Caleb Bonham dissects the IRS scandal, Julian Bond’s comments that the Tea Party is akin to the Taliban, and the IRS targeting of the Jewish community…
Julian Bond, the head of the NAACP, was on MSNBC to talk about the recent IRS Scandal and the IRS probe of the NAACP in 2004. He also referred to the Tea Party as “a group of people who are admittedly racist” and “overtly political.” Funny, one could say the same thing about the NAACP if you ask me!!
- How President Obama and Vice President Biden, having disclosed on May 4, 2011, that Navy Seal Team VI carried out the successful raid on Bin Laden’s compound resulting in the master terrorist’s death, put a retaliatory target on the backs of the fallen heroes.
- How and why high-level military officials sent these Navy SEAL Team VI heroes into battle without special operations aviation and proper air support.
- How and why middle level military brass carries out too many ill-prepared missions to boost their standing with top-level military brass and the Commander-in-Chief in order that they can be promoted.
- How the military restricts special operations servicemen and others from engaging in timely return fire when fired upon by the Taliban and other terrorist groups and interests, thus jeopardizing the servicemen’s lives.
- How and why the denial of requested pre-assault fire may have contributed to the shoot down of the Navy SEAL Team VI helicopter and the death of these special operations servicemen.
- How Afghani forces accompanying the Navy SEAL Team VI servicemen on the helicopter were not properly vetted and how they possibly disclosed classified information to the Taliban about the mission, resulting in the shoot down of the helicopter.
- How military brass, while prohibiting any mention of a Judeo-Christian God, invited a Muslim cleric to the funeral for the fallen Navy SEAL Team VI heroes who disparaged in Arabic the memory of these servicemen by damning them as infidels to Allah. A video of the Muslim cleric’s “prayer” will be shown with a certified translation.
CONSIDER THE CLEAR CONTRADICTIONS: FACTS JUST DON’T MATTER.
Millions of self-identified Jihadists chant “death to the west!” for decades citing the Koran: not Islamic terrorists.
Three Christian theocrats found on some bogus website: global Christian Taliban conspiracy!
Decades of developing poison gas and biological agents, along with efforts to develop nuclear weapons and actual use of gas to kill thousands upon thousands of people in Iraq and Iran: not WMD.
Pressure cookers: WMD.
War on Terror: America’s fault.
War on the West: America’s fault.
Public education: academic freedom.
Wringing the necks of full-term newborns: not murder.
Legally carrying out the death penalty, or defending yourself on the battlefield: murder.
Defending citizens by securing borders and enforcing immigration laws: discrimination.
Forcing people to pay for abortion against conscience and forcing support of same sex marriage against conscience: not discrimination.
Debating the Left: censorship or hate speech.
Actually silencing the Right: public service.
Taking money from one citizen to give it to another citizen or illegal alien: not stealing.
Working hard and saving your earnings to invest and retire comfortably: stealing.
Embracing the Founders’ vision and speaking out for liberty: racism.
Telling whites to ride at the back of the bus: justice.
Ignoring 1,300 years of Islamic aggression: multiculturalism.
Excluding Christians from equal protection: diversity.
Raising taxes in a recession and increasing spending and debt: economic development promoting recovery.
Cutting taxes, reducing spending and lowering debt: imperialism, colonialism, racism, exploitation of the masses by the crass bourgeoisie.
Expanding massive central government and increasing bureaucratic power to arbitrarily regulate private lives: liberty and justice for all.
Limiting government and empowering private citizens: tyranny.
Confronting enemies and supporting allies: mindless nationalism leading to war.
Surrendering to enemies and throwing allies under the bus: enlightened foreign policy.
Man-made global warming: science.
Intelligent design: religion.
Rule of law: tool of tyrants.
Political correctness: law that rules.
Constitution: outdated, inflexible, irrelevant.
Rules for Radicals: gospel.
Abortion doctors: health practitioners.
Terrorists: freedom fighters.
American soldiers: terrorists.
Israel: police state run by genocidal lunatics.
Iran: center of culture, art, learning, and spirituality.
