Sunday, 08 February 2009
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A COUNTRY APPEASES RADICAL ISLAM?
Here, from Steve Gilbert of www.sweetness-light.com, is the answer
to that question.
Biggest Terror Threat Comes From
February 8th, 2009
From the UKs Telegraph:
CIA warns Barack Obama that British terrorists
are the biggest threat to the US
Barack Obama has been warned by the CIA that
British Islamist extremists are the greatest threat to US homeland
By Tim Shipman in Washington
American spy chiefs have told the President that
the CIA has launched a vast spying operation in the UK to prevent a repeat of
the 9/11 attacks being launched from Britain.
They believe that a British-born Pakistani
extremist entering the US under the visa waiver programme is the most likely
source of another terrorist spectacular on American soil.
Intelligence briefings for Mr Obama have
detailed a dramatic escalation in American espionage in Britain, where the CIA
has recruited record numbers of informants in the Pakistani community to
monitor the 2,000 terrorist suspects identified by MI5, the British
A British intelligence source
revealed that a staggering four out of 10 CIA operations designed to thwart
direct attacks on the US are now conducted against targets in
The CIA has already spent 18 months developing a
network of agents in Britain to combat al-Qaeda, unprecedented in size within
the borders of such a close ally, according to intelligence sources in both
London and Washington.
Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer who has
advised Mr Obama, told The Sunday Telegraph: "The British
Pakistani community is recognised as probably al-Qaedas best mechanism for
launching an attack against North America
"Around 40 per cent of CIA activity on homeland
threats is now in the UK. This is quite unprecedented."
Information gleaned by CIA spies in Britain has
already helped thwart several terrorist attacks in the UK and was instrumental
in locating Rashid Rauf, a British-born al-Qaeda operative implicated in a
plot to explode airliners over the Atlantic, who was tracked down and killed
in a US missile strike in November.
But some US intelligence officers are irritated
that valuable manpower and resources have been diverted to the UK. One
former intelligence officer who does contract work for the CIA dismissed
Britain as a "swamp" of jihadis
The dramatic escalation in CIA activity in the
UK followed the exposure in August 2006 of Operation Overt, the alleged
airline bomb plot.
The British intelligence official
revealed that CIA chiefs sent more resources to the UK because they were not
prepared to see American citizens die as a result of MI5s inability to keep
tabs on all suspects, even though the Security Service successfully
uncovered the plot.
MI5 manpower will have doubled to 4,100 by 2011
but many in the US intelligence community do not think that is enough.
For their part, some British
officials are queasy that information obtained by the CIA from British
Pakistanis was used to help target Mr Rauf, a British citizen, whom they would
have preferred to capture and bring to trial
Probably none of this should have been made
Still, it sure is chilling. Though it is not any
too surprising, given recent history both here and over there.
Hopefully, the ACLU and CAIR will ride to the
rescue of these innocents. And protect them from the CIA and their detestable
After all, protecting the enemies of our country
is their job.
Read it and think, long and hard, about whether this can be our future.
Then keep an eagle eye on how this administration operates. Let's hope
Mr. Obama thinks long and hard about it too.
GUEST COMMENTARY: MELANIE PHILLIPS ON BARACK OBAMA'S FIRST TWO WEEKS IN OFFICE
Here, from the London Spectator, is Melanie Phillips' take on the new
I don't agree with 100% of Ms. Phillips' views, but I agree with most of
them. See what you think:
America -- what have you done?
Saturday, 7th February
President Obama has had, by general consent, a
torrid First Fortnight. To put it another way, it has taken precisely two weeks
for the illusion that brought him to power to be exposed for the nonsense that
it so obviously was. The transformational candidate who was going to sweep away
pork-barrel politics, lobbyists and corruption has been up to his neck in
sleaze, as eviscerated here by Charles Krauthammer. Despite the fact that he came to power
promising to ban all earmarks, his stimulus bill represents billions of
dollars of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections -- which have
nothing to do with kick-starting the economy and everything to do with favouring
pet Democrat causes.
