Look closely at the following picture
That is Mr. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula the alleged producer/director of the Benny Hill type video called "Innocence of Muslims". After this ridiculous video was blamed for supposedly inciting rioting in the Arab world, this man was arrested under the premise of a parole violation(s).
I neither dismiss nor assure that one of his conditions toward parole was violated, that will be up to judge to decide, but I do state that I don't know of many people who would have been so publicly arrested for a parole violation.
There is an incredibly slippery slope here, a man was arrested in the United States of America for using his freedom of speech. There is currently on Broadway a very funny play mocking Mormonism, and said play has been lauded with critical praise and Tony awards. While I haven't seen the play, I'm sure it is as good and funny as the critics and awards testify to it. Yet I don't see any Mormons picketing the play, much less killing anyone over it.
Yet here we have a badly made video (I have seen the video, believe me, comparing it to Benny Hill is a gross injustice to Mr. Hill) and because it was used as a pretext, after the fact, for all the violence that happened, a man is being persecuted over it in our country. Prosecution over free speech is something that the world is used to seeing in Arab nations, not here in our country.
We, as Americans, should be not only angered that our nation isn't defending the right to this man to express himself in any medium he desires, but that we aren't condemning more strongly those that murdered our officials. We should be indignant that nearly three weeks have passed and our government still hasn't taken any steps to give justice to those that perished.
Search This Blog
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Trickle Down Theory & Tax Cuts For The Rich
A nice little video for my Liberal friends to drool over.
And if you're one of my Conservative friends, grab a cup of joe and relax to the soothing voice of Thomas Sowell
And if you're one of my Conservative friends, grab a cup of joe and relax to the soothing voice of Thomas Sowell
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Chicago Burns Again
It appears that Rahmbo had to fall on his sword to protect his Daimyo. The cost? Rahmbo's balls, Chicago's fiscal foundation and the students of Chicago
Burn baby burn!
UPDATE
IT appears Rahmbo, even after falling on his sword for his lord and master, must now further kiss the Teacher's Union asses because they have changed their mind. Apparently the teachers want to see what more they can get. One can't make this stuff up. Chutzpah baby...pure chutzpah.
Chutzpah!
Burn baby burn!
UPDATE
IT appears Rahmbo, even after falling on his sword for his lord and master, must now further kiss the Teacher's Union asses because they have changed their mind. Apparently the teachers want to see what more they can get. One can't make this stuff up. Chutzpah baby...pure chutzpah.
Chutzpah!
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Statements Matter
Statements are important. A lot of political blustering has been made about statements as I read regarding the attacks on our embassies and the death of our Libyan ambassador along with three other brave souls.
I have been deeply angered and affected by what has transpired on then eleventh anniversary of the deadliest terror attack on the American homeland. But my anger doesn't just rest at these attacks, but as equally on the apologies and lack of indignation I am witnessing among not only the press, but our political leaders and the American public.
I refer to the fact that we as a nation have been attacked again, and instead of feeling outrage at those that attacked us, we opt to apologize, or in the case of Cairo, overlook what the attackers have done.
I'm going to break down the events as I was receiving the alerts via twitter feeds, news articles and State Dept. statements.
Prior to the attacks at the Cairo embassy, our staff there got wind that trouble was brewing. They were either told, or warned or perhaps simply deduced, that perhaps one of the reasons for the manifestation that would eventually occur, could be linked to some really horribly made movie that depicts Mohammed as a pedophile or some such thing. So our embassy in Cairo released that highly pathetic and craven statement that essentially apologizes for us having free speech.
As you all are now aware, the embassy was attacked, our flag was taken down, burned and then the supposed black flag of al-Qaeda was raised in its place.
Now this is important, at this point the only official statement regarding any of this was this apologia that our embassy in Cairo made. Furthermore, it reissued the same statement after the attack on our Cairo embassy and just prior to the Libyan attack (this repeat statement is the one they then either tried to delete, or was deleted from the twitter feed when obviously someone at either State or the White House realized how pathetic it was. More on this later though).
Some interesting points to make out about the attack on our Cairo embassy. It appears, contrary to what is being reported last night, this attack had very little to do about any film, but rather a well organized and premeditated attack quite possibly conducted by al-Qaeda. Also, much like when our embassy was overrun in Iran back in 1979 during the hostage crisis which ensued, the local authorities did absolutely nothing to prevent this. Even though they have the logistics, equipment and wherewithal to put an end to any demonstration it wants to terminate. As was evidenced by the way they have brought order to Egypt post Mubarak. On the other hand, The Libyan attack was much different.
