September 11th, 2001. Need I say more. It was the date of the last terrorist attack here in the United States. It is a day that will live in infamy. Nearly 3,000 Americans lost their lives in the attack on the Twin Towers of New York City, the Pentagon in Washington D.C., and aboard a plane that was brought down in Pennsylvania. Sweeping changes were launched in the days, months, and years following the attacks. The Patriot Act, two wars, the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility, enhanced interrogation techniques, and the Department of Homeland Security are just a few of the realities that we live with every day as a direct result of that one day. These initiatives have been often criticized, but they have kept us safe for eight years. That is, until today.
ROMULUS, Mich. – A Nigerian man who said he was an agent for al-Qaida tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines plane Friday as it was preparing to land in Detroit, but travelers who smelled smoke and heard what sounded like firecrackers rushed to subdue him, the passengers and federal officials said.
Flight 253 with 278 passengers and 11 crew members aboard was about 20 minutes from the airport when passengers heard popping noises, witnesses said. At least one person climbed over others and jumped on the man. Shortly afterward, the suspect was taken to the front of the plane with his pants cut off and his legs burned, a passenger said. Law enforcement officials said the burns indicated the explosive was strapped to his legs.
One U.S. intelligence official said the explosive device was a mix of powder and liquid. It failed when the passenger tried to detonate it.
"It sounded like a firecracker in a pillowcase," said Peter Smith, a traveler from the Netherlands. "First there was a pop, and then (there) was smoke."
Smith said a passenger sitting opposite the man climbed over people, went across the aisle and tried to restrain the man. Syed Jafri, another passenger, said he saw a glow and smelled smoke. Then, he said, "a young man behind me jumped on him."
"Next thing you know, there was a lot of panic," said Jafri. Smith said the heroic passenger appeared to have been burned.
The White House said it believed it was an attempted act of terrorism and stricter security measures were quickly imposed on airline travel. It did not specify what those were.
How do policies that worked for seven years under one President fall apart so quickly under his predecessor? The answer is actually quite simple. Here are some stunning quotes from President Obama, all sourced.
“The threat that we face now is nowhere near as dire as it was in the Cold War. We shouldn’t allow our politics to be driven by the fear of terrorism.” Source: The Contenders, by Laura Flanders, p. 82 Nov 11, 2007
If you were a Muslim overseas listening to Rudy Giuliani say “they are coming here to try to kill you,” which is the tenor of many of the speeches that are delivered by Republicans, you would get an impression that they are not interested in talking and resolving issues peacefully. Now, what we need to do [to reach Muslims] is we need to close Guantanamo. We need to restore habeas corpus. We need to send a strong signal that we are going to talk directly to not just our friends but also to our enemies. Source: 2007 Democratic radio debate on NPR Dec 13, 2007
Why don’t we close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus, because that’s how we lead, not with the might of our military, but the power of our ideals and the power of our values. Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference Jun 19, 2007
We know that the battle against terrorism is at once an armed struggle and a contest of ideas, that our long-term security depends on a judicious projection of military power and increased cooperation with other nations, and that addressing the problems of global poverty and failed states is vital to our nation’s interests rather than just a matter of charity. But follow most of our foreign policy debates, and you might believe that we have only two choices--belligerence or isolationism. Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 23 Oct 1, 2006
Most likely none of these quotes surprise you. President Obama has shown weakness at every turn, all the while touting it as some type of a positive. His approach to terrorism has appeared to be one of weakness. His first move as President was to issue an executive order to shut down GITMO in one year. He also ordered a stop to the very enhanced interrogation techniques that had prevented terrorist attacks over the last seven years. He ordered a stop to all military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay, and brought terrorists here to the United States for trial, granting all of the rights of a United States citizen to admitted terrorists who were practically begging for an opportunity to plead guilty in a military tribunal. His White House even abandoned the term "terrorism" in favor of "man made disasters". That is, until today. Finally, after a year of backing down, apologizing for American strength, and instituting weakness, the Obama administration added the dreaded "T" word to its vocabulary.
There is part of me that would like to use a "T" word myself. I avoid it, not because I don't think I could make the case. I firmly believe that I could. I don't think it is a stretch at all to say that throwing out an enemy combatants admissions of guilt and pieces of evidence against them by taking them out of the military tribunal system and giving them Constitutional rights is lending aid and comfort to these enemies. Yet I do not believe that was the intention. I believe the explanation is much simpler, and much more obvious. I would instead make the case that these are the mistakes of an immature and misguided idealist who was in no way, shape, or form prepared for the job he now holds. When Hillary Clinton pointed out that the United States Presidency was not a good place for on-the-job training, she was absolutely right. The evidence for this point of view is overwhelming.
