We will never forget!

Opinion at large

I often think about the nation's worst tradgedy. My Wife and I visited the World Trade Center site last December. We felt a weird feeling that this was hallowed ground. I felt the same when we visited the grave sites of Normandy. I will never forget, as long as I live, exactly what I was doing when the planes hit the towers. I had just arrived at my office in Baltimore and I walked back in the warehouse to inquire about something. The radio was loud and the news broke in at quarter of 9 and said that a plane crashed into the first tower. My first thought was, what is a small plane doing that close to the skyscrapers? Then, the announcer came on with his voice trembling, saying that a second plane has hit the second tower. We all looked at each other in disbelief, I screamed out, terrorists! My co-workers and I were in disbelief. Not in the United States. How could this happen. The country was mesmorized by this horrific event. I remember feeling sad and at the same time, extremely mad. There weren't almost 3,000 people killed that day. They were murdered! Murdered by cowardly terrorists in the name of Islam. Jihad (meaning: struggle) or (Holy War) or Jihadists interpret the Quran as voilence to obtain victory over the infidels (non-believers). Some say Jihad is for the defense of the Islamic state. I know many Muslims and this is not what Mohammed had in mind. They are good hearted people who love this country. Of course, there is a small percentage that gives the religion of Islam a bad name. Getting back to the WTC, Americans and many other nationalities were the victims of this cold-blooded, premeditated murder. There were so many heroes that day who didn't know they were heroes. How many people do you know that would run into a burning building, when everyone else is running out? The police, firefighters and first responders did, and many never came out. I wish the terrorists who perpetrated this unimaginable crime who have come back to life, so we could kill them again. Tomorrow is going to be very hard on a lot of families, friends and anyone with a heart. It was a dark spot on America's way of life. Thank God for President George W. Bush. He had what it took to bring the country out of the doldrums. Yes, he started 2 wars, however, he took the fight to the terrorists. He wouldn't allow this type of behavior on American shores again. I want the media to show graphic pictures of what happened on that day, not because I'm a sadist, but to show complacent Americans what could happen in this country if we are to laxed to the threats from terrorists.  

We were incredibly lucky the underwear bomber and the Time Square bomber were incompetent. It could have been tragic. Citizens seem to be more concerned with who they offend than the overall safety of the U.S. population. I am not a proponent of political correctness (Duh!). I believe you should say what you think. Period. If I offend you, don't listen or walk away. The 1st Amendment guarantees you freedom of speech. Utilize it to your liking. This moron Pastor in Gainesville, Fl. who is threatening to burn the Qurans. I don't agree with what he wants to do, but, he has the right to. Today, in the news, the Christians in the Gaza Strip were being threatened, muslims were burning bibles and American flags in the streets. I don't like it, however, it is their perogative. You see how one sided this whole debate is. The Muslims have a cow (no pun intended) over the Quran burnings, yet, they burn bibles anytime they want. The point is, I don't care how much we apease the Muslims, they will still hate us. Obama and his adminstration reminds me of Neville Chamberlain dealing with Adolf Hitler right before the start of WWII. Chamberlain returned to England with a signed piece of paper which was worthless. Germany invaded Poland and Chamberlain was soon replaced by Winston Churchill. Do you think we can get rid of Obama and swear in somebody like Churchill? But I digressed. Obama is a pacifist who doesn't understand the magnitude of the threat. I believe he still thinks that his Obama aura will tame the aggressions of the terrorists. You know if there was an attack on America, somehow, Obama would find a way to blame Bush and Cheney. I hope tomorrow, the tube is flooded with footage of WTC tradgedy, so people rekindle the intensity of what we are facing as a free nation. To the victims' families and friends and citizens of the United States, WE WILL NEVER FORGET!  

Have you forgotten:

Ceremonies, Protests to Mark 9/11 Anniversary

by Jonathon M. Seidl
September 10, 2010 at 11:56am  

 NEW YORK (AP) — In the past, the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks was marked by somber reflection and a call to unity, devoid of politics. No more.


This year’s commemoration of the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Shanksville, Pa., promises to be the most political and contentious ever, because of a proposed Islamic center and mosque near ground zero, and a Florida pastor’s plan to burn the Quran — and the debate those issues have engendered over religious freedom.


As in other years, official ceremonies are planned at the three locations the terrorists struck. President Barack Obama will attend a commemoration at the Pentagon, while Vice President Joe Biden will attend the ceremony at ground zero. First lady Michelle Obama and former first lady Laura Bush will travel to Shanksville to observe the anniversary there.


Vice President Joe Biden will attend the largest of the three — the New York ceremony at a park near ground zero, where 2,752 people were killed when Muslim extremists flew planes into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. The ceremony there will pause four times: twice to mark the times each plane hit the towers, and twice to observe the times the towers fell. Houses of worship in the city have been asked to toll their bells at 8:46 a.m., when the first plane struck the north tower.


But this time, along with the formal ceremonies, activists for and against the proposed Islamic center are planning their own events to capture the emotion of the day for political purposes.


