This actually happened the day before Nidal Hasan went Jihadi-postal (but don’t let that inconvenient fact stop me from making an eye-catching headline blurb!).

According to the Danville Express,

Police arrested 22-year-old Abdul Walid Hamid of Hayward on the evening of Wednesday, Nov. 4, after he reportedly tore a crucifix from a person’s neck and scared others at Stoneridge Shopping Center.

Hamid, an employee at a mall kiosk near Starbucks, has been charged with battery, terrorist threats and grand theft.

According to reports, Hamid was yelling “Allah is power” and “Islam is great” while holding a pen in a fist over his head. Witnesses said he shouted anti-Christian comments, said police.

Lt. Mike Elerick of the Pleasanton Police Department said the man was not provoked and didn’t threaten violence, but he committed robbery when he grabbed and broke a crucifix off someone’s neck.

I’d say that constitutes assault/battery as well, and was an act of violence.

Coworkers told police that Hamid’s actions were out of the ordinary and that he had worked at the kiosk for years.

Police also said they weren’t aware of a prior criminal history for the man.

“We had multiple people calling 911,” Elerick said. “One female was crouching down and hiding from him. He definitely scared quite a few people.”

Elerick said much of the man’s speech was similar to the loud scene of the Christian activists who frequent downtown Pleasanton. The big difference, however, was that Hamid was on private property and had physical contact with someone.

“Mall management has the option of making a citizen’s arrest on anybody and asking someone to remove themselves for any reason,” he said. “If there was no physical contact between Hamid and the customers, with just his actions alone, the mall would have asked that he be removed.”

Hamid was reportedly not cooperating and was arrested by force and taken to John George Psychiatric Pavilion in San Leandro for an evaluation. Police said the case would be forwarded to the District Attorney’s Office for review and possible charges.

I wonder if he’ll receive the same psychiatric evaluation as Nidal Hasan?

Hamid was arraigned Tuesday morning at Alameda Superior Court in Pleasanton on charges of battery, grand theft, exhibition of a deadly weapon and a possible hate crime. Deputy District Attorney Ronda Theisen requested his bail remain at $27,000.

Calling it a bizarre case, Theisen also asked that Hamid, who is still in custody, be ordered to stay out of Stoneridge Shopping Center.

Through an interpreter, Hamid requested a public defender and was scheduled to appear in court at 9 a.m. Thursday where he is expected to enter a plea.

Hamid’s been working in the mall kiosk for years, yet needs an interpreter?!

Incidentally, the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council

has not received a single report recently of a U.S. soldier being harassed “simply because he was Muslim.”

The only backlash that seems to be the result here, is MSM pushing the PC mantra and not acknowledging that Islam has a part to play in the narrative, here.

And even if a Muslim, in or out of the military, has received some taunts and verbal abuse, SO WHAT? Grow some thicker skin! Grow up.

Amy Proctor:

I’m a military wife who works in the chapel. That’s my full time job besides being a mother. In the many military posts I’ve been stationed in, we bend over backwards to accomodate and welcome ALL religions. We even have Wiccan services. We have Jewish, Muslim…. that isn’t to say that Muslims are never teased or looked on with suspicion, but ill treatment is rare. In fact, I would bet my soul that Muslim soldiers are treated far better in the military than single female soldiers.

Most Christians in the military are VERY tolerant. We see all different kinds of faith operating within the military and all around the world. It’s simply our experience that we live.

Let me tell you a little something about that article you linked to. The discussion is about Muslim soldeirs troubled by fighting in Middle Eastern countries. Well, that should raise red flags to the military. WE’RE FIGHTING TERRORISTS AND IMPOSTER MUSLIMS, not good devout law abiding Muslims. Why would a Muslim soldier have a consciencious objection to fighting Muslim heretics who kill women and children, who behead and rape? They shouldn’t unless they are sympathetic to their cause. THAT IS CAUSE FOR ALARM.

We have a friend whose a Major in the Army. He’s also a good devout Muslim. He fought in Iraq and had no problem doing so because he understood he was fighting evil men, not good Muslims. In fact, he was protecting the innocent Muslim civilians by fighting al-Qaeda, the insurgency and other terrorists.

