RIGHT NOT WRONG

FOR OUR TROOPS AT CHRISTMAS....WE LOVE YOU AND MISS YOU

Kathy Barkulis — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:54:00 GMT

Wherever you are, and for all that you do for us, we honor your service. Merry Christmas.

MEET ALLEN WEST....A TRUE LEADER FOR THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA IN TROUBLED TIMES

Kathy Barkulis — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:52:00 GMT

This past Thursday 13 American Soldiers were killed and another 30 wounded at a horrific mass shooting at US Army installation, Ft Hood Texas. As I watched in horror and then anger I recalled my two years of final service in the Army as a Battalion Commander at Ft Hood, 2002-2004.

My wife and two daughters were stunned at the incident having lived on the post in family housing.

A military installation, whether it is Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, or Coast Guard, is supposed to be a safe sanctuary for our Warriors and their families. It is intended to provide a home whereby our “Band of Brothers and Sisters” can find solace and bond beyond just the foxhole but as family units.

A military installation is supposed to be a place where our Warriors train for war, to serve and protect our Nation.

On Thursday, 5 November 2009 Ft Hood became a part of the battlefield in the war against Islamic totalitarianism and state sponsored terrorism.

There may be those who feel threatened by my words and would even recommend they not be uttered. To those individuals I say step aside because now is not the time for cowardice. Our Country has become so paralyzed by political correctness that we have allowed a vile and determined enemy to breach what should be the safest place in America, an Army post.

We have become so politically correct that our media is more concerned about the stress of the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. The misplaced benevolence intending to portray him as a victim is despicable. The fact that there are some who have now created an entire new classification called; “pre-virtual vicarious Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)” is unconscionable.

This is not a “man caused disaster”. It is what it is, an Islamic jihadist attack.

We have seen this before in 2003 when a SGT Hasan of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) threw hand grenades and opened fire into his Commanding Officer’s tent in Kuwait. We have seen the foiled attempt of Albanian Muslims who sought to attack Ft Dix, NJ. Recently we saw a young convert to Islam named Carlos Bledsoe travel to Yemen, receive terrorist training, and return to gun down two US Soldiers at a Little Rock, Arkansas Army recruiting station. We thwarted another Islamic terrorist plot in North Carolina which had US Marine Corps Base, Quantico as a target.

What have we done with all these prevalent trends? Nothing.

What we see are recalcitrant leaders who are refusing to confront the issue, Islamic terrorist infiltration into America, and possibly further into our Armed Services. Instead we have a multiculturalism and diversity syndrome on steroids.

Major Hasan should have never been transferred to Ft Hood, matter of fact he should have been Chaptered from the Army. His previous statements, poor evaluation reports, and the fact that the FBI had him under investigation for jihadist website posting should have been proof positive.

However, what we have is a typical liberal approach to find a victim, not the 13 and 30 Soldiers and Civilian, but rather the poor shooter. A shooter who we are told was a great American, who loved the Army and serving his Nation and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) stating that his actions had nothing to do with religious belief.

We know that Major Hasan deliberately planned this episode; he did give away his possessions. He stood atop a table in the confined space of the Soldier Readiness Center shouting “Allahu Akhbar”, same chant as the 9-11 terrorists and those we fight against overseas in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of operation.

No one in leadership seems willing to sound the alarm for the American people; they are therefore complicit in any future attacks. Our Congress should suspend the insidious action to vote on a preposterous and unconstitutional healthcare bill and resolve the issue of “protecting the American people”.

The recent incidents in Dearborn Michigan, Boston Massachusetts, Dallas Texas, and Chicago Illinois should bear witness to the fact that we have an Islamic terrorism issue in America. And don’t have CAIR call me and try to issue a vanilla press statement; they are an illegitimate terrorist associated organization which should be disbanded.

We have Saudi Arabia funding close to 80% of the mosques in the United States, one right here in South Florida, Pompano Beach. Are we building churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia? Are “Kaffirs” and “Infidels” allowed travel to Mecca?

So much for peaceful coexistence.

Saudi Arabia is sponsoring radical Imams who enter into our prisons and convert young men into a virulent Wahabbist ideology….one resulting in four individuals wanting to destroy synagogues in New York with plastic explosives. Thank God the explosives were dummy. They are sponsoring textbooks which present Islamic centric revisionist history in our schools.

We must recognize that there is an urgent need to separate the theo-political radical Islamic ideology out of our American society. We must begin to demand surveillance of suspected Imams and mosques that are spreading hate and preaching the overthrow of our Constitutional Republic……that speech is not protected under First Amendment, it is sedition and if done by an American treason.

There should not be some 30 Islamic terrorist training camps in America that has nothing to do with First Amendment, Freedom of Religion. The Saudis are not our friends and any American political figure who believes such is delusional.

When tolerance becomes a one way street it certainly leads to cultural suicide. We are on that street. Liberals cannot be trusted to defend our Republic, because their sympathies obviously lie with their perceived victim, Major Nidal Malik Hasan.

I make no apologies for these words, and anyone angered by them, please, go to Ft Hood and look into the eyes of the real victims. The tragedy at Ft Hood Texas did not have to happen. Consider now the feelings of those there and on every military installation in the world. Consider the feelings of the Warriors deployed into combat zones who now are concerned that their loved ones at home are in a combat zone.

Ft Hood suffered an Islamic jihadist attack, stop the denial, and realize a simple point.