Terry Jones, the pastor of a small, independent church in Gainesville, Fla., shot to international notoriety by threatening to mark 9/11 by burning copies of the Quran — a plan he canceled under pressure from the White House but now says he’s reconsidering.


In Afghanistan, at least 11 people were injured Friday in scattered protests over Jones’ plan. Only a few thousand people attended those rallies and no large-scale demonstrations were reported elsewhere. In Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country, cleric Rusli Hasbi told 1,000 worshippers at Friday prayers that whether or not he burns the Quran, Jones had already “hurt the heart of the Muslim world.”


Also on Saturday, former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was expected to observe the anniversary in Alaska with Fox News TV host Glenn Beck. The two conservative celebrities hosted a Tea Party rally last month at the Lincoln Memorial.


Nowhere do emotions run higher than in New York, where the proposed Islamic center just two blocks ground zero has inflamed the planned commemoration.


Activists are organizing a pair of dueling rallies — one against the planned Islamic center, one supporting it — to follow New York’s official ceremony at a park southeast of the trade center site.


The anti-mosque rally has bitterly divided family members of those who died in the attacks, with some planning to attend the rally and speak, while others denounce it as unnecessary and wrong.


Sally Regenhard, who lost her firefighter son, Christian Regenhard, in the attacks, said she would attend the city ceremony in the morning where the names of the dead are read aloud, as she has done each year since the attacks. Then, she planned to head over to the anti-mosque rally.


“The purpose is to speak out and express our feelings that this mosque, the location of it, is a grievous offense to the sensitivity of 9/11 families,” Regenhard said. “There’s nothing political about people who want to speak out against something they think is so wrong, so hurtful and so devastating.”


But Donna Marsh O’Connor, whose pregnant daughter, Vanessa, was killed in the attacks, supports the mosque. She said she strongly opposes the planned rally and the political motivations behind it.


"It‘s more of the same hate mongering and fear mongering that’s been going on for years,” O’Connor said. “People have a right to free speech. But if they’re talking about sensitivities to 9/11 families, why are they rallying and doing events on a day we should spend thinking about those we lost?


The rally is being hosted by Pamela Geller, a conservative blogger who has actively opposed the planned Islamic center since the project’s inception.


John Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, was expected to send a videotaped message of support to the rally, as was conservative journalist Andrew Breitbart. Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician who advocates banning the Quran and taxing Muslim women who wear head scarves, planned to address the crowd in person, as well as a handful of Republican congressional candidates who have made opposition to the mosque a centerpiece of their campaigns.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Geller said the rally would be “respectful” and was not intended to provoke violence or other inappropriate behavior on what has typically been a somber, mournful anniversary.


It’s a rally of remembrance for tens of thousands who lost loved ones that day,” Geller said. “It’s not a political event, it’s a human rights event.”


New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly told reporters this week his department was prepared for the rally and had already deployed additional security at the mosque site two blocks north of ground zero since it’s been the target of protests already.


But, Kelly said, police weren’t anticipating major problems.


“We have no reason to anticipate violence at these demonstrations. … There is no indication, no intelligence that would indicate violence occurring,” Kelly said.


Boneheads weekly:


Bashing Bush and Boehner Won’t Work

Obamanomics is the real problem.


Under pressure from a barrage of bad midterm-election polls, President Obama has gone on the campaign trail to blame Pres. George W. Bush for all our economic problems, and to bash House Republican leader John Boehner as nothing more than a Bush retread.


 Friday’s dreary news conference, Obama acknowledged that economic progress is “painfully slow,” and that voters may blame him for the economy. Yet he nonetheless continued to finger Bush “for policies that cut taxes, especially for millionaires and billionaires, cut regulations for corporations and for special interests, and left everyone else pretty much fending for themselves.”


“Millionaires and billionaires” has become Obama’s favorite phrase as he calls for tax hikes on the wealthy and renews his attacks on Bush. In Cleveland last week, Obama actually blamed the Bush tax cuts for the financial meltdown and severe recession. Now that’s a reach. A big reach.


While Mr. Bush made plenty of economic mistakes, his 2003 reductions of marginal tax rates led to more than 8 million new jobs in the next four and a half years. Under Bush, the unemployment rate dropped to 4.6 percent.


And almost all economists agree that the 2007-08 financial meltdown was a housing-bubble and credit event. It had nothing at all to do with cutting taxes.


Regarding John Boehner, Obama slammed the GOP leader eight times in Cleveland. He claimed “no new policies from Mr. Boehner,” saying the Republican leader’s philosophy “led to this mess in the first place: cut more taxes for millionaires and cut more rules for corporations.”


Well, none of this is going to work come November 2.


Take a good look at the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll. It is very revealing on these points.


Voters were asked, if Republicans win control of Congress, will they return to the economic policies of George W. Bush, or will they have different ideas to deal with the economy? The response: 58 percent said different ideas, 35 percent said the policies of George W. Bush. Voters were then asked, if Democrats maintain control of Congress, will they continue with the economic policies of Barack Obama, or will they have different ideas on the economy? The response: 62 percent said the policies of Obama, 32 percent said different ideas.


