While the global economy is recovering from the worst recession since World War II, the United States flounders in the same doldrums of New Dealism that kept America locked in The Great Depression while the rest of the world enjoyed growing prosperity.

Crude is $79.92, Gold is $1,147.72, Platinum is $1,43.10; India has just contracted to buy two metric tons of Gold, China is sucking in most of copper, aluminum, and iron ore on the market; the United States languishes in the doldrums of skim milk Marxism, while other nations are forging into un-before known prosperity, we have economic pundits forecasting hyper inflation; and the AP worries whether Sarah Palin has errors in her new book Going Rogue, rather than examining the integrity and writing skills of the Great Ditherer.

The Great Ditherer has come by his nick name honestly, in the 89-90 school year he was elected by the Law students to be the President of he Harvard Law Review. A position that was to become symbolic, for other than gushing reviews from the New York Times over his “irresistible” writing skills, he contributed nothing and wrote absolutely nothing, other than one ineffectual unsigned case note, and since that brilliant contribution he has not written a legal article in nearly 20 years.

In reality, Obama was probably elected to the position, for much the same reason that he was elected to the Presidency of the United States, to appease White Liberal ambivalent guilt feelings over their wealth and prestige. Thus Obama became their Token Negro in the front office to lessen elite guilt, for how can you be a Liberal without demonstrating your uncompromising fairness without having Negro window dressing. Thus an irresistible writer was elected to a prestigious position and was expected to do… nothing. Thus the role of Great Ditherer was becoming more defined for a talent that thrived on being noted as a mediocrity and reinforced by the Ivy League Liberal Elite of Harvard. A precedent was set that the young Obama could finally grasp, the concept of dithering.

On November 28, 1990, Obama was issued a six figure contract by Poseidon Press, an imprint of Simon and Shuster for a memoir titled In Black and White. A memoir is the easiest of all books to write, there are no references, nor footnotes, the truth can be stretched as long as the writing is at least plausible. The manuscript was to be completed by June 15, 1992, thus Obama had 18 months to complete the manuscript and was advanced $75,000 of a $150,000 contract. A contract that is virtually unheard of unless you are Liberal window dressing. For some reason, the University of Chicago Law School loaned Obama an office to write his manuscript.

On October 20, 1992, after almost two years of earnest dithering, Poseidon terminated the contract for noncompliance.

Obama pleaded with Simon and Shuster that he and Michelle were in debt with student loans and that he had already spent the advance: in effect, he expected a bailout. Again, fate and liberal guilt allowed Obama to skate.

Soon after this debacle, Obama secured a $40,000 advance from Times Books to write the same book. In a fabricated story by the New York Times, Barack and Michelle went to Bali on a romantic interlude for four months so that he could unlock and write the book. The truth has now emerged that Barack went to Bali by himself for one to three months and at the very least spent his time dithering once again, for the sum total of his writing excursion was…. nothing. Thus the behavioral pattern of the Great Ditherer was becoming even more formalized and entrenched.

Of course the discrepancies in the Legend of the Anointed One aren’t as important as the new book of a former Vice Presidential candidate.

In 1993, Michelle realized that the Great Ditherer had once again lived up to his nick name and after having read, To Teach by William Ayers, and approving of the novel like journalistic style she approached their “friend and Hyde Park neighbor, Bill Ayers” about writing the Dreams book.

Christopher Anderson in his new coffee table book that portrays life with the Obamas, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage succinctly describes how the book Dreams of My Father was written in this quote from Michelle, “[The Obama Family] oral histories, along with his partial manuscript and a trunk load of notes were given to Bill Ayers.”

Thus an admitted and unrepentant terrorist, who told an undercover FBI agent that 20 to 25 million Americans would have to be exterminated in camps to establish a Marxist Utopia here in the United States is the one who actually writes the “irresistible” prose for the President.

While the AP hounds from hell are lunging past one another to shred the slightest variance from fact in Sarah’s ghost written autobiography, the most obvious and foul story of malfeasance is ignored. Thus the MSM contributes to its own demise of intellectual and journalistic integrity.

Jack Cashill, a professor at Purdue and a blogger at American Thinker has written convincing arguments concerning the similarities of Dreams and Ayers’ previous writing, similarities that are like fingerprints for seasoned writers. I follow Dr Cashill’s opinions on this matter and I have drawn most of my notes from his work.

Two-thirds of Americans disagree with the Obama administration’s decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian court rather than a military court, according to a new national poll.