Remember when GITMO was a recruitment tool for terrorists, and shutting it down would make them respect us? Remember when waterboarding was torture, and we would use more honorable measures to gain info and stop terrorist attacks? Remember when invading Iraq caused us to take our eye off of Al Qaeda and allowed them to grow stronger, and scaling back that effort and focusing solely on Afghanistan would get them back under control? Remember when going around the world, hat in hand, owning up to our mistakes and apologizing for them would gain understanding and appreciation from our enemies? And what have all of these actions earned President Obama? A Nobel Prize worth $1.4 million. Adjusted for inflation back to the time of Christ, I believe that equates to roughly 30 pieces of Silver.
But wait a second. I was moving away from the treason angle, right? Of course. Yet the Biblical version of the story uses the word "betrayal". And President Obama has certainly betrayed us either way. No matter his intentions, he was warned at every step that his actions were making us weaker and returning us to a pre-9/11 mindset. He chose to ignore that advice. He chose to follow his plans, despite the fact that there is no historical example to these types of actions actually defeating an enemy and making a Nation stronger. This attack today was an indictment on his policies. They are failing. Fortunately, nobody had to die for us to learn this lesson. Historically, I think it is fair to say that you only get so many opportunities to learn a lesson the easy way. To change course now would show that President Obama took advantage of this lesson. To not do so will likely result in us using the "T" word a whole lot more often. Which "T" word, you ask? Both of them. Think about it.
Recently, Danny Glover made some comments about President Obama that some in the black community are either rallying around or angry about, depending on where they fall on the issues. First, here is what Danny Glover said.
“I think the Obama administration has followed the same playbook, to a large extent, almost verbatim, as the Bush administration. I don’t see anything different,” the activist movie actor said of Obama’s policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. “On the domestic side, look here: What’s so clear is that this country from the outset is projecting the interests of wealth and property. Look at the bailout of Wall Street. Why not the bailout of Main Street?”
“He may be just a different face, and that face may happen to be black—and if it were Hillary Clinton, it would happen to be a woman,” says Danny Glover. “But what choices do they have within the structure?”
President Obama was questioned about this by April Ryan and what ensued was perhaps the greatest highlight of why this guy should never be allowed to stray more than a foot away from a teleprompter. Here is a link to the full interview. I will handle the highlights here.
1. The Question
Q: Speaking of the African American community, this seems to be a shift in black leadership, as it relates to supporting you. You have the CBC that's upset with you about targeting on the jobs front -- African Americans, 15.6 percent unemployment rate, expected to go to 20 percent; mainstream America 10 percent. Then you have black actors who supported you -- Danny Glover, who's saying that you've not changed, your administration is the same as George W. Bush. What are your thoughts about the fact that black leadership is grumbling, and the fact that people are concerned with you being the first African American President, and they thought that there would be a little bit more compassion for black issues?
First off, let me explain how President Obama should have responded. This is a great What Would Trailer Trash Do teachable moment. Here is the Obama response, were I operating the teleprompter..
Well, first of all, Danny Glover is hardly "black leadership". He is an actor, and a very good one, but a politician he is not. He doesn't know what's going on behind the scenes. As for the Congressional Black Caucus, they are the "black leadership". As such, it is their job to try to shape the agenda in such a way that it will help the black community. They do this by on using their influence to get Americans focus ed issues that affect their constituency. What the CBC is doing here is not grumbling, but rather they are trying to bring focus and attention to the issues that the black community is facing. The fact that we are discussing it right now shows that they are doing an effective job, and I look forward to working with them in the future. It is important as we move towards financial recovery that we bring all of America with us, and I feel that working together, we can accomplish this.
That is what President Obama should have said. Instead, he went into some type of psychobabble rant about the black community and a pissing contest between actors who support him and actors who do not. The first rule of dealing with critics is to never give them credibility they do not currently have. You will see in my example that Glover is respectfully dismissed as a good person who is speaking on an area where he may not be knowledgeable. In the actual reply from President Obama (the nervous laughter when he realizes his error is omitted from the written transcript), we see that Obama gives credibility to the attack by implying that there is actually a group of black actors who agree with Glover, and then tries to deminish this group he just created by attacking their size.
If you want me to line up all the black actors, for example, who support me, and put them on one side of the room, and a couple who are grumbling on the other, I'm happy to have that.