A few hours later a much more violent demonstration begins to take place in Libya. As opposed to the attack in Cairo, which was essentially unarmed, this one had guns, rifles and even RPG's. This was a deadly mob. It is important to know that when this attack was occurring, very little was known of what actually was happening. I recall sitting at dinner and receiving several tweets that we had a casualty, it was reported at the time as a service personnel. But all this was unconfirmed as it was happening.
Up until this time the only statement on record from our govt. was that apologia. Nothing from the White House nor from State. Many of us, myself included, were offended and angered that here we have reports that an American has possibly died and the statement of record is this bullshit apology/ mea culpa statement.
Mitt Romney finally issued the following statement soon after the possibility of a death in Libya did occur:
"I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
That's it. That's the famous statement that everyone today is supposedly indignant over. He only expressed what anyone who was concerned about events over there were voicing to themselves but lacked a platform to say to the world that we Americans are angered and deeply offended by what is transpiring half a world away.
Yet that statement has received more condemnation today, not just from the media, but our leaders from both sides, and that is baffling. And what is most confusing and perplexing is that no one really has harped on the apologia, or the lack of further clarification as events unfolded.
It wasn't until the following morning that the administration finally made a statement confirming the death of our four State Dept. embassy officials in Libya. And while there was a condemnation on the attack of our Libyan embassy, a remarkable omission also occurred, the President never mentioned the attack on our Egyptian embassy.
I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.
I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.
On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya's transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.
The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.
Nothing. Not a single word regarding Cairo. Makes one wonder that if these horrible deaths had not occurred if the President would have just ignored it.
I've tried to place the Cairo apologia in perspective, but the only comparison I can conjure is the following:
Imagine a women were to go to a bar wearing the shortest skirt, the most revealing top and acted in an overt promiscuous way. Because of this the men at the bar decided that because of her provocative demeanor they were entitled to rape her. Now try to imagine that after her rape trial the jury finds her guilty and orders her to apologize to her rapists. Perhaps the men go punished but she still has to apologize. In essence, we are condoning the act of the rapists because she was provocatively dressed. And perhaps to add further insult to injury, she is fined for not knowing any better that a woman should never dress provocatively when she goes out, especially to a bar with men.
The Cairo statement says that we are sorry for offending you so please don't riot, and the Presidents statement says, so long as you don't kill anyone and just keep it to burning our flag we won't even scold you publicly..
Yet Romney is the bad guy. It appears to me that Romney is the only sane one.
As I've been trying to piece together this rant, our embassy in Yemen has been attacked, the embassy in Cairo has been attacked...again, and our embassy in Berlin had to be evacuated due to a suspicious package. Secy. of State Clinton has issued statements that are sterner in words if not in action.
So what is going on here? Statements matter. Leaving that apologia as the de facto statement of the United States while two of our embassies were attacked, burned and in its wake left four more American dead to add to the ranks of 9/11, that is deplorable. Americans yesterday were mourning. We will be mourning this date for least a generation, if not more. We ache as a nation whenever the date approximates never mind if you're a NY'er the pain is even deeper and anger is still naturally palpable.
Had the President not issued any statements would have been bad, but not issuing anything and letting that Cairo statement be the position of the United States while embassies were burning and Americans were dying, especially on 9/11. I don't know adjectives that fully describe what I feel about this president today.
A very liberal minded friend who's opinions I respect and admire, offered the following excuse for the President, he said that he would prefer a President that is calm, cool and collected while in the midst of a crisis. That is all well and good, but I contend that if the midst of getting all calm, cool and collected Americans are dying, then he has to get cooler faster and decisiveness needs to replace calm.
I have been deeply angered and affected by what has transpired on then eleventh anniversary of the deadliest terror attack on the American homeland. But my anger doesn't just rest at these attacks, but as equally on the apologies and lack of indignation I am witnessing among not only the press, but our political leaders and the American public.
I refer to the fact that we as a nation have been attacked again, and instead of feeling outrage at those that attacked us, we opt to apologize, or in the case of Cairo, overlook what the attackers have done.
I'm going to break down the events as I was receiving the alerts via twitter feeds, news articles and State Dept. statements.