But six in 10 people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday say that the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks should be tried in the United States, as the administration plans to do, rather than at a U.S. facility in another country.

The poll indicates that 64 percent believe Mohammed should be tried in military court, with 34 percent suggesting that he face trial in civilian court. Six in 10 people questioned say Mohammed should be tried stateside, with 37 percent calling for the trial to take place at a U.S. facility in another country.

“The decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in front of a civilian court is universally unpopular – even a majority of Democrats and liberals say that he should be tried by military authorities,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Despite that, most Americans say that he will get a fair trial in the U.S.”

Not sure what Holland’s point is here. Of course he would get a fair trial, but the majority of respondents, in a CNN poll for gods sake, understand that giving this scumbag a civilian trial is ludicrous:

Trying KSM in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda and the hostile nations that will view the U.S. intelligence methods and sources that such a trial will reveal. The proceedings will tie up judges for years on issues best left to the president and Congress.

Whether a jury ultimately convicts KSM and his fellows, or sentences them to death, is beside the point. The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism. It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war.

~~~

Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information, and his relationships to fellow al Qaeda operatives. The information will enable al Qaeda to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering, and to push forward into areas we know nothing about.

This is not hypothetical, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has explained. During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (aka the “blind Sheikh”), standard criminal trial rules required the government to turn over to the defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators.

In essence, this list was a sketch of American intelligence on al Qaeda. According to Mr. McCarthy, who tried the case, it was delivered to bin Laden in Sudan on a silver platter within days of its production as a court exhibit.

Bin Laden, who was on the list, could immediately see who was compromised. He also could start figuring out how American intelligence had learned its information and anticipate what our future moves were likely to be.

It’s crazy. Simply crazy.

Even more harmful to our national security will be the effect a civilian trial of KSM will have on the future conduct of intelligence officers and military personnel. Will they have to read al Qaeda terrorists their Miranda rights? Will they have to secure the “crime scene” under battlefield conditions? Will they have to take statements from nearby “witnesses”? Will they have to gather evidence and secure its chain of custody for transport all the way back to New York? All of this while intelligence officers and soldiers operate in a war zone, trying to stay alive, and working to complete their mission and get out without casualties.

And the other poll is about ObamaCare. Notice how the AP tries to hide some inconvenient numbers with a article entitled “AP POLL: Tax the rich to pay for health bill”

…what the Associated Press does not even mention in their story is probably the most relevant part:

In general, do you support, oppose or neither support nor oppose the health care reform plans being discussed in Congress? (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE Is that strongly support/oppose or somewhat support/oppose?

To no surprise that’s opposed by 43-41%. Eleven percent neither support or oppose and 4% “don’t know.”

Also conveniently left out of their story is the response to whether people should be penalized if they do not buy the government-run health care: Sixty-four percent oppose. Why do you suppose that was left out?

Also left out was of the respondents, 37% are unemployed or retired. No wonder they want someone to pick up the tab.

Forty-two percent think they economy will get worse if this scam is shoved down our throats, while 28% think it will improve. Again, this is left out of the story.

Also, over the past five years, 86% of respondents said the care they received from physician or hospital was excellent or good, only 2% said it was poor. This was left out of the AP story. So why do we have to blow up the entire system?

That’s a couple different polls on the two hot button issues of the day which Obama and company should take heed….but won’t. Now granted, the opinions of a thousand people cannot tell us accurately the sentiments of the entire country but when two liberal rags take a poll and the numbers go against the liberal position….the liberals should take notice.

Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter made no secret of his radical Islamic views. He passed out business cards with the acronomyn SOA indicating he was a “soldier of Allah.” Hasan gave a bizzare PowerPoint presentation in which he quoted the Koran (slide 43): “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Mohammed is the Messenger.”

In secret, Hasan was in contact with Al Queda and and a string of radical Islamists.

As Hasan began to fire on the unarmed soldiers at Fort Hood he shouted the Jihadi war cry: “Allahu Akbar.”