I will say that for the charge that “This (sterotyping) could have been done by a rightwing Christian group”, I say, so what? Sterotyping isn’t exactly as dangerous as picking up a pistol and murdering 14 innocent people, is it? And since when do Christians have to give up their religious views to accomodate the Muslims? They think we’re infidels, we think they’re in a false religion. That’s life. These people are soldiers and need to man up and deal with criticism.

~~~

I would also point out that per the article, U.S. soldiers would be IDIOTS not to look out for suspicious behavior. To do what they’re saying, and just accept all Muslim soldiers without expecting their character to speak for themselves, is the same reckless blind-eye-turning that led to this massacre to begin with.

CH Houston said, “Our Muslim soldiers are accepted well.” Then he says “It’s dangerous to stereotype. This could have been done by a right-wing Christian group.”

“This”? What “this” is he talking about, sterotyping? What a crime. Please, let’s not talk about the damage right-wing Muslims have done.

This article didn’t site any specifics except some Ft. Hood Muslim troops felt “ridiculed”. Well, join the club, fellas. Guess what ridicule I went through when Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart were found to be hyopcrites? Or when reports of child molesting priests surfaced? It’s called LIFE. I’ve been ridiculed about my faith because of the actions of others on this blog all the time. So? We all fight apostacy in our faiths, mostly by setting the right example with our personal lives.

Life happens, people. Man up. It’s as I said before, no one is actually doing anything to Muslim soldiers. It’s all theories and feelings people are talking about, as if Muslim soldiers are under some sort of threat. It’s not as if non-Muslim soldiers are picking up guns and shooting the Muslim soldiers, after all. That would be insane.

We on the Right knew instinctively what the media and this administration’s reaction to the most recent case of (not so) Sudden Jihadi Syndrome that occurred at Fort Hood. We knew without prompting that they would attempt to diminish the rage and anger that they knew was dwelling in the hearts of all patriotic, and life-loving Americans as they saw the event unfold. They wrongly assumed that we angered-Americans would seek out and “punish” the first Moslem we stumbled upon. This assumption on their part has angered us almost as much as the actual murders did. Are we not to be angry at whoever killed 12 of our finest, standing unarmed, and unsuspecting in their skivvies? Are we so little though-of, that they assume we are on the razors edge of abandoning of our law-abiding, Judeo-Christian culture for one of animalistic revenge? Those 20%’ers made those assumptions. They label our anger misplaced, and they label us as savages, equal or worse than the shooter, even though a grand total of ONE Moslem has been killed in vigilante-style revenge in 40 years, and only after 911, and that person is now in prison for life.

According to my numbers, the score is now 1 dead Moslem vs. approx 3500 dead Americans killed on our own soil, beginning with a certain Moslem killing a certain Kennedy, all the way through last weeks carnage.

There is certainly many Islamist’s living here at least verbally willing to continue this mayhem as taught by Mohammed. We read their words in their blogs, and we hear them on the corners of New York and Dearborn. We see them in our colleges, and yet we protect them via our laws and our customs. In some cases, we even pay their way here and pay their tuition, while our taxes help them with medical care and foodstamps if necessary.

In the minds of these tough-talkers, we do these things not because we are benevolent, but because we either “owe” them for being unbelievers, or we are simply stupid fools. In most polls taken, these verbal wanna-be Jihadi’s make up about 15-25% of Moslems worldwide. Here in America, the worse numbers show about 1-2%. Considering there are approximately 3 million Moslems living here, the potential numbers of Warriors for Allah is still significant, even if we assume only 1% of those would actually carry out jihad.

So what’s stopping them? The other 80% of us are, including the cops, and the FBI. They know full well that this isn’t England, and not only do we have armed cops, we have an armed to-the-teeth populace, and that together we can stop them fairly quickly. Strange as it sounds, Fort Hood might be “safer” for a Jihadi than my local Oak Ridge Mall is, because all of the soldier’s weapons are in lockers. But mine, and many others are on our collective hips. They may talk the big talk about martyrdom, but when it all goes down, they don’t want to die before making a big-enough splash to be counted among the “heroes” of Jihadville. They know that for as multiculturally blind as our politicians, teachers and commentators are, a big section of us still have it in us to fight, as the folks on flight 93 showed.

Some of you might be asking; Yeah, but for how long? The “long race” between those who will submit and those who will never submit is for a different discussion, but I know in my heart, the finish line is a long way off. There is another shorter, more pressing race going on between those of us who will fight when cornered, and those of us who will lash out because we perceive that our government is doing nothing to mitigate the potential for our harm. If several back-to-back episodes of solitary or small-group attacks occur, and we get the same sort of condescending pap we saw in this latest round, I sadly feel the odds of those who will lash-out against innocent Moslems will increase exponentially.

It is the race between “lashers” and the cornered that I focus on in this screed, and what our present “leaders” should be doing about it. We already know what they are NOT doing about it, and how ham-handed they’ve been in lecturing us to “behave” in light of what we’ve been seeing these past 40 years on our own soil.

More than any president we’ve ever had, Obama has the opportunity to nip two bad buds at once: The fed up zealot-vigilante, and the wanna-be holy-Jihadi.

Obama has an “in” with the Moslem populace of this country, and some say the world. His attendance of Islamic schools during childhood, and his kind words toward it, gives him credence when he talks about the faith, like no other previous president has ever had.

He needs to come out forcefully against Sunni Wahabism, and Shia Khomenism in one grand speech. (It is the speech he should have given in Egypt, but didn’t.) He can talk directly to the Moslems in this country, and give them a clear choice: Peaceful Islam, or prison/deportation.

He needs to back it up by having Congress and the Senate give the FBI, the police, and the courts the power to remove those who espouse violent Islam from our midst, instead of waiting for them to act out their twisted beliefs. He could even define all religious-based violence as akin to present (1st-amendment-questionable) hate-crime laws against minorities and gays. They hide behind our First Amendment to spread their filth, when we all know that this filth motivates others to their cause. There are some who will bring up the freedom of religion aspect of the Constitution. To those he should remind them of the history of Utah statehood, and how they had to denounce polygamy before they were admitted to the Union, and once in, they could not re-instate it. The Bushido religion of Imperial Japan is not allowed here, and neither is the virgin sacrifice of the Mayans, so there IS precedence for religious controls by the State. After all, Obama sure was quick to publicly condemn the man who shot and killed an abortion doctor, and rightfully took his religious extremism to task.

There of course needs to be solid demarcation lines within these laws, so that only calls-to-violence is prosecuted, and there needs to be zero-tolerance for this filth within our government and military. The lawyers can find a way.

Obama could pull this off, because he not only has some credibility within the Islamic community, he also will be supported by the media, and the 20%’ers. Of course the ACLU might put up some token resistance, but we all know it will be muted at best. Bush tried the tact of morally separating the peaceful from the violent, but because he was NOT a progressive-socialist, he was spit upon for even attempting it, even though he got the (un-reported) support of many peaceful Moslems in the country for shining a light on what they themselves are up against.

These religious extremists, primarily of the Islamic sort, need to be treated like the Klan was in the 70’s. Obama should emphasize their intolerance of gays, of Blacks, of women, of atheist’s. Include every bias close to the heart of Progressives everywhere. If he did all these things, he would be re-elected by a landslide by both the Left and Right, and the vigilante would be forever in his hole.

We are beginning to see what happens when the authorities treat Islamists with kid gloves. We are seeing the rise of un-healthy nationalism in England and Europe. We will see more of this, and I feel strongly, that mass violence will occur there within 5 years. It will not be pretty, and it will escalate. Multiculturalism will have failed, and good, positive acceptance along with it.

We can safely assume that Obama will not do what truly needs to be done in this regard. Some cynics might say that these Leftists actually want the rabid-nativist to rise up in a violent fashion, so that the Left can pointedly vilify them, and gain political power. I personally think that the Left is simply ignorant, and see historical Western/American culture as an impediment to their “progress”. I also see radical Islam using that same ignorance as a tool to kill us with. And by “us”, I mean moonbats and wingnuts, Black and White, gay and straight, men and women, etc and etc.

In light of the fact that Obama will never lift a finger to mitigate the fears of the fed-up among us, and that the Islamist knows he will never speak truthfully about their 7th-century outlook on life, we can expect many more incidents of solo and small-group attacks. Followed by acts of miss-directed vigilantism. Followed up with an over-reaction by government against all of us.

I wonder if someday Obama will ever come to the realization that the American/Western society he so despises and apologizes for, is the same one, and the only one, that made him possible?

Stresses at Fort Hood Were Likely Intense for Hasan

The Washington Post:

At Walter Reed, a palpable strain on mental-health system

And on and on.

Day after day since the terrorist acts of Hasan we have been inundated with calls from out MSM and the Democrats that this was all one man going crazy. Why did he go crazy? Well, because of the strain of treating those with PTSD.

Now even treating PTSD will give you PTSD. Nevermind the thousands of men and women who have listened to these horrors day in and day out as they treated our wounded soldiers….and they never picked up a gun to kill innocent life. Nevermind the thousands of soldiers who came back from war and did not murder 13 people.

No….it’s not because he wanted to terrorize the populace to effectively stop the “war against Islam.”

He just snapped.

It is an example of political correctness. And all the warnings that people had had in advance and not reported is an example of how political correctness isn’t only a moral abomination, it’s also a danger.

Perfect example is from The U.S. Army’s top general:

“What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here.”

Who in the hell said anything about trying to destroy diversity inside our military? What many of us are saying is that when there are signs that someone is an extremist…take action.

Rich Lowry:

If Casey says that after 13 people die, imagine what pressures there were in the military to honor Hasan’s contribution to diversity before he killed. Hasan’s fellow students told the Associated Press that, despite his anti-American rants, “a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.”

And there you have it. No one complained when, at a conference where he was supposed to give a medical presentation, he gave this instead:

The Koranic World View as it Related to Muslims in the U.S. Military (pdf)

Robert from Jihad Watch on the presentation:

Note the copious quoting of the Koran; the explanation of the doctrine of abrogation (citing Koran 2:106 and 16:101), which usually Islamic apologists in the West dismiss as an invention of “Islamophobes”; and the explanations of defensive and offensive jihad.

Islamic spokesmen in the U.S., if anyone asks them to comment on this at all, will dismiss it as an “extremist” interpretation of Islam and claim that no Muslims in the U.S., not one, believe in this understanding of Islam. But I guarantee you that none of the, not one, will offer a specific alternative explanation of the verses he cites, or of his doctrine of jihad, or of his understanding of Islam.

Why wasn’t he stopped during this presentation? I mean its a sign of an extremist when he acted like this but no one said anything due to fear of being labeled a racist or islamaphobe.

How about contacting terrorists? Should that be looked into before violence happens?

U.S. intelligence agencies learned an Army psychiatrist contacted an Islamist sympathetic to al Qaeda and they relayed the information to authorities before the man allegedly went on a shooting spree that killed 13 people in Texas last week, U.S. officials said on Monday.

While the agencies were monitoring contacts by Anwar al-Awlaki, a fiery, anti-American cleric in Yemen who sympathized with al Qaeda, they came across some communications late last year with the shooting suspect, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, U.S. government officials said.

They said the information was given to federal authorities who determined that Hasan’s writings were largely consistent with his academic work, offering no hint that he was planning an attack or was following orders from anyone…