The reality of your enemy must become your own.

Steadfast and Loyal,

Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Ret)

SARAH PALIN: NOT READY FOR THE WHITE HOUSE

Kathy Barkulis — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:49:00 GMT

I have thought long and hard about this subject and have refrained from publicly taking a stand on it, but I believe now is the time to face reality about Sarah Palin's political future. She's just not ready, and may never be. Just as I look at Obama's lack of experience as a true hindrance in getting our country back from the economic brink, Palin's lack of experience would hurt the country too.

It's not enough to hold the same views as the candidate to get the best results for the country. That person has to be gifted and able to negotiate convincingly. In other words, they have to have the skills necessary to persuade the opposition into thinking your way is the irrefutable right way. This idea was the driving force behind conservatives rejecting Harriet Miers' candidacy as Supreme Court nominee, and their support for John Roberts. Conservatives knew that Harriet Miers was not up to the job of effectively persuading liberals on the bench to think her way on the law. But they knew that John Roberts was just more gifted and persuasive, which is what is an absolute necessity in order to preside effectively on the court. I also believe this is what is needed to win over the majority of the voters in a presidential election.

Barack Obama's tenure so far has proven that to elect a President based on personality and charisma, even if that candidates' views are your own, can be a dangerous precedent for the country. I have many friends, Independants and Democrats, who are now extremely upset that they voted for him. They keep saying things like "He seemed so moderate and likable during the campaign," but they are now feeling duped. And more importantly, they think he's dangerous for the welfare of the country.

I don't think Sarah Palin would ever be dangerous for the country because of her views, but I do think she doesn't have the experience necessary for such a complex and difficult job, just as Obama doesn't. From my vantage point, he looks like he'd rather be galivanting the globe on Air Force One instead of actually doing something of substance back here at home. It's almost as if he's escaping from the difficult decisions he can't make at home, because he just doesn't have the decisiveness necessary without hurting himself politically.

My case in point regarding Palin is her resignation from the governorship. That day was a big disappointment for me, because it forced me to re-think her qualifications to run the country. No doubt she was under extreme pressure and countless attacks from her enemies in Alaska, but that is something that every politician has to endure. And if you can't take the attacks on yourself, how can you take attacks from real enemies against the country? And if those attacks paralyze you, how can you set them aside to make the very difficult decisions required as the President? For example, let's revisit Jimmy Carter's presidency. He was just not experienced and decisive enough to handle a damaged economy, an energy crisis, and the hostage taking of our citizens in Iran. He didn't have the ability to put politics aside during a crisis and take care of business. The result was that he damaged the country, and he failed miserably.

The media and the progressives, one and the same now, will try to destroy anyone conservatives put up as a candidate. So therefore, we need a candidate that can withstand that pressure without backing down. An example of that would be Ronald Reagan. The left painted him as a buffoon, but his gift was that he was able to turn those attacks around in a forceful and convincing way without alienating most of the country. In fact, the more he was attacked, the better he was at diffusing the attacks. Palin doesn't have this ability now, and she may or may not be able to turn this around. But so far her approach has left me worried that she will divide conservatives and Republicans more than she will bring them together.

The media is having a field day with Palin because they probably would love to have her as the Republican candidate knowing that she only has about 25% support. That's not enough to win anything. And they know it. The more Palin exposes herself, the more chance she has of making mistakes. She needs to get more experience in my opinion, and then she should get out there and offer substantive and creative ideas for the Republican/Conservative platform. And she needs to stop talking about her personal life, her drama, and re-hashing the campaign. In other words, she needs to be more statesman-like. Hillary Clinton doesn't dwell on her personal life, and neither does Marsha Blackburn or Michelle Bachman, all women who have been mercilessly attacked by the media.

I look forward to all that Sarah Palin can offer the conservative agenda, but I hope she abandons any Presidential aspirations at this point in time. 2012 is a long way off, so maybe she can prove me wrong before then. Wouldn't that be fantastic?

Kathy Barkulis

FORT HOOD TERRORIST ATTACK

Kathy Barkulis — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:15:00 GMT

IF A MILITIA MEMBER BOMBED A MOSQUE, WOULD PRESIDENT OBAMA TELL US NOT TO JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS?

The Fort Hood terrorist attack has revealed shocking details regarding the military's diversity policy, and the policy of the government regarding radical Muslims within our borders. General Casey was interviewed this weekend affirming that the Army's policy is to honor diversity principles, and not to jump to conclusions regarding Muslims in the military. President Obama said the same thing. But what did they know about Major Hasan, and when did they know it?

Reports are surfacing that many soldiers had reported to the Army brass the statements Hasan made in both public and private forums in recent months. It has also come to light that it was known Hasan attended a radical mosque, had posted threatening statements on the internet, and had tried to contact Al Quaida operatives in Yemen in recent months.

After the shootings last week, many people at the base reported that Hasan shouted "Allah Akbar," the jihadist call to slaughter, prior to the shooting rampage. He paid up his rent in advance at his apartment, he gave away his possessions the day before the attack, he was using his neighbor's computer in recent weeks instead of his own computer, and he was reassigned from Walter Reed to Fort Hood for poor performance. And what did the military brass do? They gave him a promotion and assigned him to a tour of duty in Afghanistan.