So why has it been so difficult for the “news” media to call this a terrorist act?

PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack
All three networks mention ‘terror’ only after Obama hints at ideology during funeral ceremony.
By Carolyn Plocher and Dan Gainor
Culture and Media Institute
November 11, 2009

• Networks Decide Attack Wasn’t Terror: 85 percent of the broadcast stories didn’t mention the word “terror.” ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news referenced terrorism connections to the Fort Hood attack just seven times in 48 reports.
• ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama’s Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called “Islamic extremist views,” all three networks mentioned terrorism.
• Alleged Attacker’s Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so.

Two possible explanations:

First, the recognition of this atrocity as a terrorist attack means that Obama has to take personal responsibility for the failings of his Administration to “connect the dots” to prevent this attack. The same folks who insisted Bush should have done something prior to the September 11th attacks will have a hard time defending the Obama Administration when it’s clear there were red lights flashing indicating that Hasan was a problem. It happened on Obama’s watch. If they can say it’s not a terrorist attack they can escape responsibility for failing to prevent it.

There is also a political dimension to the denial. Evan Thomas, the Editor of Newsweek gave away the game as he reacted to the news that Hasan was a Muslim:

“I cringe that he’s a Muslim. I mean, because it just inflames all the fears. I think he’s probably just a nut case but, with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going.”

So, already the attack has become politicized by the left. But they didn’t stop there.

Second, there seemed to be an instant reaction to the attack to blame the military. All those wars and deployments were bound to make a soldier snap. But of course that explanation is hard to support given that Hasan had never been deployed overseas. The best the left can do is to blame Bush for a war which they claim radicalizes Muslims (despite the fact that Muslims were radicalized long before Bush came to office).

Now that the Muslim and terrorist connection is established beyond a shadow of a doubt the “news” media goes to it’s last resort: there are “Christian nuts” too. Maybe so, but last time I checked they haven’t flown planes into buildings, beheaded Muslims with dull knives or shot up an Army base. And there certainly has been no “Muslim backlash” despite the number of worried columns with that theme have appeared in the New York Times.

Political Correctness Shielding the Next Terrorist?

With the left and their media acolytes so willing to support the politically correct culture of denial that led to the Hasan atrocity one wonders how many other shooters or bombers or whatever are hiding in plain sight? And wouldn’t it be nice that those on the left who would accuse us of wanting to put all Muslims in internment camps cared a bit more for the safety of the citizens who might be the next target?

“See – we have a problem,” Matthews said. “How do we know when someone like Hasan is going to make his move and do we know he’s an Islamist until he’s made his move? He makes a phone call or whatever, according to Reuters right now. Apparently he tried to contact al Qaeda. Is that the point at which you say, ‘This guy is dangerous?’ That’s not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it? Is it? I mean, where do you stop the guy?”

I love it how Dr. Jasser is trying to get a word in, and the host just goes on and on….and on with his blathering ramble. Just unbelievable to watch this news guy tie himself up in knots, trying to rationalize and come to terms with the fact that Islam played an influential role in Nidal Hassan’s murderous act of terrorism, and all the signs for taking preemptive action were present, yet ignored for fear of being branded racist/bigoted/intolerant/discriminating/etc. Thank you PC!

Here are 34 Clues for Chris Matthews:

1. At the shooting, Hasan first bowed his head in prayer and then shouted “Allahu Akbar” (God is Great) as he shot over 50 soldiers in a calm and measured manner.

2. Store video the morning of the shooting shows Hasan wearing a traditional Muslim WHITE robe and hat. He had began wearing Arabic/Muslim-style clothing in recent weeks.

3. Hasan handed out Qurans to his neighbors a few days before and the day of the shooting, including giving a Quran to his neighbor at 9 am the day of the shooting, telling her, “I’m going to do good work for God” before leaving for the base. Here is the AP photograph taken on Friday, Nov 6 in Killeen, Texas showing the Quran and the business card that Hasan gave to his neighbor the day of the shooting.

4. A recent convert to Islam described how he frequently prayed with Hasan at the town mosque after Hasan was deployed to Fort Hood in July. They last worshipped together at predawn prayers on the day of the massacre when Hasan “appeared relaxed and not in any way troubled or nervous.”

5. Hasan told the convert that the ‘war on terror’ was really a war against Islam. Hasan also expressed anti-Jewish sentiments and defended suicide bombings.

6. During dinner the night before the shooting, Hasan felt he should not go to Afghanistan, that he was supposed to quit. “In the Koran, it says you are not supposed to have alliances with Jews or Christians, and if you are killed in the military fighting against Muslims, you will go to hell.”