He has been appointing one tax dodger, lobbyist
and wheeler-dealer after another. After appointing one official,Treasury
Secretary Timothy Geithner, who had unaccountably forgotten to pay his taxes, he
then watched his designated Health Secretary Tom Daschle fall on his sword
because he too had taken a tax holiday. Daschle was furthermore a prominent
actor in the world of lobbying and influence-peddling. Leon Panetta, Obamas
nominee for Director of the CIA has also, according to the Wall Street Journal, consulted for prominent companies and sat on the
board of a public affairs firm that lobbies Congress. The Weekly Standard reports that Secretary of Labour nominee Hilda Solis
was not only involved with a private organization lobbying her fellow
legislators on a bill that she helped sponsor, but she apparently kept her
involvement secret and failed to reveal a clear conflict of interest.
In foreign policy, Obama has started by trashing
his own country through grossly misrepresenting its history and grovelling to
Americas enemies such as Iran, which has flicked him aside with undiluted
contempt. He has gratuitously upset Americas ally India by suggesting that America should muscle in
and resolve the Kashmir question.
His right hand doesnt seem to know what his left
hand is doing. He reportedly asked retired Marine General Anthony Zinni to be US
ambassador to Iraq, but then abruptly withdrew the appointment without
explanation after it had been confirmed by Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton. And the precise role he is offering Dennis Ross special envoy to
Iran? Special adviser to Hillary? Special adviser to other special advisers?
remains mired in confusion.
I have argued before however that, given Obamas
radical roots in the neo-Marxist, nihilist politics of Saul Alinsky, it is the
undermining of Americas fundamental values that is likely to be this
Presidents most strategically important goal. I have also suggested that, since
this agenda is promoted through stealth politics which gull the credulous
middle-classes while destroying the ground upon which they are standing, his
second-tier appointments should be closely scrutinised.
And heres a humdinger. Obama has picked a man
called David Ogden to be deputy Attorney-General. Ogden has made his legal
career from representing pornographers, trying to defeat child protection
legislation and undermining family values. As FoxNews reported this week, he once represented a group of library directors
arguing against the Children's Internet Protection Act, which ordered libraries
and schools receiving funding for the Internet to restrict access to obscene
sites. And on behalf of several media groups, he successfully
argued against a child pornography law that required publishers to verify
and document the age of their models, which would have ensured these models were
at least 18.
The Family Research Council
has more examples of his contribution to
upholding American and western values. In one such case, he expressed the view
that abortion was less damaging to a woman than having children:
In sum, it is grossly misleading to tell a woman
that abortion imposes possible detrimental psychological effects when the
risks are negligible in most cases, when the evidence shows that she is more
likely to experience feelings of relief and happiness, and when child-birth
and child-rearing or adoption may pose concomitant (if not greater) risks or
adverse psychological effects ...
In another, co-authored brief, he argued that it
was an unconstitutional burden on 14-year old girls seeking an abortion for
their parents to be notified -- because there was no difference between adults
and mid-teens in their ability to grasp all the implications of such a
There is no question that the right to secure an
abortion is fundamental. By any objective standard, therefore, the decision to
abort is one that a reasonable person, including a reasonable adolescent,
could make. [E]mpirical studies have found few differences between minors aged
14-18 and adults in their understanding of information and their ability to
think of options and consequences when asked to consider treatment-related
decisions. These unvarying and highly significant findings indicate that with
respect to the capacity to understand and reason logically, there is no
qualitative or quantitative difference between minors in mid-adolescence,
i.e., about 14-15 years of age, and adults.
And how did the 44th President react to
the growing public dismay over the mess he was making? He threw his toys out of
the pram -- or perhaps that should read, he got into the pram. For he
fled the scene of the disaster and sought the company of seven year-olds
instead. As the Telegraph reported:
We were just tired of being in the White
House, he told a group of excited seven-year-olds before discussing Batman
and reading them a book.
Tired of being President after two
Tax cheats, pork-barrel politics, ancillary child
abuse, incompetence, chaos, treachery and infantilism. America what have you
Sadly, every indication is that Barack Obama is in
way, way over his head.