Thank you for clarifying matters for us, Mr. Holder and Mr. Obama.
Allan Erickson enjoyed an 11-year career in radio, television and print journalism as a reporter, talk show host, and operations manager. He then turned to sales and marketing for a decade. Ten years ago he started his own training and recruitment company in the Pacific Northwest. Allan & wife Jodi have four children and live in California. He is also the author of “The Cross & the Constitution in the Age of Incoherence,” Tate Publishing, 2012. Available for speaking engagements. email@example.com
Those arguing for “marriage equality” at the U.S. Supreme Court this week should be ashamed of themselves.
They’re just as guilty of discrimination as those dastardly conservatives still bitterly clinging to their guns and their religion. Why no argument for polygamy, polyamory, and other forms of diversity? Why are they only defending their exclusive definition of diversity?
How dare those seeking to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton, or Proposition 8 ratified by the people of California, stop at just redefining marriage to include two consenting adults of the same gender. Why do these people believe they have the authority to draw a moralistic line against any consenting adults, and thus force their moral standard upon the rest of us?
Besides, society’s views on these other progressive forms of relationship diversity are shifting; and shouldn’t we always base our concept of right and wrong off what we see on TV, just like our gender-neutral maternal units taught us? Who better to consult on moral matters than the huddled masses that paid money to see all those Saw and Hostel movies? For example, there is a popular reality show on basic cable called Sister Wives about the lost art of polygamy. Showtime is airing a trailblazing show on the multiple wedded bliss of polyamory.
Oh, sure, Showtime also features a series with a creepy old dude watching 1970s porn with Z-list celebrities as well, but who are we to judge?
Why would those seeking to redefine marriage to include homosexual monogamy play right into the hands of those Draconian religious fundamentalists who think they and their alleged “God” have the authority to narrowly define love among consenting adults? Why aren’t those arguing for “marriage equality” being inclusive by including marriage among multiple consenting adults as well? Besides, polygamy is in the Bible no less. Abraham, David, and Solomon are just some of that dusty old book’s heroes who were polygamists. No member of the American Taliban can claim their puny God destroyed a whole city over polygamy, so why not be more inclusive?
If the government has no power to discriminate against relationships involving two consenting adults of the same gender, then why does it have the power to discriminate against multiple consenting adults of any gender? Next thing you know, we’ll be back to banning interracial dating!
If we’re truly champions of diversity, it’s time to embrace polygamy, polyamory, or “multiple marriage.” What better way for children to learn about different cultures and belief systems than to grow up around them in their own families? Imagine children being born into a household where each dad has a different religion, each mom speaks a different language, and then sometimes the dads are attracted to one another as well as the moms (and vice versa). Talk about covering all your bases!
It’s time for the marriage equality movement to stop being hypocrites and cease practicing its own form of discrimination and to stop compromising with pro-marriage bigots. Take a principled stand. Either all of us get to do whatever we want with as many whomevers as we want, or none of us are equal.
Steve Deace is a nationally syndicated radio host.
Photo credit: tantek (Creative Commons)
INDIANAPOLIS— A federal prison in Indiana on Wednesday was expected to begin allowing American Taliban fighter John Walker Lindh and other Muslim inmates housed in his tightly controlled unit to begin holding daily ritual group prayers.
The government had until Tuesday to appeal U.S. District Judge Jane Maguns-Stinson’s Jan. 11 ruling allowing the daily group prayers, but it didn’t. Maguns-Stinson found that a prison policy preventing Lindh and the other Muslims in his unit from praying together daily when not locked in their cells violated a 1993 law banning the government from curtailing religious speech without showing a compelling interest.
She said her ruling didn’t prohibit less restrictive security measures in the Communications Management Unit, which houses terrorists and other inmates the government doesn’t want freely communicating with the outside world.
It wasn’t immediately known if the prison began allowing the daily group prayers Wednesday. Prison officials didn’t respond to a phone message seeking comment and a spokesman said U.S. Attorney Joe Hogsett was traveling and unavailable to comment.
