accept several Chinese Muslims from Guantanamo" reports the L.A. Times. Not just any Muslims, mind you, but Islamofascist terrorists whose schtick is plotting acts of war against China, for which they are wanted by the Chinese government.

It is stupid enough for Obama to abandon the Bush Doctrine of regime change for nations that harbor terrorists. It is beyond stupid to become a nation that harbors terrorists. One Big Ass Mistake America.

Friday, April 24, 2009

Obama's order not to rescue hostage confirmed by National Security Advisor and Pentagon

Stung by the widely circulated “SEAL pals” account of what really happened in Somalia (discussed here last Friday), the Obama administration had National Security Advisor James L. Jones and a number of anonymous Pentagon sources give their side two days ago in a Washington Times exclusive. Their mission, according to reporter Bill Gertz, was:
... to dispel Internet reports that the military was delayed from taking action by indecision inside the White House.
Clintonesque parsing of words is evident throughout the Jones-Pentagon account, amounting on more than one occasion to outright dishonesty. Yet the actual information they provide (as opposed to the lawyerly spin they try to put on it) actually confirms the most damning details in BooBooFan’s purported SEAL report.

Exhibit 1: The Rules Of Engagement.

BooBooFan states the ROE this way:
Once [SEAL teams] arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger.
The Pentagon’s rebuttal states the ROE without any requirement that the danger be "imminent":
"It took awhile to get facts and then to get the military on scene," said one senior military official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of discussing special forces operations. "As the picture got more clear and commanders' requests went back down the chain, the guidance was: 'We would like a peaceful resolution. However, if Captain Phillips' life is in danger you can take appropriate action.'
But we know from Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, speaking at the time of the incident, that the ROE did specify "imminent danger," and that this was interpreted literally:
Navy officers aboard the USS Bainbridge were in the midst of a drawn-out hostage negotiation when Navy snipers saw one of the pirates aim his AK-47 machine gun at Capt. Richard Phillips's back and concluded the American was in "imminent danger," said Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, commander of naval forces in the Middle East.
Gertz’ report includes Gortney’s earlier statement, but without any comment on its inconsistency with the current rebuttals. Intead, Gertz just relays the interpretation that is presented to him, where the Pentagon dismisses the “imminent danger” claim by denying that the ROE was in any way restrictive:
The posting also stated that rules of engagement imposed by the president prevented action unless the hostage's life was in imminent danger.

The military official said the commander had authority to take action at all times because Mr. Phillips was being held at gunpoint.
Yes, but as soon as the pirates took their weapons OFF of Philips, our sailors were barred from taking action. This is exactly the opportunity they would have been waiting for in order TO take action. So the ROE was, you are free to take action, UNTIL you have an opportunity, then you can't, as actually occurred when Philips briefly escaped his captors.

Jones and the Pentagon spokesman try to cover this up, Jones by mis-stating the ROE, the Pentagon spokesman by pretending that the ROE did not really restrict anyone, but Vice Admiral Gortney's statement makes perfectly clear that the crazy ROE was followed to the letter. Instead of taking out the pirates at a moment of minimum risk to Captain Philips, they actually waited until Philips was in maximum peril. With all due credit to our soldiers for following orders, that is absolutely insane.

Exhibit 2: The passed-up rescue attempts

Here our anonymous Pentagon spokesman takes the lawyerly parsing of language to new heights, pulling off an amazing bait-and-switch.

BooBooFan’s claim is devastating if true:
The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction.
The Pentagon's reply seems to be equally devastating:
However, military officials at the Pentagon involved in the operation said Navy SEAL snipers had not arrived on board the Bainbridge at that time and therefore could not have fired on the pirates.
Except BooBooFan never said it was the SEAL sniper team that had the Islamofascist pirates sighted in, and the Pentagon’s own account verifies that regular SEAL teams were already on site. In Gertz' paraphrase:
Mr. Obama first authorized a few Navy SEALs from a base in Africa to deploy to the Bainbridge and take necessary action. The team was flown by transport aircraft and parachuted to waters near the warship, officials said.

The arrival of the first SEAL team gave the military an emergency capability if the pirates holding the ship’s captain became violent. Mr. Jones said the Pentagon requested a second, more complete SEAL team to be dispatched from the United States and Mr. Obama approved that request as well.
Once Captain Phillips leapt in the water, it did not require snipers to take out the pirates. As I put it in my own initial remarks on the subject:
WTF? No one was ready at the machine gun to waste the pirates when this guy got clear?
According to BooBoo, a SEAL team WAS ready, and Jones' account confirms this detail. It is only some slippery use of language on the part of the Obama-defending military spokesmen that make this sound like a debunking, when it is actually a confirmation.

Exhibit 3: It was either Obama himself, or his immediate underlings, who devised the ROE

The administration’s rebuttal effort takes pains to paint the controversial Rules of Engagement as coming from CENTCOM, not the president:
At the Pentagon, military officials said the rules of engagement were set by military commanders at Central Command and were more limited than combat rules because the Navy regarded the operation as countering criminal activity, namely piracy.
But this is a distinction without a difference. As Commander In Chief, Obama has his own men at CENTCOM, and being the president’s men, they would have gotten their way.

