They are Watching You

“It’s all about the data this year and Obama has that. When a race is as close as this one promises to be, any small advantage could absolutely make the difference,” says Andrew Rasiej, a technology strategist and publisher of TechPresident. “More and more accurate data means more insight, more money, more message distribution, and more votes.”

“They are way ahead of Romney micro-targeting and it’s a level of precision we haven’t seen before,” says Darrell M. West, a leading scholar on technology innovation at the Brookings Institution. “[The Obama campaign has] been able to work on it under the radar during the Republican primary season.”

“More than 40 percent of all our donors are new, and a lot of them are coming in because of things like this,” says Messina. “Call up our website and try to donate on your phone and then do Romney’s. … Those things are important, because people are busy and people want to help us and they think about — ‘Oh, yeah, I saw the president on TV. I want to give them money. How hard is it?’ ”

Adds Nicco Mele, a Harvard professor and social media guru: “The fabric of our public and political space is shifting. If the Obama campaign can combine its data efforts with the way people now live their lives online, a new kind of political engagement — and political persuasion — is possible.” (Politico)

*******

Washington Post: A federal department ruled last week that the Forest Service violated a Spanish-speaking woman’s civil rights by calling the Border Patrol to help translate during a routine stop, saying it was “humiliating” to Hispanics and an illicit backdoor way to capture more illegal immigrants.

The ruling by the Agriculture Department’s assistant secretary for civil rights could change policies nationwide as law enforcement agencies grapple with how far they can go in trying to help the Border Patrol while not running afoul of racial profiling standards.

Assistant Secretary Joe Leonard Jr. said calling the Border Patrol automatically “escalates” encounters between Hispanics and law enforcement. He ruled that the Forest Service cannot routinely summon the Border Patrol for assistance and said the agency now must document suspected racial profiling nationwide.

“Given the increased risk of being questioned about immigration status during an interaction with [Border Patrol], the policy of using BP for interpretation assistance is problematic in all situations because it places a burden on [limited English proficient] individuals that non-LEP individuals do not experience,” Mr. Leonard ruled.

The case stems from a 2011 incident in Olympic National Forest in Washington in which a Forest Service officer encountered a Hispanic couple who he said appeared to be illegally harvesting plants on the federal lands.

The couple didn’t speak English and he didn’t speak fluent Spanish and, anticipating that situation, he called the Border Patrol for backup and translating.

But when a Border Patrol agent arrived, the couple fled. The woman was apprehended, but the man jumped into a river to try to escape and drowned. The Border Patrol took the woman into custody but released her several days later, reportedly on humanitarian grounds.

The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project complained to the Agriculture Department, which oversees the Forest Service, and last week’s ruling was the result.

Matt Adams, legal director of the project, said the Border Patrol has been expanding its reach in the Northwest and that has meant more encounters well away from the border.

“They’ve got nothing to do out there as far as their traditional mission, that is enforcing people coming through the border. So in order to justify those expanded numbers, they utilize these other tactics,” Mr. Adams said. “At the end of the day, they can drag in bigger numbers, but it’s not focused on the border.”

His group is challenging other federal agencies’ use of the Border Patrol for translation services, and has filed requests under the Freedom of Information Act seeking logs for how often agents are used for translation.

Last week’s ruling relies in part on an executive order issued during the Clinton administration that says language is interchangeable with national origin, which is protected by federal law.

Groups that push for English-language policies in the U.S. called the new ruling illegal and said the government appeared to be granting special language rights to illegal immigrants.

“The ACLU and illegal alien rights groups are well aware that American courts have never upheld their argument that language and national origin are equal, so they battle out these disputes in private between the agencies in order to come to a settlement where both the courts and the taxpayers are absent from the table,” said Suzanne Bibby, director of government relations for ProEnglish. “This is their new strategy because they know they will lose in the courts.”

A spokeswoman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which oversees the Border Patrol, said the agency is reviewing the ruling but is committed to civil rights.