Ken Falk, the legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, which represented Lindh in a lawsuit challenging the prison policy, said he intended to make sure the prison had begun allowing the daily prayers.
Read More at OfficialWire . By Charles Wilson.
WASHINGTON— The U.S.-led military command in Afghanistan said Tuesday it will no longer publish figures on Taliban attacks, a week after acknowledging that its report of a 7 percent decline in attacks last year was actually no decline at all.
A spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, Jamie Graybeal, said Tuesday that its reporting on the number of attacks will grow increasingly inaccurate as Afghan forces move further into the battlefield lead.
“Because (Afghan forces) are now conducting an increasing number of successful unilateral operations, often beyond the view of ISAF, we have determined that our databases will become increasingly inaccurate in reflecting the entirety of enemy initiated attacks,” Graybeal said in a written statement.
“Additionally, we have come to realize that a simple tally of (attacks) is not the most complete measure of the campaign’s progress,” Graybeal said. “At a time when more than 80 percent of the (attacks) are happening in areas where less than 20 percent of Afghans live, this single facet of the campaign is not particularly accurate in describing the complete effect of the insurgency’s violence on the people of Afghanistan.”
The Taliban have been pushed out of many population centers and have failed to regain territory they held before the surge of U.S. troops in 2010. But they are expected to test Afghan forces as U.S. and allied troops withdraw over the coming two years. All foreign combat forces are to be gone by Dec. 31, 2014.
Read More at OfficialWire . By Robeert Burns.
It is unsurprising that a president who sees war primarily as “whack-a-mole” with drones directed from afar dropping bombs on adversaries, and who believes that removing American troops from war zones ends wars, would believe that women belong in all phases of combat.
War for President Obama consists of Libya, where we “led from behind,” with no “boots on the ground”; Syria, where Secretary of Defense Panetta declares at least weekly that there will be no U.S. “boots on the ground” even if the Syrians cross the president’s red line on CW; and Mali, where “there is no consideration of putting any American boots on the ground at this time,” according to Panetta — just logistical support for the French, who pulled us into Libya and now want us to stand behind them in their latest adventure in the colonies. The president “ended the war” in Iraq “responsibly” by leaving the country to its indigenous warring factions plus whatever outside influences have more sticking power than we do — that is to say, al-Qaeda and Iran. He is “ending the war” in Afghanistan “responsibly” by withdrawing all but a number of troops he won’t divulge (Twenty-five hundred? Zero? Sixty thousand?), leaving the turf to indigenous warring factions and whatever outside influences have more sticking power than we do — Iran, the Pakistani Taliban, and al-Qaeda, among others.
If your standard is removing all the boots from all the ground and ending U.S. participation in all the wars, women in combat infantry units might seem like a fairly safe bet. If combat units won’t be deployed, well, then, who cares if women are in them?
There are two reasons to care. First, non-deployment is not a military strategy. At best, it is a post-conflict standard (much like being a “post-racial” president) that assumes that either a) future battlefields will look like the last one or b) there will be no future battlefields. The first is a mistake; the second is wishful thinking. Post-Gaddafi Libya is strong evidence that eliminating governments with bombs doesn’t provide stability or workable governance. If the U.S. is ever required to provide either, the boots will be required as well.
After Vietnam, military planners assumed that large-scale ground operations including tanks were passé — until we fought in the deserts of the Middle East. Counterterrorism and urban warfare skills won’t help if our next war is in the Pacific — the focus of the president’s announced “pivot.” Nothing suggests that future battlefields won’t require the “boots” that President Obama appears to eschew. Limiting ourselves to the targeting of individuals, along with support to allies who elect to put their limited boots on the ground in countries where they have old colonial interests, would be an abdication of American power where that power may be needed. Outgoing Secretary of State Clinton made precisely that case in her testimony last week as she described the “spreading jihadist threat” and specifically linked those threats to vital American interests.
Read More at American Thinker . By Shoshana Bryen.
Photo Credit: Geoff Livingston (Creative Commons)
This week, the Taliban said that the transfer of U.S. and NATO-led security operations to Afghan security forces was similar to America’s retreat from Vietnam by the “declaring victory and run” strategy. The Taliban just needed to learn a little American history to know about the Vietnamization Strategy, where the US would train the Afghans to fight their own battles and allow American and NATO to withdraw with honor. Like the North Vietnamese, the Taliban can already declare victory. Who can blame them with this Administration too busy kowtowing to the Muslim Brotherhood and doing nothing to Iran? Taliban leadership believe that history and time are on their side.
America now is repeating the same mistakes the Soviet Union made during their incursion into Afghanistan; and, as with the Soviets, no matter the effort expended to modernize the tribal nation, it will always fail. Unless the Afghans themselves embrace the West and a better way of life, any effort to improve their own by showing them a better way is a waste of time, money, and lives. The initial invasion into Afghanistan was a necessity to eliminate al Qaeda and their Taliban host. Unfortunately, it evolved into a war of choice and nation-building. History has proved time and time again it has never worked.
Former British ambassador to Moscow Rodric Braithwaite wrote that the Soviets’ military “rebuilt and constructed hundreds of schools, technical colleges, over 30 hospitals and a similar number of nursery schools, some 400 apartment buildings and 35 mosques,” and built a modern infrastructure. They were guarding military and civilian installations. As long as the Afghan puppet government was getting support, they remained in power. Sound familiar? After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Afghanistan no longer had any outside support. After a series of uprisings, the Taliban rose to power; and all improvements the Soviets provided went to waste. It won’t take the 1st Century thugs long to dismantle remaining Western efforts to make their lives easier.
Just like U.S. and NATO forces, the Soviet military never lost an engagement to the insurgents; but without support from the Afghan population, they lost the war. As soon as the Russians withdrew, the country reverted to its quasi-Stone Age existence. It’s a history the Taliban know well, and this Administration is too supercilious to acknowledge it.
Accommodating is the preferred style of conflict resolution often used by the Obama Administration to resolve a crisis on the diplomatic stage. Today’s Democrats are too willing to put the needs of terrorists before this country, our allies, or any other democracies. In fact, the only people they see as enemies are American conservatives. Obama will surrender victory in order to maintain peace with people whose only goal is to wipe America off the face of the earth. This White House refuses to do or say anything that might upset America’s enemies; they only want to placate them. In simple terms for the low information voter, Obama wants all Americans to surrender and beg for our lives like a poor animal begging for food, hoping the bad guy won’t kill us.
A new handbook for American service members being deployed to the Middle East, currently being reviewed, orders the troops to not make derogatory comments about the Taliban or pedophilia, among other Islamic things. Obama doesn’t want the American troops to insult the sensibilities. The proposed draft blames American troops’ ignorance of the region’s backwards culture as the reason for the murders of Americans and allies in Afghanistan. No longer can American Troops think of “Afghan forces to be “basically stupid” thieves, “gutless in combat,” “profoundly dishonest” and engaged in “treasonous collusion and alliances with enemy forces.” It might hurt their feelings, so we must accommodate them. In this way, the Taliban will do a better job of accommodating Afghanis after the Americans leave.
Col. Gregory Gross, a military judge, was removed from trying the Fort Hood Massacre trial (or, in conflict resolution language, “Work Place Violence”. His offence: Col. Gross violated the defendant’s sensitivities by ordering Maj. Nidal Hasan to shave his beard. The Army was forced to accommodate the shooter by firing judge Col. Gross and letting the Army Colonel know that it was not his place to enforce Army regulation. The beard issue must not have been a problem when Hasan was shooting fellow Americans yelling ‘Allahu Akbar” inside the Fort Hood processing center.
Catering to radicals must be a Democrat trait since the time of Jimmy Carter. The Obama administration has a cozy relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, sending additional weapons to Egypt while they are suppressing their own people; the Brotherhood has a connection to the state department in the form of Huma Abedin. The Army firing of Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, under pressure from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), just begs the question: Why is this White House accommodating CAIR, and was it involved in the decision-making concerning the Army manual and the dismissal of Col Gross?
Photo credit: terrellaftermath