Thus BooBoo’s claim that the prohibition on taking any propitious opportunity to rescue the hostage came from BHO is borne out. Thanks to Jones et. al., we now know that this crazy ROE did come the top, if not from BHO himself then from his immediate underlings.

The distinction that does make a difference is the clear Obama stamp. The Obamatons declare outright that their preferred outcome was to negotiate with the pirates!
Authorities went through "a deliberate, slow deliberate process to let the negotiation process work itself out to a nonviolent end," he said. "And unfortunately, that did not occur."
BooBoo never leveled that accusation, but I did. I was trying to tear the cover off when I titled my first commentary, “Obama WANTED to negotiate with the pirates.” Now, thanks to Jones et. al., we have confirmation of that too.

This is what the crazy ROE was really all about. The order was: if you see that the pirates have left Captain Philips unguarded, giving you an opportunity to rescue him by killing them, DON’T TAKE IT. They (the Obama people at CENTCOM) preferred to have the pirates alive and in possession of Captain Philips. They even have the gall to call it “unfortunate” that the Islamofascist hijackers ended up getting taken out!

For two years now I have been working with Tom Burnett Sr. (father of murdered Flight 93 hero Tom Burnett Jr.) to stop the Park Service from planting a giant Mecca-oriented crescent atop his son’s grave. Unlike the new Obama CENTCOM, we do not find the violent termination of an Islamofascist hijacking (with no loss of life to the hostages this time) to be “unfortunate.” Good grief.

Exhibit 4: No more War On Terror

A second Obama stamp is that decision to treat the Islamofascist pirates as engaged in criminal activity instead of acts of war. Technically, they are engaged in both. Some of the Somali pirates are linked to al Qaeda. ALL of them are practicing their religion of Islamic supremacy, which encourages the taking of booty. From Muhammad’s biographer Ibn Ishaq (at 326):
Allah said, ‘No Prophet before Muhammad took booty from his enemy nor prisoners for ransom.' Muhammad said, ‘I was made victorious with terror. The earth was made a place for me to clean. I was given the most powerful words. Booty was made lawful for me. I was given the power to intercede. These five privileges were awarded to no prophet before me.'
The Koran grants similar allowance to Muhammad’s followers:
So enjoy what you have gotten of booty in war, lawful and good. [Koran verse 8.69]
To al Qaeda, piracy is a core part of their religion, just like that “made victorious with terror” part. Fighting piracy is part and parcel of fighting al Qaeda and fighting terror. That makes it clearly covered by our 2001 declaration of war against those who attacked us on 9/11. But while they are still waging war on us, Obama has unilaterally decided to put the War on Terror into retirement. The official term now is “Overseas Contingency Operations,” and along with the language change, the tools of war are also being abandoned in favor of treating Muslim acts of war as criminal activity only.

As the Pentagon admits, the don’t-rescue-if-you-can-possibly-help-it ROE derived directly from this signature Obama policy choice. Here it is again:
At the Pentagon, military officials said the rules of engagement were set by military commanders at Central Command and were more limited than combat rules because the Navy regarded the operation as countering criminal activity, namely piracy.
The pretense that this somehow came from our military rather than from the White House, when it obviously got into the military through the White House, is completely disingenuous.

Exhibit 5: the delay

With all the misleading language employed by Jones and his Obama-defense crew, it is hard to put much stock in their claim that Obama and/or his CENTCOM dopplegangers were not behind the two days or so that it took before the order was even given to get SEAL teams moving to the site. Gertz’ Pentagon sources talk about the time it took to actually move the SEALS from the East Coast to the Middle East, but that isn’t the issue. The issue is why it took so long to authorize the move.

BooBooFan said that the commander on the site wanted the SEALS en route ASAP:
BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.
The rebuttal consists of insisting that once CENTCOM asked Obama to authorize the SEAL teams to go in, “the request to use the forces was approved in a matter of hours.”

Yes, but how long did it take Obama's CENTCOM underlings to get around to asking for authorization? Again, the Pentagon rebuttal relies on the distinction between CENTCOM and Obama, but there is no difference between the two. Obama has his dopplegangers at CENTCOM. After all, he IS the president.

The actual information provided by Jones et. al. supports BooBooFan’s time-line. The SEAL teams were apparently not authorized to get moving until sometime after the Bainbridge arrived on the scene (more than a day after the American flagged Maersk was commandeered).

Does that sound like our military? Steaming into a crisis situation without getting all necessary men and material en route? What would be hard to believe is that the commander on the scene did try to insure that SEAL teams were en route as soon as he got underway, yet according to the new information, SEALs were not authorized for something like a day and a half, just as BooBooFan claims.

Why the delay? Why did there need to be special presidential authorization at all? Do we treat SEAL teams like nukes now? They can’t be moved without orders from the highest level? The more likely scenario is that when Obama’s men at CENTCOM got the request to send over the SEAL teams, they held it up, giving Obama a chance to mull it over, then after much insistence from commanders on the scene, they decided to ask Obama for formal permission to send over the SEAL teams, which Obama authorized after the unspecified “few” additional hours.