Prior to the attacks at the Cairo embassy, our staff there got wind that trouble was brewing. They were either told, or warned or perhaps simply deduced, that perhaps one of the reasons for the manifestation that would eventually occur, could be linked to some really horribly made movie that depicts Mohammed as a pedophile or some such thing. So our embassy in Cairo released that highly pathetic and craven statement that essentially apologizes for us having free speech.
As you all are now aware, the embassy was attacked, our flag was taken down, burned and then the supposed black flag of al-Qaeda was raised in its place.
Now this is important, at this point the only official statement regarding any of this was this apologia that our embassy in Cairo made. Furthermore, it reissued the same statement after the attack on our Cairo embassy and just prior to the Libyan attack (this repeat statement is the one they then either tried to delete, or was deleted from the twitter feed when obviously someone at either State or the White House realized how pathetic it was. More on this later though).
Some interesting points to make out about the attack on our Cairo embassy. It appears, contrary to what is being reported last night, this attack had very little to do about any film, but rather a well organized and premeditated attack quite possibly conducted by al-Qaeda. Also, much like when our embassy was overrun in Iran back in 1979 during the hostage crisis which ensued, the local authorities did absolutely nothing to prevent this. Even though they have the logistics, equipment and wherewithal to put an end to any demonstration it wants to terminate. As was evidenced by the way they have brought order to Egypt post Mubarak. On the other hand, The Libyan attack was much different.
A few hours later a much more violent demonstration begins to take place in Libya. As opposed to the attack in Cairo, which was essentially unarmed, this one had guns, rifles and even RPG's. This was a deadly mob. It is important to know that when this attack was occurring, very little was known of what actually was happening. I recall sitting at dinner and receiving several tweets that we had a casualty, it was reported at the time as a service personnel. But all this was unconfirmed as it was happening.
Up until this time the only statement on record from our govt. was that apologia. Nothing from the White House nor from State. Many of us, myself included, were offended and angered that here we have reports that an American has possibly died and the statement of record is this bullshit apology/ mea culpa statement.
Mitt Romney finally issued the following statement soon after the possibility of a death in Libya did occur:
"I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
That's it. That's the famous statement that everyone today is supposedly indignant over. He only expressed what anyone who was concerned about events over there were voicing to themselves but lacked a platform to say to the world that we Americans are angered and deeply offended by what is transpiring half a world away.
Yet that statement has received more condemnation today, not just from the media, but our leaders from both sides, and that is baffling. And what is most confusing and perplexing is that no one really has harped on the apologia, or the lack of further clarification as events unfolded.
It wasn't until the following morning that the administration finally made a statement confirming the death of our four State Dept. embassy officials in Libya. And while there was a condemnation on the attack of our Libyan embassy, a remarkable omission also occurred, the President never mentioned the attack on our Egyptian embassy.
I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.
I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.
On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya's transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.
The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.
Nothing. Not a single word regarding Cairo. Makes one wonder that if these horrible deaths had not occurred if the President would have just ignored it.
I've tried to place the Cairo apologia in perspective, but the only comparison I can conjure is the following:
Imagine a women were to go to a bar wearing the shortest skirt, the most revealing top and acted in an overt promiscuous way. Because of this the men at the bar decided that because of her provocative demeanor they were entitled to rape her. Now try to imagine that after her rape trial the jury finds her guilty and orders her to apologize to her rapists. Perhaps the men go punished but she still has to apologize. In essence, we are condoning the act of the rapists because she was provocatively dressed. And perhaps to add further insult to injury, she is fined for not knowing any better that a woman should never dress provocatively when she goes out, especially to a bar with men.
The Cairo statement says that we are sorry for offending you so please don't riot, and the Presidents statement says, so long as you don't kill anyone and just keep it to burning our flag we won't even scold you publicly..
Yet Romney is the bad guy. It appears to me that Romney is the only sane one.
As I've been trying to piece together this rant, our embassy in Yemen has been attacked, the embassy in Cairo has been attacked...again, and our embassy in Berlin had to be evacuated due to a suspicious package. Secy. of State Clinton has issued statements that are sterner in words if not in action.
So what is going on here? Statements matter. Leaving that apologia as the de facto statement of the United States while two of our embassies were attacked, burned and in its wake left four more American dead to add to the ranks of 9/11, that is deplorable. Americans yesterday were mourning. We will be mourning this date for least a generation, if not more. We ache as a nation whenever the date approximates never mind if you're a NY'er the pain is even deeper and anger is still naturally palpable.