Yet I am still hearing most of the media, and government and military officials pussyfoot around when asked if this was a terrorist attack. What are they waiting for? How much more evidence do they need to come out and say what this really was? If the Army brass cannot defend its own soldiers on our own soil, how can Americans expect them to defend the country? It is shocking to me that in our post 9/11 world lessons have not been learned by the people whom we entrust to protect us. This outrageous lack of judgement by our leaders is all due to political correctness gone mad. I am frankly sick and tired of it. Under Obama's watch, government officials are not allowed to use the word "terrorist" anymore when speaking of radical Muslims. What kind of ignorant idiocy is that?

Why is it necessary to protect the feelings of radical Muslims in the name of diversity and tolerance? Why should we be tolerant of radical Muslims? What does this policy do to the security of our nation? What did we really learn after 9/11? Let's just call this what it is. A radical Muslim committed a terrorist attack on this nation last week, and our own leaders are afraid to confront it for what it is. Essentially, the terrorists have won. They have successfully used our country's good intentions and tolerance to screw us. And don't think I haven't noticed that Hasan waited for George Bush to leave office before he did this. Which brings me to President Obama.

Has anyone noticed that for a President who goes on television daily to promote his own political agenda has failed to adequately address the nation about this attack? This blatant failure proves that he is not fit to lead this great nation of ours. He is not capable of protecting us, and never will be. So once again, our leaders have failed us. The CIA, the FBI, the military, Homeland Security, and the President are all too caught up in political correctness to call these animals what they are and to stop them from destroying us. If we don't scream our heads off and demand protection from these terrorist pigs, our leaders will continue this madness and denial. We need to demand an investigation to find out who ignored the signs, why they ignored the signs, and what they are going to do about it in the future. And this question must be answered...Is there confusion within our government and military as to what is acceptable criticism of radical Muslims? Has the current administration let it be known that we will not question the actions of any Muslims, and treat their radicalism as crimes instead of acts of war?

I wonder how tolerant President Obama would be if his child was slaughtered? How can we as a nation face the family members of the 13 dead Americans and all of the wounded if we don't demand answers of our leaders? I want those answers, and I want them now. Our brave soldiers deserve better than this.

Kathy Barkulis

A TRIBUTE TO OUR MILITARY

Kathy Barkulis — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:04:00 GMT

LIBERALS ON SUNDAY TALK SHOWS REVEAL THEIR ANGER WITH PELOSI'S BILL

Kathy Barkulis — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:17:00 GMT

A war is brewing within the Democrat Party ranks. It didn't take long for the liberals to spew their dissatisfaction with the abortion ammendment to Nancy Pelosi's healthcare bill. They appeared on the Sunday talk shows to decry the compromise and promised to change the terms before they would support the Senate version of the bill. They are talking revolt. Think about this. Liberals want the right to end the lives of unborn children paid for by taxpayers, and they want elderly people to be denied life saving treatments after a certain age so there's enough money to pay for those abortions. Yet they deny that they are the party of death.

All of this dissatisfaction is music to my ears. Pelosi had to get that abortion ammendment passed in order to get all the votes she needed. But even with the abortion ammendment, they were only able to get this bill passed by 5 votes. And there's proportionately more Democrats in the House than the Senate. So now the progressives are threatening to withdraw support of the Senate bill unless abortion coverage is reinstated. This discontent is exactly what we need.

This is not the only problem they have with Pelosi's bill. They say they won't be happy unless healthcare reform leads to a total government takeover. They ultimately want a single payer system just like Europe has, even though many countries in Europe are now moving back to a more free market system. Europe has tried this experiment, and they know it doesn't work. Yet the liberals here want to emulate a failed program. They keep quoting phantom polls that say 60% of Americans want total government healthcare. I've now figured this out. Just as Acorn gets dead people to vote multiple times in elections, they get the same dead people to answer polls.

After watching all the Sunday shows I came to the conclusion that the Democrats will defeat their own healthcare bill in the Senate, because it won't look anything like the massive entitlement program they want to impose on all of us. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like victory.

KATHY BARKULIS

Pick Your Health Care Plan (It Just Better Be Ours!)

Chris Barkulis — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:12:00 GMT

Yay. We have Health Care Reform now. "Reform" being the new, hip keyword during the upcoming week of polling before the Senate passes their version and hashes out exactly what the Democrats want Government (not Universal) Health Care to look like.

Before I interject some more, here are some videos of this historical and disastrous vote by the United States House of Representatives:

This is the House Bill passing, and now I present to you what so many liberals tried to use as a euphemism against former President Bush, but is more appropriate here:

Ryan Grim of HuffPo has a fantastic (sarcasm intended) article of the elation and emotion produced by this vote.

Couple things:

The White House, two sources told HuffPost, had been working hard to win the vote of Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.), a freshman in a strongly Democratic district. The pro-life Cao's vote came into play when an amendment from Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) passed overwhelmingly, greatly restricting reproductive rights.
After several minutes, Cao cast a yes vote from his seat, making the bill bipartisan.

Awesome; one Freshman Congressman's vote is what makes this bill "bi-partisan?" Are you fricking kidding me? This seems to me like a future lead-in for Huff and other "journalists" to claim President Obama succeeded by creating a "bi-partisan" bill. I say Nuts.

The normally stoic Pelosi had tears streaming down her cheek.

I doubt it unless the Botox wore off...

Not even the extreme pro-life amendment could dampen enthusiasm. "We'll live to fight that battle," said Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), a passionate supporter of reproductive freedom.