The poll also found that 56 percent of voters disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy while 39 percent approve; that 71 percent disapprove of the job Congress is doing; and that 62 percent think it better that different parties control Congress and the White House. Overall, on the generic congressional vote, likely voters favor Republicans over Democrats 49 to 40 percent.


Clearly, Obama is barking up the wrong tree with his assaults on Bush and Boehner.

Pathetic Funnies:

Quote du jour:

The single best augury is to fight for one's country.

Homer (800 BC - 700 BC), The Iliad

Writings of Our Founding Fathers

Federalist Papers

Federalist No. 59


Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members


From the New York Packet.


Friday, February 22, 1788.


Author: Alexander Hamilton


To the People of the State of New York:


THE natural order of the subject leads us to consider, in this place, that provision of the Constitution which authorizes the national legislature to regulate, in the last resort, the election of its own members. It is in these words: "The TIMES, PLACES, and MANNER of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter SUCH REGULATIONS, except as to the PLACES of choosing senators." [1] This provision has not only been declaimed against by those who condemn the Constitution in the gross, but it has been censured by those who have objected with less latitude and greater moderation; and, in one instance it has been thought exceptionable by a gentleman who has declared himself the advocate of every other part of the system. I am greatly mistaken, notwithstanding, if there be any article in the whole plan more completely defensible than this. Its propriety rests upon the evidence of this plain proposition, that EVERY GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO CONTAIN IN ITSELF THE MEANS OF ITS OWN PRESERVATION. Every just reasoner will, at first sight, approve an adherence to this rule, in the work of the convention; and will disapprove every deviation from it which may not appear to have been dictated by the necessity of incorporating into the work some particular ingredient, with which a rigid conformity to the rule was incompatible. Even in this case, though he may acquiesce in the necessity, yet he will not cease to regard and to regret a departure from so fundamental a principle, as a portion of imperfection in the system which may prove the seed of future weakness, and perhaps anarchy. It will not be alleged, that an election law could have been framed and inserted in the Constitution, which would have been always applicable to every probable change in the situation of the country; and it will therefore not be denied, that a discretionary power over elections ought to exist somewhere. It will, I presume, be as readily conceded, that there were only three ways in which this power could have been reasonably modified and disposed: that it must either have been lodged wholly in the national legislature, or wholly in the State legislatures, or primarily in the latter and ultimately in the former. The last mode has, with reason, been preferred by the convention. They have submitted the regulation of elections for the federal government, in the first instance, to the local administrations; which, in ordinary cases, and when no improper views prevail, may be both more convenient and more satisfactory; but they have reserved to the national authority a right to interpose, whenever extraordinary circumstances might render that interposition necessary to its safety. Nothing can be more evident, than that an exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, in the hands of the State legislatures, would leave the existence of the Union entirely at their mercy. They could at any moment annihilate it, by neglecting to provide for the choice of persons to administer its affairs. It is to little purpose to say, that a neglect or omission of this kind would not be likely to take place. The constitutional possibility of the thing, without an equivalent for the risk, is an unanswerable objection. Nor has any satisfactory reason been yet assigned for incurring that risk. The extravagant surmises of a distempered jealousy can never be dignified with that character. If we are in a humor to presume abuses of power, it is as fair to presume them on the part of the State governments as on the part of the general government. And as it is more consonant to the rules of a just theory, to trust the Union with the care of its own existence, than to transfer that care to any other hands, if abuses of power are to be hazarded on the one side or on the other, it is more rational to hazard them where the power would naturally be placed, than where it would unnaturally be placed. Suppose an article had been introduced into the Constitution, empowering the United States to regulate the elections for the particular States, would any man have hesitated to condemn it, both as an unwarrantable transposition of power, and as a premeditated engine for the destruction of the State governments? The violation of principle, in this case, would have required no comment; and, to an unbiased observer, it will not be less apparent in the project of subjecting the existence of the national government, in a similar respect, to the pleasure of the State governments. An impartial view of the matter cannot fail to result in a conviction, that each, as far as possible, ought to depend on itself for its own preservation. As an objection to this position, it may be remarked that the constitution of the national Senate would involve, in its full extent, the danger which it is suggested might flow from an exclusive power in the State legislatures to regulate the federal elections. It may be alleged, that by declining the appointment of Senators, they might at any time give a fatal blow to the Union; and from this it may be inferred, that as its existence would be thus rendered dependent upon them in so essential a point, there can be no objection to intrusting them with it in the particular case under consideration. The interest of each State, it may be added, to maintain its representation in the national councils, would be a complete security against an abuse of the trust. This argument, though specious, will not, upon examination, be found solid. It is certainly true that the State legislatures, by forbearing the appointment of senators, may destroy the national government. But it will not follow that, because they have a power to do this in one instance, they ought to have it in every other. There are cases in which the pernicious tendency of such a power may be far more decisive, without any motive equally cogent with that which must have regulated the conduct of the convention in respect to the formation of the Senate, to recommend their admission into the system. So far as that construction may expose the Union to the possibility of injury from the State legislatures, it is an evil; but it is an evil which could not have been avoided without excluding the States, in their political capacities, wholly from a place in the organization of the national government. If this had been done, it would doubtless have been interpreted into an entire dereliction of the federal principle; and would certainly have deprived the State governments of that absolute safeguard which they will enjoy under this provision. But however wise it may have been to have submitted in this instance to an inconvenience, for the attainment of a necessary advantage or a greater good, no inference can be drawn from thence to favor an accumulation of the evil, where no necessity urges, nor any greater good invites. It may be easily discerned also that the national government would run a much greater risk from a power in the State legislatures over the elections of its House of Representatives, than from their power of appointing the members of its Senate. The senators are to be chosen for the period of six years; there is to be a rotation, by which the seats of a third part of them are to be vacated and replenished every two years; and no State is to be entitled to more than two senators; a quorum of the body is to consist of sixteen members. The joint result of these circumstances would be, that a temporary combination of a few States to intermit the appointment of senators, could neither annul the existence nor impair the activity of the body; and it is not from a general and permanent combination of the States that we can have any thing to fear. The first might proceed from sinister designs in the leading members of a few of the State legislatures; the last would suppose a fixed and rooted disaffection in the great body of the people, which will either never exist at all, or will, in all probability, proceed from an experience of the inaptitude of the general government to the advancement of their happiness in which event no good citizen could desire its continuance. But with regard to the federal House of Representatives, there is intended to be a general election of members once in two years. If the State legislatures were to be invested with an exclusive power of regulating these elections, every period of making them would be a delicate crisis in the national situation, which might issue in a dissolution of the Union, if the leaders of a few of the most important States should have entered into a previous conspiracy to prevent an election. I shall not deny, that there is a degree of weight in the observation, that the interests of each State, to be represented in the federal councils, will be a security against the abuse of a power over its elections in the hands of the State legislatures. But the security will not be considered as complete, by those who attend to the force of an obvious distinction between the interest of the people in the public felicity, and the interest of their local rulers in the power and consequence of their offices. The people of America may be warmly attached to the government of the Union, at times when the particular rulers of particular States, stimulated by the natural rivalship of power, and by the hopes of personal aggrandizement, and supported by a strong faction in each of those States, may be in a very opposite temper. This diversity of sentiment between a majority of the people, and the individuals who have the greatest credit in their councils, is exemplified in some of the States at the present moment, on the present question. The scheme of separate confederacies, which will always multiply the chances of ambition, will be a never failing bait to all such influential characters in the State administrations as are capable of preferring their own emolument and advancement to the public weal. With so effectual a weapon in their hands as the exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, a combination of a few such men, in a few of the most considerable States, where the temptation will always be the strongest, might accomplish the destruction of the Union, by seizing the opportunity of some casual dissatisfaction among the people (and which perhaps they may themselves have excited), to discontinue the choice of members for the federal House of Representatives. It ought never to be forgotten, that a firm union of this country, under an efficient government, will probably be an increasing object of jealousy to more than one nation of Europe; and that enterprises to subvert it will sometimes originate in the intrigues of foreign powers, and will seldom fail to be patronized and abetted by some of them. Its preservation, therefore ought in no case that can be avoided, to be committed to the guardianship of any but those whose situation will uniformly beget an immediate interest in the faithful and vigilant performance of the trust.


