September 23rd, 2012
If anyone was wondering how much power and respect President Obama and the US now wield in the Arab world, one need only look to the extraordinarily arrogant and semi-despotic Egyptian President, Mohammed Morsi, and his beyond-ridiculous ramblings with the ever Islamic-fawning NY Times.
Rarely, in the annals of US history, has a supposed ally insulted the leader of the free world, and its free people, as many times as this ridiculous joke of an Islamic leader in Morsi.
An accomplished diplomat, quite obviously, this Muslim Brotherhood product "ain't."
However, all bets are off as to this authoritarian leader's Totalitarian inclinations, which would seem to be brimming over, at this point. But hey, it's what the Egyptian people have apparently always preferred.
Ergo, the US State Department will take meticulous pains to both coddle and appease Mr. Morsi on behalf of the Egyptian people until such time as these same Egyptians realize what a horrendous mistake they have made in setting up a Shariah supported radical leader. At that point, the Egytians will then blame the American people and its government for supporting their despotic self-appointed potentate, while demanding that we stop bankrolling their murderous tyrant. The leader will then be overthrown and the cycle will replicate itself repeatedly over the next century.
Think I'm wrong?
Very well then, below are just a few nuggets of significant insolence, as recently suggested to the US by Morsi while bearing in mind what happened to the Arab Spring in Iran:
- United States needed to fundamentally change its approach to the Arab world
- US must revise the terms of relations between his country and the United States
- Up to Washington to repair relations with the Arab world
- United States must respect the Arab world’s history and culture
So, would you also like fries and a Coke with your order, Mister Morsi?
Er...Okay, we'll make that a diet coke with fruit slices. Oh! Dude, how's about a delicious pork McRib sandwich?
The Muslim Brotherhood is not a terrorist organization...
Remember when National Director of Intelligence James Clapper appeared before a US committee in early 2011 and iterated to everyone in attendance that one of the primary players in the Egyptian Revolution, being the Muslim Brotherhood, was a "secular group dedicated to non-violence." At the time, we stated that "this particular utterance would, rather remarkably, be akin to our ridiculously stating that America's 700 Club is an atheist organization dedicated to abortion."
Quite frankly, we were right then, and we are right now.
In fact, if you would really like to both know and understand who Mohammed Morsi is, and what he and the Muslim Brotherhood are actually all about, then listen to these words from his inaugural speech:
Now, after hearing Mohammed Morsi's Egyptian threat to die as martyrs in the destruction of Israel, listen to what our National Terrorism Braniac, James Clapper had to say about 18 months earlier:
Hmm...perhaps Director Clapper is dyslexic and simply read his security reports backwards, but even here, at least he bothers to actually read them, a thing considered quite noble within the Obama Regime, apparently.
But Morsi also addressed his highly questionable political lineage by singularly certifying for himself; how terribly troubling his principles actually are, as if t'were the greatest and most wondrous thing since sliced bread:
- I learned my principles in the Muslim Brotherhood
- I learned how to love my country with the Muslim Brotherhood
- I learned politics with the Brotherhood
- I was a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood
Er...so, should we clap or countdown to launch?
According to the NY Times report, Morsi also has some choice words about sexual openness in the US, while completely dismissing the Islamic penchant for the death by a thousand reasons Islamic approach to humanity's imperfections:
Morsi was "dismayed by the West’s looser sexual mores, mentioning couples living together out of wedlock and what he called “naked restaurants,” like Hooters."
Indeed, Mr. Morsi, the Burqa Hooters unfortunately never caught on in the US, we don't expect the Hijab Hooters to do much better, alas.
However, when we note the recent spate of Egyptian hymen exams given to single women to verify their virginity, or the anal exams given to Egyptian men to certify an exit-only state of readiness, it would seem that privacy in Egypt is a thing that defies any standard of minimalist convention.
Morsi was also "troubled" by "gangs and street of violence of Los Angeles," according to the report, while remaining completely silent about his own country's wide-ranging foray into violence on every street and in every nook and cranny, especially by their own police.
Probably because, hey, that's just different.