~~~

The 10 to 20 communications between Hasan and the cleric continued into 2009. That prompted authorities to look into Hasan, the officials said. But they decided the matter did not warrant an investigation.

~~~

In August 2009, Hasan purchased two firearms that he used to carry out the attack, but the government officials said that U.S. law does not permit them to connect that purchase information with the other intelligence they had.

The Democrats put up the Gorelick Wall (pdf), tried to shut down FISA, outed successful secret programs in place to stop extremists, and now they, and their lackeys in the MSM are making apologies for an act of terror committed on American soil.

Disgusting.

More here.

Via ABC News:

A pharmacy college graduate made a defiant appearance in federal court Wednesday, hours after being charged with conspiring with two other men in a terror plot to kill two prominent U.S. politicians and carry out a holy war by attacking shoppers in U.S. malls and American troops in Iraq.

Authorities say the men’s plans — in which they used code words like “peanut butter and jelly” for fighting in Somalia and “culinary school” for terrorist camps — were thwarted in part when they could not find training and were unable to buy automatic weapons, authorities said.

Tarek Mehanna, 27, was arrested Wednesday morning at his parents’ home in Sudbury, an upscale suburb 20 miles west of Boston, and appeared for a brief hearing later in the day. When ordered by the judge to stand to hear the charge against him, he refused. He finally did stand — tossing his chair loudly to the floor — only after his father urged him to do so.

“This really, really is a show,” his father, Ahmed Mehanna, said afterward.

Uh…no. That would be balloon boy and his father. This is different…

When asked if he believed the charges against his son, he said, “No, definitely not.”

Ah, yes… he’s such a good boy, his family claimed when he was arrested last year:

Like clockwork, Mehanna’s family defends him as a nice boy who just completed his graduate work to become a pharmacist. What his family may or may not know is that Mehanna goes by the online handle “Abu Sayaba” and runs the “Iskandari” website which is devoted to promoting the Salafi ideology.

This is like the 4th or 5th terror plot that’s been disrupted in the past month and made public, isn’t it?

While al Qaeda traditionally goes for the big and spectacular, just think what a series of smaller-scale terror attacks could achieve from terror cells and jihadist-wannabe, driven by Islamic hate, regardless of whether or not they are affiliated with al Qaeda. Malls, movie theaters, dance clubs, schools, buses…any public setting where people converge.

Prosecutors say Tarek Mehanna worked with two men from 2001 to May 2008 on the conspiracy to “kill, kidnap, maim or injure” soldiers and two politicians who were members of the executive branch but are no longer in office. Authorities refused to identify the politicians.

Mehanna — a graduate of the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy in Boston, where his father is a professor — conspired with Ahmad Abousamra, who authorities say is now in Syria, and an unnamed man, who is cooperating in the investigation, according to authorities.

The three men often discussed their desire to participate in “violent jihad against American interests” and talked about “their desire to die on the battlefield,” prosecutors said. But when they were unable to join terror groups in Iraq, Yemen and Pakistan, they found inspiration in the Washington-area sniper shootings and turned their interests to domestic terror pursuits while they plotted the attack on shopping malls, authorities said.