PUBLIUS.


References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.theblaze.com/
http://www.americanspectator.com/
http://www.newsbusters.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.quotationspage.com/
Larry Kudlow
Jonathan Seidl
A.B. Franco

Where does America stand on Religion?

Opinion at large

What's it going to be America? Are we a Christian nation tolerant of other religions and beliefs? Or, are we going to allow other religions to take over and denigrate America's rooted religion, Christianity? Have you read the Quran? Looked through it? Researched Islam and Muslims? Some scholars say Christianity has been more violent than Islam? Maybe, however, it hasn't been in the name of politics. As I read through and attempt to understand the Quran (English version), Yusuf and Al Qalam doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I read an article about the differences in Islam, Judism and Christianity. Violence is mentioned over 300 times in the Quran, a few times in the Torah, and 0 times in the New Testament. When I see Europe in the grasp of Shariah law, European liberal lawmakers allowing municipalities and towns to institute Shariah, Americans seriously need to start paying attention. Our country's 223 year old constitution clearly states God many times. Not Mohammad, Allah or anyone else. I have nothing against Islam at all. I don't want a particular religion or sect to impose their beliefs on my family or me. Yes, we need to be tolerant of other cultures and religions, however, they came to our country, they are guess in our country. They can practice their religion whenever and as often as they like. I don't care. But, I draw the line when they feel they have the right to tell America what laws to have. America is a republic (a nation of laws), which have worked well for a very long time, guaranteeing individual liberties and freedom. Shariah treats women horribly, beheadings, honor killings, stonings and  many other covenants that America would never embrace and goes against everything we believe in. This is a cause I will oppose with unequalled passion. If they (Muslims) don't like it, they can go to a country that embraces Shariah law. I feel Americans have had enough, especially the proposed building of a Mosque at the Ground Zero site. It's apparent that the majority of Americans feel the same way. Constitutionally, the Iman has the right to build the Mosque anywhere he wants. It appears to most Americans, this is a cold slap in the face and perceived victory for the jihadists. Why call the proposed Mosque, Cordoba? I hope concerned Americans will pull themselves away from the latest episode of 2 1/2 Men and investigate Islam and learn for themselves what this religion is. "Cordoba, Spain: In 711 Muslim forces invaded and in seven years conquered the Iberian peninsula. It became one of the great Muslim civilisations; reaching its summit with the Umayyad caliphate of Cordovain the tenth century." What this doesn't say is that this Mosque was built in front of a Christian church. So, This would be echoing throughout the entire world of Islam. Obama and his administration is incredibly weak on matters of Islam and Jihadists. The DOJ won't even call them what the Jihadist are, "terrorists." 