The "amendment" being referred to is the Stupak (D-MI) Amendment that does not allow abortions to be Federally funded. However, it is widely believed that this will be negated in the final House-Senate Bill sent to the President. Thus, Rep. Slaughter's above comments.

Also, how is it "extreme" when the government should be denied the ability to pay for terminating pregnancies? If you notice, Mr. Grim has turned the "Pro-Choice" mantra into "reproductive freedom." I guess that is the hip spin for not being accountable for your own actions.

What a glorious day we had!

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Chris Barkulis — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:59:00 GMT

I know many people have seen this video already, but I am hearing how MSNBC and CNN are inviting this fraud as a guest on their programs to improperly congratulate him for taking on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in that typical big government, liberal deprecating way they treat capitalism.

Go Big Government! Sarcasm implied.

The funny thing about this video is that I believe it is an inept liberal's attempt to "vilify" what was properly exposed about the happenings going on at ACORN offices across the country. This loser probably thought that he would show us that believe in free enterprise a thing or two, but he really should have picked someone smarter than himself (as evidenced at the end of the video) to at least make some sort of point for this fraudulent behavior.

I doubt there is anything nefarious going on at the Chamber. This guy was probably just grabbing at straws and hell bent on attacking an organization that focuses on "The Spirit of Enterprise."

This is the video:

OBAMA POISED TO CEDE U.S. SOVEREIGNTY, CLAIMS BRITISH LORD

Kathy Barkulis — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:08:00 GMT

The below article was first found by RNW on Black Listed News but looks like it originated from Fightin' Words.

Published on 10-15-2009

The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.

A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention.

Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.

[laughter]

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.

But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.

So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:

Sail on, O Ship of State!

Sail on, O Union, strong and great!

Humanity with all its fears,

With all the hopes of future years,

Is hanging breathless on thy fate!

Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from members of the audience. Among those questions were these relevent to the forthcoming Copenhagen treaty:

Question: The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that’s his agenda and he’ll do it.

I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to www.wattsupwiththat.com, they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.

Question: Is it really irrevocable if that treaty is signed? Suppose it’s signed by someone who does not have the authority, as I – I have some, a high degree of skepticism that we do have a valid president there because I -

I know at least one judge who shares your opinion, sir, yes.

I don’t believe it until I see it. … Would [Obama's potential illegitimacy as president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty that he does sign as president?

I would be very careful not to rely on things like that. Although there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii, my fear is it would be very difficult to prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii and therefore we might not be able to get anywhere with that. Besides, once he’s signed that treaty, whether or not he signed it validly, once he’s signed it and ratified it – your Senate ratifies it – you’re bound by it. But I will say one thing; they know, in the White House, that they won’t be able to get the 67 votes in the Senate, the two-thirds majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to ratify a treaty of this kind. However, what they’ve worked out is this – and they actually let it slip during the election campaign, which is how I know about it. They plan to enact that Copenhagen treaty into legislation by a simple majority of both houses. That they can do. But the virtue of that – and here you have a point – is that is, thank God, reversible. So I want you to pray tonight, and pray hard for your Senate that they utterly refuse to ratify the [new] Treaty of Copenhagen, because if they refuse to ratify it and [Obama] has to push it through as domestic legislation, you can repeal it.

Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.

Edited to add @ 8:31 am:

Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:

38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

World Government (heading added)

(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)

b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.

With Enforcement Authority (heading added)

© The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].

Derrion Albert

Chris Barkulis — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 04:58:00 GMT

I'm ashamed of myself. I'm ashamed of Chicago. I'm ashamed of the Chicago school system. I'm ashamed of the response by the Obama administration.

Derrion Albert (1993-2009) was shamelessly murdered and had his death broadcasted across the internet and MSM via an home video taken of the horrific event.

I only post this video in hopes that it will continue to bring those complacent in Derrion's death to justice.   I watched it with a heavy heart for the first time tonight and was disgusted with what I saw happening to this young man and am equally disgusted with the person that decided to keep recording this film without calling 911. The irony is that him filming may help catch all those involved in the murder, yet shouldn't a human being reach out to help in any way he can? Maybe I'm naive.

I have heard about this being a deplorable Black on Black crime (thank you AG Holder and Mr. Duncan), but this is a crime. Plain and simple. Race is no issue here. It would be just as deplorable if this were a mixed race murder. I don't care who is involved; it's a murder none the less.

I'm ashamed of myself for not bringing this up sooner. I committed the same behavior as everyone else by ignoring it since we were all focused on the hope of Chicago winning 2016.

I'm ashamed of Chicago for ignoring this teen violence issue for so long that it took losing the spotlight to make them refocus it again. I am ashamed to think that if we won the Olympics of 2016 the world never would have heard about Derrion.

I'm ashamed of the school system here that it took two weeks for them to even fully address Derrion's murder. That gave CPS two weeks to address a major issue and concern of many parents. Were they even included in the faux problem solving news conference that happened with the City of Chicago and Federal Government today? Not that I saw. Maybe I should give them a pass on that. Oh well; they should be used to taking a back seat to the city and other bodies of government that can tell them what is best.

Silly me, I just remembered that Mr. Duncan was heading CPS before President Obama put him in charge of the whole NATION'S educational system. What's his new solution? Dumping federal money back into CPS and other school systems (which has been continuously done) for after school programs. How does that continue to help? I'm not against these programs, but Derrion was a model student and a product of those programs. Maybe we need to start thinking of alternatives that encourage the ordinary person take a stand and prevent this violence from happening in the first place.