On the US way of life, Morsi apparently thinks that what he sees on TV in LA is how the US lives across the country. But maybe that's how it is for a people who are in constant threat from moaning Mummies lurking in every dark corner. But this is what he had to say about American society as a whole:
“I don’t admire that,” he said. “But that is the society. They are living their way.”
Nor do we admire you Mr. Morsi; on that, we are in complete agreement. Especially when you tell us "that neither a woman nor a Christian would be a suitable president," and right after we've just elected a Muslim as President, for Heaven's sake, now that's just not fair.
In concluding his interview with the NY Times, Morsi made a reference to either his southern California liberal college education or the ongoing campaign of Civilization jihad being perpetrated by the Islamic Jihadist in the US by shouting :
But, our countering suggestion to you, Mr. Morsi, from the majority of the American people, would be quite simple:
Just consider your neighbor, our ally Israel, as one really big, and very, very powerful landmine that you dare not step foot on, from border to border.
Then we "should" all get along just peachy.....
September 14th, 2012
Government as God, anyone?
The DNC began with an oddly appropriate, partially collapsed sand image of a soggy El Magnifico making the news on the Sunday preceding the convention. Only to be followed by the discovery that the head of the Democratic Party, that being Obama, by the way, had decided to delete the word "God" from the Democratic Party platform and essentially replace it with the word 'Government,' while Israel would receive pathetically similar treatment.
The Media referred to this mysterious entity monkeying around with the Democratic platform only as 'they,' by the way, while most of us knew better.
We would, not much later, however, be treated to a video proclaiming that "we all belong to government," insidiously completing the misanthropic connections that we all saw being created in the first place by this gaggle of gathering Leftist nincompoops. Not that all of this was surprising, truth be told. We actually saw this coming long, long, ago. In fact, here's proof, from a 2010 Conservative Refocus article, titled Kneeling At The Alter Of Governmentology, no less.
It seems that, if one but tries hard enough, one can read these signs in the Tea Leaves, no pun intended. But the week would be everlastingly long, and the bull would require high-waders as the DNC convention was kicked off in the proverbial backyard of the Conservative Refocus Command Center, of all places. This, even while the shadowy pall of constantly resurgent storms would plague Charlotte throughout the entire week, as the Leftist minions would loudly "Boo" God as many times as Peter denied him, ironically enough, sans the tears, of course. The cock would not crow, rather fittingly, until the final hour of the last night of the proceedings.
But the opening of the DNC, aside from the bizarre carnival aspect of all of this, left most of us nodding in complete disbelief.
Welcome Back, Carter?
In fact, you know things are really getting bad when the Dems kicked off their seminal event with the second worst President of all time, in a consistently race-baiting Statist, Democratic anti-hero, Jimmy Carter, via video, begging the question:
What in the world were they thinking?
But things would only get more comical at the DNC from there. In fact, you know things have gone from really bad to much worse, for the Democrats, when on the second day, the DNC proudly introduced the evening with two guys named "Castro" for God's sake, playing right into the political Right's mantra of extreme Leftism having taken over the Democrat party.
Coincidence? We don't think so.....
The Liberals, with their Castro to Carter enfilade it, would seem, just aren't deploying any true logic at all, which is oddly appropriate based upon the last four years, come to think of it. Day three would prove no different when Sen. John 'not-so-swift-boater' Kerry, as one of the wealthiest Left-Wing Capitalists on the Hill, kicked off prime-time besmearing practically everything he secretly holds so terribly dear.
But what did the American people take away from the Charlotte Convention, aside from those beasty little blood-sucking bedbugs? Not so very much, it would seem, as the dust cleared. However, for the Fourth Estate, being the easiest of lapdogs to leftwardly impress, especially after receiving a tasty Obama nibble treat. They came away from the event as if sojourning down from Mount Ararat, a misty gleam burnishing their finely manicured metrosexual brows. The Kool-Aid was sweet and fruity enough even for the thickest of media pallets, as most of the 'reportage' crowed triumphantly on behalf of their heroically failed Messiah.