I certainly hope I'm wrong about this (though that hope seems more and more distant
with each passing day). Because, if he is, it will be the people around
him - the Pelosi's and Reids, for example - who will be running the country.
God help us.
CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO: IF YOU CAN'T BEAT 'EM, DELETE 'EM
It's not like liberal/left talk radio hasn't had a chance.
It has had many chances. Air America is among the most notable, but there have been
plenty more than that.
It is that liberal/left talk radio doesn't do well. With
few exceptions it does not generate enough of an audience to be profitable. That
is why so many station owners who tried it eventually dropped it.
So what do you do when your opponent continues to beat the gazongas off of you in the ratings? You
try to get your opponent off the air, or at least neutralized, based on something
other than what people actually want to listen to.
With that in mind, here is Brian Maloney's latest commentary from www.radioequalizer.blogspot.com. It
Bill Press Wants Government To
Regulate Talk Radio
In Op-Ed, Libtalker Pushes Talk Radio
Calling free speech on the airwaves a mere "failed experiment" from the Reagan era,
libtalker Bill Press is using today's Washington Post Op-Ed section to call for government regulation over American talk radio
Unhappy over the collapse of
Washington's ratings-challenged OBAMA 1260-AM, resulting in a format change
that's expected tomorrow, Press is decrying the overwhelmingly-conservative
state of talk radio, both locally and nationally.
Using rhetoric similar
to Obamists who are pushing for a government-led free speech crackdown, he
claims the airwaves lack "diversity" because commercial talk leans to the right.
Not mentioned in the piece is the apparently-secret existence of NPR, where
Obama is seemingly revered as god-like on a daily basis.
As evidence of
unfairness, Press cites the District of Columbia's population, where "Democrats
outnumber Republicans 10-to-one". As a host himself, however, it's hard to
believe he doesn't realize that talk radio's traditional audience base has
always been in suburbs and rural areas, not the inner city. That's the case
across the nation.
In the District itself, a variety of FM formats fill
that niche, between Urban outlets, rock and pop stations, college radio and of
course, public broadcasting, with its left-leaning news and talk
From his piece:
If you're looking for a
break from those conservative voices that dominate talk radio, take time out
today to listen to local station OBAMA 1260 AM. You'll hear the progressive
voices of Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz, Lionel -- or, during morning drive, my
own "Bill Press Show" -- providing welcome relief from the constant
Obama-bashing by Rush Limbaugh and others. Unfortunately, today's the last day
you'll be able to do so.
As reported by The Post [Style,
Feb. 2], Dan Snyder's Red Zebra Broadcasting Co., owner of OBAMA 1260, has
announced plans to jettison all progressive talk and replace it with
pre-recorded financial advice programming.
The commercial use of public
airwaves is supposed to reflect the diversity of the local community, but
that's not how it works in Washington. On the AM dial, WMAL (630) features
wall-to-wall conservative talk. So do stations WTNT (570) and WHFS (1580). For
the past two years, OBAMA 1260 -- even with a weak signal that cannot be heard
in downtown Washington -- was the exception. No longer. Starting tomorrow, our
nation's capital, where Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White
House, and where Democrats outnumber Republicans 10 to one, will have no
progressive voices on the air.
Here, Press cites "successful"
examples of liberal talk radio, using it to build the case that a "conservative
media conspiracy" is preventing its success elsewhere:
Why? Station owners
complain they can't get good ratings or make any money with progressive talk,
but that's nonsense. In Minnesota, independent owner Janet Robert has operated
KTNF (950 AM) profitably for five years. In
Madison, Wis., WXXM, 92.1 FM, just scored its highest ratings ever. And KPOJ
in Portland, Ore., soared with progressive talk from No. 23 in market ratings
to No. 1. Nationwide, progressive talkers Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz and
Stephanie Miller have proven that, given a level playing field, they can more
than hold their own in ratings -- and make money for their stations.