I'm ashamed of the Obama administration. Too little, too late in my opinion.

Supplemental articles:

We'll Learn Nothing From Derrion Albert

Coward's appease the status quo...by not phoning for help

Chicago Tribune - Yes, Mr. Azam Ahmed Has a Brown Nose Because of the Crap He Has Been Writing

Nuclear Iran...Who Want's Some?

Chris Barkulis — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 03:22:00 GMT

Raise your hand if you would like to see a nuclear Iran. Anyone? Anyone? I don't think even the far left would openly push for a nuclear Iran, however they may be complacent. This pics for you, far left:

Isn't that clever? It's like you know what they're up to, but you'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Good luck with that. This is what many of us have seen as the true Iran for awhile now, and I believe some in the Obama administration are teetering back and forth on this as a mental image:

I'm sure there are those that are optimistic enough to think both of these pictures can ultimately work each other out so that Iran stays in check, but unfortunately, here is the reality of the situation:

Now, I am no intelligence official and cannot fully substantiate the above map, but to believe Iran is "A-Okay!" is the biggest mistake we can make. I don't believe in doing business with this state that sponsors terrorism, with this state that attacks our allies in international waters, this state that suppresses its political opposition in national elections through force (and to my liberal friends, I would gladly dip my finger in purple ink after I vote to insure I cannot vote again...will you?).

If you take a look at United Against Nuclear Iran you will see that there are many people, including ex-pats of Iran, looking to expose the current government of Iran.

What you should look at next is the Iran Business Registry. These are multi-national companies that still do business with Iran. Here is the mission statement of that section of the UANI group:

Welcome to United Against Nuclear Iran's (UANI) Iranian Business Registry (IBR), a running database of reputable media and academic reports of international business in Iran. The IBR can be used for a number of ways for peaceful activism including:

Increase Product Awareness: Use the IBR to guide your purchase decisions
Divest: Use IBR to help identify your divestment decisions
Contact Businesses: Use the IBR to find and contact domestic companies with business activity in Iran and explain to them your concerns.
Contact Elected Officials: Use the IBR to find domestic companies with business activity in Iran and contact your local elected officials to explain your concerns.
Company Declaration: Sign the declaration to certify your company does not conduct business in or with Iran.
The Iran Business Certification Act: Read UANI's proposed legislation which calls on Congress to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are not paid to companies doing business with Iran.

By clicking on the link above you can see which companies actually help Iran thrive and follow through with its ambitions.

Here's one last thing for you to take a look at:

OBAMA MUZZLES TOP MILITARY COMMANDERS

Kathy Barkulis — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 01:19:00 GMT

Sources tell Newsmax the Obama administration is muzzling its topmilitary leaders, and keeping them from publicly airing their views onhow to fight the war in Afghanistan.

The administration's primary target: top Afghanistan commander Gen.Stanley McChrystal, whose speech in London last week apparently caughtadministration officials off guard.

In fact, The Daily Telegraph reported that Obama's advisers were "shocked and angered" by McChrystal's speech.

"This is a food fight in the war room, and it's getting ugly," observedPulitzer Prize winning correspondent and Manhattan Institute scholarJudith Miller, regarding the sharply contrasting views being airedwithin the administration over how to fight the war.

In his speech, McChrystal defended his request for 40,000 more soldiers to wage a counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan, warning "a strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short sighted strategy."

Without mentioning Vice President Joe Biden by name, McChrystal said the vice president's proposal to scale back the objectives for the war would lead to "chaos-istan."

Shortly after those remarks, McChrystal was summoned to a face-to-face meeting with President Obama aboard Air Force One in Copenhagen, where Obama was making his ill-fated attempt to support Chicago's bid to host the 2016 summer Olympic games. Obama's National Security Adviser, Jim Jones, described their discussion as an exchange of "very direct views."

On Monday, in an obvious reference to McChrystal, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told the Association of the U.S. Army that "It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations --civilian and military alike -- provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately.”

That statement appeared to echo remarks on Sunday from Jones, a retired Marine general. He told CNN, "Ideally, it's best for military advice to come up through the chain of command."

The none-too-subtle message to America's top military leaders: Don't share your candid views on the war in public. It appears McChrystal received the message loud and clear. According to The Washington Independent, McChrystal spokesperson and Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis stated: “General McChrystal concurs with the secretary and shares his perspective that the president’s military and civilian policy advisers need to provide candid but private advice.”

Sholtis also said that McChrystal has no current plans for additional public appearances, The Washington Independent reported.

McChrystal became the top U.S. general in Afghanistan after Gates fired Gen. David D. McKiernan in May. McKiernan, who was criticized in some circles as insufficiently innovative, presided over a troop-strength increase of 21,000 soldiers. He had filed a request with the Pentagon for 10,000 more at the time he was replaced.

At the time, Gates ordered McChrystal to provide "fresh thinking" and "fresh eyes" on Afghanistan. But apparently it was McChrystal's fresh tongue that got him in trouble.

The New York Times reported Monday that Gen. David H. Petraeus, who was widely credited with carrying out the successful surge in Iraq, has already toned down his remarks since Obama attained the presidency.

"General Petraeus's aides now privately call him 'David the Dull,'" theTimes reports, "and say he has largely muzzled himself from the fierce public debate about the war to avoid antagonizing the White House, which does not want pressure from military superstars and is wary of the general's ambitions in particular."