The union that represents Forest Service employees didn’t return a call seeking comment.

In the proceedings, the Forest Service fought on behalf of its officer. It pointed to an operational memo with the Border Patrol that said they are allowed to back up each other. Since Forest Service employees generally are not trained in Spanish, Border Patrol agents are particularly helpful in backing up encounters with Hispanics, the agency said.

Mr. Leonard’s 40-page ruling underscored deep mutual distrust on both sides in the town of Forks, in northwestern Washington.

Town residents who told the review board that the Forest Service officer involved in the 2011 stop was known for harassing Hispanics and for working with the Border Patrol.

Meanwhile, the Forest Service officer said he felt like the Hispanic community had been “tracing” his movements.

Mr. Leonard was skeptical of the officer’s reasoning and said he found the complaints from the community more convincing.

The ruling doesn’t reveal the names of those involved.

Underpinning the ruling were some key legal arguments: First, that the complainant was entitled to visit the national forest; second, that a law enforcement stop affects the availability of the service provided by the national forest; and third, that the Forest Service must take steps to protect those with limited English, including making them not feel unduly threatened.

“A policy that causes individuals to actually flee from the service being provided does not provide meaningful access,” Mr. Leonard wrote.

************

Judge Andrew Napolitano:

…Nevertheless, what Jeffersonians are among us today? When drones take pictures of us on our private property and in our homes and the government uses the photos as it wishes, what will we do about it? Jefferson understood that when the government assaults our privacy and dignity, it is the moral equivalent of violence against us. Folks who hear about this, who either laugh or groan, cannot find it humorous or boring that their every move will be monitored and photographed by the government.

Don’t believe me that this is coming? The photos that the drones will take may be retained and used or even distributed to others in the government so long as the “recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function” in requiring them. And for the first time since the Civil War, the federal government will deploy military personnel insidetheUnitedStates and publicly acknowledge that it is deploying them “to collect information about U.S. persons.”

It gets worse. If the military personnel see something of interest from a drone, they may apply to a military judge or “military commander” for permission to conduct a physical search of the private property that intrigues them. Any “incidentally acquired information” can be retained or turned over to local law enforcement. What’s next? Prosecutions before military tribunals in the United States?

The quoted phrases above are extracted from a now-public 30-page memorandum issued by President Obama’s secretary of the Air Force on April 23. The purpose of the memorandum is stated as “balancing … obtaining intelligence information … and protecting individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.” Note the primacy of intelligence-gathering over protection of freedom, and note the peculiar use of the word “balancing.”

When liberty and safety clash, do we really expect the government to balance those values? Of course not. The government cannot be trusted to restrain itself in the face of individual choices to pursue happiness. That’s why we have a Constitution and a life-tenured judiciary: to protect the minority from the liberty-stealing impulses of the majority. And that’s why the Air Force memo has its priorities reversed – intelligence-gathering first, protecting freedom second – and the mechanism of reconciling the two – balancing them – constitutionally incorrect.

Everyone who works for the government swears to uphold the Constitution. It was written to define and restrain the government. According to the Declaration of Independence, the government’s powers come from the consent of the governed. The government in America was not created by a powerful king reluctantly granting liberty to his subjects. It was created by free people willingly granting limited power to their government – and retaining that which they did not delegate.

The Declaration also defines our liberties as coming from our Creator, as integral to our humanity and inseparable from us, unless we give them up by violating someone else’s liberties. Hence, the Jeffersonian and constitutional beef with the word “balancing” when it comes to government power versus individual liberty.

The Judeo-Christian and constitutionally mandated relationship between government power and individual liberty is not balance. It is bias – a bias in favor of liberty. All presumptions should favor the natural rights of individuals, not the delegated and seized powers of the government. Individual liberty, not government power, is the default position because persons are immortal and created in God’s image, and governments are temporary and based on force.