The fascinating part was noting that this so-called professional occupation of journalism almost continually dwells on the silliest of premises, these days, while completely ignoring undeniable abuses of power by those truly in power. You point out an absurdity, plain as any elephant standing there patiently, and you receive the characteristic: "What? There's nothing there."
I, personally, have often wondered how forcefully I might react in writing, for instance, if the politicians who are in supposed 'ideological unison' with my beliefs, were to perpetrate extraordinary abuses to the constitutional process in place, on a verifiably continual basis, as in the Obama Regime of today.
I wonder, and yet, I actually already know.
The vehemence against those who I have placed my trust in, for such abuses, would be far more acid and far more scathing than anything I have probably ever written against those who I simply do not believe in, as in the Democratic party of today and its feckless sub-potentates. Yet, when Bush and the Republicans engineered the Patriot Act, before my writing days, my lividity was presented in the form of explicitly voiced outrage to anyone who might listen, while I continually spouted Ben Franklin's alarmed admonition:
"'Those who would sacrifice their liberty for the sake of security are doomed to lose both and deserve neither."
I still believe in this concept of Franklin's to this day, even more so than I did long ago, as years of research have navigated me ever more deeply within the realms of Natural Law and the need to both understand and explain the depths of its truest meaning, while place-holding these laws within the context of now.
However, the Progressives, when you try to explain Franklin's concept on liberty and security, being so brilliant in its simplicity and so deep in true meaning, will more often than not proffer you a slack-jawed, glassy-eyed look before lapsing into Democratic-Liberal talking points tinged with unequaled toxicity. But it's this slack-jawed look, before they lapse into their robotic stage, that tells me the idea almost got through, that the connection was nearly made, and yet ultimately lost in their constant Linus-like need for the euphemistic security blanket.
Perhaps they of the Left-Wing simply miss the cozy womb; who knows?
As in all things in the world, however, the constructs or enablings that our society and political process sets in place will always have ramifications, be they either positive or negative, or perhaps both contemporaneously, as balance will always seek itself out before the final fall or its hairsbreadth correction.
You see, as with all things societal, a more invasive security will necessarily require less privacy and, therefore, more sacrifice of individual liberty. More power to a central government will always result in less power to the local principalities and individuals. The kinetics of Liberty are no less reactionary than the kinetics of physical law, being that in order for the equation to balance, the proper variables must be in place. If imbalance occurs in nature or in man, the systemic energies will always flow wherever they are needed in order to achieve the requisite balance required. If that balance goes uncorrected, then the whithering effects of unnatural absence will take hold, to include all manner of maladies well known to man.
Cause and Effect
This is the exact reason that the far Left, which is in power today, found its countering force in the ideological opposites of the Tea party, which quickly flowed into the political process like a storm surge. The balance was being naturally corrected, the equilibrium narrowly maintained.
But the balance or imbalance doesn't stop there, unfortunately.
More debt assumed by the state means less wealth to utilize for the family or the private citizen. The balance will always seek itself out, no matter how we might try to control where such balance naturally flows. But when we, as a society, excessively meddle within that flow or balance of highly refined energy, is also when that flow can be turned upon itself or even soured into something that ultimately does more damage than good.
We often mistakenly assume that the laws of man were engineered to function outside of the natural laws of the universe, when, point in fact, the laws of man are a natural adjunct to physical law. In other words, when a law as written is fatally flawed, the excesses of such a law can be seen in the permutations that occur surrounding it. For instance, while we all can easily see the Constitutional need for a woman to have full rights as to the dispensation of her body, there is also a natural right for a life apart that might exist within her womb.
It's a question that divides, no doubt about it, but does the right to an abortion hold up in the realm of natural law? According to the highest court in the land, it does, but what about the permutations of that law?
When we look at the idiosyncrasies of the law, it becomes easier to come to a somewhat more valid conclusion. If, indeed, the law frowns on the taking of a life based only upon an arbitrary determinant of fetal age, then we would appear to have faulty logic at play. If the law decides that it is lawful for an individual to take life as long as said individual has a medical degree, then, once again, we have a fault in the law. (Why does the holding of a degree sanction the taking of life?) And finally, when we look at the murder of a pregnant woman-- is not the baby often considered within a second count of murder? A fault in the law, yet again: If a desired child is murdered, as opposed to the undesired child who is snatched from the womb.