The concern among some experts is that President Obama's effort to tone down his military leaders may indicate he wants to triangulate a more politically palatable approach to fighting the war that may fall short of being militarily decisive.

"The president won't get honest opinions from his military advisers,"warns Dr. James Jay Carafano, a former Army lieutenant colonel who serves as a leading Heritage Foundation expert on defense and homeland security. "He has to trust people who work for him. And when you've muzzled the people who work for you, you can't turn around and trust them to give you honest, candid guidance."

Carafano sharply criticized what he sees as Obama's "committee" approach to Afghanistan.

"This is not how wars get fought," Carafano tells Newsmax. "You don't fight wars by committee. Because now he's turned this into a political debate, and you're going to end up with a sub-optimal outcome."

Carafano says Obama appears to be "replaying all the worst decision making of McNamara and Johnson in Vietnam."

"This is the classic prescription for failure," Carafano says of the administration's indecisive approach. "And the military guy is sort of caught in the middle, because when the president doesn't want to fight the war the right way, you have three options: You can salute and drive on, or you can resign, or you can stay but play politics and leak things. None of those are good outcomes; none of them are the way to win a war."

Carafano says: "I think this is a case where the generals are dead right and the politicians are dead wrong. And we're going to choose a strategy based on what's politically convenient."

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., issued the following statement to Newsmax on Monday evening: “As we near the 8th anniversary of sustained combat in Afghanistan, it is important to reaffirm our commitment to victory there. At a time when record numbers of American and allied troops are losing their lives during combat in Afghanistan, we should give the utmost priority to listening to our commanders on the ground. We owe it to the troops who have already lost their lives to provide our forces with the adequate number of troops to accomplish the mission that they set out to do.

“After the release of General McChrystal’s assessment, some Obama administration officials have gone so far as to minimize the value ofthe Commanding General’s assessment.

"Instead, President Obama should be predominantly relying on the advice of his two senior commanders for the region, General Petraeus andGeneral McChrystal."

Petraeus and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Michael Mullen have voiced support for deploying additional troops, but Petraeus has stopped short of endorsing McChrystal's specific report. As Gen. Jones' comments indicate, the military is far from united over how best to prosecute the war, however.

Inhofe also stated Monday: "Politics, indecision, or ambivalence have no place in this process when we are clearly at a crucial stage of the war. Time and decisiveness are critical. As many have said, time may not be on our side in Afghanistan. With the winter approaching and the time to allocate additional forces dwindling, it is imperative that we enable our military leaders and the troops on the ground with all the resources and tools they require to make inroads against the insurgency.

"While I agree that the Afghan Security Forces (ASF) also need to be dramatically increased to adequately protect the Afghan people and fight the Taliban, those efforts should happen in conjunction with an allied troop increase, not in place of such an increase. ‘Wait and see’ is not a war strategy and certainly not an approach that our military commanders are recommending,” he stated.

While Miller believes McChrystal's statements about Biden's ideas went too far, she says she understands the frustration of some military leaders with an extended policy review that, in some ways, actually began even before Obama assumed office. She says Obama's policy reversals on a host of issues – military tribunals, CIA torture investigations, and support for a shield law to protect reporters' sources are but three examples – have left onlookers both at home and abroad wary of the direction Obama's new Afghan strategy may take.

"It's been a series of flip-flops, and they have people very nervous," she says.

Obama also finds himself under serious pressure from the left wing of his party. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., has proposed legislation that would halt sending any additional troops to Afghanistan. Lee enlisted 21 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus as co-sponsors.

By: David Patten-Newsmax

Oh, Big Bird! You Crazy Right Wing Extremist!

Chris Barkulis — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 01:16:00 GMT

That crazy yellow bird is at it again! Is this still indoctrination?

SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE TELLS US WHAT OBAMA HAS ACCOMPLISHED SO FAR....

Kathy Barkulis — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:21:00 GMT

***UPDATE*** YouTube took down the video we had previously posted. Here is the version straight from the Horse's Mouth: NBC...

RADICALISM IN CHICAGO

Kathy Barkulis — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:24:00 GMT

Saul Alinsky

You could say that 20th Century radicalism in Chicago has many tentacles, but its roots can be traced to a south side neighborhood called Hyde Park and its neighbor Kenwood, both home to the University of Chicago. Hyde Park is a lovely neighborhood close to Lake Michigan and the Museum Complex of Chicago.

It started out in the 1800's as a wealthy enclave with many old mansions built by very rich men. As years went on, and the Great Depression hit, the wealthy industrialists either died off or moved away. It became crime ridden and blighted. Many of the old huge houses were turned into rooming houses during the Depression for poor people to live in.

Somewhere around the early 1960's, University of Chicago professors and patrons decided they wanted to create a utopian neighborhood filled with diversity....economic, intellectual, racial, and political. So what did they do? They bought up the old delapidated homes, kicked out the poor renters, rehabbed the homes and built up the neighborhood for their grand experiment. Many of the old run down mansions were renovated and the new people moved in. Many were Univ. of Chicago professors, writers, poets, artists, etc. Many prominent south side politicians also moved in. The University of Chicago was very prominent in this urban development, because after all, the neighborhood bordered their beautiful campus. It just so happens, that this grand urban experiment was attractive to the many educators at U of C, and a lot of these people had a radical ideology. Socialists, Communists, Marxists, and just plain old Democrats found Hyde Park a welcoming home for their ideology, and in my opinion, settled their white guilt complexes. Never mind that they had to "displace" the poor Blacks who lived there in order to complete their utopia of intellectually stimulating, economically thriving, and diverse neighbors.

This is the neighborhood where Obama bought his home. His current neighbors are people like Bill Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn, Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, and lesser known radical thinkers based out of the University of Chicago. But over the past years, Hyde Park has been home to Saul Bellow, Paul Butterfield, Muhammad Ali, Clarence Darrow, Leon Despres, Arne Duncan, Eugene Fama, Enrico Fermi, Marshall Field, Dick Gregory, Francis Fukuyama, Hugh Hefner, Mahalia Jackson, Harold Washington, John Paul Stevens, and many more. Not all of these people were politically or ideologically active, but many were, and the neighborhood attracted radicals because they knew they would be accepted there.

The Chicago 7 Conspirators from the 1968 riots in Chicago, the Weather Underground, the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)---all 1960's radicals, often planned their movement in friends' homes in Hyde Park. After Bill Ayres got off on the terrorism charges, and his wife Bernadine Dohrn served time on her Weather Underground activities, they made Hyde Park their home. When Ayres met the young community organizer Barack Obama, he said that he felt Obama had promise in the politcal arena. He supported Obama's political ambitions because Ayres admitted (I'm paraphrasing), 'I would have loved to see him de-throne Mayor Daley and become the new Mayor of Chicago. I never dreamed he would rise to the Presidency in such a short amount of time.'

And then of course, there is Saul Alinsky, the author of "Rules For Radicals," and the father of Community Organizing. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were Alinsky's most famous students, although you can easily trace Alinsky's rules being followed by many liberals in this country. Alinsky went to the University of Chicago in the 1930's and stayed in Chicago for many years after that, although he died in 1972 in California where he had moved to organize communities there. Though he never claimed to be a card carrying member of any organized political party, he has said the following:

"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism."

"In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace.... Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.' This means revolution."

"Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing."

"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations...."

I also just read that "Alinsky's tactics were based, not on Stalin's revolutionary violence, but on the Neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist. Relying on gradualism, infiltration and the dialectic process rather than a bloody revolution, Gramsci's transformational Marxism was so subtle that few even noticed the deliberate changes."

Alinsky was very influential in the teaching of community organizing in Chicago, and you can see his influence throughout the far left of the Democrat Party today. Alinskyites may look like you and I, dressed in their establishment clothes, perfectly coiffed, stylish and cool. Because after all, that's what Alinsky taught them. Infiltrate the power structure, mirror them and their images, move up their ladders, then work slowly and deliberately to dismantle the power structures, and then re-make them into your utopia. This is what has taken place in Hyde Park and in Chicago over the past 50 years.

There are also very many rich radical people operating out of Chicago, like the Pritzker family, and the the Crown family. Penny Pritzker was Obama's National Campaign Finance Director, and has had many problems with the IRS for failure to pay taxes on her family's massive wealth. These people have Marxist ideologies and have set up foundations to support their political ideologies. Their political ideology is based on re-distribution of wealth. They give grants to far left causes, and Chicago attracts these people to live and work there....because that's where the money is. Bill Ayres, who many people don't know is the son of the former CEO of Commonwealth Edison, comes from an extremely wealthy background as well. He and Barack Obama sat on the board of the Annenberg Challenge, an educational foundation devoted to intrinsically changing the educational system in America to foster a far left ideology to children in the public schools. That is my opinion on what they were doing, although they phrased it differently.

All of this background fits in nicely with the Democratic Party that has had power in Chicago for eons. The radicals have been restless for many years with the old Democrat machine here and have been working quietly behind the scenes supporting candidates that match their ideology, and many have been elected here. They are now entrenched within the political mainstream here.

People may say, "How can Marxist ideology ferment and grow in a democracy?" I say it can because we live in a free and open society that allows and accepts freedom of speech, ideology, thought, and action. Hyde Park was made for this. But we are also free to disagree with this ideology, discover it, investigate it, and defeat it.

Kathy Barkulis

THE REAL CHICAGO OLYMPIC STORY....FOLLOW JARRETT, OBAMA, AND THE MONEY !!!

Kathy Barkulis — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:25:00 GMT

Finally, on Glenn Beck's show today, his national audience found out what is really happening with the Chicago Olympic bid. He got most of the facts right, though he left out a few facts that he may not know. I commented on this issue on someone's blog the other day regarding the Chicago Olympic bid and why Obama is so wrapped up in this. I'll try to lay it out for you, but you can also watch Beck's show to get an overview. Keep in mind, that local reporters in Chicago have investigated and reported on this, but few in the national media have picked it up.

Valerie Jarrett worked for a real estate company in Chicago called Habitat Company prior to coming to the White House with Obama. She was President of the company. The CEO of the company is a man named Dan Levin. I'll talk about him later. The Habitat Company is the most politically connected real estate developer in the city. They manage and own thousands of apartments in the city, many blighted and in disrepair, which are rented out to low income families. They have been able to get contracts in the city to manage public housing, receive millions of dollars in federal money, and they have been characterized as slum landlords. They take the federal dollars, but they do very little to repair and maintain this housing. These apartments are in the neighborhoods where President Obama "community organized." Yet the housing has remained uninhabitable and run down. Valerie Jarrett oversaw these projects before coming to the White House with Obama, and is one of Obama's closest advisors. ( Jarrett was also responsible for getting Michelle Obama her high paying job at the University of Chicago hospital, where they routinely turned away poor, uninsured patients.) Habitat Company owns the property where many of these slum buildings are located, and would stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars if Chicago gets the Olympics. Why? Because the city will buy this land from Valerie Jarrett's company, Habitat, tear down the blighted buildings and build the Olympic Stadium complex. Just follow the money.