Hence my outrage at the coming use of drones – some as small as golf balls – to watch us, listen to us and record us. Did you consent to the government having that power? Did you consent to the American military spying on Americans in America? I don’t know a single person who has, but I know only a few who are complaining.

If we remain silent when our popularly elected government violates the laws it has sworn to uphold and steals the freedoms we elected it to protect, we will have only ourselves to blame when Big Brother is everywhere. Somehow, I doubt my father’s generation fought the Nazis in World War II only to permit a totalitarian government to flourish here.

Is President Obama prepared to defend this? Is Mitt Romney prepared to challenge it? Are you prepared for its consequences?

 

Prove The Mayans Wrong

For the Record on upcoming Republican “obstructionist” ads and ads that say Republicans WANT to crush College Students over the loan rates because you surely won’t here this from the Ministry of Truth:

Republicans defied a veto threat and the House voted Friday to prevent federal loan costs from doubling for millions of college students. The vote gave the GOP a momentary election-year triumph on a bill that has become enmeshed in partisan battles over the economy, women’s issues and President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

The measure’s 215-195 passage was largely symbolic because the package is going nowhere in the Democratic-dominated Senate. Both parties agree students’ interest costs should not rise, but they are clashing along a familiar fault line over how to cover the $6 billion tab: Republicans want spending cuts and Democrats want higher revenues.(revenues=Taxes).

Democrats wrote a version of the bill, paid for by ending subsidies for oil and gas companies.

Big Oil is, after all, Evil Incarnate.

But this whole created mess is the centerpiece of the President’s strategy to gin up young, naive, stupid people to vote for him. It can’t be over this fast. He can’t have the Republicans being given credit for it. He has so much more fear and loathing to spread!

FEAR IS HOPE!

So they obstruct them, then blame them for not passing a bill that does it there way. After all, it’s their way or the highway!

And the Republicans keep “obstructing” them on that.

Damn them. 🙂

Democrats trained their fire on the Republican plan to pay for the bill by abolishing a preventive health fund created by Obama’s 2010 revamping of the health care system. Democrats said that program especially helped women by allocating money for cancer screening and other initiatives and that eliminating it was only the latest GOP blow against women _ a charge Republicans hotly contested.

“Give me a break,” roared House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to rousing cheers from Republican lawmakers. “This is the latest plank in the so-called war on women, entirely created by my colleagues across the aisle for political gain.”

Democrats voted solidly earlier this year to take money from the preventive health fund to help keep doctors’ Medicare reimbursements from dropping. Obama’s own budget in February proposed cutting $4 billion from the same fund to pay for some of his priorities.

Since the early days of this year’s GOP presidential contest, Democrats have been accusing Republicans of targeting women by advocating curbs on contraceptives and other policies. Polls show women leaning heavily toward Obama and Democrats would like to stoke that margin.

In its veto message, the White House argued that “women in particular” would be helped by the prevention fund and added, “This is a politically motivated proposal and not the serious response that the problem facing America’s college students deserves.” (Townhall)

Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste! 🙂

2008: The Obama campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, accused the Clinton team of playing “the politics of fear” just like George W. Bush.

Burton, now the head of the Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA (one of the main backers of ObamaCare), said at the time: “When Senator Clinton voted with President Bush to authorize the war in Iraq, she made a tragically bad decision that diverted our military from the terrorists who attacked us, and allowed Osama bin Laden to escape and regenerate his terrorist network. It’s ironic that she would borrow the President’s tactics in her own campaign and invoke bin Laden to score political points. We already have a President who plays the politics of fear, and we don’t need another.

Now: We have Throwing Grandma off a cliff, race-baiting, racial division, and so much more.

FEAR IS HOPE

In a new web video titled “One Chance,” the Obama team features former President Bill Clinton praising Obama for deciding to launch the strike last year. “What path would Mitt Romney have taken?” the clip asks.

Mind you, like the “silver spoon” comments it’s all implied. He wants to led your horse to his kool-aid so you’ll drink it.