Repeating Aprils term "grumbling" is another mistake. President Obama is attempting to marginalize what they are saying, and it comes off as condescending. It creates the impression that blacks who do not fall into the majority black view should be dismissed as (dare I say) whiners. It also implies an alienation (dare I say segregation) of any dissenting views within the black community.
He went on to say the following.
The only thing I cannot do is, you know, by law I can't pass laws that say I'm just helping black folks. I'm the President of the entire United States. What I can do is make sure that I am passing laws that help all people, particularly those who are most vulnerable and most in need.
Oh really? So as the President, you can't pass laws that help some of the people but not all of the people? So you are saying it would be wrong to pass a law that unfairly gives to Nebraska what the rest of the Country has to pay for? It would be wrong to make the most vulnerable, say the people of Michigan with one of the highest unemployment rates, pay for the healthcare of the people of Nebraska?
But the worst was yet to come. What President Obama said in response to the next question is perhaps one of the dumbest answers I have ever heard from a politician anywhere.
I mean, I think it's the best of times in the sense that never has there been more opportunity for African Americans who have received a good education and are in a position then to walk through the doors that are opened. And, obviously, you and me sitting here in the Oval Office is a testament to that.
I think it's the worst of times in the sense that unemployment and the lack of opportunity, particularly in some cities, has never been worse. I mean, you look at a city like Detroit where you used to have an enormous African American middle class built on the auto industry -- that city is in hard, hard times right now.
It is the best of times because their has never been more opportunity for African Americans. It is the worst of times because of the lack of opportunity for African Americans. I wish I could find a smart answer that would make that look even dumber. I can't because their isn't one. In fairness, at the start of this interview I would have agreed that Danny Glover was grumbling. At the end, I have to say that it looks like Danny Glover is right. And I don't think that agreeing with Danny Glover is a good sign. I have come to the conclusion that I am hence a few points less intelligent for having heard this interview with President Obama. That having been said, let me make the case for Danny Glover.
In order for President Obama to be able to address the problems in the black community, he must understand the problems facing the black community. When he attempts to identify the problem, he cites the exact same issue as a setback that he previously claimed was an asset. If an NFL head coach were to say that he felt his team was going to be okay because they had a lot of speed and that can help offset a lack of talent, then turned around and said they were in trouble because they didn't have enough speed, it would be fair to say he doesn't understand his own team. And this isn't the only point in the interview where President Obama contradicts himself. Take his above quoted statement about how he cannot help one particlar group of Americans. In the following example, I replace one of his words (particularly) with the definition for that word.
The only thing I cannot do is, you know, by law I can't pass laws that say I'm just helping black folks. I'm the President of the entire United States. What I can do is make sure that I am passing laws that help all people, to a distinctly greater extent or degree than is common those who are most vulnerable and most in need.
So here we have Obama saying he cannot pass laws to help one group over another. He must instead pass laws that help all people, and to a greater degree one specific group of people. That doesn't even make sense to a five year old. Then you complicate the matter by citing his previous statements about how the African American community is the most vulnerable and the most in need.
And everybody is concerned about unemployment, everybody's concerned about businesses not hiring, everybody's concerned about their home values declining. And in each of these areas, African Americans have been disproportionately affected. We were some of the folks who were most affected by predatory lending. There's a long history of us being the last hired and the first fired. As I said, health care -- we're the ones who are in the worst position to absorb companies deciding to drop their health care plans.
So now his statement becomes "I cannot pass laws to just help those who are most in need. I have to pass laws for everyone, specifically those who are most in need.So to Danny Glover, I would say it's not just your community that is in trouble my friend. It is the entire nation that is sitting here in anxious anticipation waiting for this man to have a cranial impulse that somehow resembles a logical thought.
Back when President Obama first proposed his health care reform, a government run health insurance program seemed like a done deal. With a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a popular President pushing it, it seemed like our rights were headed for the grave. Then came the tea parties. Then came the scandals with the czars. Then came the pressure from Conservatives and Moderates alike. Today, Harry Reid has been sent back to the drawing board to produce a bill that includes neither the public option nor the medicare expansion. Is this a total victory? Not yet. But Obama Care as we knew it then is now dead. To which I say...
Dec. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Senate Democrats are poised to drop plans for a new government-run insurance program and the expansion of Medicare from health-care legislation, a step that would remove two of the biggest obstacles to passage.
The party has been divided over how best to cover tens of millions of uninsured Americans, with many liberal Democrats pushing for a so-called public option run by the government to compete with private insurers. A more recent proposal would have let people as young as age 55 enroll in Medicare, the federal insurance program for people age 65 and older.
Lacking the votes for either idea, Democrats said they are focusing on what they can do to pass the legislation by the end of the year. The measure is President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority, and he summoned Senate Democrats to the White House complex to discuss it today.
The fight is still far from over. Will the liberals support a plan that does not have a public option? That remains to be seen. But if a version of this Bill that does not allow the Tyrant's hand to grip our health care system passes, it is at the very least a small victory for Conservatives. Still, one has to pause to shake one's head at the situation as it now exists. The right didn't want the existing version, and the left doesn't want the version that will likely result. Hence, the Senate is now going to try to pass a version of the Bill that nobody wants to protect the ego of our man-child President. One thing that is for sure, we cannot reasonably expect him to do the mature, right, and decent thing and say "The American people don't want this, so let's try to work on what they do want". No, the President will work towards the passage of this Bill that is wanted by none just so he can try to salvage some type of moral victory out of the situation.
According to recent polls, roughly 20% of the American people believe that President Obama deserved the Nobel Prize that he was recently awarded. In an interesting comparison...
54% of Americans believe in intelligent extra terrestrial life forms.
64% believe aliens have contacted us.
50% say that aliens have abducted humans.
37% think that aliens have contacted the U.S. Government.
66% believe that an alien craft crashed outside of Roswell New Mexico.
9% of Americans claim to have had contact with Aliens, or know somebody who has had such contact.
7% claim they were abducted or know somebody who was.
44% expect aliens will be friendly if we ever meet them.
26% expect them to be hostile.
One would expect the group of Americans who don't believe that aliens exist, yet do believe that these non existent entities have contacted us would be a very small group. Apparently, they are outnumbered by people who believe Obama deserved a Nobel Prize by only a two to one spread. Meanwhile, 70% of Americans have an opinion on what our relationship with aliens would be, but only 54% believe they exist. Meaning, 14% of Americans are willing to speculate on the mood swings of little green men from other planets, yet only 20% are willing to go far out on a limb enough to imagine a scenario where President Obama could have possibly done something worthy of the Nobel Prize.
But I suppose that may be one of the more encouraging polls for the President. Rasmussen reports is full of bad news for the Administration and its agenda.
So what does all of this spell out for President Obama?
The 23% who Strongly Approve matches the lowest level of enthusiasm yet recorded. Just 41% of Democrats Strongly Approve while 69% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 21% Strongly Approve and 49% Strongly Disapprove.
Among those who consider the economy to be the most important issue, just 26% Strongly Approve of the President’s performance while 39% Strongly Disapprove.
Among those who consider fiscal policy issues the most important, just 1% Strongly Approve and 81% Strongly Disapprove.
The President’s Approval Index rating is -2 among voters under 30 and -29 among senior citizens.
From an income perspective, the President’s ratings are weakest among those who earn $40,000 to $100,000 annually.
Remember the census worker who was found hanged to death in Kentucky with the word "Fed" scrawled into his chest? At the time of the incident, leftists jumped all over it blaming the "murder" on elected Republicans, talk show hosts, and Fox News. One such attack came from the Huffington Post, which featured an article by Landon Ross which alleged the following.
Our country is being polarized by conscious forces down the road to extremity -- the corollary of which has historically been violence. Those who are stoking the irrational fears which most of us chuckle at every day (I needn't really name them all), tend to be well educated and successful individuals. As such, they are undoubtedly aware of how venomous ideas are capable of manifesting themselves: violently. Yet Republican lawmakers, cable hosts, and radio personalities are riling up fears that a Manchurian-Kenyan-socialist and his secretly anti-American comrades are planning to turn this country into the Fourth Reich. They lend credibility to the idea that the Democrats want to kill your grandmother, and that the 2010 census will lay the groundwork for FEMA's secret concentration camps.
When an individual comes to believe these malignant distortions, it then becomes rational for them to kill in defense of country; just as when one comes to believe that exploding themselves amongst a group of civilian infidels is a righteous act commanded by God, that person can then justify acting. Beliefs are powerful catalysts.
When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently warned of the consequences of hateful rhetoric, she was promptly lambasted by the right. Similarly, Janet Napolitano was bullied by the right, until she apologized, for a D.H.S report that warned of rising right-wing extremism in response to the election of Barack Obama. Conservative voices are always heard feigning outrage when such cautionary statements are made... "How dare you imply these things! I could not foresee that calling a man 'Tiller the baby-killer' on prime-time could lead to his demise!"
Notice how he points out how Pelosi, Nepalitano, and others have predicted such attacks from right wing lunatics? And finally they had the case to vindicate the leftists who had leveled such charges. Right?
"A thorough examination of evidence from the scene, to include DNA testing, as well as examination of his vehicle and his residence, resulted in the determination that Mr. Sparkman, alone, handled the key pieces of evidence with no indications of any other persons involved," Kentucky State Police said.
Sparkman's wrists were bound with duct tape, and a rope around his neck was tied to a tree, but his body was touching the ground, authorities said. He had "Fed" written on his chest in black ink.
However, Sparkman's wrists were loosely bound in front of his body at shoulder width apart, allowing for "considerable mobility," said Kentucky State Police Capt. Lisa Rudzinski.
He was also in contact with the ground, "almost on his knees," she said.
"To survive, all Mr. Sparkman had to do was stand up."
Lividity on the body -- marks made as blood stops pumping and settles in areas of the body -- showed that Sparkman died in the same position, Rudzinski said.
His glasses were taped to his head, and that tape was underneath tape that held a rag in his mouth, she said.
"Mr. Sparkman had extremely poor eyesight" and so would have needed his glasses secured, Rudzinski said.
But the most compelling evidence came from the fact that Sparkman had obtained $600,000 in accidental-death insurance, which would not have paid in the event of a suicide, as late as May, she said.
In addition, he told a "credible witness" of his plans to commit suicide and stage the scene to make it look like he was slain because he worked for the federal government. The details were consistent with how Sparkman died and was found, Rudzinski said.
The witness did not take action after Sparkman shared his plans out of a belief that he would not follow through, authorities said.
"It was learned that Mr. Sparkman had discussed recent federal investigations and the perceived negative attitudes toward federal entities by some residents of Clay County," Kentucky state police said in a statement.
So I have a question for liberal idiots like Landon Ross. Since back when you thought this was a murder you attributed this mans death to the rhetoric of Bachmann, Limbaugh, and Hannity, would you now say that Pelosi and Nepalitano are instead responsible for his death? After all, he stated his intention to stage his death in a manner consistent with the predictions of these leftists. So is his blood on their hands, much the same way you tried to place it on the hands of people across the aisle?
Of course not. That would require consistency and logical thought. If Landon Ross had either of these, he would not have made that ridiculous claim in the first place, and had he made it, we wouldn't know because he certainly couldn't land a spot on Huff Po with either of those traits. I won't hold my breath awaiting apologies and retractions from all of the idiot leftists who took the lead on arguing this idea. I'm sure they are busy over at Dopenhagen.
I have some friends and family who supported President Trump from early on in the process. From time to time they will ask me when I will admit that I was wrong about him. "If Trump does x... If Trump gets y... If Trump supports a policy that results in z... will you admit that you were wrong?" My answer is always "no", because I wasn't wrong. To be clear, I could be wrong in practical application, but that isn't what an election is about. Elections are about theory and speculation and, generally speaking about judging records. Trump had no record to speak of, and his history of stances on issues was all over the map. I opposed his candidacy for several major reasons, all of which are proven valid in this single issue we now refer to as the "travel ban". Here were my reasons.
If you're not familiar with Justice with Judge Jeanine, it is a show on the FOX News Network starring Jeanine Pirro. She is known for her over-the-top rants where she serves up gobs of fresh red meat for her largely hard right wing audience. While it's not unusual for her to be a little fast and loose with the facts, she has been known to occasionally return from the break with a correction from her producers. Last night, however, there was no such correction to an outright lie she told on the show, and the matter being discussed should have (at the very least) contained a disclaimer from the host. I would cut her some slack, but as a former prosecutor and judge, she should be well aware of what proper protocol should have been here.
It's not cute anymore, Republicans. The President of the United States is completely detached from reality, and you can't fix that. You can't cover it up, you can't explain it away, and let me make this as clear as I possibly can for you. You cannot possibly undo the damage you are doing to the party brand by trying to pretend this man is anything other than completely unhinged. I'm watching Sean Hannity borrow guests from the Alex Jones show in an attempt to bolster Trump's conspiratorial claims. I'm seeing relatively mainstream conservatives make themselves look like the crazed fringes of the paranoid right wing. Don't believe me? Look at this.
ROMULUS, Mich. – A Nigerian man who said he was an agent for al-Qaida tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines plane Friday as it was preparing to land in Detroit, but travelers who smelled smoke and heard what sounded like firecrackers rushed to subdue him, the passengers and federal officials said.