7. Hasan’s deceased parents were Palestinians immigrants from the West Bank/Jordan. Hasan’s father was 16 years old when he immigrated to America and later operated a bar and grill in Roanoke, VA.

8. On a form Hasan filled out at the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Maryland, he gave his nationality not as “American” but as “Palestinian.” Yet he was born in Arlington, Virginia on 8 Sep 1970. (See Allegiance in a Time of Globalization, DOD PERSEREC, Dec 2008)

9. Hasan has family in the Middle East, including a grandfather, uncle and cousins which he and they would visit each other.

10. Hasan’s cousin in the Palestinian city of Ramallah, Mohammad Munif Abdallah Hasan, said the Army major had wanted to leave the military because he felt disrespected over his religion.

11. His cousin said: “If he had killed one or two, I could say that he was defending himself. I could say that there could have been a problem between two sides which led to the use of weapons.”

12. Hasan visited websites espousing radical Islamist ideas.

13. Hasan made these kinds of statements to coworkers: Muslims have the right to rise up against the U.S. military. Muslims have a right to stand up against the aggressors. He spoke favorably about people who strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.

14. Hasan gave a presentation to military masters degree students in which he argued the war on terrorism was a war against Islam. This was in an environmental health class at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, MD. When challenged about what does his topic has to do with environmental health, Hasan became agitated, sweaty, nervous and emotional.

15. Hasan “made himself a lightning rod by making his extreme views known to everyone.”

16. Hasan was “put on probation early in his postgraduate work” and was “disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues.”

17. Hasan was a “very devout” member of and daily visitor to the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Md. Attended prayers at least once a day, seven days a week. (See Saudi Publications On Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques. Important reading for security professionals)

18. A friend who also attended the mosque said, “He was my role model when it came to the Islam life. He was so devout. He would come to the early morning prayers — even in the summer when it began at 4 am or 5 am, the early prayers I wouldn’t go to, he would be there.”

19. Hasan wrote “Allah” on his door in Silver Spring, MD according to his neighbor.

20. Hasan wrote an internet posting defending suicide bombers: “…..Suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory…..”

21. At the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, MD, he asked for feedback about a talk he had prepared for his Army supervisors on the role of Muslims in the military. Hasan argued that if military duties contradicted a soldier’s religion, the soldier should be released from duty.

22. After 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Hasan seemed to grow more disenchanted with his duties. “He did not talk war or politics, but he did tell me once the war started that what he worried most about was having to fight against other Muslims. He did not feel it was right.”—Friend at Muslim community center

23. Hasan attended two matchmaking events at his Muslim community center to find a “good Muslim woman” for his wife but he “had too many conditions” for his match . He wanted a very religious wife who adheres to the Quran, wore the hijab and prayed five times a day. First preference was an Arab woman followed by someone of Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi descent.

24. Hasan avoided contact with his female coworkers. Refused to be photographed for an office Christmas photo since women were in the photo.

25. Hasan worshiped at the Texas mosque each day at 6 am, and often prayed there five times a day, especially during the holy month of Ramadan. (See Saudi Publications On Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques)

26. Hasan had been mentoring an 18-year old Catholic man on the ways of Islam. Only once during their 12 meetings did Hasan NOT talk about religion. Hasan told this man that Muslims shouldn’t be in the U.S. military, because obviously Muslims shouldn’t kill Muslims. He told him not to join the Army.

27. At the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland, Hasan told his fellow military master degree students, “I’m a Muslim first and an American second.” (See Allegiance in a Time of Globalization, DOD PERSEREC, Dec 2008)

28. Hasan gave an hour-long talk on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC. He said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats. That non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire.

29. Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about Islam.

30. During a conversation with a leader of the Texas mosque he attended, Hasan seemed obsessed with the question of what to tell Muslim soliders about fighting fellow Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

31. Hasan attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists.

32. This mosque was led by radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki said to be a ‘spiritual adviser’ to three of the hijackers who attacked America on 9/11. al-Awlaki was born in the US but now lives in Yemen. He is an al-Qaeda supporter who targets US Muslims with radical online lectures on Islam.

33. Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas.