While I am not the biggest fan of Romney, I am totally against Obama and these kind of tactics are just the opening salvo in an all-out Nuclear Armageddon that the Democrats and their Liberal Media Minions will launch.

After all, all that they have worked for for 90 years is at stake. ObamaCare is potentially still at stake depending on how it goes with the Supreme Court. And if goes against them then they have to double down to win so they can pass it again!

Don’t doubt that. It’s the Holy Grail of Liberalism. They won’t give up quite so easily. All they have to do is win again, replace at least 1 conservative Justice on the Supreme Court and they are off to the Totalitarian races!

So expect nothing less than total and absolute Nuclear Annihilation.

So you pander to base fears. You pander to Hispanics big time (gotta have that Illegal alien Vote – sorry the Liberal want to ban that phrase to because it’s “inhumane” – perfect crimethink). You get the stupid and the naive to vote for you. You get as many independents as possible to stay home and not vote for anyone as you can so you can get your base+the stupid+ the naive to overwhelm the rational.

Vote for me, The Other Guy’s an Asshole!!!

And it starts with the ludicrous notion that a President presented with info to kill or capture the #1 enemy of the country would pass on it.

I think the only reason Obama went for it is because if it leaked out that he didn’t that it would be bad politiks. After all President Clinton passed on Bin Laden several times in the 1990s (but that didn’t hurt him because the liberal media covered it up and they could have for Obama but the internet is much more pervasive now than than it was and it would have leaked out somehow).

“Thanks to President Obama, bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive. You have to ask yourself, if Gov. Romney had been president, could he have used the same slogan — in reverse?” Biden said

Yeah, and The UAW thanks you Mr. Vice President. After all, that was what it was all about in the first place– Unions. The Stimulus was also about Unions.
If you aren’t in a Union (which the vast majority of people aren’t) then you don’t have compulsory “donations” to the Democrat Party as part of your salary and that has to change.
Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said Friday. “It’s now sad to see the Obama campaign seek to use an event that unified our country to once again divide us, in order to try to distract voters’ attention from the failures of his administration.”

But don’t worry, the fear campaign has only begun to ratchet up and the swagger of “I got him and you didn’t” is only just beginning.
Before it’s over the Mayans will be right.

WSJ: Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for “betting against America,” and accuses you of having a “less-than-reputable” record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

Richard Nixon’s “enemies list” appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.

Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled “Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors.” In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having “less-than-reputable records,” the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that “quite a few” have also been “on the wrong side of the law” and profiting at “the expense of so many Americans.”

These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having “outsourced” jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a “lobbyist”) and Thomas O’Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a “bitter foe of the gay rights movement.”

These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.

“We don’t tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things,” says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general. “When you have the power of the presidency—the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC—what you have effectively done is put these guys’ names up on ‘Wanted’ posters in government offices.” Mr. Olson knows these tactics, having demanded that the 44th president cease publicly targeting Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, which he represents. He’s been ignored.

The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that they have given money to Mr. Romney. This fundraiser of a president has shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents.

He’s targeted insurers, oil firms and Wall Street—letting it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution. He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll U.S. elections. The White House even ginned up an executive order (yet to be released) to require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts. Companies could bid but lose out for donating to Republicans. Or they could quit donating to the GOP—Mr. Obama’s real aim.

The White House has couched its attacks in the language of “disclosure” and the argument that corporations should not have the same speech rights as individuals. But now, says Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation, “he’s doing the same at the individual level, for anyone who opposes his policies.” Any giver, at any level, risks reprisal from the president of the United States.

It’s getting worse because the money game is not going as Team Obama wants. Super PACs are helping the GOP to level the playing field against Democratic super-spenders. Prominent financial players are backing Mr. Romney. The White House’s new strategy is thus to delegitimize Mr. Romney (by attacking his donors) as it seeks to frighten others out of giving.