You Break It, You Fix It
Indeed, yet another perfect example of imbalance can be seen to be playing out in a Mideast, which now lays effectively in a power vacuum left unfilled, when a misguided US chose to largely exit its leadership role in that region after thunderously pushing its way in. Completely pulling out of a battle hard-won with Iraq's dictatorial regime, and after introducing democracy within the core of the the Mideast, the US chose to hastily exit its role during the severe troop draw down of late 2010. But it was also at about that same time, not coincidentally, that the Arab Spring came into full being in late 2010, as government after government, in the now beleagured Mideast, was besieged with unrest, and a surge of zeal would topple dictatorial regime after dictatorial regime in a domino effect.
But did the US exit from the core of the Mideast inadvertently cause the Arab Spring by virtue of the power vacuum or imbalance left in its self-imposed exile? Iraq, hellish though it was under the rule of Sadam Hussein, was an opposing force that kept the renegade that is Iran, in check. When the US exploded Hussein out from his throne and then flew the coop, the balance that was there had been lost.
The Iranians now seek to largely dominate the region, while the US footprint has become an ant trail in comparison.
The keystone of peace in the Mideast, which formerly held everything together, was the government of Egypt under the soft iron fist of Hosni Mubarek. Under the influence of a powerful US relationship with Egypt, the nation of Israel, a long-time ally of America's with a core of military might, co-existed peacefully with its largely hostile neighbors. Egypt and Israel had achieved a certain balance, and prosperity was the rule of the day for at least a score of years, that is, right up until Mubarek was toppled at the admonition of President Barack Obama and the US State Department.
Flash forward to now, and we can see Egypt being ruled by yet another iron-fisted totalitarian regime, but this time under the auspices of the infidel-despising Islamists. What some thought was a Democracy being gained was actually an adjunct into a new and even worse authoritarian regime, except this one would not be so easily befriended by US leadership. Once again, an imbalance had occurred, as the Islamists are, even now, in liason with 9/11 forces, and Israel, our ally, is besieged on all sides.
In Libya and other Mideast venues, the appearance of a weakened, or at least less assertive, America has caused a pandemic of attacks against most US Embassies, including the actual murder of a US Ambassador. America, an Islamist hated symbol of the western world, is seemingly being punished for its freedom- loving infidels, whose leadership, now, does nothing but apologize for that former leadership, while slowly disarming itself under its Islamist friendly President and State Department. Make no mistake, the anti-Muslim movie that the media, the President and the US State Department keep blaming is nothing but a strawman for the real impetus of punishment, that being 9/11 and a President habitually practicing dhimmitude in favor of the Islamists who live by the law of the desert.
Folks, there are no coincidences.
The balance has been lost in the Mideast, by the Obama regime, as US foreign policy lies in a shambles, euphemistically noted as "change we can believe in," and insistently predicted by this website for the last three years. So, while ideological speaking, a majority in the US have sought to slowly and conservatively bring about positive change in a Mideast world fraught with unseen landmines, while maintaining the balance, there is that other ideological sect that seeks quick progressive change without giving thought to what can flow into the inevitable void that remains. Duly noting a current US leadership, which messianically considers itself well beyond the need for the counsel of experts, in a desert land layered with intricate causalities.
This, in fact, is the mean essence of difference between what it means to be Conservative and what it means to be a Progressive. The world has lost both its economic and its ideological balance as a result of the inexorable vacuums and imbalances, which were brought about by the Liberals in power, and restoring a desired balance is not nearly so simple as fomenting unsound chaos.
But it's not just in the realm of geo-politics that these unsound imbalances have been caused.
You can, in fact, even see these differences in how the Left's world-view encompasses the planet's ecological health. Our opposition, the Liberals, sees the human race more as an artificial infection that must be controlled and ameliorated, rather than nourished and multiplied. The Right sees humanity as a natural part of the environment, and a powerful force of nature in its own right, but far less powerful than the might and the energy that exists within the earth and its atmosphere.
The Right believe that we, as a people, naturally belong wherever we might be, and that Natural Law holds each of us as valuable and worthy unto ourselves.
The Left seems to harbor a veiled sort of contempt for the embarrassing predicament of their being caught human, who will then try all sorts of ridiculous labors and contrivances to correct their natural conundrum of being born a species less desirable.
September 12th, 2012
Obama, who has serially used, and even attacked, the protestant Bible to make a case for his social agenda, seems to have come out in an almost bizarre and continuous defense of Islam, throughout his Presidency.
Even while the President is in the process of being sued by the Catholic Church for ignoring their Constitutional right to freedom from Governmental interference, he has simultaneously praised virtually any and every facet of Islam, to the point of even relanguaging any references to Islamic terrorism, by removing the "Islamic" out of the explanation.
From the Washington Times: The White House's official policy of banning the word "Islam" in describing America's terrorist enemies is in direct conflict with the U.S. military's war-fighting doctrine now guiding commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan.
John O. Brennan, President Obama's chief national security adviser for counterterrorism, delivered a major policy address on defining the enemy. He laid out the White House policy of detaching any reference to Islam when referring to terrorists, be it al Qaeda, the Taliban or any other group.
So, why such a terrible need to "defend" Mr. President?
We know that Obama sat in reverend Wright's Black Liberation Theology church for over twenty years and even called the radical Leftist Wright "My Mentor."
But then Obama later denied, rather disingenuously, that he had ever listened to Wright's sermons, only after the damaging truth had finally come out about what Black Liberation Theology teaches.
So, why should we believe anything that the President utters, at this point, when it comes to his true and deeply held beliefs?
The final mystery, however, is at the end of the above video, where in a perfect dialect, Obama tells the Turkish people that he is one of them. Indeed, we know that Obama is not Turkish, so then what exactly did he mean?
Watch the video and decide for yourself, however, the issue is not that Obama "may appear" to be a closeted Islamist, due to his incessantly apologizing for the religion profoundly.
The true issue is one of wondering why Obama feels the need to hide his true beliefs from the American people and one particularly alarming question that none appear to want to answer.
So, what else is Barack Obama hiding, and who else, Mr. President, is clinging to religion, now?
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them
~Barack H. Obama
Related Material from Barry Secrest
September 11th, 2012
Conservative Refocus on 9/11
By Barry Secrest
Our respectful commemoration of 9/11 was unfortunately interrupted by the nadir of suffusive, brain retardant, "left-wing think" from none other than Paul Krugman of the NY Times, being OUR ALIEN ATTACK ECONOMIST, who on 9/11 lamented:
Indeed, Paul Krugman...
Fascinating, but not unexpected, from a man such as Krugman, so obnoxiously liberal that Obama, to him, is the second coming of Thomas Jefferson. Krugman finds something both odd and not odd at the same time... an emotion that we Conservatives systemically feel for our Liberally infected zombie-like opposites on a painfully consistent basis.
But, does Krugman actually think that American's should be exultant over an attack that took so many American lives? One must suppose that Krugman somehow feels a certain joyousness, if he actually thinks America was "oddly subdued." So Paul, should we have been dancing in the streets at our decade-long decimation of the terrorist attackers as did much of the Mideast after the attacks on us?
We don't think so because, unfortunately, this ideological battle is far from being won.
In Krugman's column of 9/11, he enigmatically found America's sense of subdual as an oddity, which then brings those of who of us who have either been blessed or cursed with true common sense into a heartfelt seasoning of outrage, yet again. But then Krugman corrects himself by stating that "it's not really that odd."
Uh-oh, get ready whenever Liberal pundits correct themselves in a literary stuttering format. Ergo, here it comes:
What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons
Here, and once again, as through the lengthy annals of Socialism's failures , Krugman seeks to deploy the communistic format of historical revisionism. After 9/11, Bush and virtually every Democrat in Congress, every Republican and American in general was in total and complete agreement. The feeling was that, whoever knocked these towers down would be found and punished; whomever threatened us would also be decisively corrected, preemptively, if necessary. It was a stance of rabid defiance and complete defense.
To say that Bush and Giulani "cashed in on the horror of 9/11" would be akin to stating that Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill cashed in on the Pearl Harbor attack horrors of Dec. 7,1941--"a date that will live in infamy." But, in fact, Krugman probably has mixed emotions about our WWII fight, as well. You see, it's simply the nature of Liberals to second-guess anything that must be done with both ferocity and a certain finality.
As I recall, and to refute Krugman's memory lapse, it was not just the neocons who wanted retribution after 9/11. Pretty much everyone in America was ready for a fight, except a large number of knee-knocking Liberals who preferred a stance of lily-livered appeasement, as is typical.
But we do find it poignant that Krugman would seek to cast the blame on the "horrible heroes" of 9/11, being those who's first thought was to both protect and defend. Alas, moderate left-winger Bill Clinton only missed his mark by a couple of years, but what would Clinton have done? A question for the ages, but, I have a pretty good idea his actions probably would have fallen a bit short of decisive. It was Clinton, after all, who had Bin laden dead to rights and then failed to act.
However, all of Krugman's pent-up angst over his fake heroes of 9/11, no doubt, would probably have to include the many heroic firefighters, policemen and first responders who also lost their lives on that day. Krugman pretty much denigrates the memory of each and every one of those brave and dedicated men and women in his column of politicized vilification.
In fact, the feeling, I am certain, is not lost on either me or the reader, that Krugman most likely counts the death-dealing terrorists on that terrible but beautiful day as the true hero's of his 9/11.
Krugman goes on:
The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.
Once again, Krugman completely leaves out the poisonous ideology of radical Islam, which became the actual act of an atrocity-- in the hijacking of a religion for the purpose of exploitation and barbarianism and violence. In fact, at no point in his column does Krugman mention the actual evil-doers. Instead, Krugman seeks to politicize one of the nation's most horrible sneak attacks into a diatribe opposing the defense of America against all threats to its defining civilization.
The memory of 9/11, Paul Krugman, will always be poisoned, but certainly not because of America's swing into action. The poison refers to a cowardly sneak attack on civilians and a terrible death to its airborne victims and tower-born inhabitants. Non-military men, women and children were all targeted for extermination. This is an evil poison whose only true inoculation is the decimation of its core. The radical Islamic forces being a beast with many evil heads, has had the US military methodically cleaving one after another off, effectively blood-letting the might of the beast like a meticulously precise barber in the middle-ages.
Will Krugman weep for them?
A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?
Indeed Mr. Krugman, your shame knows no bounds, and your misleading ideology showcases only the need for those of your mindset to be defeated, and soundly, if not completely, in 2012.
The true shame within this nation is not the defense against a cowardly attack by barbarians, but rather, the true shame lies in the millions of people like Krugman. A man so cowardly that he chose to close his column to comments rather than allowing people to refute him within his own column. The even greater shame lies in the actions of those who agree with Krugman. There have been a number of opinion pieces both on the moderate Right and the Left that have agreed with Krugman's idiocy. To those people, we should remind them that the terror of 9/11 is but a simple collection of security mistakes away from being 9/11/11 or even 9/12.
Those individuals who mean to cast aspersions simply do not understand this enemy, nor the larger point in all of this. How can anyone say that Bush and the entire Government erred in their bold Mideast plans when no other mass attacks have come to fruition for at least a decade?
The true poison here lies also with Krugman's alternative reality of Liberalism, which, as we have seen, is no less harmful than the poison of Islamic radicalism, just a good deal slower while being more all-encompassing.
But Krugman will not make one mention of the evil aggressors who started this war in the name of Islam, and who, even now, plot ways to kill us while Krugman pensively cries foul against the heroes of our defense.
Typical and, yes, expected, but then, we all know deep down that if Krugman's aliens actually did attack we Americans, Krugman would find some solicitous means to take their side as well.