If we would wake up, we would realize that America has been under attack since 1979. Almost every Jihadists was a Muslim male between the ages of 18 and 40 years old.

When WW III Started - 1979

 This is not very long, but very informative. You have to read the catalogue of events


in this brief piece. Then, ask yourself how anyone can take the position that all


we have to do is bring our troops home from Iraq, reset the snooze alarm, go back


to sleep, and no one will ever bother us again. In case you missed it, World


War III began in November 1979...


US Navy Captain Ouimette is the Executive


Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola , Florida . Here is a copy of the speech


he gave last month. It is an accurate account of why we are in so much trouble today


and why this action is so necessary.


AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!


 That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than


3,000 Americans were killed) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been 'Get


Out of Bed!' In fact, the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued


to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep
since then.




group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran . This


seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the


world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack


on this sovereign U. S. Embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next


25 years.


 America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and


had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do


something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The


ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to


deal with terrorism.


 America's military had been decimated and down sized since the end of the Vietnam


War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called


on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.


 Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed


throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens


living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.


 In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy


compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm


went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.


 Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden down with over 2,500 pounds of TNT smashed


through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen


are killed. America mourns her dead and hits the Snooze Button once more.


 Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait


and America continues her slumber.


 The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America


slept.


 Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe . In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.


 Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of


the US Air Force Base at Rheine-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing


louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.


> Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American


in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.


 The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when


they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie


Scotland in 1988, killing 259.


 The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.


 The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley


Virginia.


 The following month, February 1993 , a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with


explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center


in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still


this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.


Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.


 A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound


in Dhahran , Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers , a US Air Force


barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver


and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.


 They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies


in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill


224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.


 The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000 , when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing


17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent


the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.


 And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or


in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack


since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.


 In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high official


in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've


read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they


knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council


to see the pattern that has been developing since


1979.


 I think we have been in a war for the past 25 years and it will continue until


we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to 'Get out of Bed'


and act decisively now. America has been changed forever. We have to


be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues.


We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over


and go back to sleep.


 After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said '... it seems all we


have done is awakened a sleeping giant.' This is the message we need to disseminate


to terrorists around the world.


 This is not a political thing to be hashed over only in an election year, this


is AMERICA'S FREEDOM. This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our children


in years to come.
   It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a

 

These pictures were taken in London at a "Peace Rally."

We need to stand together as Americans and oppose anyone who attempts to hijack our heritage, religion and way of life. This is America. Yes, we are a melting pot of cultures, religions and ethnicity's, however, we are not ready to desecrate our Constitution and laws of our nation. The Ground Zero Mosque is just another Mosque in New York City. I understand there are over 100 Mosques in the big apple. If they were a religion of peace, wouldn't they show compassion and understanding by relocating the proposed Mosque?

I also believe the state run media has blown this issue way out of proportion. This moron pastor in Gainsville, Fl. is looking for his 15 minutes of fame. He has barely 50 parishioners. I'm sure the big media will try to link this guy to the Tea Parties or conservatives. The media also could doing this to give Obama some relief on the faltering economy. Whatever their motives, we will not give up our religion and superb way of life.

Muslim Activist Calls for “Burn the Stars and Stripes Day” 

by Jonathon M. Seidl
September 9, 2010
 A Muslim activist and lawyer in the U.K. is calling on Muslims worldwide to burn U.S. flags outside American embassies on Sept. 11. The activist, according to CBS news, is considered a radical, and says his “international burn the Stars and Stripes Day” is in “direct retaliation” against pastor Terry Jones and his Florida church’s plan to burn the Koran on the same day.

The man calling for the mass burning is Anjem Choudary, former leader of the banned hard line Islamic group Islam4UK. According to CBS, Choudary regularly organizes demonstrations in Britain calling for the implementation of Islamic law.

The report also says that the State Department has issued a warning to all embassies to prepare for possible backlash should the Koran burning take place as planned on Saturday.

General David Petraeus, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, and others have spoken out against the planned Koran burning. Petraeus has said that it will endanger U.S. troops abroad, while Glenn Beck has said that “burning the Koran is like burning the flag or the Bible.”