Yes, liberal talk has worked in a few of these
places, mostly far-left college towns. Portland is unusually radical
politically, so it's no surprise that it has succeeded there. But Clear Channel
gave libtalk several years to find an audience in many major cities and it went
One market Press cites is Providence,
where WHJJ-AM took a disastrous ratings tumble when it
dumped a successful conservative format for Air America's
programming. Signal strength was not an
issue. So why should any station owner in Rhode Island run programming that has
already been rejected by the public?
The former CNN host doesn't stop with mere
whining, however: he alleges a "conspiracy" to keep his comrades off the
For years, the Fairness
Doctrine prevented such abuse by requiring licensed stations to carry a mix of
opinion. However, under pressure from conservatives, President Ronald Reagan's
Federal Communications Commission canceled the Fairness Doctrine in 1987,
insisting that in a free market, stations would automatically offer a balance
That experiment has failed. There is no free market in
talk radio today, only an exclusive, tightly
held, conservative media conspiracy. The few holders of broadcast
licenses have made it clear they will not, on their own, serve the general
public. Maybe it's time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine -- and bring
competition back to talk radio in Washington and elsewhere.
But the sad truth, as we've covered
many times here,
is that today's radio execs lean almost exclusively to the left. If they could get away with dumping Rush and Hannity,
they'd do so in a flash. If there was really a conspiracy, conservatives would
not so often be forced to lock horns with broadcasting's corporate
Clearly, Press is following
up on the recent calls by a number of Democrats in Congress, including Senator
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), who just a few days ago made a similar plea for government
regulation of free speech in American broadcasting.
Especially interesting is how Press admits that fellow libtalker
Ed Schultz will be the one survivor of OBAMA 1260-AM's failure, which he calls
an effort "to mollify critics".
Why Ed's program as opposed to
Bill's? It's no accident: while Schultz has sought to emulate some of the
characteristics of successful conservative talk radio, such as incorporating
some entertainment value, Press has not. He's just a bitter whiner.
it's just downright disingenuous to cite Michael Smerconish as an example of
DC's conservative talk stranglehold, given his public endorsement of Obama for
One element of conservative success not often
seen in its liberal counterpart is good old-fashioned hard work. Rush Limbaugh,
Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and other popular syndicated talkers spend an
incredible amount of time every day, including weekends, prepping for their
programs, while some on the left have treated their shows as mere
stepping-stones to more frequent cable talk appearances.
Now that she has
a full time TV gig, that's exactly what Air America's Rachel Maddow has done:
dumped her radio show. Conservatives, however, know that radio is actually the more powerful
medium when it comes to real, long-term national influence.
one, has a nasty habit of frequently taking time off from his own program, most
likely to pursue other activities. That may work for him, but what about
potential affiliates? Why should they commit to him, when his own enthusiasm is
We know where this is
going: the left is slowly building the case for an Obamist-led
crackdown on the airwaves. But to those in
the Democratic Party who believe mowing over conservative talk radio will be
easy, guess again: the Barack-lash will be
Like the title of this blog says, "if you can't beat 'em, delete 'em.
Evidently it is the only way the left can win the talk radio battle, so that's
the way it is going to play.
It will be interesting (and more than a little scary) to watch this
censorship attempt unfold.
THE TEN DOLLAR SECURITY SYSTEM
From my west coast pal Russ:
TEN-DOLLAR HOME SECURITY SYSTEM
1. Go to a second-hand store and buy a pair of
work boots, used, size 14-16. - $2.00
2. Place them on your front porch, along with a
of Guns & Ammo Magazine. Magazine - $3.00
3. Put a few giant dog dishes next to the boots
the magazine. - $5.00
4. Leave a note on your door that
'Hey Bubba, Big Jim, Duke and
I went for more shotgun shells and to pick my check up from the
slaughterhouse. I should be back in an
Don't mess with the Pit
Bulls--don't know what got into them, but they attacked the mailman this
morning and messed him up real bad.