34. Today (9 November 09), al-Awlaki wrote on his blog a post titled, “Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing.”

“Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.
…..Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a US soldier. Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.
How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.
The heroic act of brother Nidal also shows the dilemma of the Muslim American community. Increasingly they are being cornered into taking stances that would either make them betray Islam or betray their nation. Many amongst them are choosing the former.
The fact that fighting against the US army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed. No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right — rather the duty — to fight against American tyranny.
Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims. The American Muslims who condemned his actions have committed treason against the Muslim Ummah and have fallen into hypocrisy.
Allah(swt) says: Give tidings to the hypocrites that there is for them a painful punishment……May Allah grant our brother Nidal patience, perseverance and steadfastness and we ask Allah to accept from him his great heroic act. Ameen.”

Among the reader comments to his post:

• “May Allah grant our brother Nidal patience, perseverance and steadfastness and we ask Allah to accept from him his great heroic act.”
• “That’s the first thing that came to my mind, may Allah reward this man for his bravery. Allah has enlightened him with his duty unlike the hypocrites of this age and time. May he be accepted as a shaheed.”
• “May Allah give brother Nidal ease and may Allah give pain to the enemies.”

34 “clues”, probably more to come.

Incidentally, Zuhdi Jasser, who considers himself a devout Muslim, believes in the virtues of profiling:

If more Muslims had the same pro-active attitude as AIFD, rabidly attacking Islamism and political Islam rather than being apologists and deniers for it and playing the victim card, it would go a long way to quelling some of the anti-Islam sentiments. Instead, those Muslims who fear a backlash only encourage such backlash to occur every time they make excuses for Islamic terror and deny that their faith has any role to play in this.

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.

It seems, though, that when an American military officer who is a practicing Muslim allegedly shoots forty of his fellow soldiers who are about to deploy to the two wars the United States is currently fighting in Muslim countries, some broader meaning might, over time, be discerned, especially if the officer did, in fact, yell “Allahu Akbar” while murdering his fellow soldiers, as some soldiers say he did. This is the second time this year American soldiers on American soil have been gunned down by a Muslim who was reportedly unhappy with America’s wars in the Middle East (the first took place in Arkansas, to modest levels of notice). And, of course, this would not be the first instance of an American Muslim soldier killing fellow soldiers over his disagreements with American foreign policy; in 2003, Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar killed two officers and wounded fourteen others when he rolled a grenade into a tent in a homicidal protest against American policy.

Here’s a simple test: If Nidal Malik Hasan had been a devout Christian with pronounced anti-abortion views, and had he attacked, say, a Planned Parenthood office, would his religion have been considered relevant as we tried to understand the motivation and meaning of the attack? Of course. Elite opinion makers do not, as a rule, try to protect Christians and Christian belief from investigation and criticism. Quite the opposite. It would be useful to apply the same standards of inquiry and criticism to all religions.

QUESTION: Why isn’t the same standard of inquiry and criticism given to Christians and Muslims?

First off, I moved to the DC area in 1999, the same year that Dan Snyder bought the Washington Redskins. Interestingly enough, the job that brought me here was working for Snyder’s old company, Snyder Communications. Also, I never met the man during my time working there, and from the stories I’ve heard about him that’s not a complaint.

For those of you unfamiliar, Snyder immediately became a big news item from the beginning. He was brash, energetic, and has had no problems making bold moves as owner. Whether it was interrupting summer camp by arriving in his helicopter during practices, expanding Fedex Field’s seating while raising ticket prices, and charging admission to summer camp for one season. Also, despite having no background in football, he became heavily involved in the team. Snyder held post-game meetings with his head coaches, brought in a big name personnel man from the 49ers Super Bowl Dynasty (Vinny Cerrato), has chased down and overpaid big name coaches, and has even micro managed to the point of firing several kickers over the course of a season for blown kicks.

And what has Snyder accomplished as owner? From a financial perspective, he’s done quite well. He’s made the Redskins the second most valuable team in football. But outside of financials, the team has been a disaster. That’s not quite accurate – it’s been a picture of consistent mediocrity, never great, and until this season, never truly bad. Cerrato never proved to be the great personnel man he was hoped to be. Along with Snyder, he helped to bring in overpriced and overrated or over the hill players like Deion Sanders, Bruce Smith, Brandon Lloyd, and most recently, Albert Haynesworth. Snyder has also gone through a carousel of head coaches, and given his heavy handedness over operations, no competent Head Coach wants to lead the Redskins. This has come to a head this season with the team being led by a man who has no business being a Head Coach in Jim Zorn. As of the writing of this article the Redskins are 2-5, and the fans are in open revolt.