The Obama campaign has justified any action on the grounds that it has a right to “hold the eventual Republican nominee accountable,” but this is a dodge. Politics is rough, but a president has obligations that transcend those of a candidate. He swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that gives every American the right to partake in democracy, free of fear of government intimidation or disfavored treatment. If Mr. Obama isn’t going to act like a president, he bolsters the argument that he doesn’t deserve to be one.

If I can’t get you to vote for me, I can at least try to get you to not vote at all.

But if you vote for the wrong team, expect to feel my wrath if I’m re-elected for I am vengeful God!

We already have a President who plays the politics of fear, that’s why we need to get rid of him.

And the only way is to wade through an all out Nuclear Armageddon of Liberal attacks and vote him out.

Be a Proud Enemy of This State.

And prove the Mayans wrong. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

 Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Proof in the Pudding

Mort Zuckerman: Les Gelb wrote of Obama, “He is so self-confident that he believes he can make decisions on the most complicated of issues after only hours of discussion.” Strategic decisions go well beyond being smart, which Obama certainly is. They must be based on experience that discerns what works, what doesn’t—and why. This requires experienced staffing, which Obama and his top appointees simply do not seem to have. Or as one Middle East commentator put it, “There are always two chess games going on. One is on the top of the table, the other is below the table. The latter is the one that counts, but the Americans don’t know how to play that game.”

Or at least Obama doesn’t.

The end result is that a critical mass of influential people in world affairs who once held high hopes for the president have begun to wonder whether they misjudged the man. They are no longer dazzled by his rock star personality and there is a sense that there is something amateurish and even incompetent about how Obama is managing U.S. power. For example, Obama has asserted that America is not at war with the Muslim world. The problem is that parts of the Muslim world are at war with America and the West. Obama feels, fairly enough, that America must be contrite in its dealings with the Muslim world. But he has failed to address the religious intolerance, failing economies, tribalism, and gender apartheid that together contribute to jihadist extremism. This was startling and clear when he chose not to publicly support the Iranians who went to the streets in opposition to their oppressive government, based on a judgment that our support might be counterproductive. Yet, he reaches out instead to the likes of Bashar Assad of Syria, Iran’s agent in the Arab world, sending our ambassador back to Syria even as it continues to rearm Hezbollah in Lebanon and expands its role in the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance.

Clue: Hamas Charter has the phrase “Kill all the Jews” in it!

His lead from behind style doesn’t work. Waiting to see how it’s going before doing anything is politically safe, but also very politically damaging. And it’s not leadership.

The underlying issue is that the Arab world has different estimates on how to deal with an aggressive, expansionist Iran. The Arabs believe you do not deal with Iran with the open hand of a handshake but with the clenched fist of power. Arab leaders fear an Iran proceeding full steam with its nuclear weapons program on top of its programs to develop intermediate-range ballistic missiles. All the while centrifuges keep spinning in Iran, and Arab leaders ask whether Iran will be emboldened by what they interpret as American weakness and faltering willpower. They did not see Obama or his administration as understanding the region, where naiveté is interpreted as a weakness of character, as amateurism, and as proof of the absence of the tough stuff of which leaders are made. (That’s why many Arab leaders were appalled at the decision to have a civilian trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York. After 9/11, many of them had engaged in secret counterterrorism activities under the umbrella of an American promise that these activities would never be made public; now they feared that this would be the exact consequence of an open trial.)

America right now appears to be unreliable to traditional friends, compliant to rivals, and weak to enemies. One renowned Asian leader stated recently at a private dinner in the United States, “We in Asia are convinced that Obama is not strong enough to confront his opponents, but we fear that he is not strong enough to support his friends.”

He’s not. And with his re-election as the only thing on his mind he could care less. He’s too busy sucking up to the Hispanics, both legal and illegal and trying to not have his own base frack him.

The United States for 60 years has met its responsibilities as the leader and the defender of the democracies of the free world. We have policed the sea lanes, protected the air and space domains, countered terrorism, responded to genocide, and been the bulwark against rogue states engaging in aggression. The world now senses, in the context of the erosion of America’s economic power and the pressures of our budget deficits, that we will compress our commitments. But the world needs the vision, idealism, and strong leadership that America brings to international affairs. This can be done and must be done. But we are the only ones who can do it. (US News and World Report)

Did I happen to mention this article was written by a Democrat?

Obama is bored by international affairs. He’s to busy trying to turn America in the Liberal Utopian Vision that he and his kin have had since the days of Woodrow Wilson.

He doesn’t understand and he doesn’t really care.

And his “leadership” style is to let everyone else run amok and do it for him so he can take credit for it working or blame someone else when it doesn’t.

And give flowery, fiery speech that mean nothing in the end because he’ll reverse even his own speech in a heartbeat if he thinks there’s political advantage.

In short, he’s not up to the job and never was. And people like me who said so, are the “extremists”, the “terrorists” and “nutjobs”.

Speaking of nutjobs, especially ones, that Obama once said he’d meet with unconditionally because he’s such a guy:

“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Iran was determined to eradicate Israel, ISNA news agency reported Thursday.

“‘Iran believes that whoever is for humanity should also be for eradicating the Zionist regime (Israel) as symbol of suppression and discrimination,’ Ahmadinejad said in an interview with a Lebanese television network, carried by ISNA.”

Eradicate. Wow.

Try and spin that one! (by the way, this is not new…)

So let’s sit down and talk over beer and pizza with him about this. If we are nice and respectful and we say “please” maybe he won’t turn the Middle East into a nuclear slag pile.

Oh Mr. President…. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn FodenPolitical Cartoons by Glenn McCoy



The Reverse Trojan Maneuver

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

While campaigning in Nevada Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told an audience of mostly Hispanic voters: “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, okay. Do I need to say more?”

No, please, Harry, just shut up!  For your own good.

******************************************************************
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man spearheading the Ground Zero Mosque initiative, is about to take a month-long trip through the Middle East sponsored by the U.S. government.

No wonder Mayor Bloomberg and the Democrats don’t want to do anything about a mosque 600ft from Ground Zero!

He’s already an apparatchik and we know how this administration treats it’s apparatchiks.

So you have radical Iman who believe American was complicit in 9/11 and wants Sharia law compliance and does not think Hamas is a terrorist organization (even though in there charter it says multiple time “Kill all the Jews”. Look it up sometime) and that dialogue amongst religions is a wast of time  and is a key figure in the Malaysia-based Perdana Global Peace Organization, which helped sponsor the six-ship flotilla that tried to break Israel’s blockade of the Hamas-run Gaza Strip.

So I guess this fall under if you’re going to bed down with a nest of vipers, better to have your own viper. But this one wants to bite you in the ass too! 😦

“He is a distinguished Muslim cleric,” said State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley. “We do have a program whereby, through our Educational and Cultural Affairs Bureau here at the State Department, we send people from Muslim communities here in this country around the world to help people overseas understand our society and the role of religion within our society.”

So to explain how the role of religion works in America you send a radical Muslim cleric who believes in compliance with Sharia law??

Didn’t they just get the memo about the most radical Muslims, the Taliban, killing aid workers for the mere crime of being Christians?

Send a Wolf in Wolf’s clothing to do the Sheep’s Job?

So is Obama trying to say that we can embrace a radical who would destroy us, so that shows our tolerance, please like us and don’t kill us infidels?

Probably, it sounds like liberal logic. My head hurts.

“It is to foster greater understanding and outreach around the world, among… Muslim- majority communities,” said Crowley. “We’ve done this many, many times, with many leading figures… over the past few years.”

But know we know why they lack of outrage, except from the American people on the Ground Zero Mosque. It’s probably a part of this whole deal, a pay off.