UPDATE:

Meanwhile, an Afghan cleric today warned that U.S. troops in the country’s north would face large protests if Jones proceeds with his planned Koran burning. Yahoo News reports that Abdul Hadi Rostaqi, a member of the cleric council in Afghanistan’s largely peaceful Balkh province, said if the burning goes ahead, “a big protest will be held” in the provincial capital Mazar-i-Sharif next Monday, and that NATO-led troops stationed in the city would be the primary target.

The report also notes that about 200 people marched and burned a U.S. flag in the central Pakistani city of Multan, quoting one protester’s sign as saying, “If Quran is burned it would be beginning of destruction of America.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki also warned of “reactions by the world’s Muslims as well as followers of other religions.”


Islam is not a religion of peace says Anjem Choudary:

 
 Why America under-reacted to 9/11


By Alex Knepper

Fareed Zakaria, in what is quickly becoming an infamous piece, states that, since it’s clear that al-Qaeda does not have the capacity to launch high-profile attacks on America, we have obviously overreacted to what Michael Moore once dismissed as a “boys’ club.”

Zakaria, like most Americans, profoundly misunderstood the meaning of 9/11. The Bush administration deserves much of the blame for this: it improperly cast our response as simple revenge against al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. That is why, until recently, most Americans waited with bated breath for bin Laden to be caught, believing that that might be the fulfillment of our struggle. And that is why Zakaria can write such an article and get away with it.

A proper understanding of the conflict demonstrates that bin Laden is almost beside the point. September 11th should have awoken all Americans to the totalitarian nature of Islam — and should have prompted more of us to investigate the history of Islam, the nature of the Qur’an, the teachings of Muhammad, and the way that Islam continues to shape our world. Simply put: we are dealing with a dangerous religious ideology.

Americans are cautious people, though; despite our whiny European critics, we are quite generous to minorities and are afraid of casting harsh judgment. “Don’t all religions have their fanatics?” Americans are inclined to ask. The answer, of course, is: yes, all religions have their fanatics. In fact, all systems of belief have their fanatics. Whenever we are dealing with human beings, we are going to end up dealing with a few folks who become a bit unhinged. But Islam is clearly producing more than its fair share of lunatics. “Islam didn’t bring down the Twin Towers: people did,” I constantly hear. Right: just like Nazism had nothing to do with the Holocaust. It was just “people,” and bad people do bad things, regardless of ideology, right?

Nearly seventy years after World War II, is there any American who does not understand the fundamentals of Nazism and the Communism of the Cold War that followed it? We are engaged now in a war that gives us a hybrid of the essentials of those two conflicts: our enemy takes inspiration from a fascist tradition, but our modes of conflict will not be traditional. In the final analysis, the battle must be a clash of ideals, as it was in the Cold War. And ultimately, we must foster the kind of global environment that tames Islam, much like Christianity was tamed by the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. And yet, very few Americans know anything at all about Islam.

The inevitable objection arises: Can’t we “interpret” the Qur’an in several ways? Not quite: we typically identify Christian “fundamentalists” as being those who take the Bible at face value; that is: literally. But by that standard, all Muslims are “fundamentalists.” Islamic tradition holds that Allah, not Muhammad, wrote the Qur’an. Muhammad, as his prophet, simply transcribed it — and he did so infallibly, endowed by Allah with divine purpose. To say that any of the Qur’an was not written by Allah is profound blasphemy. Alas, it’s rather difficult to dismiss the word of the creator of the universe as being out-of-context, or only appropriate for its time. And here’s the real kicker: if there’s any ambiguity of understanding, one is to look to the behavior of Muhammad, who is believed to have lived the perfect Muslim life. Unfortunately, according to the most reliable sets of hadith — sayings and traditions of Muhammad — it is clear that the prophet was a warlord and an imperialist. In his farewell speech, for instance, he proclaimed: “I have been ordered to fight until all men say ‘There is no God but Allah.’” He didn’t mean it metaphorically. He really did, in his lifetime, conquer land in the name of Allah.

Ultimately, we must foster the kind of global environment that tames Islam, much like Christianity was tamed by the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution.”

But how do we do this? You’ve identified the problem, that Islam has had no reformation or enlightenment and is not as tolerant as America when it comes to those with other beliefs. How do we foster a global environment that tames it? Burning the Koran, holding all Muslims responsible for 9/11 and calling their religion evil won’t foster than environment. America was doing a fine job assimilating Muslim US citizens pre-9/11. What can we do globally?

Like World War II, so like today. The Qur’an is quite like Mein Kampf in this manner: There are plenty of gorgeous aphorisms in both books and there’s lots of room for interpretation around the edges, but it’s really hard to get around the part about the Jew-hatred. Whatever one may derive from either book, they are not invitations to secular republicanism. There are plenty of ‘moderate Muslims’ insofar as everyday Muslims tend to ignore the parts of the book that exhort them to barbarism. But there were plenty of ‘moderate Germans,’ too. A fat lot of good they did us. And the fact remains that, in both cases, the fanatics were the ones taking the ideologies to their logical conclusions.