Snyder has always been prickly about criticism. Early on, while most of the local media could not stop fawning over him, one local paper, The Washington Times, wasn’t playing ball. They wrote critical pieces on Snyder, and as a result their reporter was banished to covering the games via a TV set below Fedex Field. As things have gotten worse, Snyder has even taken to censoring fans coming to the games. Now, the man who was once hailed as a bright, fresh face has been exposed as a vain, petty individual who has taken on a job for which he had no qualifications.

Which brings us to President Obama. Everyone knows about his meteoric rise since impressing America at the 2004 Democratic Convention with his amazing ability to read aloud. And in 2008, despite having no real accomplishments nor ever having won an election without relying on underhanded tactics, we elected him as our 44th president.

I don’t need to go into every detail over the train wreck that the Obama presidency has been so far, but to quickly review a few major points:

• Building on the irresponsible spending of the Bush administration that will send our federal budget deficit into the trillions
• Backing a health care bill that will succeed in both ruining the quality of health care while sending costs skyrocketing
• Becoming a laughingstock in his foreign policy to the point where even the Prime Minister of France basically called him a naive twit
• Reread that last one. I never thought I’d see that in my lifetime
• Running historically discredited fiscal policy that will soon send unemployment into the double digit range as America endured under FDR

Obviously there is a lot more, but those are the main points for now. And like Snyder, Obama has had some successes so far. Ironically, both are for things that the people who voted for him were not looking for. First off, Obama has baldly broken his promise to not take national security seriously. Obama is already backing off of an immediate, unconditional surrender in Iraq. If you disagree with this last statement look at it from another angle. If Bin Laden issued a decree for all Al-Queda fighters to leave Iraq by next year how would that be interpreted? Now that Obama is postponing the end of tracking and prosecuting terrorists, he is working to make it up to his base by vacillating on Afghanistan.

The only other major accomplishment of the Obama administration sprang from the law of unintended consequences. Having become so used to the fawning coverage of the press and his own self absorption, it probably never entered Obama’s mind that he could ever face real public opposition to his policies. However, he made the mistake of misinterpreting his lofty “post-partisanship” ideal to mean “shut up and follow my radical left wing agenda”. The Republican party may have been left for dead on the sidelines, but the American people weren’t.

They came out in droves to for the team party protests, and to confront the elected officials at the town hall meetings. And Obama and the media had no idea how to deal with it. With no figurehead to apply the Alinsky demonization tactic, the liberals showed their true contempt for the average American citizen. The left dubbed them “angry mobs”, “unruly” and “astroturfers”, while whining about the level of discourse as they conveniently forgot their own behavior for the last eight years. And of course, the arrogant journalists who condescendingly decry Fox News for its bias (and yes, I know they’re biased.At least they’re honest about their perspective) are oblivious to their own unprofessionalism when they gleefully label the protesters “Tea Baggers”.

To top everything else off, The White House has declared war on Fox News for the crime of being the only major TV news outlet that does not diligently promote the administration’s talking points. This goes hand in hand with Obama attacking Rush Limbaugh earlier this year. The administration probably thought it would help discredit a perceived enemy, when all that it accomplished was giving the opposition some cheap publicity while making themselves look like shallow crybabies. We’ve even gotten to the point where the Attorney General is trying to pressure a DC official to pull an ad critical of Obama’s anti-school choice position.

So here we are today, with two leaders in Washington who came in ready to change the world. Instead, their arrogance and inability to adapt when reality did not meet their rosy visions have left both reeling and looking like two men struggling to do jobs they were never even remotely qualified to take on.

As an Eagles fan I’ve been thoroughly enjoying watching Snyder so ineptly run his franchise. As an American, President Obama’s performance has just been painful to watch.

As Chris Griffin would say, “I need an adult! I need an adult!”

Crossposted from Brother Bobs Blog

They fail to report on some pretty significant drops in the poll….drops that if it had been swung the other way would of been in big bold letters:

Fifty-four percent of respondents to the latest CNN poll disapprove of Barack Obama’s performance on the economy, a 17-point swing in six weeks. That isn’t the worst of the poll, either; 57% now disapprove of Obama’s performance on health care, a 19-point swing in that same time.