In sum, Jones et. al. manage to corroborate in detail almost all of BooBooFan’s information, indicating that his purported SEAL sourcing is accurate. So thanks very much to the Obamagangers, and a big thumbs down to Bill Gertz for helping them to elide the numerous inconsistencies between their information and their spin.

At first blush, the Gertz article reads like an effective rebuttal, until you start paying attention to the actual information content instead of how it is characterized. Under scrutiny, not one point of the supposed rebuttal stands.

Epilogue: Obama’s numerous unreported Islamofascist ties

It might be unfair to insist on the logical implications of the Obama administration’s ROE (that they WANTED to negotiate with the pirates), because we all know that Democrats are not logical. To a “violence only begets violence” sloganeer like Obama, it might seem axiomatic that we should not take action unless at the final instant it becomes absolutely necessary.

Of course that too is a form of wanting to negotiate with the pirates. It is a world view in which negotiating is always seen as the better or higher course. But Obama might not be this kind of well-meaning Democrat. The more worrisome possibility is that what looks like a kumbaya-type penchant for negotiation with everybody may only be a ruse. After all, Obama is certainly not interested in negotiating with his real enemies: the Republicans, yet he is interested in negotiating with Syria and Iran, with Hamas, with the mythical “moderate Taliban,” and every other Islamic supremacist entity he can find, including a dingy-full of Islamofascist pirates.

Is it just coincidence that, except for his racial-separatist wife and the communist pedophile who mentored him as a child, every single one of Obama’s long-time mentors and confidants is not just Muslim, but is actually Islamofascist? Count ‘em up. If the media had properly reported ANY of these Islamofascist connections, Obama would never have been elected.

1. William Ayers, the proud domestic terrorist who gave Obama a resume by picking him for the board of the Annenberg Challenge (where the two of them funneled education funds to Afro-centric racists like Obama's pastor/mentor Jeremiah Wright). In addition to being a communist, Ayers apparently converted at some point to Islam, giving his children Nation of Islam names and adopting for himself the Muslim honorific "Abu Zayd,” meaning “father of Zayd.” Thus Ayers named both his son and himself after Black Panther/Nation of Islam thug Zayd Malik Shakur, who murdered NJ policeman Werner Forrester in 1973.

Obama told documented lies about his relationship with Ayers, at first denying any significant relationship, before it came out that they worked together for many years, and that Obama’s “coming out party” in Chicago electoral politics was hosted at Ayers’ home.

2. Raila Odinga, Kenyan Prime Minister and a Obama's fellow Luo tribesman. (Odinga says he is Obama's cousin. Obama says not quite.) Like Obama, Odinga calls himself a Christian, but in late 2007 he was outed by Kenya's Muslim leaders nya for signing a secret Memorandum of Understanding with them where he begins by declaring Islam to be the only true religion and ends by promising to impose Sharia law on Kenya. (Odinga recently removed his rationalizations for the MoU from his “Odinga for President” website, but I saved a copy.)

During a 2006 trip to Kenya, Obama campaigned extensively for Odinga. The interference in Kenyan politics becoming so grating to Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki that he ended up calling Obama a “stooge" of Odinga.

3. Jeremiah Wright, the racist, America-hating, "ex-Muslim" pastor at Obama's Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Wright earned a masters degree in the study of Islam, where he presumably learned Muhammad’s teaching that Muslims who reside in Infidel territory are supposed to pretend to be infidels, if by doing so they can advance the cause of Islamic conquest. (See Koran verse 16:106, and the hadiths of Tabari 8:23 and Sahih Muslim, book 19, 4436.)

Wright’s “Christian” church celebrates Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and teaches the Islamic version of the law of love: to love members of your own group while hating outsiders. In particular, Wright teaches hatred of white people, as NOI leader Louis Farrakhan does.

4. Khalid Al-Mansour, who managed Obama's admission to Harvard Law, is another radical Nation of Islam racist, who once declared that God wanted blacks to go around cutting white people's noses off.

5. Rashid Khalidi, Obama's best dinner buddy, is a PLO terror supporter.

6. Frank Marshall Davis The only identifiable mentor/confidante of Obama who is not a known Islamofascist is Frank Marshall Davis, the communist pedophile who shepherded Obama as a boy in Hawaii. (Davis wrote in his memoirs that he didn't want to "disappoint" a 13 year old girl by not having sex with her.)

7. Obama's father Then there is Obama's Muslim/Communist/racist father, who Obama never met, but does dream about. Barrack Sr. was a member of a Kenyan opposition party when he slammed the sitting regime for not being socialist enough or Afro-centric enough, calling instead for "Europeans" and "Asians" to be stripped of their property.

8. Obama's wife Last and probably least is Michelle, whose Princeton thesis favored a black-separatist viewpoint, and is lauded as a "fellow traveler" by her communist-conversant husband.

Tangential other Islamofascist connections abound. Obama had Nation of Islam personnel on his senate staff. The primary financial backer of Obama “cousin” and confidant Raila Odinga is Moammar Ghadaffi. (Ghadaffi calls Obama a Muslim, and if anyone should know, it is this confidant of Obama’s own secret-Muslim confidant). Hugo Chavez, who has a long relationship with Obama mentor William Ayers, also has ties to al Qaeda, and uses the Islamic salutation “inshallah.”

Obama himself seems to have told some very bold lies about his own Muslim upbringing, denying that he was raised Muslim at all, and that he ever prayed in a mosque, while childhood friends recall praying in the mosque with him, and say that he was “previously quite religious in Islam.”

Obama’s grandmother was also caught lying about her religion, telling USA Today that she is a Christian, just a year after telling the New York Times that she is “a strong believer in the Islamic faith.”

Thus we have Obama, his cousin and his grandmother, all caught lying about their religion. What accounts for it? Well, the Islamic religion does not just permit lying about religion. It actively calls for deception, wherever it can help the goal of Islamic conquest. “War is deception,” was one of Muhammad’s guiding principles, and infidel territory is called in Islam “dar al harb,” or “the world of war.”

Obama is turning out to be a liar about many things. He denied, for instance, that he ever worked for the ACORN vote-fraud group, despite documentary proof to the contrary, but the only ones who exposed it are bloggers.

The Obamatons are so confident that our dishonest media will cover up for them that they don’t even seem to care if their lies are plausible, like the lunatic claim that Obama’s deep bow to Saudi King Abdullah was just a two handed handshake, when the video clearly shows his left hand draped across his knee. Immediately after signing the trillion dollar porkulus spending bill, Obama declared himself to be a crusader for fiscal responsibility, out to slash the deficit, and the media switched to the newspeak without a ripple.

Thanks the malfeasance of the press, refusing to report on ANY of Obama’s extensive Islamofascist ties, we are now stuck with a president of suspect loyalties. He presents himself as pursuing the pacifistic, appeasement minded policies of his Democratic Party cohorts, and that may well be the real explanation for his fecklessness and dishonesty. But bad as that would be, it is not the most likely explanation.

Not surprisingly, Obama is able to find yes-men in the Pentagon who are willing to cover up for him too, while those who are skeptical will have to be wary of getting purged. If Obama IS a secret Islamic supremacist, will our military be able to preserve itself, and the nation? There are some mistakes that are not recoverable, and handing the presidency to a man with extensive Islamofascist ties may well be one of them.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Moral Muslims don't want a memorial to the terrorists on the Flight 93 crash site

Blogburst logo, petition

Thanks to Khalim Massoud, president of Muslims against Sharia--Islamic Reform Movement, for his press release in support of Tom Burnett Sr.'s efforts to stop the Park Service from planting a giant Mecca-oriented crescent atop his son's grave.

Islamic Reform Movement is clear eyed on the problem:
We all know who the enemy is. It’s Islamic radicals who are guided by the ideology of Islamic supremacy. Just as Nazis were guided by the ideology of Aryan supremacy. The only difference is that Gihadis consider it their religious duty to impose Islam all over the world and many of them yearn to die (and kill) for Allah. They use lines from the Koran such as “kill them [infidels] wherever you find them” or “slay the idolaters wherever you find them” as their guiding principles.
Islam needs to be reformed so that it rejects supremacism and violent conquest, but trying reform Islam is a difficult and dangerous business:
Islamic radicals murder more Muslims than Christians, Jews, Hindus and everybody else combined. Gihadis may hate you for being infidels. But they really hate us for not following their demented dogma.
In this struggle for the soul of Islam, the last thing that moral Muslims want is any kind of victory for the supremacists, never mind a mind-boggling symbolic victory over the heroes of Flight 93:
What possible reason could be there for including anything Islamic or anything even resembling an Islamic symbol into Flight 93 Memorial? Inclusion of Islamic symbols memorializes murderers who brought down the plane and is tantamount to spitting in the faces of victims and their families. United Airlines Flight 93 was hijacked in 2001. Let's not allow hijacking of Flight 93 Memorial in 2008.

Muslims know all about facing Mecca for prayer

One of the difficulties in getting people to understand the significance of the Mecca-orientation of the Crescent of Embrace is that it all seems so esoteric, and if it is esoteric, how important can it be?

Witness Allahpundit, who as Michelle Malkin's pointman on this issue ought to be one of our strongest allies. Instead, he dismisses all concern about Islamic symbolism (effectively dismissing Michelle's original concern about the giant crescent, which remains completely intact in the "broken circle" redesign), on the grounds that: "if you need a protractor to properly express your outrage, you’ve probably gone too far."

We don't need a protractor to express our outrage. We need a protractor to explain what architect Paul Murdoch did. He built the world's largest mihrab: the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built. The planned memorial will be the world's largest mosque by a factor of a hundred. The gigantic Sacred Mosque in Mecca would fit four times over inside Murdoch's 3000 foot wide crescent, which is just the centerpiece of Murdoch's mosque.

Orientation on Mecca is THE central symbol of Islam, together with the crescent shape. Unlike Allahpundit, Khalim knows these things:
The shape of the “broken circle” resembles a crescent moon. So does the shape of the tower. Crescent moon is the most recognizable Islamic symbol. When we pray, we face Mecca and Mosques are traditionally built to face Mecca. The case could be made that the proposed design is aligned in North-Easterly direction, which corresponds with Qiblah, a direction to Mecca. Conventional wisdom would dictate that since Mecca is located to the South-East of Somerset, Qiblah cannot possibly have a North-Easterly direction. This assumption would be correct if you’re using a flat map. However, if you take a globe, place pins on locations of Somerset and Mecca, and connect those pins with a string, you’ll see that the string at the base of the Somerset pin points North-East. This symbolism may not be noticeable to a non-Muslim, and it is also possible, but likely improbable that the designer is ignorant of its significance. The proposed design would be perfect for EgyptAir 990 memorial. But for United 93 memorial, it is simply unacceptable.

Allahpundit is just being careless, but the willful blindness of the Park Service is foundational

The Memorial Project is committed to the idea that Islam was also hijacked on 9/11. To them, blaming Islam would be as bad as blaming the hijacked passengers and crew. Thus the possibility of hostile Islamic intent cannot be contemplated, no matter how high the "coincidences" pile.

According to Flight 93 Advisory Commission member Tim Baird, the Memorial Project participants all know that the Crescent of Embrace does in fact point almost exactly at Mecca (despite the Memorial Project's many public denials). They just assume it has to be a coincidence, just as they assume it is a coincidence that the Sacred Ground Plaza sits almost exactly in the position of the star on an Islamic crescent-and-star flag.

(Both of these almost-exact Islamic symbol shapes also contain exact Islamic symbol shapes. Remove the symbolically broken-off parts of the giant crescent and what is symbolically left standing in the wake of 9/11 is a giant Islamic-shaped crescent pointing EXACTLY at Mecca. In the exact position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag is a separate upper section of Memorial Wall, centered on the centerline of the giant crescent, that will be inscribed with the 9/11 date.)

Backers of the crescent design chose it specifically as a symbol of healing and outreach, implicitly to the Islamic world. Having been so generous to Islam, they just can't believe that a hidden al Qaeda sympathizer could be so ungenerous as to take advantage of their outreach by sneaking a memorial to the terrorists past their noses. They just can't believe that anyone could actually want to hijack Flight 93!

This refusal to acknowledge evidence of hostile Islamic intent stabs at the heart of what Islamic reformers like Khalim are trying to accomplish.

How to distinguish a moral Muslim from an Islamic supremacist

Being knowledgeable about Islam, moral Muslims recognize (as bin Laden's followers do) that Osama bin Laden is a perfectly orthodox Wahabbist, using traditional means of violence and deception to pursue the traditional Islamic objective of world domination. The difference is that moral Muslims reject the totalitarian methods and objectives of established Islam. Moral Muslims recognize that traditional Islamic orthodoxy needs to be reformed.

Textually, the opportunities for reform are very propitious. The Koran contains both sweeping calls to violence (9.05, 9.29) , and sweeping calls for tolerance (2.256, 109). To turn these diverse commands into a religion of violent conquest, every major school of Islamic interpretation, both Sunni and Shiite, considers the peaceful verses of the Koran to be expunged via the doctrine of "abrogation." Where different verses can be seen to contradict each other, the doctrine of abrogation holds the earlier verses to be abrogated and replaced by the later verses.

The peaceful verses are all early verses, so as far as traditional Islam is concerned, they don't even exist, except as a device for deceiving infidels into believing that Islam is a "religion of peace."

This doctrine of abrogation flies in the face of the Koran's own insistence that it contains no contradictions (4.82), and that nothing is abrogated (2.106). Textually, traditional Islam does not have a leg to stand on, but anyone who points it out is subject to the traditional Sharia death penalty for blasphemy. Alternatively, in a Wahabbist specialty called "taking takfir," such heretical interpretations constitute apostasy, another death penalty crime in every major school of Islamic interpretation.

The Koran repeats dozens of times over that those who forget the words of Moses will burn in Hell forever (e.g. 2.75, 3.187, 5.13, 13.25, 15.90, 16.63). This is repeated so many times because it is Muhammad's accusation against the Jews: that they twist the "allegorical parts" of the Torah (3.07). But the LEAST allegorical part of the Torah is the Ten Commandments. Thus according to the Koran, the 6th Commandment--Thou shalt not murder--is binding on Muslims.

Murder is any killing that is not in defense against either a violent attack or a conspiracy to violent attack, and there is no clearer case of murder than the traditional Islamic death penalty for apostates, who only want to go their own way. The same goes for blasphemy. To kill someone for challenging doctrine is MURDER. If the Koran really is the word of God, then every traditional Muslim in the entire world who supports established Sharia law is "wood for the fire."

Whether Islamic reformers are out to save the lives of those who would be murdered, or out to save the souls of the murderers, they are engaged in a great contest with perhaps the greatest evil the world has ever known: a RELIGION of evil. All they need to do to win is expose the truth: that traditional Islam is in systematic violation of the Koran's own most fundamental commandments, yet to expose this truth they must break through the teeth of traditional Islam's strength: its totalitarian repression of dissent. In short, all they have to do is bring truth to the most psychologically brutalized people in the history of the planet.

What could be worse, in a battle like this, than to see the land of liberty--the great haven from which truth can be spoken--build a gigantic terrorist-memorial mosque on the Flight 93 crash site?

No helping hand from the land of the free

If this willful blindness prevails, it will be a clear signal that in the battle to wrest Islam from the grasp of evil, America will not help. By following the morally blind idea that goodwill to Islam means having a see-no-evil attitude toward Islam, America is refusing to witness what moral Muslims are trying to expose: that the worst evils--condemned to the fire many times over by the Koran itself--thrive at the heart of Islamic institutions.

That evil heart is what throbs, a half-mile across, in the crescent memorial to Flight 93, and the refusal of our own Park Service, fully alert to all the facts, to witness this evil is the worst possible betrayal, not just of America, but of the good people in the Islamic world as well. A see-no-evil attitude towards Islam is NOT goodwill. It emboldens the worst in Islam at the expense of the best. To help the good against the bad, we have to distinguish the good from the bad.

The good are those who are trying to reform Islam. The bad are those who pretend that traditional Islam orthodoxy is already peaceful, and deny that reform is necessary.

Muslims against Sharia has a facebook group, if anyone wants to join. Check out the Islamic Reform Movement website here.

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Keep the change

San Mateo Tea Party. I was there for the last hour (6-7 PM) and counted 150:

Message for the president:

Youth movement:

Protest babe (bundled up against the global warming):

My signs:

Obama WANTED to negotiate with the pirates

Flopping Aces relays what purports to be word from Navy SEALS about what actually happened off the coast of Somalia.

The claim is that, in order to comply with Rules of Engagement handed down by Barack Obama, the Navy passed up several opportunities to take out the pirates and free Captain Philips (the American hostage).

The key element of this report -- the ROE -- has been corroborated by mainstream reports: Obama DID order that no action be taken unless the hostage's life was in "imminent danger." Navy officers were finally able to meet this requirement when one of the pirates pointed his AK at Philips' back, but without this excuse, chances to free Philips had to be passed up.

We saw this rule in action when the captain jumped in the water and the pirates were allowed to retrieve him. Not knowing the ROE, we at home could only think there was a very unfortunate lapse: "WTF? No one was ready at the machine gun to waste the pirates when this guy got clear?" Then the ROE came out and provided an alternative explanation.

The "imminent danger" rule cannot be justified as a way to minimize risk to the hostage. If we don't try free a hostage until he is in "imminent danger," we are obviously putting him at greater risk than if we free him at a point of minimum danger.

The clear implication is that Obama wanted to negotiate with the Islamofascist pirates. He is eager to CHANGE the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" norm. This guy actually wants to give them a seat at the table and make concessions to them.

Friday, April 10, 2009

NASA’s acknowledgement of “deep solar minimum” is still deeply dishonest

I speculated last year that NASA solar scientists were avoiding notice of the prolonged solar minimum because they want to avoid talking about what happened the last few times there was a deep solar minimum: that the earth cooled dramatically.
By refusing to even consider the possibility of an extended solar lull, Hathaway himself can avoid having to address the impact that such a lull would have on global temperature. If he did address that question, he would obviously have to note that the last really long such lull seems to have caused the Little Ice Age, which would place him on the side of the "deniers" in the debate about human-caused global warming. If low solar activity caused the Little Ice Age, then the "grand maximum" levels of solar activity during the 20th century would be the cause of 20th century warming, and the hoax of human-caused warming would be exposed.
It looks like I overestimated the integrity of Hathaway et. al. Apparently they are fully capable of acknowledging that we are in the midst of a deep solar minimum while still not mentioning the well established correlation between solar-magnetic activity and climate.

Dr. Tony Phillips issued a NASA solar-science update last week titled Deep Solar Minimum. NASA has stopped denying the obvious:
In a way, the calm is exciting, says [solar physicist Dean Pesnell]. "For the first time in history, we're getting to see what a deep solar minimum is really like."

"This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway.
How long will the quiet last? Phillips notes that “The solar minima of 1901 and 1913, for instance, were even longer than the one we're experiencing now.” Indeed, and the PEAKS of 1900-era solar cycles were also low:

Solar activity, as measured by sunspot counts (from Cap'n Bob)

While Phillips, Hathaway and Pesnell tell their audience about the the early 20th century period of lowish solar activity, they fail to mention how it coincided with a prominent dip in global temperature:

HadCRUT 3, with 21 year smoothing. The Dalton and Maunder minima were also famously cold.

Phillips even quotes NASA solar scientist David Hathaway’s acknowledgment that, "five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years,” yet they STILL fail to acknowledge the elephant in the room: that this period of high solar activity coincides with the period of global warming that the IPCC attributes to CO2.

These are supposed to be our experts, the one’s who make sure that what is known about solar science is properly taken into account by the IPCC and by our domestic policy-makers. Instead, they are providing as much cover as they can for the IPCC’s outright refusal to account the most well known facts about the correspondence between solar activity and global temperature.

What Pesnell and Hathaway know

Even a non-specialist like Dr. Phillips would be well aware of the un-missable coincidence between deep solar minima and global cold spells. Don’t kids still learn in high school that the sun went blank for 50 years at the onset of the Little Ice Age (right after they learn that Galileo’s improvements to the telescope allowed people to start counting sunspots)?

But Pesnell and Hathaway know much more. EVERY solar physicist is well aware that numerous studies have found correlations of 0.6 to 0.8 between solar activity and climate on every time scale, from the decadal to the millennial, going back 500 million years. For the longer time scales, see Shaviv and Veizer 2003:
We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations.
(Cosmic Ray Flux serves as a proxy for solar activity because higher solar activity, with its attendant higher solar-magnetic flux, blocks more cosmic rays from reaching the earth.) For the shorter time scales see the 1150 yr study by Usoskin et. al. 2005:
The long term trends in solar data and in northern hemisphere temperatures have a correlation coefficient of about 0.7 — .8 at a 94% — 98% confidence level.
Even global warming alarmists Lockwood and Frohlich begin a recent paper by acknowledging that, “[t]here is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate,” citing 17 papers to this effect (without mentioning the two above, or dozens of others).

Such a strong correlation over such long time periods implies a causal relationship, and it can only go one way: earthly temperatures are not causing sunspots.

One avenue by which an active sun warms the earth is easily understood. Increased solar activity brings with it a slight increase in Total Solar Irradiance (primarily in the form of a not-so-slight increase in UV). But this known increase in TSI is far too small to account for the observed high degree of correlation between solar activity and global temperature. Either the UV effects are somehow being magnified (perhaps by affecting atmospheric chemistry in some way), or that OTHER manifestation of solar activity—the solar wind—is somehow affecting global temperature.

The front running candidate for a solar-magnetic warming effect is Henrik Svensmark’s GCR-cloud theory: that the solar wind blows away the Galactic Cosmic Radiation that would otherwise ionize the atmosphere and seed cloud formation, in effect blowing away the clouds, causing the earth to warm. Many are highly skeptical of Svensmark’s theory, but whatever theory one prefers, the physical evidence is clear. There is some powerful mechanism other than direct TSI forcing by which solar activity is driving global temperature, and EVERYBODY knows it.

Inverting scientific method

The IPCC’s fraud is to use doubts about the mechanism by which indirect solar effects drive temperature as an excuse for completely omitting indirect solar effects from their models. The only solar effects that are included in the IPCC models are direct TSI forcings. Indirect solar effect, known from the data to be much more powerful (capable of turning solar activity into the dominant driver of global climate across the entire geological record) are completely excluded from the IPCC prediction scheme, simply because we are not certain how they work.

This is an exact perversion of the scientific method, which is defined by the priority of data over theory. The IPCC throws out the data because it is uncomfortable with the state of the theory.

Using the IPCC’s method, a pre-Einsteinian scientist would have to predict that a rock released into the air would waft away on the breeze because we understand how the breeze pushes the rock, but we don’t understand this invisible force that some people call "gravity." Thus by the standards of the IPCC, the tendency of dropped rocks to fall should not be accounted in our predictions, even though we are well aware of the overwhelming empirical evidence that heavy objects do fall. Sorry, but that is just not science, and neither are the IPCC’s predictions of dangerous CO2-driven global warming.

Solar magnetic warming has been mis-attributed to CO2

When the solar-magnetic variable is omitted from the IPCC models, the warming effects of the solar-magnetic flux get misattributed to any correlated variables that ARE included. Since CO2 and solar activity both reached historical highs over the second half of the 20th century, the warming effects of the high solar wind get misattributed to CO2. That is how the IPCC arrives at its claim that the climate is highly sensitive to CO2: by pure anti-scientific fraud.

Pesnell, Hathaway both know it, and are desperately spinning to cover it up. Despite being our solar experts, they toe the fraudulent IPCC line to the letter. In Phillips’s article, NASA acknowledges the slight increase in Total Solar Irradiation that accompanies high solar activity, but assures the American people that: “The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming.”

Nobody knows better than Pesnell and Hathaway that direct TSI effects are insufficient to account for the magnitude of the causal relationship between solar activity and temperature that is implied by the data. Nobody knows better than these two that the IPCC completely omits indirect solar effects from its models. Nobody knows better than these two that this causes late-20th-century warming to be misattributed to CO2. Yet they still pretend that the warming effects of CO2, which they know to be a fraud, will dominate the solar effects, which they know have been grossly understated.

This as the fraudsters now in charge of our energy policies are charging at manic speed to unplug our fossil fueled economy before the global cooling caused by our inactive sun pulls the rug out from under their global warming hoax.

Can Dr. Phillips please take a look at the right side of that temperature graph?

Really? “The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming”? In fact, "the changes so far" HAVE been "enough to reverse the course of global warming":

HadCRUT3 raw, peaked in 1998 (blue is 21 yr. smoothed).

Global warming stopped a decade ago, and global temperature has dipped substantially in the last couple of years. What can one call this NASA assertion that "the changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming" but a flat out lie about the readily available temperature record?

David Hathaway's Solar Cycle 24 predictions are just as counterfactual. He is STILL using his long since invalidated prediction scheme to predict that Solar Cycle 24 will ramp up TOMORROW:

Even Hathaway's colleagues have stopped paying attention to his meaningless "predictions":
Pesnell believes sunspot counts will pick up again soon, "possibly by the end of the year," to be followed by a solar maximum of below-average intensity in 2012 or 2013.

De-regulate energy production NOW

If we would uncap our energy resources, our economy would rocket out of this recession/budding-depression. Instead, thanks to the flat-out anti-scientific dishonesty of our so-called "scientists," we are on the verge of destroying our economy out of trumped-up hysteria about global warming, even as we are already descending into a period of global cooling of who knows what depth. These eco-religionists are insane, and they are going to get a LOT of people killed.

Thursday, April 09, 2009

Obama's Potemkin military reception, NO SCANDAL; Troops plan who will take what questions from Bush, HUGE SCANDAL

"Cheered wildly by U.S. troops," begins Jennifer Democratic Operative Loven's AP report on Obama's surprise visit to Iraq on Tuesday.

Quite a contrast to the silent treatment Marines gave Obama at his Camp LeJeune speech in late February. Just how did Obama manage to fix that little problem?

According to a sergeant in Iraq:
We were pre-screened, asked by officials “Who voted for Obama?”, and then those who raised their hands were shuffled to the front of the receiving line. They even handed out digital cameras and asked them to hold them up. [Via Macsmind.]
As supporting evidence for the digital-cameras part of the story, the sergeant (or Mac, can't tell which), suggests that the identical cameras can be verified in the AP photos. Looks right:

Charles Dharapak/associated press

So will the press cover this evidence of a staged and unrepresentative show of military affection for our anti-military president? The reporters were there. Did they actually see the troops being sorted by whether they voted for Obama, which the sergeant describes as happening on the spot?

Stephen Hurst's AP report is upfront about Obama's fervent desire for a hero's welcome:
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama went for the defining television shot by capping his first extended foreign tour with a surprise visit to Iraq.

He got it – pictures of hundreds of U.S. troops cheering wildly as he told them it was time for the Iraqis to take charge of their own future.
Just no mention of HOW Obama managed to fake this response: Obama lover's to the front!

FLASHBACK: How the press treated the merest impression of a staged troop response under President Bush, even when there was no actual manipulation

Remember this headline from 2005:
Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged
It dominated the headlines and the television news-analysis for days, and the fabricated scandal was utterly dishonest. The so-called "staging" involved no manipulation whatsoever. A group of soldiers who were scheduled for a televised chat with President Bush were "caught on tape" discussing ahead of time who would answer questions on what subjects. There was NO discussion of WHAT should be said.

Now there is evidence that Obama perpetrated an actual fraud right under the watching eyes of the press, handpicking Obama voters to represent on television the views of our soldiers, and the press reports nothing but the fraudulent story.

Piling it on

Of course the AP stories about Obama's surprise Iraq trip are larded with other bits of pro-Obama, anti-Bush disinformation as well. Hurst ends with his own interpretation of the glorious new age of Obama:
The world has been alerted to a new U.S. approach that breaks with the "go it alone" style of Bush.
"Go it alone" as in going into Iraq with a coalition of 40 countries and an evenly split minority party (same degree of Democrat support in the Senate as opposition in the House).

Neither did the press note the glaring counterfactuals in Obama's speech. From The New York Times:
The president said that it was time for Iraqis “to take responsibility for their country and for their sovereignty.”
So why does it take Gateway Pundit to point out that sovereignty has already been transferred in 13 of 18 provinces?

All the disinformation that fits in print.

Friday, April 03, 2009

No, the first question is: "Why was nobody prepared to defend themselves and others?"

Representative Maurice Hinchey, on the slaughter of immigrants taking citizenship tests in Binghamton New York:
"One of the first questions is going to be, what motivated this?" he said. "What caused this to happen? What was the kind of person who did it?"
The cause is simple. The citizens of New York are disarmed, promising every shitbag sociopath that he can kill without opposition for however many minutes it takes until the police arrive, an offer that is too tempting for some of these cesspools of envy and spite pass up.

As for the particulars of Liverlily Voong's pretended grievances against innocent people, who gives a damn? If he was an Islamofascist committing an act of war, the country needs to know that. Otherwise, his rancid reasons can go to the pit along with his rancid soul. The only thing that matters is that people be able to defend themselves against these monsters wherever they inevitably spring up, be they agents of the Wahhabist-Khomeinist war against liberty, or the authors of their own war against mankind.

How indicative that the victims were taking a citizenship test, while the State of New York was forcing them and everyone around them to fail the first duty of citizenship: to be prepared to defend themselves and each other.

UPDATE: And when the police do arrive, they might not be in any hurry to take on the shooter:
Police heard no gunfire after they arrived but waited for about an hour before entering the building to make sure it was safe for officers.
That's with 26 people still hiding in the basement. If the police did hear shooting, would they have been less cautious, or more cautious? Not saying the police were wrong here. Two officers were murdered in Oakland last month when then weren't cautious enough in going after a spree killer. It is just a measure of people's need to be able to defend themselves.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?