Americans under-reacted to 9/11 because our culture is so willing to give the beliefs of religious minorities a pass. But not all minorities — and not all religions — were created equal. Historically and globally speaking, Islam is nothing like a persecuted minority. Its power is currently limited but, since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, it has been steadily growing again, largely due to its own self-confidence: something we’re lacking. A proper, belated reaction to 9/11 would be to regain that same confidence in our own civilization. Western civilization is superior to Islamic civilization. Period. Our contemporary civilization is glorious, and Islam’s is not. We must force ourselves to learn why that is. Then, we would finally have reacted properly to the attack on America.

Alex Knepper is an undergraduate at American University. He has been featured by the CBS Early Show, National Public Radio, the New York Times, and other media outlets, and has been spotlighted internationally for the Human Rights Service of Norway. He is a member of the Independent Gay Forum. After years of seeking a label, he currently deems his political and cultural beliefs unclassifiable and anti-ideological. Alex can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com.

Quote du jour:
"The lowest unemployment rate Obama has had is the day he took office."
Ann Coulter

Pathetic Funnies:

 

Rules for Bullshit Bingo:

1. Before Barrack Obama's next televised speech, print your "Bullshit Bingo"
2. Check off the appropriate block when you hear one of those words/phrases.
3. When you get five blocks horizontally, vertically, or diagonally, stand up and shout "BULLSHIT!"[or
Shout out “PELOSI” (means the same thing)]


Testimonials from past satisfied "Bullshit Bingo" players:
"I had been listening to the speech for only five minutes when I won." - Jack W., Boston
"My attention span during speeches has improved dramatically." - David D., Florida
"What a gas! Speeches will never be the same for me after my first win." - Bill R., New York City
“The atmosphere was tense in the last speech as 14 of us waited for the fifth box." - Ben G., Denver
"The speaker was stunned as eight of us screamed "BULLSHIT!" for the third time in two hours."

Writings of Our Founding Fathers

Federalist Papers

Federalist No. 58

Objection That The Number of Members Will Not Be Augmented as the Progress of Population Demands Considered


Author: James Madison


To the People of the State of New York:


THE remaining charge against the House of Representatives, which I am to examine, is grounded on a supposition that the number of members will not be augmented from time to time, as the progress of population may demand. It has been admitted, that this objection, if well supported, would have great weight. The following observations will show that, like most other objections against the Constitution, it can only proceed from a partial view of the subject, or from a jealousy which discolors and disfigures every object which is beheld. 1. Those who urge the objection seem not to have recollected that the federal Constitution will not suffer by a comparison with the State constitutions, in the security provided for a gradual augmentation of the number of representatives. The number which is to prevail in the first instance is declared to be temporary. Its duration is limited to the short term of three years. Within every successive term of ten years a census of inhabitants is to be repeated. The unequivocal objects of these regulations are, first, to readjust, from time to time, the apportionment of representatives to the number of inhabitants, under the single exception that each State shall have one representative at least; secondly, to augment the number of representatives at the same periods, under the sole limitation that the whole number shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand inhabitants. If we review the constitutions of the several States, we shall find that some of them contain no determinate regulations on this subject, that others correspond pretty much on this point with the federal Constitution, and that the most effectual security in any of them is resolvable into a mere directory provision. 2. As far as experience has taken place on this subject, a gradual increase of representatives under the State constitutions has at least kept pace with that of the constituents, and it appears that the former have been as ready to concur in such measures as the latter have been to call for them. 3. There is a peculiarity in the federal Constitution which insures a watchful attention in a majority both of the people and of their representatives to a constitutional augmentation of the latter. The peculiarity lies in this, that one branch of the legislature is a representation of citizens, the other of the States: in the former, consequently, the larger States will have most weight; in the latter, the advantage will be in favor of the smaller States. From this circumstance it may with certainty be inferred that the larger States will be strenuous advocates for increasing the number and weight of that part of the legislature in which their influence predominates. And it so happens that four only of the largest will have a majority of the whole votes in the House of Representatives. Should the representatives or people, therefore, of the smaller States oppose at any time a reasonable addition of members, a coalition of a very few States will be sufficient to overrule the opposition; a coalition which, notwithstanding the rivalship and local prejudices which might prevent it on ordinary occasions, would not fail to take place, when not merely prompted by common interest, but justified by equity and the principles of the Constitution. It may be alleged, perhaps, that the Senate would be prompted by like motives to an adverse coalition; and as their concurrence would be indispensable, the just and constitutional views of the other branch might be defeated. This is the difficulty which has probably created the most serious apprehensions in the jealous friends of a numerous representation. Fortunately it is among the difficulties which, existing only in appearance, vanish on a close and accurate inspection. The following reflections will, if I mistake not, be admitted to be conclusive and satisfactory on this point. Notwithstanding the equal authority which will subsist between the two houses on all legislative subjects, except the originating of money bills, it cannot be doubted that the House, composed of the greater number of members, when supported by the more powerful States, and speaking the known and determined sense of a majority of the people, will have no small advantage in a question depending on the comparative firmness of the two houses. This advantage must be increased by the consciousness, felt by the same side of being supported in its demands by right, by reason, and by the Constitution; and the consciousness, on the opposite side, of contending against the force of all these solemn considerations. It is farther to be considered, that in the gradation between the smallest and largest States, there are several, which, though most likely in general to arrange themselves among the former are too little removed in extent and population from the latter, to second an opposition to their just and legitimate pretensions. Hence it is by no means certain that a majority of votes, even in the Senate, would be unfriendly to proper augmentations in the number of representatives. It will not be looking too far to add, that the senators from all the new States may be gained over to the just views of the House of Representatives, by an expedient too obvious to be overlooked. As these States will, for a great length of time, advance in population with peculiar rapidity, they will be interested in frequent reapportionments of the representatives to the number of inhabitants. The large States, therefore, who will prevail in the House of Representatives, will have nothing to do but to make reapportionments and augmentations mutually conditions of each other; and the senators from all the most growing States will be bound to contend for the latter, by the interest which their States will feel in the former. These considerations seem to afford ample security on this subject, and ought alone to satisfy all the doubts and fears which have been indulged with regard to it. Admitting, however, that they should all be insufficient to subdue the unjust policy of the smaller States, or their predominant influence in the councils of the Senate, a constitutional and infallible resource still remains with the larger States, by which they will be able at all times to accomplish their just purposes. The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure. But will not the House of Representatives be as much interested as the Senate in maintaining the government in its proper functions, and will they not therefore be unwilling to stake its existence or its reputation on the pliancy of the Senate? Or, if such a trial of firmness between the two branches were hazarded, would not the one be as likely first to yield as the other? These questions will create no difficulty with those who reflect that in all cases the smaller the number, and the more permanent and conspicuous the station, of men in power, the stronger must be the interest which they will individually feel in whatever concerns the government. Those who represent the dignity of their country in the eyes of other nations, will be particularly sensible to every prospect of public danger, or of dishonorable stagnation in public affairs. To those causes we are to ascribe the continual triumph of the British House of Commons over the other branches of the government, whenever the engine of a money bill has been employed. An absolute inflexibility on the side of the latter, although it could not have failed to involve every department of the state in the general confusion, has neither been apprehended nor experienced. The utmost degree of firmness that can be displayed by the federal Senate or President, will not be more than equal to a resistance in which they will be supported by constitutional and patriotic principles. In this review of the Constitution of the House of Representatives, I have passed over the circumstances of economy, which, in the present state of affairs, might have had some effect in lessening the temporary number of representatives, and a disregard of which would probably have been as rich a theme of declamation against the Constitution as has been shown by the smallness of the number proposed. I omit also any remarks on the difficulty which might be found, under present circumstances, in engaging in the federal service a large number of such characters as the people will probably elect. One observation, however, I must be permitted to add on this subject as claiming, in my judgment, a very serious attention. It is, that in all legislative assemblies the greater the number composing them may be, the fewer will be the men who will in fact direct their proceedings. In the first place, the more numerous an assembly may be, of whatever characters composed, the greater is known to be the ascendency of passion over reason. In the next place, the larger the number, the greater will be the proportion of members of limited information and of weak capacities. Now, it is precisely on characters of this description that the eloquence and address of the few are known to act with all their force. In the ancient republics, where the whole body of the people assembled in person, a single orator, or an artful statesman, was generally seen to rule with as complete a sway as if a sceptre had been placed in his single hand. On the same principle, the more multitudinous a representative assembly may be rendered, the more it will partake of the infirmities incident to collective meetings of the people.


Ignorance will be the dupe of cunning, and passion the slave of sophistry and declamation. The people can never err more than in supposing that by multiplying their representatives beyond a certain limit, they strengthen the barrier against the government of a few. Experience will forever admonish them that, on the contrary, AFTER SECURING A SUFFICIENT NUMBER FOR THE PURPOSES OF SAFETY, OF LOCAL INFORMATION, AND OF DIFFUSIVE SYMPATHY WITH THE WHOLE SOCIETY, they will counteract their own views by every addition to their representatives. The countenance of the government may become more democratic, but the soul that animates it will be more oligarchic. The machine will be enlarged, but the fewer, and often the more secret, will be the springs by which its motions are directed. As connected with the objection against the number of representatives, may properly be here noticed, that which has been suggested against the number made competent for legislative business. It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale. In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences. Lastly, it would facilitate and foster the baneful practice of secessions; a practice which has shown itself even in States where a majority only is required; a practice subversive of all the principles of order and regular government; a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions, and the ruin of popular governments, than any other which has yet been displayed among us.


PUBLIUS.

References:
http://www.hotair,com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.nro.com/
http://www.newsmax.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.theblaze.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.dailycaller.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
Alex Knepper
US Navy Captain Ouimette
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
Jonathon M. Seidl
Duke Misnik
http://www.satireworks.com/
BBC