~~~

a 17-point reversal on the economy and a 19-point reversal on health care would be, well, news. One has to wonder why neither get mentioned in a report on the popularity of a president whose central issues are health care and the economy. The rapid disintegration of his popularity on these positions will have enormous implications for Obama’s ability to push his agenda through Congress in both arenas, and also on the midterm elections a year from now if this becomes a trend.

In fact, it’s hard to find an issue where Obama has not lost ground:

• Economy – 46%/54%, was 54%/45%
• Foreign affairs – 51%/47%, was 58%/38%
• Health care – 42%/57%, was 51%/47%
• Afghanistan – 42%/56%, was 49%/46%
• Taxes – 49%/50%, was 52%/42%
• Helping the middle class – 50%/49%, was 67%/32% (six months ago, last time question asked)

His numbers stayed roughly the same on Medicare, with just a rounding difference. Otherwise, Obama has lost serious ground on every issue, mainly over the last six weeks.

17 point and a 19 point swing into the disapproval area and nary a peep in the article. Ed also notes they fail to note the party identification numbers. Quite telling.

Another quite telling note about the poll. His approval rating on nearly every issue has declined but he is still approved of by 54% as a whole?

Bradley effect?

Axelrod said Obama would announce a war strategy “within weeks.” A senior U.S. official told The Associated Press that Obama has still not yet decided what to do, and it remains unclear whether he will decide before he goes to Asia on Nov. 11.

Here is what Rush said earlier and it’s dead on accurate:

WALLACE: Let’s talk about a couple of the big issues the president is dealing with now — first of all, Afghanistan. You suggest that he is taking all of this time to decide what to do in Afghanistan to keep his left-wing base on board for health care reform.

RUSH: Well, it’s partly that, but I also don’t think he cares much about it. I think once…

WALLACE: Well, come on.

RUSH: No, I — no, see, this is — I know this is going to sound controversial, but I don’t think he cares that — if he — Chris, if he cared about — we’ve got soldiers and their families worrying about what we’re going to do. The general on the ground said we need some more troops.

The policy that he implemented in March he now doesn’t like and is trying to figure out how best to make everybody happy here politically on his side of the aisle and also for his image. Democrats have a tendency to be seen as weak on defense, so he’s battling with that.

But again, if he cared about victory — remember, he said about Afghanistan victory is not something he’s comfortable with, the concept. It reminds him of the Japanese surrendering on the USS Missouri. It made him very uncomfortable.

He wants to manage this rather than achieve victory. He says these things. I don’t know if people actually listen and have them register when he does.

WALLACE: But you say you don’t know that he really cares. Do you at least give him credit for going to Dover, Delaware to honor the remains of soldiers, dead soldiers, who came back from Afghanistan?

RUSH: You know, see, the politically correct thing to say here would be, “Oh, yes, I am very impressed that President Obama decided to go show his concern for the remains, troops who’ve given their lives for freedom in this country.”

It was a photo op. It was a photo op precisely because he’s having big-time trouble on this whole Afghanistan dithering situation. He found one family that would allow photos to be taken. None of the others did.

And of course, when you have a sycophantic media following you around, able to promote and amplify whatever you want, then he can create the impression that he has all this great concern, but the — Bush did this…

WALLACE: Well, no…

RUSH: … but no cameras.

WALLACE: I don’t know that he ever went to Dover, Delaware.

RUSH: No, he went to see the families.

WALLACE: Yes, he certainly went to see the families.

RUSH: But he didn’t make photo ops out of it. The…

WALLACE: Well, but the argument would be that it was political of Bush not to be seen with the coffins because he was trying to hide it, hide the cost of war from the American people.

RUSH: Well, I have the benefit of knowing George Bush a little bit, and I — I — I’ve seen him cry talking about missions that he’s ordered. I think he has a great, profound, deep respect for the families of all military personnel, and those who have died…

WALLACE: But I don’t disagree with that…

RUSH: … and I — he’s not going to use them.

WALLACE: But you don’t think that Barack Obama has a profound respect for our soldiers and the families that are giving the sacrifice?

RUSH: Chris, throughout the Iraq war, it was Barack Obama and the Democrat Party which actively sought the defeat of the U.S. military. They convened hearings and accused General Petraeus of lying. They said the surge would not work.

Harry Reid stands up, waves the white flag — this war is lost. Jack Murtha is out saying our Marines at Haditha are guilty of rape. John Kerry is accusing our Marines of committing terrorism acts by going into the homes of Iraqis at midnight in the dark terrorizing, looking for Al Qaida or whoever was there.

Yeah. I mean, look. I hate to be honest with you here, but I do question their commitment to national security. I question their commitment to the U.S. military. They’ll put their political survival and their political power being gained over anything else. They’ll use anybody and throw anybody away in order to achieve it.

Full interview of Rush with Chris Wallace below: