Monday, May 31, 2010

A Time To Survive

Now it's been ten thousand years
Man has cried a billion tears
For what he never knew
Now man's reign is through

-Zager & Evans, 1969

There is a reason why mother hens eventually push their chicks out of a high nest, and cruelty is not it. It is a matter of survival on its basest level, for the birds - along with every other species of animal but Man - know that in order to propagate the species, self-reliance is paramount.

Certainly all species protect their young when they are unable to fend for themselves, but there comes a time when they too must become the protectors. If they are coddled in perpetuity, they will never make it. It seems Man is the only animal to have forgotten this precious lesson.

Many - especially Baby Boomers - have seen, at some point, an email making the rounds that laments the days gone by when children survived quite nicely despite drinking from garden hoses and crashing homemade vehicles because they forgot to include a braking mechanism. The critical difference is that half a century ago we learned that skinned knees healed and also how to remedy the design faults in our go-karts. Today, however, kids are taught that go-karts are too dangerous to trifle with, so those lessons are never learned.

"Protecting the children" has become such a paranoid condition that we are strangling their will to live and their ability to cope. But the question is, how far are we ready to venture? If a parent today, mimicking the avian world, tossed his child in the water to teach him to swim, he'd be arrested for endangering a minor. Yet many of us learned in exactly that fashion.

I recall a heated argument I had with my father-in-law fifteen years ago. It was just about the time that the government began mandating that children of a certain age wear bicycle helmets. At the time, my son was right on the cusp of that age requirement, and I did not force him to wear a helmet. My father-in-law accused me of not caring about my children, to which I responded that if I truly cared, I would never permit them to even leave the house unless protected by a full Medieval suit of armor. He was not amused. He also missed the point entirely.

Recently, Fox News released a poll asking if the American flag should be banned in public schools. The poll was in response to an event at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, CA. Some American students were suspended for wearing American flag clothing on - gasp! - Cinco de Mayo, a day for Mexican students that, ironically, has no real significance in their own country. While this poll was not scientific at all, the results have been astonishing, nonetheless. More than half of the respondents favor banning the American flag, in an American public school. Why? "To protect the children", of course!

For those who may have missed it, the video is below:

The "yes" question on the poll was stated as such:
Yes. The safety of students comes first.
The "undecided" vote was phrased like this:
Not sure, but of all things to ban, the American flag would seem the least 'incendiary.'

So I am left to question the overall wisdom of such a mindset. What if those young men - many of them little more than children themselves - of the Normandy Invasion were told that their safety came first? And what if the men at Iwo Jima decided that it would be "too incendiary" to raise the Stars and Stripes on that hill?

No, what would be incredibly incendiary would be to try to ban the flag anywhere in this country. It is what so many have fought, bled and died for, the very people we commemorate today.

Happy Memorial Day to all who served, past and living. May God bless you all, and may we, the American people, never forget and never waver in our gratitude.

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, May 29, 2010

The Gusher King

The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is first and foremost in the news, so it's understandable to assume that this article is all about that. True, part of it is, but oil isn't the only thing gushing under this regime.

Obama was elected in part because he was seen as the change, the difference, that the electorate sought. He was ultra-intelligent, we were told. Joe Biden even went so far as to say that Obama was "bright, clean and articulate". However, in his first sixteen months in office, we have realized that he may be cunning, but not so bright; literate, but not necessarily articulate, and clean as far as we can tell, at least hygienically.

There is little doubt that Obama is a skillful politician and a competent community organizer, but the role of Leader of the Free World and , more importantly, Commander in Chief, requires quite a bit more substance than that, something for which Obama demonstrates a dire deficiency.

After ignoring the Gulf spill situation for 5 weeks, Obama finally decided to take a three-hour tour of the area. Appropriately, Gilligan and the Skipper, too, also embarked on a three-hour tour. They caught a freak storm and got lost, and we laughed for a few seasons. Obama is also lost, but there is nothing humorous about his fumbling around like an inebriated man in the dark, considering the fact that he has the keys to the "nuclear button" and has the pin number for the American ATM - the taxpayers - committed to memory.

Which brings us to gusher number two: as Obama depletes America's cash supply with his "money is no object" spending orgy, our debt and deficits continue to climb like Old Faithful reaching toward the sky. We're hemorrhaging wealth like a wound from a severed artery, and unlike the Gulf oil leak, it will take more than thick mud to stop. Congress needs a tourniquet, and we can only pray that 2010 will see the Republicans come in like Florence Nightingale to perform triage.