President Obama won't be the president forever, and will return to Chicago, ironically, right before the Olympics, to jump right back into the politically connected atmosphere of the only home he's known. This is a home he was able to buy because of the convicted felon, Tony Rezco, who is now serving jail time. And Valerie Jarrett will return home too, right back to Chicago and the Habitat Company. If this gang can get the Olympics to Chicago, they will be setting themselves up for the biggest payday ever, setting themselves up for the future.

All of this is happening while kids are being murdered on the streets of Chicago, and we are trying to fight a complicated war in Afghanistan with troops there and in Iraq. President Obama, Valerie Jarret, Mayor Daley, and Michelle Obama are in Copenhagen furiously lobbying the IOC to get the games here in Chicago. It is a travesty. Almost half of Chicagoans are firmly against the Olympics being held here because our city is broke. The taxpayers don't want to pay for this just so that politicians can make a bundle and set themselves up for their future off the taxpayers' backs.

Mayor Daley was originally dead set against having the Olympics here because of Chicago's poor financial situation, but apparently President Obama, Valerie Jarrett, and Habitat's CEO, Dan Levin made him an offer he couldn't refuse. Oh, by the way, Dan Levin is Senator Carl Levin's cousin. Yes, the politcal connections just don't stop.

Kathy Barkulis

Chicago the Modern Day Utopia

Chris Barkulis — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 06:54:00 GMT

According to the Saipan Tribune's Jaime Vergara, us living in Chicago should feel blessed...wait, that may be to religious of a word for him. His article, America by Rails Part 6: Millennium Chicago, which is part of a series, touts how Chicago is not as bad as people say.

Mr. Vergara tries to make a parallel about people talking about the dirty Chicago politics not being all that bad because of the fact that he was able to see the glory of Mayor Daley's downtown. In his Chicago Utopia downtown is all that exists.

Being a native of Chicago I am biased in thinking this is the best city in the world with the best skyline. However, that does not mean I am ignorant or unwilling to hear about the ills of the city any more than someone with the same pride has of NYC and the bad areas of Manhattan, Queens, the Bronx and Brooklyn.

What Mr. Vergara likes to profess and correlate to a political ideology is greatly undermined if you look at the environs of Chicago. It's unfortunate that he decided to do a fluff piece about how Democrats have created a great city without visiting (as far as I know) or even mentioning the ongoing violence in Uptown, corner drug dealing in parts of West Town/Humboldt Park/Logan Square, poverty and dog fighting day-care's in Maywood, and major crime and gang activity in parts of Hyde Park (President Obama's home neighborhood) and farther south side under appreciated neighborhoods.

The irony is that the Democrat's running Cook County and the city of Chicago are able to still procure votes from these areas that are not being enriched. I love my city and have faith in it and its future. I'm not a Daley-Hater, but to see a tourist like Mr. Vergara claim everything is perfect and the "Chicago Way" works quite well is outlandish since he does not reside here. He is free to make a snap observation, but it should be challenged by those of us that face the day-to-day living in Chicago.

Chicago the Modern Day Utopia

Chris Barkulis — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 06:54:00 GMT

BRITISH PRESS: BARACK OBAMA IS PRESIDENT PANTYWAIST

Kathy Barkulis — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:22:00 GMT

Barak Obama and the CIA: Why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.

Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.

That is why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley , Virginia to try to reassure a demoralized CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.

"Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he told intelligence officers. Is he kidding? Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them - or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed.

So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers.

President Pantywaist's recent world tour, cozying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America's enemies. Here, they realized, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners.

(This editorial is from The Telegraph-written by Gerald Warner)

ONCE AGAIN....OBAMA JUST CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH

Kathy Barkulis — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:08:00 GMT

George Stephanopoulos' interview with Obama yesterday was very telling. Even when the truth hits Obama in his face he can't admit it, as if he's covering his ears and saying La La La La La La. Our man-child President refuses to admit that when he mandates Americans to buy health insurance, it is a tax increase. I would like to know what it is when the government forces you to pay for something, whether you want it or not, if it's not a tax. What is it then, Mr. President? This kind of double talk has become rampant with Obama, and even his base, the media, is beginning to question the President on his "reasoning."

You see, public health insurance won't work if Obama doesn't mandate people to buy it, because we won't be able to pay for it if he doesn't mandate it. His promise of not signing a bill if it adds to the deficit requires that he mandate the purchase of health insurance. Yet he won't admit that is a tax. This is a classic case of he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. That scenario tells me his plan is worthless. No matter how you look at it, the people who can least afford it are screwed. You lose your freedom of choice, and you lose your money.

I can only hope that the media will continue this type of scrutiny of Obama's policies, but I won't hold my breath just yet. I fear that George will now go on the White House Enemy List for cornering Obama on a basic tenet....that he continually double talks and can't handle the truth.

Kathy Barkulis-9/21/09