~~~

Loucks said the men justified attacks because U.S. civilians pay taxes to support the U.S. government and because they are “nonbelievers.”

~~~

Court documents filed by the government say that in 2002 or 2003, Abousamra became frustrated after repeatedly being rejected to join terror groups in Pakistan — first Lashkar e Tayyiba, then the Taliban.

“Because Abousamra was an Arab (not Pakistani) the LeT camp would not accept him, and because of Abousamra’s lack of experience, the Taliban camp would not accept him,” FBI Special Agent Heidi Williams wrote in the affidavit.

Mehanna and Abousamra traveled to Yemen in 2004 in an attempt to join a terrorist training camp.

It’s a tough life being a successful terrorist-wannabe-wahhabi.

Mehanna allegedly told a friend, the third conspirator who is now cooperating with authorities, that their trip was a failure because they were unable to reach people affiliated with the camps. The men, who had allegedly received tips on whom to meet from a person identified in court documents as “Individual A,” said half the people they wanted to see were on “hajj,” referring to the pilgrimage to Mecca in Islam, and half were in jail.

“They traveled all over the country looking for the people Individual A told them to meet,” authorities allege in the criminal complaint.

Abousamra was rejected by a terror group when he sought training in Iraq because he was American, authorities said.

The men later decided they were not going to be able to get terror training in Pakistan and “began exploring other options, including terrorist acts in the United States,” the affidavit said.

Mehanna, a U.S. citizen, was arrested in November and charged with lying to the FBI in December 2006 when asked the whereabouts of Daniel Maldonado, who is now serving a 10-year prison sentence for training with al-Qaida to overthrow the Somali government.

Mehanna told the FBI that Maldonado was living in Egypt and working for a Web site. But authorities said Maldonado had called Mehanna from Somalia urging him to join him in “training for jihad.”

Authorities said Wednesday that Mehanna and his conspirators had contacted Maldonado about getting automatic weapons for their planned mall attacks.

Carney, who represented Mehanna in the previous case, said at the time: “If this is the FBI’s idea of a terrorist, they are using a net that is designed to catch minnows instead of sharks.”

After his arrest, Mehanna developed a cult following among Muslim civil rights groups and Web sites that believed Mehanna was wrongly arrested. Web sites like the London-based cageprisoners.com…, a human rights group that advocates for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other detainees as part of the U.S. war on terror, asked supporters to write Mehanna in prison to keep up his spirits.

The site MuslimMatters.org… asked supporters to pray for his release and published a letter they said Mehanna wrote from prison.

In the letter, Mehanna thanked supporters and said he was being treated well.

“I can only think of the countless imprisoned Muslims in the jails of tyrants around the globe and hope that if it is not Allah’s Decree to free them in the near future, that they taste the sweetness that Allah has placed them in prison to taste,” Mehanna wrote.

He signed the letter, “Your brother in the green jumpsuit.”

So long as Muslim groups act as apologists and defenders of these failed martyrs and deride religious-ethnic-nationality profiling, the Patriot Act, NSA surveillance programs, and oppose and mischaracterize U.S. foreign policy and our military efforts, they will only do themselves more harm than good; and only enable, encourage, and foster more home-grown Islamic terrorists.

Ward Churchill (remember him?) references the book, Smallpox and the American Indian, during his testimony in his civil suit against the University of Colorado at the City and County Building in Denver, Colorado March 23, 2009. Churchill is suing the University of Colorado for wrongful termination.
AP photo.

Today, I picked up 2 kids I carpool to the gymnastics club from their magnet school, as I do every Monday. Apparently, there was no mention about Columbus Day. Nada. Zippo. Nothing negative or positive. But they did watch a performance by dancers dressed like Mayan/Aztec Indians; and the older one said it was “Latino Heritage month”.

This school was closed for Yom Kippur (where 99% of the kids are black and Hispanic). But they were open today, with no mention of Columbus, but did celebrate “Latino heritage”. Oooookaaay…..

I’m recognizing my country, less and less, as time wears on….

While Federal government offices in Washington, D.C. are closed for Columbus Day, students in Maryland, just a few miles away, have a full school day. What was once a guaranteed day off from work is now a gamble, with many schools and workplaces open on Columbus Day.

Columbus Day is not commemorated universally. Federal and state offices are closed, the United States Postal Service will not deliver mail, and many banks are shuttered.

But public schools in large cities like Los Angeles, Miami and Dallas are open, while in Washington, DC, New York City and Chicago they are closed

It has been a growing trend for more than 20 years.

On the 25th, thousands of protesters (possibly millions according to some online accounts) descended upon Pittsburgh, PA to demonstrate for various causes at the G20 Summit. It was the second day of marching. There were socialists, anarchists, and environmentalists; everyone from veteran protesters who were marching in the 60s to wide-eyed college kids drawn by the idealism and excitement. Some were there to protest peacefully while others were there to cause violence and property damage.

One man, who has yet to reveal his real name, caused over $20,000 of damage singlehandedly by smashing between 12-15 shop windows during the march.

To contain such instigators, and to keep demonstrators on the marching path, the Pittsburgh Police Department was dispatched in full riot gear. For a currently unknown reason, violence broke out. Both sides claim that the other acted first. As seen in the video link below there were helicopters with floodlights, APCs with loudspeakers and sound cannons, tear gas, rubber bullets, ballistic beanbags, and German Shepherds (as seen in another video taken on site.) Police did not hold back when attempting to disperse crowds and used all legal force at their disposal. They were caught off guard in February, they wouldn’t be caught off guard now. There was general chaos in the city and it spilled over into a university campus and involved innocent bystanders.

In some YouTube videos, sizable crowds of college kids can be seen running for safety away from police.

This video gives an excellent sense of the police crackdown from a student’s point of view.

From this perspective it may seem that we live in a fascist state that oppresses those who speak out against government policies. However, a closer examination of the organizers of the march reveals the truth behind the violence and subsequent propaganda.

On Twitter an energetic young woman tweeted a link to a video which seems to show police oppressing peaceful protesters who are simply acting under the 1st amendment.

See the video here.

A closer look reveals that the man with the megaphone who is spontaneously spouting libertarian rhetoric on a spur of the moment feeling is actually a grizzled revolutionary with a track record of arrests and public disruption. This man is Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange.org… This group was founded on the premise that the terrorists attacks of 9/11/01 and the resulting collapse of the World Trade Center in New York City was planned and administered by the U.S. government. The group’s activities since then have been focused on disrupting police organizations and organizing garish protests. Rudkowski himself has been arrested for disruption in New York and Los Angeles. The website brags of such accomplishments. This organization largely contributed to disruption in the city.

Another Anarchist who was largely responsible for organizing the riot from Twitter was Mike Gogulski of nostate.com. A self-described, “Future stateless person,” Gogulski is an unabashed anarchist who no longer lives or works in the U.S. but has vowed to overthrow the current system of society. Through Twitter on his cellphone he was able to coordinate fellow protesters’ movements by tweeting where police officers were, where they were going, and what they were planning to do. Anyone who wanted to see these tweets just had to look at a feed entitled “#resistg20.” (There was also a more open feed entitled “#g20″ where many points of view were expressed.)

What are we to think then? Are we to dismiss this as the act of a fringe group of radical revolutionists who have no real power? No.

A group like this is never powerless because of their ability to organize with startling speed and efficiency. Also, such groups have the ability to infiltrate lumbering, overstuffed bureaucracies such as the U.S. Government and institute policy behind an OZ like curtain of secrecy. The Communist Party had a lot of success doing this between the 1920s and 1950s. (Read “Witness” by Whittaker Chambers to gain some perspective.)

So is this proof of a fascist/communist/socialist revolution? No.

Whenever you see protesters in the streets calling for an end to the excesses of capitalism or demanding the downsizing of government you’re seeing a nation’s desperate cry for help, but not in the way you might think.

The election of Barrack Obama inspired millions of people to have faith in government and to expect corporate waste to end. This clearly hasn’t happened. Instead we’ve seen the government get into bed with corporations such as GM. This one act of buying out and running GM realizes two of the greatest fears that Americans have. The election of Barrack Obama to the White House didn’t unify the nation as has been claimed. It raised the hopes of millions only to make government waste and corporate abuses of power worse.

Basically, Americans are feeling control of their lives and of their country being taken from them and they are scared. People are doing drastic things in the hope of regaining their control. Some are calling for the drastic overhaul of healthcare while others attend violent rallies like the one in Pittsburgh. This is one factor contributing to a larger problem.

A feeling of helplessness and despair about our roles in the world is at the heart of radicalism and unrest in this country, regardless of political leanings or socioeconomic status. Americans and the people of the world don’t want partisan domination of government. People don’t like either party! They want the freedom to control their own lives and have their voices heard.

This one problem of disenfranchisement is very complex by itself as it encompasses spiritual, economic, physical, political, and intellectual facets which each have been significantly complicated over the past century. (I’ll address each of those in subsequent posts.)

Next Week: How Twitter and Social Networking are Making Mass Media obsolete.

Related Material: “An Open Letter to G20 Protesters”

Crossposted from Peter Lajoie: A Cutting Edge Perspective

“It’s not about me“, says the cardboard president? How does the Mmm mmm mm president say this with a straight face anymore?

President Obama’s underwhelming speech at the UN General Assembly and his charm offensive III media blitz perpetuates his growing image of a president who is trying to sell us style over substance; personality to drive policy; a junior senator elected to the highest office in the land to lead the free world who is woefully under-prepared to do any such thing. So he finds himself selling…

….himself.

Riding on the mantra of “hope” and “change” and “I’m not Bush.”

Michael Gerson writing for WaPo, nails it (hat tip: Melissa Clouthier):

Obama’s rhetorical method in international contexts — given supreme expression at the United Nations this week — is a moral dialectic. The thesis: pre-Obama America is a nation of many flaws and failures. The antithesis: The world responds with understandable but misguided prejudice. The synthesis: Me. Me, at all costs; me, in spite of all terrors; me, however long and hard the road may be. How great a world we all should see, if only all were more like…me.

On several occasions, Obama attacked American conduct in simplistic caricatures a European diplomat might employ or applaud. He accused America of acing “unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others” — a slander against every American ally who has made sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan. He argued that, “America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy” — which is hardly a challenge for the Obama administration, which has yet to make a priority of promoting democracy or human rights anywhere in the world.

Hugh Hewitt adds:

The second worst part of the speech was the studied refusal bluntly to name Iran as an oppressor of its own people and an exporter of terror and breaker of international rules. Part of the essence of appeasement is the refusal by free states to speak bluntly about their fascist counterparts. The president’s meaningless rhetoric about “certain truths which are self-evident” must be a very bitter pill for the dissidents of iran in prison, and their families and friends, who were looking for a statement of solidarity, not an invitation for the fanatics to continue their repression under the guise of each country pursuing “a path rooted in the culture of its people and its past traditions.”

Back to Gerson:

The world, of course, has its problems, too. It has accepted “misperceptions and misinformation.” It can be guilty of a “reflexive anti-Americanism.” “Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone.” Translation: I know you adore me because I am better than America’s flawed past. But don’t just stand there loving me, do something.

I can recall no other major American speech in which the narcissism of a leader has been quite so pronounced. It might be compared to Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s “I shall return” — which made it sound like MacArthur intended to reconquer the Philippines single-handedly. But MacArthur, at least, imagined himself as embodying his country, not transcending it. He did not assert that while the Japanese invasion was certainly excessive, America had been guilty of provocations of its own — and now, in the MacArthur era, things would be finally different.

Twice in his United Nations speech, Obama dares to quote Franklin Roosevelt. I have read quite a bit of Roosevelt’s rhetoric. It is impossible to imagine him, under any circumstances, unfairly criticizing his own country in an international forum in order to make himself look better in comparison. He would have considered such a rhetorical strategy shameful — as indeed it is.

At the United Nations, Obama set out to denigrate American goodness so he can become our rescuer. The speech had nothing to do with the confident style of Democratic rhetoric found in Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy. It insulted that tradition. And no one is likely ever to quote the speech — except to deride it.

More here.

It’s not a new phenomenon. Long ago it was said that the true story of a war can’t be told until the last of its veterans has passed away, and only a few months ago did the last World War One veteran go to his great reward. For decades after the Civil War (and some would argue even today) the debate raged on, and the healing of Southern Reconstruction didn’t really start culturally until the unity of the Spanish-American War turned foes into brothers-in-arms.

Conspiracy theories-often fueled by politics-still rage over the 911 attacks, the invasion of Iraq, whether or not Roosevelt deliberately allowed the Pearl Harbor attack to happen, whether or not the U.S. Navy knew the U.S.S. Maine had a boiler explosion and wasn’t sunk by a mine. People still think that the Lusitania was set on a suicide mission to get the United States into World War One. These myths will always remain, and it’s good that they do because they spark investigation and a search for understanding of these world changing events. The relationship between the 911 attacks and the invasion of Iraq is interesting in that both have a long list of conspiracy theories attacked to each, and yet the abstract, more indirect relationship between the two events is dismissed out of hand. To that end, even if one believes the relationship between Iraq War and 911 attacks is a conspiracy theory, it’s worthwhile to examine if for no other reason than harvesting a better understanding.

Opponents of President Bush and of the invasion of Iraq often claim, “Iraq did not attack the United States on Sept 11, 2001,” but Germany, Italy, and the rest of the Axis didn’t attack Pearl Harbor either and yet the U.S. went to war with them as well as the Japanese. Why? Because those Axis powers had an alliance, an agreement to help the Japanese. It was a paper only agreement (history shows us that there were no battles with uber-racist NAZI S.S. troops fighting alongside Japanese troops), but it was an agreement none-the-less. Additionally, the Axis nations declared war on the United States after the Pearl Harbor attacks. Similarly, we know from Clinton Administration claims, from captured documents, from pre-war and post-war intelligence that Saddam’s intelligence agencies had relationships with various groups in the Al Queda terrorist network of groups. We know from the 1998 Clinton Administration indictment of Osama Bin Laden that the two had reached an agreement to get WMD into the hands of the Al Queda network of terrorist groups.

the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.

We also know from 1990-2003 Saddam’s government considered itself at war with the United States and from 1992-today Osama Bin Laden’s Al Queda network of terrorist groups has been at war with the United States.

Why?

Why did Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda go to war with the United States in 1992? According to the 911 Commission’s final report, the reason that the Al Queda network went to war with the United States, and ultimately the reason for the September 11, 2001 attacks was 4 different things (pg48-49)

He [Osama Bin Laden] inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites.
He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and
he protested U.S. support of Israel.

Why were American forces in Saudi Arabia from 1992-2001? They were there for one reason: to enforce no-fly-zones over Iraq which were there to protect Iraqis from Saddam. If the United States had removed Saddam in 1991, then the U.S. forces wouldn’t have been needed in Saudi Arabia, and Osama Bin Laden’s first casus belli wouldn’t exist.

Why was Osama concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people? He was concerned-like many around the globe-because the U.S. led sanctions were starving tens of millions of people as a failed means of influencing Saddam. Again, had the United States removed Saddam in 1991, Osama Bin Laden’s second casus belli against the United States-his second reason for the 911 attacks-wouldn’t have existed.

Why was Osama Bin Laden so concerned about the United States support for Israel in the 1992-2001 period when Al Queda went to war with the United States? What was unique about that period in America’s support for Israel? In much of the Arab World (and in anti-Semitic circles around the world as well), America’s continued pressure on Saddam Hussein’s regime was viewed as an American shield for Israel; as the United States protecting Israel from Saddam and other aggressive Arab regimes.

The historical lesson and inescapable fact is that if the United States had chosen to remove Saddam from power in 1991, OR if the United States had simply walked away from Iraq in 1991 and washed their hands of Saddam’s regime without trying to compel compliance with United Nations resolutions, then Saddam’s regime would have remained in power, BUT the reasons for Osama Bin Laden and the Al Queda terrorist networks’ war on the United States simply would not exist; i.e. the reasons for the Sept 11, 2001 attacks wouldn’t have existed.

Would Osama Bin Laden and his network still have found other reasons to wage war on the United States? One cannot tell for certain, but it does seem that their nature and their destiny has been to fight superpowers, and with the United States as the sole superpower in the 1990’s, it seems more than likely other excuses for casus belli would have been claimed.

Would Saddam Hussein have still been a threat to the United States if he had been left in power in 1991, and if the United States didn’t pursue compliance with U.N. Resolutions? Absolutely. In 1992 U.N. inspectors found that Saddam’s regime had actually built a nuclear bomb, but lacked enriched uranium for it. From 1992-1995 U.N. inspectors found vast amounts of WMD. Saddam had invaded or attacked every single one of his neighbors during his reign, he’d used WMD in the past, had ordered them used against U.S. troops in the 1991 Gulf War (Iraq Survey Group Report, transcript of recording, vol II). Few reasonable leaders would argue that Saddam was not a threat, and no one would argue that a Saddam Hussein who still had ballistic missiles, WMD, and more in 1992 was not a regional or even global threat. Determined that he was a threat, Saddam either had to be removed in 1991 by the United States, in the 1991-2003 period by internal forces (multiple attempts at which all failed with increasing futlity), or by the United States in 2003.

The abstract, and more indirect relationship between the 911 attacks and the invasion of Iraq is simple: the war with Al Queda and their attacks on the United States (including the 911 attacks) were blowback, consequences, fragmentary effects of the 1991 invasion of Kuwait and Iraq.

The DIRECT relationship between the 911 attacks and Saddam’s regime is far more debated. To be clear, the hijackers were no more Iraqi than the pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor were German and Italian. However, the question of direct Iraqi ties to the 911 attacks go back to that very day when-as the attacks were happening-Iraq shot down an unarmed Predator drone over Iraq that was searching for WMD etc. On that day, after getting sparse, scattered, and chaotic information about the attacks-while they were happening, and while getting 2-3x as many false reports and rumors of attacks, members of the Bush Administration were not at all culpable or irresponsible for asking if Saddam’s regime was behind the attacks.

In fact, at the time it had become a common cultural expectation. During the 1990’s the Clinton Administration repeatedly claimed that Saddam’s regime and the Al Queda network worked together. Mass media reports of the time carried this theme fully and without question. It was even showing up in movies where characters would claim anything-even meteor showers on New York City were the result of Saddam (Armaggeddon ffwd to 1:40).

Unfortunately, on Sept 11, 2001 there was no way to tell if the attacks were directly or just indirectly related to the on-going American war against Saddam (a war that was so poorly reported that most Americans even today fail to realize it even happened, but conversely was so burned into the minds of the Arab Street at the time that it still conjures up bitter memories in the region).

The question of direct Iraqi involvement in the 911 attacks was investigated first by the Bush Administration, and they found no evidence to make a conclusion. Subsequent investigations by the CIA, FBI, the House and Senate intelligence committees, the entire intelligence community, the 911 Commission and more all ran into the same problem: there was no evidence. For political partisans opposed to President Bush and/or the invasion of Iraq that was enough to support their argument that the invasion was somehow not necessary. The conclusion they promoted-that there was “no evidence” of a direct involvement was but 1/3 of the truth. Another 1/3 was the reason that there was “no evidence’ was because almost none had been collected or analyzed, and the reason for that (almost always ignored by political opponents of the Iraq invasion) was that from December 1998-December 2002 the United States had not a single spy inside Iraq. For four years there was no evidence collected, and thus there was “no evidence.”

Most alarmingly, after 1998 and the exit of the U.N. inspectors, the CIA had no human intelligence sources inside Iraq who were collecting against the WMD target.
- Senator Pat Roberts 070904 SIC Release of WMD investigation report
Press Conference transcript

The last 1/3 is the most obvious, and the most deliberately ignored for political purposes: every single investigation that looked at the question of direct regime ties to the 911 attacks and/or the Al Queda network of terrorist groups ALWAYS pointed out that because so little evidence had been collected, the issue was to remain open-not closed or concluded.

After the invasion, innumerable direct ties between the Al Queda network of terrorist groups and Saddam’s regime have been uncovered. These ties are shown in captured and authenticated documents, in the interrogation of former regime leaders, and in the capture of Al Queda operatives. In fact, the relationship between the regime and the network was far far more involved than any relationship between Germany and Japan or Mussolini and Tojo.

Yet it remains a political issue more than a historical one today. six years after the second invasion of Iraq, eight years after the 911 attacks, 17 years after Osama and the Al Queda network declared war on the United States, and 18 years after the United States and Saddam’s regime went to war over Kuwait.

Perhaps, now that President Bush is gone, and there is no more need to use the invasion of Iraq as a draw issue for his opposition…perhaps now people can be mentally brave enough to recognize the undeniable blowback/more-indirect relationship between the Ignored War on Saddam’s regime (1991-2001) and the 911 attacks. There certainly is no more reason to deny this fact, and there’s no more reason to avoid a conclusive investigation into the depth of regime ties to the Al Queda network of terrorist groups.

Not everyone appreciates being offered handouts. It can be quite insulting.

Apparently, all those instances of American soldiers passing out toys and candy and school supplies to Afghan children might be doing some harm in counterinsurgency operations. Instead of goodwill, such handouts may be breeding resentment by shaming and embarrassing Afghan parents who aren’t able to provide such items for their children, themselves.

Thomas Ricks has an interesting post, pointing out a piece by David Wood:

I remembered accompanying a Marine officer through villages in Iraq’s Anbar Province. He’d pull out a handful of candy as kids crowded and jumped. Then he’d ask, “Who’d like a soccer ball?” and he’d summon an aide and hand out a few balls. In the distance, I noticed men who’d just brought their kids to school standing in the shadows, glowering at this scene. Their resentment seemed palpable, that their kids were crowding around an American handing out presents that they couldn’t afford for their own children.

Here in Afghanistan, a different war but the same American impulse of generosity. And to what end? I put this question to an American officer, a man who works closely and professionally with Afghans and whose opinion I respect. “The feedback we get from Afghans,” he said, “is that this kind of give-away makes them feel like dogs.”

Ricks offers a commonsense solution:

Empower local authorities-police, teachers, tribal leaders, and parents by giving them the soccer balls, books, pencils and pens, and letting them distribute them equitably. And by their own lights. It might not make the troops feel as good in the short term, but it sure makes a difference in the long run.

Former White House staffers I’ve spoken with say they would bet the FBI uncovered much of Jones’s past–especially if Jones truthfully answered their questions. What would then happen is this: the background report would go to the Counsel’s office (run by Greg Craig), who would then raise the question of whether what the FBI found was disqualifying with the the potential employee’s boss. Jones was hired by Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley, but he presumably (and ultimately) reports to the chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel must have decided that nothing in Jones’s background was alarming enough to prevent his appointment.

So even if Jones is thrown overboard this weekend, it’s worth asking: Did Rahm sign off on Jones’s appointment despite what the FBI must have discovered about his background. And, incidentally–did Jones tell the truth to the FBI?

The man who would befriend the likes of these three loons:

Wouldn’t find anything odd about another racist conspiracy nut…so I lay odds that it was Obama who gave the nod.

Either way, its another one under the bus and good riddance. Now he can go back to Color of Change and work more on that Beck boycott….because its going soooooo well for them /sarc

Oh, btw….Jake Tapper is the ONLY msm person pursuing this story. Shocking eh?

White House officials are increasingly worried liberal, anti-war Democrats will demand a premature end to the Afghanistan war before President Barack Obama can show signs of progress in the eight-year conflict, according to senior administration sources.

These fears, which the officials have discussed on the condition of anonymity over the past few weeks, are rising fast after U.S. casualties hit record levels in July and August.

Read more: www.politico.com…

Gosh
Why would they fear that?

2) Recognize, and admit the ugly truth, any healthcare program will have to be either unlimited in funding for people’s treatments, OR there will have to be a government group-just like the insurance companies have-that determines whether or not a 99yr old woman’s chemotherapy gets funded. Simple math tells us that if a single heart bypass can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and a lifetime of doctor visits adds up too, then averaging $1million per American (lowball) is not fiscally feasible. The Federal government cannot afford $300million-million dollars (ie 300TRILLION). The Congressional budget Office points this out, so do former President Clinton’s economic advisors and a long list of others. To make the plan “deficit neutral” it has to either limit coverage or bankrupt that nation down the road. The solution is to make coverage limited by duration like welfare is; 6 months of govt coverage, or 12, or 18, or even 24, but not 100yrs of free and unlimited medical coverage. The entire planet combined couldn’t afford that.

3) Take control of the healthcare plan. Senator Obama blew off his responsibility in making sure the TARP plan had safeguards; he just trusted Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank. They played him hard. They told him it’d be ok, and rather than read it or study it or form a commission to study it…he said, “ok” and backed them at their word. When the stimulus came around, Mr Obama called for “shovel ready projects” then let go of the ball, tossed it to the same people that failed him on the TARP program’s protections, and they had a porkfest field day. These are the same people that forced Mr Obama to sign a budget that Senator Obama and others had packed with 9000 pork barrel projects…sign it behind closed doors after promising for 2 1/2 yrs not to do so. President Obama needs to take the healthcare reform ball BACK from the failed members of the Democrats’ Congress, and he and his administration need to write the bill. Passing the buck to Congress has proven to cost 2 bucks or more. If the bill will have his name on it, he shouldn’t just read it, he should have been there writing it.

4) Passing the healthcare reform bill is becoming a benchmark for future political power. Independents are the key. If Democrats continue to paint those who question or oppose infinite government spending as racists, loons, covert operatives, misled or misleading people, then they continue to ostracize the very people that put them in power, the people who no longer approve of Congress or the President, and the people who will decide the next election. Policy differences can be swept under the rug, but the sense of alienation, disenfranchisement, and a feeling of being attacked is not so easily forgotten. Rather, instead it is remembered, and historically it has made a difference at the polls.

Mr Obama was elected/convinced independents to vote for him on the idea that he would “end the divisive politics of old,” and now those very same tactics are being used against the very same people who put him there. The left’s “un-American” claims must stop, and the only way to disarm the right is to embrace them. Obama and Democrats need to unclinch their fist and offer an open hand to Republicans as they do the Iranians. Mr Obama should have immediately, and personally, and very strongly come out and publicly chastised Speaker Pelosi for calling opponents of healthcare “un-American.” His failure to do so is a passive embracing of those remarks. It is a sin of omission. The President needs to lead the nation, to unite the United States, and instead he’s playing partisan politics AGAINST the majority of Americans who are skeptical of the plan (Americans have been burned twice by Democrats’ trillion dollar spending-why trust em a third time in 6 months?)

5) President Obama needs his name taken off the healthcare reform issue. It’s been labeled by opponents and the media as Obamacare. Why? Because it’s not a plan that the nation put together, but a plan w his name on it, rushed into play for his political PR benefit, and he’s the one out there defending the plan that there’s no way he could have possibly read let alone written (there are currently FIVE bills averaging 1000 pages each, and if our President has time to read 5000 pages of healthcare reform, then something is wrong).

There way for President Obama to save healthcare reform is to stop the process, make government healthcare coverage a temporary coverage like welfare, set a flatline limit to the coverage person can get from the govt, and encourage them to have private insurance to cover the rest. Take the bill(s) away from a Congress that has screwed up several trillion dollar spending sprees of late, and instead form a commission at the White House where Republicans are represented so much that they have more political capital vested in passing reform than they do in blocking it. Taking the bill away from partisan hacks like Nancy Pelosi will help cool tempers that are nationally rising, and causing violence to stir. This bi-partisanship (if strong enough in sizzle and steak) will bring back independents and silence the right’s organized opposition.

There are of course 5 reasons that President Obama will not do this:

1) He won’t stop the rush to spend because to do so would be admitting a failure. Doing that would at the least give Press Secretary Gibbs a heartattack, and at most remind President Obama that his mandate is gone. Presidential ego (something all Presidents have and must have) prohibits or limits the potential for this humility.

2) Mr Obama can’t tell the American people that govt healthcare coverage is limited for several reasons. First, it would frustrate his political base, and while 9/10 times they’re content to give him a free pass, he’s broken so many campaign promises, and so many hopes (see also no change in Iraq strategy, closing Gitmo, etc) that he’s closing in on that scary 10th broken promise. When it comes, and he starts to lose his base, he will be in the George Bush approval rating zone. Second, if he admits that there’s just not enough money in the world to give everyone unlimited coverage, then he’s admitting that his political rival, Sarah Palin, was right, and there will be a Democrat or commission of Democrats deciding who gets treated, who does not get treated, who lives, and who dies. Third, ego. The President has just staked too much personal clout on the idea that he can give the lowliest trailer park pizza boy the same medical coverage that the President’s daughters will get. Break that promise, and people will ask, “What’s the point? Pay for limited govt insurance via fine/fee or pay for private insurance?”

3) President Obama cannot take control of the healthcare plan away from the Democrats’ Congress because he is clueless on writing bills-let alone multi-trillion dollar bills. As a Senator, he was away campaigning most of the time, and he never wrote-let alone passed-a major bill or reform. He just has no experience doing it. Moreover, if he takes it away from the Democrats’ Congress, then he risks widening a rift that’s already appearing in the party; a rift between Blue Dog Democrats who need to listen to their constituents or they lose their jobs and Democrats lose their supermajority/unchecked power and the partisan Democrats who control the committees and the chambers (albeit with no accomplishments in the past 3yrs). If he takes the bill away from Congress, he might split the party, lose control of one or both houses next year, and become an impotent, lame duck President with approval ratings already falling at a rate faster than even George W Bush’s.

4) Making the healthcare reform effort a bi-partisan one, requires President Obama to silence the right by embracing them while silencing a vengeful left. If anyone can do that, President Obama’s the man, but his track record as a President has always been to bow down and/or bend over to the left’s wishes. Can he go against their 8yrs of salivating want for vengeance and tell them to “end the divisive politics of old”? The answer is no. He’s tried this since he won the nomination, and his followers don’t follow. More and more, people see him as a leader by rank and responsibility rather than by example.

5) Everything adds up to this: can President Obama stomach taking his name off healthcare reform? Forget the politics of it. Does the man really want to get SOMETHING done, or does he want an accomplishment with his name on it (something he’s never had before other than being the first black man elected President)? There’s nothing in his history that shows he really wants to get something done for the sake of getting something done. Sure, he’s claimed it ad nauseum, but what’s he done just to get done? What has he worked hand in hand with the right on to get accomplished? What can he direct independents to look at and say, “See, THIS is how I can bring people together, how I can unite the United States and get things done for all Americans-not just the 20-30% who follow me without question regardless of what I do, but for all Americans.”

Healthcare is failing.
The majority of Americans do no support it right now.
The problem is that independents don’t trust Democrats’ and Obama’s spending anymore (according to polls).
No independents means Obama has a choice: ram healthcare through and lose power in 14months, or abandon the partisan healthcare plans, reboot with so much Republican involvement that they had more vested in passing it than opposing it, and actually get something done…albeit without his name on it.

Failure is in the air.

Only foreign policy offered a bright spot: 52 percent of poll respondents approved of his job on this front, compared with 38 percent who disapproved.

Proof yet again that opposition to President Bush’s policies was just opposition to Bush.

Forget about the birthers, and the nutty claims that Barack Obama was not born in the United States.

More and more, we are hearing from people who might best be described as anti-birthers. Their claims have nothing to do with long- versus short-form Hawaiian birth certificates. Instead, they advance a simple proposition: that the birth of each additional American child is a kind of calamity for the environment.

The most recent example of anti-birth thinking comes from Paul Murtaugh and Michael Schlax of Oregon State University. In a study called “Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals,” they suggest that if you truly care about the environment, it’s not enough to trade your SUV for a Prius, use the right lightbulbs, or limit your lawn to organic fertilizers. To the contrary, you need to start thinking about something way more important: i.e., having one less child.

The “basic premise,” the study reports, is that “a person is responsible for emissions of his descendents.”

Yes, that’s right…they’ll pay for an abortion to kill a baby, and they’ll pay for cancer patients to kill themselves instead of getting chemotherapy, and that’s how the Obama Admin plans on saving the planet and the economy: less Americans=less cost

The president’s science adviser, John Holdren, appears to share Mr. Murtaugh’s worries about too many Americans. In a 1973 article, he argued that “210 million [Americans] now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be too many.” He concluded that we should encourage women to have fewer children.