That is, of course, if there is room at the ER, as gusher number three is of the human variety. The southern border of the United States under this administration is seeing illegal immigrants gushing across into America, emboldened by this president's dereliction of his Constitutional duty to protect the nation. Rather than fight the influx of illegal aliens, the administration chooses instead to fight the state of Arizona's intention of enforcing the law, and to stand with the foreign president Felipe Calderon.

Incredibly, even Congress seems more inclined to fight its own constituents rather than foreign invaders, calling the Tea Party movement "dangerous" and "potentially violent". But ask the people of Arizona along the Mexican border how many home invasions they have endured from Tea Party members. Ask any police department across America how many Tea Party demonstrators they have arrested. Ask how many bottles have been thrown or how many cars have been torched by true patriots who simply demand an adherence to our founding principles and documents.

This regime has caused America to bleed finances, sovereignty and integrity. It has in short order raised the standing of many nations but its own, but only in comparison, as they have not been elevated as much as we have been diminished. It is Obama's desire to flatten the societal amplitude; no peaks, and no valleys.

John Lennon said, "Imagine no possessions".

Barack Obama listened.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Sestak Not Alone, Obama Not Truthful

As the winds swirl and the storm brews over the Joe Sestak allegations, and as the Republicans demand that an investigation be launched, let us remember that Joe Sestak was not the only congressional contender to be approached by the Obama administration.

Way back in September of 2009, the Denver Post reported that former State Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff, after deciding to challenge Sen. Michael Bennett in a Democratic primary, received a "communication" from Jim Messina, President Barack Obama's deputy chief of staff.

From the Denver Post article - which interestingly is no longer available except for a cached view of the webpage - the following excerpt:

Not long after news leaked last month that Andrew Romanoff was determined to make a Democratic primary run against Sen. Michael Bennet, Romanoff received an unexpected communication from one of the most powerful men in Washington.

Jim Messina, President Barack Obama's deputy chief of staff and a storied fixer in the White House political shop, suggested a place for Romanoff might be found in the administration and offered specific suggestions, according to several sources who described the communication to The Denver Post.

Romanoff turned down the overture, which included mention of a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency, sources said.

Then, the day after Romanoff formally announced his Senate bid, Obama endorsed Bennet.
The Post goes on to point out that presidential pressure is nothing new, citing the work of Karl Rove on behalf of President George W. Bush, and referring to the Obama administration's more recent attempts to persuade New York Governor David Paterson to not run for re-election, most likely because Paterson was not a lackey for the administration.

While the practice of seeking to consolidate party power is nearly as old as prostitution, it is not illegal, though no less sleazy. The Paterson affair falls far below the radar of Constitutional conflagration, and even the naked, screaming attack of Eric Massa by the president's Chief of Staff is safe from from legal scrutiny, if not public scorn.

But when a president - already suspected by half of the electorate as subversive to America's ideals and foundation - undertakes felonious methods to achieve such consolidation, red flags (sorry for the pun) are raised. To further exacerbate the stirring of a nervous and suspicious populace, the president today squandered an opportunity to set us at ease.

Holding his first press conference in more than 300 days, he was asked directly about the Sestak allegations. One would have expected that the "most transparent president in history" would have quashed this story with ease. It was not to be:

Oh wait! We still have the little problem from back Illinois way, in the form of former governor Rod Blagojevich. If you recall, Obama has some stake in the hi jinx of that debacle, as well. His press conference response at the time - as President-elect - was the same as his response today:

Most of the above video is bluster about the idiocy of Al Gore and "saving the planet", but the last 30 seconds is telling; Obama asserts that he knew nothing about the Blagojevich saga. "There's Something About Barry" that doesn't quite meet muster. I hope we discover the truth before it's too late. Or, more accurately, I hope the truth is recognized, for the same reason.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

The Sestak Cauldron

Memorial Day weekend is looming on the horizon, a time traditionally to honor the fallen heroes who have made this great republic possible, and to thank them for their incredible sacrifices and service to America. Many still see it that way, while many others see it as the unofficial beginning of Summer.

The Joe Sestak story currently coming to a boil may well fall victim to the machinations of master politicians and their accomplices in the media, for while every weekend brings a temporary numbing of the news consumer, holiday weekends are especially good times to bury breaking news. And perhaps none other than the emergence from Winter ranks among the best. People will be busy readying their outdoors for barbecues, making preparations, and generally avoiding anything electronic, and indoors.

The entire Sestak affair is a puzzling one from many angles. An avowed liberal, one who actually supported health care reform - but who opposed Obama's version because it wasn't liberal enough - Sestak appears to be the sort of Senator the Democrats would have embraced with vigor. Yet the allegations are now that the Obama administration favored party-switching former Republican Arlen Specter, 80, over a former Navy Admiral of liberal pedigree.

This is odd on two fronts. First, while Specter has long been viewed by conservatives as a RINO (Conservative In Name Only), he was still an opportunistic man who became a democrat solely for political survival, something which should have caused a certain degree of suspicion in the Democrat ranks, and especially in the enclave of an uber-liberal like Obama. Second, why support an 80-year-old party traitor with a minimal of service years left in him over a true believer and probable ally like Sestak, only 58 years old, who could theoretically serve in the Senate for much longer?

But Joe Sestak, who defeated Specter in the Pennsylvania election primary for the party nomination, has alleged that the Obama administration offered him a job - perhaps as Secretary to the Navy - in exchange for dropping his opposition to Specter in the race.

And now the tempest threatens the confines of the teapot. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has been under fire a relatively timid press corps for months, and has dodged questions for just as long. See the video below, from On The Record with Great Van Susteren:

The problem now facing the White House is the increasingly pugnacious tone the media has adopted combined with a resurrection of journalistic curiosity. If Helen Thomas has not already retired and decides to enter this fray, I think her tenacity may ignite an inquisition the likes of which this regime never could have imagined.

While it may be worth the price of admission to a modern-day sporting event to witness the rapid deterioration of Obama's paper-thin composure, it all hinges on how successfully his minions bury the mounting furor over the Memorial Day weekend. But I promise this...while I revel in the spirit of this particular weekend and its true meaning, I feel compelled to honor our vets by doing my part to help preserve the republic they have maintained. So I will not allow this to be ignored.

Stay tuned, kids...

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, May 24, 2010

Why The Left Hates Ollie

Oliver North is unabashedly pro-military, which should surprise no one since he is the recipient of the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts and the Presidential Service Badge for his service to America in the Vietnam War. Combine those credentials with his equally intense love for his country, and it is easy to see why liberals hate him.

Thinking that they could destroy such an icon - and subsequently failing - in the 80's with the Iran-Contra scandal, they were frustrated and infuriated. North's addition to the Fox News team was the coup de grace.

In light of the enemies at the helm today, consider this man as our future president. Do you think he'd suffice? I think "Tea Party Approved" would make for a wonderful tag line.

I also think that the combination of the love of country and the Constitution would make any combination of Oliver North and Newt Gingrich unbeatable.

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, May 22, 2010

The Best Of Intentions

It has been said that the road to ruin is often paved with good intentions. All that means, however, is that the end result is still ruination and that the culpability of the party or parties responsible is simply a matter of degree. So now that the Left, i.e Democrats, has complete control of America, the path is clear while the motivations are questionable.

Despite the fact that our "free press" seems to have been co-opted by the federal government, and have ceased to perform their duties responsibly, many Americans are nevertheless aware of the destruction being waged on the country, and they are not happy about it one bit. And the servants elected by the people don't appear to be the least bit concerned about it. That alone should sound the alarm for most, yet it doesn't. I find that more than just a tad disturbing.

For example, the previous administration - that of George W. Bush - was lambasted for out-of-control spending, though in comparison, the effects of those policies seem a mere pittance compared to the financial straits in which we now reside. Imagine hiring a financial adviser after falling so far into debt that you teeter on the precipice of bankruptcy. And imagine that financial adviser recommending that you accelerate your credit spending, and on frivolous things. While he may appear enthusiastic in his desire to help, his advice will nonetheless facilitate your ultimate destruction.

Yet none of the Bush detractors seem concerned in the least about the dizzying spending orgy and spiraling debt of the Obama administration. Never have I witnessed such a spectacle in this nation as that of a new administration taking the reins from the opposing party, accusing that party of heading for a cliff, and then not only continuing on the same road, but accelerating toward the same destination. We are on the equivalent of a joy-ride in a stolen car, driven by a reckless teenager who doesn't comprehend the danger.

Or does he?

Let's examine some other analogies. Let's say you live in a "bad" neighborhood, one ravaged by crime due to drug abuse, with numerous reports of break-ins or home invasions, muggings and murder, or rape. Now let's say the police commissioner announces that everyone should leave their doors open all night. Would you? Of course not, but our federal government is doing the equivalent of that by ignoring our borders and refusing to enforce our laws.

Further, imagine the police stating that because you do lock your doors at night, you are somehow racist and therefore they will not respond to 911 calls from you. The outrage would be nearly chaotic, and yet we have the same thing happening in Arizona, where the federal government is leaving the state to fend for itself and then condemning them for doing so.

Assistant secretary of Homeland Security, John Morton, stated the other day that the feds may not process illegals referred to them by the state of Arizona. His reason? "I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution," he said. As a result, Obama has ordered the Department of Justice to examine the civil rights and other implications of the law. What if they decide that TSA screenings at airports are not the solution? Aren't our civil rights being "violated" each time we fly?

To make matters worse, Morton hasn't read the Arizona law, nor has Napolitano, A.G. Eric Holder, or the president himself. That still does not stop them from criticizing it, all because they want to appear to "care" about the rights of people who really have no right to be here. And they won't even respond to Governor Jan Brewer's pleas for help.

Call it good intentions toward the Mexican people if you will. I still prefer the charge of dereliction of duty.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, May 20, 2010

The Madness Closes In

Once upon a time, I viewed the madness of the rest of the world from the cozy sanctuary of the borders of America, confident that I was immune from its effects and content to enjoy a modicum of amusement as I watched. Then, like BP oil washing up on Gulf Coast shores, the insanity invaded silently while I slumbered. Now I find myself literally engulfed in it.

It started nearly a decade ago, when wealthy and bloated entertainers decided that jihadist muslims were free from culpability in the Twin Tower attacks, focusing instead on the evil man in the White House, George W. Bush. Liberal "icons" such as Michael Moore opined with impunity that our own leadership was responsible for the deaths of 3000 people and the destruction of property almost beyond comprehension. And they developed a following among the people that was somewhat startling and equally terrifying.

But that was just the beginning. The outside world was clearly attentive and learned much from the forked tongues of the American elite. I thought at one time that Baghdad Bob - the poor Iraqi soul who claimed that the Americans would perish at the gates of the city, even as our tanks thundered past in the background - was a rare anomaly, but I was wrong. He was the template for what would follow, both exotically and domestically. And now our president could be the hybrid, for we know not his status in that regard; exotic or domestic.

While the rest of the world spins into chaotic fantasy, and the global media reports obediently, our own governments, both local and federal, seems all too willing to follow suit. As North Korea threatens war on their southern neighbor if South Korea dares retaliate for the North's sinking of a vessel killing 46 South Koreans, the media carefully avoids any hint of incredulity. When Hamas launches thousands of rockets into Israel, the media snores, but awakens with a start when Israel responds in even the mildest manner.

When Iran declares that Israel will survive less than a week if that country attacks, the media resembles weary air travellers on a 24-hour flight delay, but circle like hungry and frenzied sharks if Israel builds an apartment complex. And American states enjoying hundreds or thousands of miles of buffer zone from Mexico and her invaders have collectively decided that one of their own, Arizona, is somehow evil and must be punished.

The media portrays the Arizona situation as the exception, neglecting the fact that 60% of the country supports the state and its stance. And our own elected representatives cheer the scorn of a foreign president, Felipe Calderon, in the hallowed halls of our chambers. This video should chill everyone who watches it, especially because the Mexican leader displays a chutzpah and a level of hypocrisy which is nothing short of infuriating.

Perhaps even more aggravation can be derived from the fact that United States congress-critters felt compelled to give the idiot a standing ovation for slamming our country in our own halls. Especially after Calderon's explanation of his own countries immigration laws, seen here.

Our United States Attorney General attacked Arizona's law, but admitted that he hasn't read it. Our nation's Secretary of Homeland Security - and the former governor of Arizona - said she would not have signed the bill into law, although she, too, has not read it. We have Congress people fighting to enact legislation they have not read. Alleged leaders all across the globe seem to have passed through some sort of "stupid ray", which would be bad enough, but we have always counted on the journalists to keep the ship right. Sadly, they seem to have been affected by the same rays, and we're left with the immune who have not quite figured out how to circumvent the calculated scorn of their peers or their targets.

The few who hold out for the truth and disseminate it for us have been successfully relegated to the status of heretics. We're left to wade through madness or suffer the slings and arrows from the "establishment", who have already succumbed to the madness and communicate it to the rest of us. I just pray that we, the innoculated, can survive the epidemic of stupidity.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Social Justice is a Misnomer

It is a common tactic of the Left; manipulate language - and in so doing, the minds of the people - in an effort to promulgate a false notion. "Social justice" is but one example, for how could anyone be opposed to anything linked to justice? It is a condition we all seek as civilized humans and to stand in its way risks vilification from the champions of such. Further, those who trumpet the tenets of social justice place themselves in the position of exemplars, immune from criticism and defended without reason.

Ironically, it is usually people of power and influence - already wealthy beyond the imaginations of the common - who campaign hardest for social justice, and who are seen as heroic. Virtually unnoticed, however, is the fact that these crusaders have usually insulated themselves from the struggle, securing their fortunes from the rules they seek to impose on the masses. Even more ironic is that those who profess their love most loudly for the unfortunate are the very people who have amassed their empires at the expense of the people who enriched them.

Entertainers and politicians thrive on the dollars of the working class, a term I am loathe to use, but one which nevertheless is appropriate. I am among the working class, one who lives day-to-day on a salary, and one who wishes for more. But rather than demand that I receive the fruits of another's labors, I instead strive to achieve more through my own. Some would categorize that thought process as archaic. I prefer the term "American".

Our Founders set out to make this nation one comprised of the self-sufficient, pilgrims who staked their own claim to a dream without bounds; a place where a man could make of himself whatever he dreamed and subsequently worked for, no matter the pitfalls. Nowhere in our history was there a guarantee of success, but rather a guarantee of the freedom of the quest. It was the formula for success, as America has proven to be the most prosperous nation in the shortest time span Man has ever known.

What has changed in the span of a few centuries that would cause the derision of such a successful system? As past philosophers have pointed out through time, that change can be summarized as the thirst for power and control, something that has historically proven too tempting for Man to resist.

Mankind is inherently insatiable, a characteristic that can be both good and bad. On the one hand, it is the force that compels us to improve and to advance. Without it, we would still be living in caves and clubbing our neighbors for possessions. The downside, however, is that we behave that way, even if only figuratively, even in the relative Utopia in which we live.

Morality has played a large role in how we navigate the terrain of progress, setting up and abiding by certain rules of conduct in our journeys to success. There is no doubt that the "game" can be rough at times, but many of us recognize the boundaries of misconduct and merely test the limits without crossing the line wantonly. The main difference, though, has been that our "game" has been self-governing, much like a child's pick-up baseball game.

Now, however, we have our Federal Government - which was originally intended by our Founders as a severely limited body - not only carving rules in stone, but etching rules which they were never authorized to compose, much less enforce. Unfortunately, there are multitudes of "beneficiaries" who have long abandoned caring about the abuses of government so long as they can be cared for and released from personal responsibility. And far worse is the fact that government is comprised of Man, an entity not immune to the fragrance of power.

What we're left with is a strange triangular relationship, in which wealthy and powerful Men decide who "has enough" and who is "needy", a potentially unstable and incendiary mixture that could blow a huge hole in the fabric of society. The most frightening aspect of this concoction is that nearly half of Americans have been indoctrinated into the belief that Government will "set them free", which it may just do, albeit in the falsest of terms.

Freedom in its truest sense means "without tether", a notion completely alien to even the most direct descendants of the great men who forged this nation. That is a sad commentary on where we now stand. While it may be true that civilized Man seeks comfort, a civilized and free man must never seek domination in its stead. Such a thing would be tantamount to "coming full circle". To flee tyranny - and die to stave it off - only to squander the sacrifices made on our behalf seems a travesty of Biblical proportion.

Since the federal government lacks the resources to make everyone equally wealthy, the only alternative - and one which is well within the means of the federal government - is to stifle economic prosperity for those with the desire to achieve such in favor of a lower bar that will ensure the "equality and justice" they seek. This, however, does nothing for the betterment of the individual, but is a boon for the power concentration the left seeks. Interestingly, they have no shame in exploiting the downtrodden in their quest for dominance, and strive for the same under the guise of social justice.

"Social justice" is a tool of the Marxist, who sees success as exploitation rather than opportunity. For as much as the Capitalist entrepreneur enriches himself, his is also the melting stream that nourishes the valley below. Without him, there are no jobs, there are no wages, and there is no prosperity.

Consider the Leftist regime in place right now as the entity that would have us sniffing plastic flowers in eco-friendly planting pots. They may look pretty, but they're not real. Neither is the Utopia they plan for us.

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

A Brief Retreat

A week away from the news cycle can be very refreshing, especially with sights like this. From Colorado...

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, May 8, 2010

Baby Steps Toward the Ulterior Motive

If Sanity Sentinel had been in existence a decade ago and I had written that radical Islam would knock down the financial capitol of the world and then plant its figurative flag on the site, I would have been laughed out of blogdom. Then again, I never would have dreamed of such a thing myself, so it would never have been written. The idea that America could possibly be victimized and humiliated in such a manner was simply too ludicrous to ponder.

And yet, such a scenario is looming ever closer to fruition. The difference lies only in the fact that the perpetrators have not proceeded as American soldiers of Iwo Jima had done, where it was a rapid succession of battle, victory, flag-planting. No, this time it's accomplished through baby steps and conniving.

The World Trade Center has already been removed, courtesy of al Qaeda, so stage one of what would normally have been considered pure fantasy is already completed. American Muslims have since professed faux revulsion at the act and vowed to work towards building understanding and education, a communal healing in supposed solidarity with their host country.

What's worse, however, is that this charade is being aided by allegedly well-meaning dupes who apparently cherish "tolerance" above survival, or even a modicum of pride. So meek are they in their desire to finally sing kumbaya that they offer their throats willingly to the wolf. It follows the false logic that there is no need to fight as long as we can compromise - by giving them what they want.

An Associated Press story from May 6th lays out the plans for a $100 million, 13-story mosque to be built in the former shadows of the Twin Towers in New York City. From the article:

"In a building damaged by debris from the Sept. 11 airliners that brought down the World Trade Center and soon to become a 13-story mosque, some see the bridging of a cultural divide and an opportunity to serve a burgeoning, peaceful religious population. Others see a painful reminder of the religious extremism that killed their loved ones."
Daisy Khan, the executive director of one of the groups, American Society for Muslim AdvancementDefends the idea this way:
"We want to create a platform by which the voices of the mainstream and silent majority of Muslims will be amplified. A center of this scale and magnitude will do that," Khan said. "We feel it's an obligation as Muslims and Americans to be part of the rebuilding of downtown Manhattan."
This mosque, which is nothing more than the ultimate insult, is being offered as a gift, which makes it doubly offensive. And the folks who make up the city council are like pre-pubescent children on Christmas morning, unable to control their desire to gleefully tear into the wrapping paper. Meanwhile, the original goal will have been achieved; the successful removal of an American symbol replaced with the flag of Mohammed, albeit in the shape of a 13-story abomination.

I wonder what a Muslim end-zone dance looks like.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Curses, Foiled Again

I suppose most would think the title refers to the latest failed terrorist attack on New York City, and for that I could not fault them. But it's really a commentary on the ache of the liberal media-ites for which relief always seems just beyond reach. It appears as a hazy mirage, dancing before their eager eyes, and they clutch at it hungrily yet are always left with nothing but wispy tendrils of ether. And the pain lingers on.

In the case of the Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, the benefit of the doubt was not only given to radical Muslims, it was deeply desired. The media went out of its collective way to speculate on every possibility but jihad despite the long-discarded notion that journalism is about facts and not speculation.

The media breathlessly commented on the presence of "a white male" changing his shirt, and Mayor Bloomberg opined on Katie Couric's show that it was probably some nut who acted alone and was "Homegrown maybe a mentally deranged person or someone with a political agenda that doesn't like the health care bill or something. It could be anything." (Translation: probably a right-wing Tea Party guy).

Then the news came out that it was - surprise! - a Pakistan-born Muslim, and the giddy media bubble was instantly burst. Oh, they struggled to maintain the spectre of a "homegrown" man, a "naturalized citizen", they said, but it wasn't long before even that aura dissipated. So invested were they in the hope that it was a right-wing Tea Party guy that the disappointment was palpable, even articulated by some. Contessa Brewer of MSNBC, for example, had this to say:

"I mean the thing is is that and I get frustrated and there was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry.
And so there was part of me was really hoping this would not be the case that here would be somebody who is not the defined. I mean he’s accused he’s arrested you know I don’t want to convict him before it’s time to do so. He’s the guy authorities say is involved. But that being said I mean we know even in recent history you have the Haitari(sic) militia from Michigan who have plans to let’s face it create terror.
That’s what they were planning to do and they were doing so from far different backgrounds then what this guy is coming from. So, the threat is not just coming from people who decide that America is the place to be and you know come here and want to become citizens. Obviously this guy did."
For those who wish to witness the anguish, the video is below:
Right to the bitter end the Contessa clings to the claim that "this guy did" want to become a citizen - which is partly true because he did become a citizen - but it is now clear that his intent was anything but a craving for apple pie. For example, he couldn't pay his mortgage, but he could travel to Pakistan thirteen times in ten years.

For a man about to lose his home to foreclosure, he had cash to lay out for the SUV he planned to detonate in Times Square, as well as the materials for the bomb. Then, after being placed on the "no-fly" list, he still managed to drive for an hour and a half from Connecticut to JFK Airport, and buy a one-way ticket, to Dubai, with more cash. And yet no one thought there was anything untoward about this, and he was boarded on the plane.

Still, liberals continued the charade that he was but one lone, lost soul and that there was no evidence that he did not act alone. They never stopped to consider the uber-secret society of al Qaida operatives in the Middle East and their hypersensitivity to to being discovered. So it makes no sense that some poor, down-on-his-luck schlub "from Connecticut" - no matter his Pakistani heritage - could fly to Pakistan, stand forlornly in the airport with a sign, and subsequently be taken under the wing of deadly terrorists for some classes.

And now, reluctantly, some media outlets are reporting that he did receive training, which is the final blow to lugubrious reporters who watch the dream of blaming some Midwestern militia for the near mayhem evaporate into thin air. Perhaps they will get another chance in the near future to dream again. But for now, the Tea Party people go about painting their clever signs for the next demonstration in between helping their grandchildren with homework.

Apple pie for true Americans is a sweet treat. Pity that so many among us view it as bitter fruit.

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, May 1, 2010

Humility, He Knows Ye Not

According to the New York Times today, Barack Hussein Obama is suddenly worried about sourcing for election campaign contributions, and is calling on Congress to move (quickly, no doubt) on reversing the recent Supreme Court ruling in that regard. Saying that, "We’ve all seen groups with benign-seeming names sponsoring television commercials that make accusations and assertions designed to influence the public debate and sway voters’ minds", Obama brings new meaning to the word "hypocrisy".

On its face, that statement is ludicrous because swaying voters' minds is what the sale is all about. Is he trying to vilify the word "persuasive" now, in the same way allegedly pro-choice people have done with the word "discrimination"? But alas, I digress...

The Times article begins with:

President Obama, warning of a “potential corporate takeover of our elections,” called on Congress Saturday to undo the effects of a recent Supreme Court ruling by imposing strict disclosure requirements on campaign spending by companies, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups.
"Strict disclosure requirements" were certainly not of his concern in his own campaign, however. Nor was the prospect of corporate influence, having received $1,007,370.85 (inflation adjusted) from Goldman-affiliated executives and employees. And his own campaign received illegal donations from foreign interests, despite the fact that the "mainstream" media refuses to report on it. Unfortunately, many believe that if the New York Times doesn't report it, it didn't happen.

How ironic it is, then, that American Thinker has an article reiterating their past investigative findings of contributions to Obama from a Hamas refugee camp in Gaza. According to the article, Osama, Hossam and Edwan Monir donated $33,000 to Obama from the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza; much more per person than the guideline of $2,300 per person in one election to one candidate. From the article:
But Obama pricked up his ears. He smelled trouble and while no media asked, he answered anyway. Sen. Obama's campaign immediately scrambled and contended they had returned the $33,500 in illegal contributions from Palestinians in Hamas-controlled Gaza, despite the fact that records do not show that it was returned and the brothers said they have not received any money. Having gone through all of Obama's refunds redesignations etc, no refund was made to Osama, Hossam, or Edwan Monir in the Rafah refugee camp. And still no media.
So let's recap; In the 2008 campaign, Obama received over one million dollars from a corporation - one that he ironically attacks now - received contributions from jihadis in a foreign country, and was more than a little vague in his disclosures to the FEC. Now he wants to make the rules more stringent. Something smells.

Sphere: Related Content