I don't think Killer took part
in it but it was hard to tell from all the blood. Anyway, I locked
all four of 'em in the house. Better wait out here on the
ASHLEY JERKK THROWS INTELLIGENCE TO THE WOLVES
Why do so many hollywood movie stars do this? Why do they open those
mouths and show what idiots they can be?
Is it because they are so unused to people telling them "no", that their
hubris level goes into overdrive? Do they really think their celebrity
status as entertainers makes them experts on everything else?
The latest example is Ashley Jerkk....er, Judd. I'll let Tim Graham of
www.newsbusters.org take this one without further
comment, because he says it very well and doesn't need any help from
Some Humanitarian: Ashley Judd
Hates Shooting Wolves, But Favors Partial-Birth Abortions
So the pulchritudinous actress Ashley Judd is
starring in a new advertising campaign by the group Defenders of Wildlife
against Gov. Sarah Palin for promoting "the brutal aerial killing of wolves."
Palins accused of "casting aside science and championing the slaughter of
wildlife." Viewers are urged to help stop Palins "senseless
Last year, Judd appeared on a panel of the Clinton
Global Initiative and promoted her pro-abortion agenda. She declared to
our gang at CNSNews.com that "a woman voting for McCain and Palin is like a
chicken voting for Colonel Sanders." So lets get this straight. According to
the humanitarian ethics of Ashley Judd, Sarah Palin shouldnt allow wolves to be
shot from an airplane, but she should allow human babies to have their skulls
vacuumed out and killed in a partial-birth abortion. Who here is in favor of
"senseless savagery" again?
This actress-playing-a-scientist makes no attempt
to engage in any "sense" on the other side. Shes for letting the lovable wolves
live. But the wolves are being killed to increase the moose and caribou
population. If she was against "senseless savagery," why is she pro-wolf? Its
pretty funny that a group called "Defenders of Wildlife" is completely in favor
of wolves slaughtering caribou. Theyre defenders of wildlife from humans, but
they love all wildlife indiscriminately enough to completely avoid the issues of
how animals savagely kill and eat each other.
Palin knows from personal experience that moose is
an important food source for humans in Alaska, but Ashley Judd doesnt care
about the humans in Alaska unless theyre buying movie tickets.
THE STEALFROMUS PACKAGE: DO WE NEED IT AT ALL?
An interesting question, no?
Well, www.gatewaypundit.blogspot.com has
posted Congressional Budget Office data that seem to suggest we don't need it at
all - that this will clear up on its own by the second half of 2009.
The post also links to a Washington Times article that suggests, based
on CBO data, that the Steamfromus Package will actually hurt rather
than help our recovery.
Here it is:
CBO Predicts Recession Will End
in 2009 Without Stimulus
The Congressional Budget Office
predicted that the current economic recession will end in the second half of
2009 without the trillion dollar stimulus.
From The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to
CBO anticipates that
the current recession, which started in December 2007, will last until
the second half of 2009, making it the longest recession since World
War II. (The longest such recessions otherwise, the 19731974 and 19811982
recessions, both lasted 16 months. If the current recession were to continue
beyond midyear, it would last at least 19 months.) It could also be the
deepest recession during the postwar period: By CBOs estimates, economic
output over the next two years will average 6.8 percent below its
potentialthat is, the level of output that would be produced if the economys
resources were fully employed (see Figure 1). This ecession, however, may not
result in the highest unemployment rate. That rate, in CBOs forecast, rises
to 9.2 percent by early 2010 (up from a low of 4.4 percent at the end of 2006)
but is still below the 10.8 percent rate seen near the end of the 19811982
The Congressional Budget Office
even says the Obama Stimulus will actually hurt, not
help, the economy.
(Table 2, page 12) also predicts that the GDP will drop to 14,224 Billion in 2009. This is
1.9% or $63 billion drop from 2008:
And, Democrats want to pass a trillion dollar
Spendulus bill to fix this?
Please note that I do not know when these CBO data came
out. If they are, for example, a half year old, this would be pretty
meaningless since it would not take our current financial meltdown into
But if the data are recent - i.e. they do take the
financial meltdown into account - it is one helluva good argument against this
What do you think?