And besides, if the normal unwashed peasant masses are against it, that must mean the Political Elites are in on it “for our own good”. 🙂

While there’s no shortage of potentially eloquent ambassadors who could convey to the world the majority sentiment in America, the best man for the job is probably Greg Gutfeld, whose proposal to build a Muslim-friendly gay bar consider[ing] the sensibilities” of one’s neighbors next to the Ground Zero mosque is doing wonders to foster a dialogue about ” (Weekly Standard)

How about a Women’s Center next to that. And Christian Church across the Street (more on that later). Maybe even a Tea Party office too.  🙂

We’re all neighbors after all, and can get along, right… 🙂

Next up:  Sending The American Taliban, John Walker Lind to be Ambassador to Afghanistan.

Gitmo Detainees as ambassadors to the Middle East.

The Son of the pilot of the Enola Gay that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima as Ambassador to Japan.

An anti-Semite Democrat (there are sooo many) be Ambassador to Israel.

It all makes perfect sense doesn’t it! 😦

It’s a Reverse Trojan Horse, when the Trojans let the Greeks built the Horse INSIDE Troy and then act surprised when the soldiers jump out of it and attack them in the middle of the night!

Now that demonstrates our tolerance doesn’t it!  Never look a Gift Horse, even a Trojan one, in the Mouth. 🙂

Like the fabled Trojan Horse, the Cordoba Mosque is touted as an offering of friendship and a chance for us to show our tolerance. But its march toward construction has been marked with deceit, fraud and double standards.

Before Islamofascists turned passenger jets into cruise missiles and toppled the World Trade Center, mosques and Islamic cultural centers dotted America. Not a single Christian church exists in Saudi Arabia. We’ve shown our tolerance. We do not need to show our naivete.

As the New York Post has discovered, one of the parcels the mosque is to be built on is owned by Con Edison, even though Soho Properties told officials and the public it owned all the land. Soho only leases the property. Con Edison mysteriously kept quiet all this time, perhaps at the urging of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, for whom the mosque is a high priority.

It’s certainly a higher priority than St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which used to be right across the street from the WTC until it was crushed when Tower 2 and its incinerated inhabitants came crashing down on it.

Plans to rebuild St. Nicholas two blocks from its original location fell apart when Port Authority officials objected to its 24,000-square-foot footprint with a traditional grand dome that they said could not rise higher than the planned WTC memorial. Yet no objection was raised to a 13-story mosque on which no height restrictions were placed.

It’s not as if there are no Islamic centers of worship in New York City. The Islamic Society-Mid-Manhattan is located on 55th Street. There’s the Islamic Cultural Center of New York on Third Avenue and the Assafa Islamic Center on Allen Street in lower Manhattan.

Incredibly, the Landmarks Commission denied landmark status to one of the buildings on the site, the Burlington Coat Factory building, into which crashed the landing gear from one of the 9/11 planes. Will the mosque have a plaque marking the spot? We doubt it.

Inside, the mosque won’t be Greek soldiers to lay waste to Troy, but Shariah law and its advocates to wage war on a Western civilization they despise. Mosques have served as recruiting and even training centers for terrorism.

Germany has wisely closed Hamburg’s Taiba mosque, once frequented by some of the Sept. 11 attackers. It was searched by police and shut down because German authorities believed it was again being used as a meeting point for Islamist radicals. Mohamed Atta, as well as fellow 9/11 murderers Marwan Al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah, had studied in Hamburg and frequented the mosque.

Neda Bolourchi, a Muslim whose mother died when the plane she was in slammed into the WTC’s north tower, wrote in the Washington Post that “a mosque near ground zero will not move this conversation forward.” But “over time, it will cultivate a fundamentalist version of the Muslim faith,” a version that cultivated 9/11.

Canadian Muslims Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, who sit on the board of the Muslim Canadian Congress, wrote in the Ottawa Citizen of Aug. 7: “We Muslims know that the idea behind the ground zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel.” Or a 13-story middle finger.

Build the memorial, not the mosque. And about that Christian church in Saudi Arabia. (IBD)

Is that a pig flying by my window? 🙂