Had the President not issued any statements would have been bad, but not issuing anything and letting that Cairo statement be the position of the United States while embassies were burning and Americans were dying, especially on 9/11. I don't know adjectives that fully describe what I feel about this president today.
A very liberal minded friend who's opinions I respect and admire, offered the following excuse for the President, he said that he would prefer a President that is calm, cool and collected while in the midst of a crisis. That is all well and good, but I contend that if the midst of getting all calm, cool and collected Americans are dying, then he has to get cooler faster and decisiveness needs to replace calm.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Rahm vs. Chicago School Union
I am real interested in seeing how this plays out. Not just to see if Rahm faces down the unions a la Scott Walker in Wisconsin, but more importantly, will Obama endorse the teachers unions, quite possibly undermining his Democratic mayor and ex-Chief of Staff at the White House; support Rahm but draw the complete ire of unions everywhere, not just the teachers, further widening the rift that exists with the unions and the Obama's administration after Obama's very noticeable lack of overt support in the Wisconsin battle; or just sit in the sidelines, which is probably the worst scenario of all
Regardless what does transpire, the possibility of this strike having election liabilities for the president is great. The unions have already announced thier great displeasure with this administration by the lack of support the president showed for them in Wisconsin, the last thing the president wants are the unions either staying home or casting a protest vote against the president.
.Rahm the Enforcer, or Rahm the ass kisser?
Regardless what does transpire, the possibility of this strike having election liabilities for the president is great. The unions have already announced thier great displeasure with this administration by the lack of support the president showed for them in Wisconsin, the last thing the president wants are the unions either staying home or casting a protest vote against the president.
.Rahm the Enforcer, or Rahm the ass kisser?
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Great article on character when deciding on who should lead our nation. The Romans had the perfect word for this, Gravitas.
Article doesn't pick sides nor insinuates one way or another, just offers a different perspective than the typical rhetoric during the campaign
"Character, Policy and the Selection of Leaders is republished with permission of Stratfor."
Article doesn't pick sides nor insinuates one way or another, just offers a different perspective than the typical rhetoric during the campaign
"Character, Policy and the Selection of Leaders is republished with permission of Stratfor."
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Fact Checking Bubba
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"
Yeah, that Bubba
Greatest used car salesman on the planet
Yeah, that Bubba
Greatest used car salesman on the planet
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
CONGRATULATIONS AMERICA! $16+ TRILLION AND COUNTING!
According to Nobel prize winning economist, NYT editorialist and certified moonbat, the reason we aren't in a better shape is because w haven't SPENT MORE!
I insist, his calculator needs to be taken away!
@WSJ: RT @damianpaletta: Total U.S. debt breached $16 trillion for first time Friday. Likely to hit $16.394T debt ceiling in late December http://t.co/NdqmYBkq
Monday, September 3, 2012
Are "The Troubles" Really Gone In Northern Ireland?
While much is being made about all the acts of peace occurring between both factions, such as the Queen meeting a known IRA terrorist, I can't help feel that all of it is nothing more than a beautiful apple with a rotten core
@cnnbrk: Dozens of police injured in Northern Ireland clashes. http://t.co/TuHfn5hC
Are We Better Off Now Than Four Years Ago?
Not even the big Kahunas in the administration want to answer this
That was yesterday, today...damage control
Spin Control
That was yesterday, today...damage control
Spin Control
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Prez is Going Fishing
Folks, this is scary stuff
Realize what is going on here, the NY AG is going to conduct a fishing expedition to see if any companies, which one happens to be Bain Capital, has done anything improper. Mind you, this is being done without any reasonable cause of impropiety. The only credible claim is that the blog site "Gawker", a Hollywood tabloid blog, posted some Bain related material that was given to them.
Wow.
Realize what is going on here, the NY AG is going to conduct a fishing expedition to see if any companies, which one happens to be Bain Capital, has done anything improper. Mind you, this is being done without any reasonable cause of impropiety. The only credible claim is that the blog site "Gawker", a Hollywood tabloid blog, posted some Bain related material that was given to them.
Wow.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
The Messy and Ugly Divorce Between the RNC and the Libertarians
As this Republican convention began an event occurred that I was anticipating to pass. The messy and ugly divorce between the RNC and the Libertarian branch of the Republican party. To those that actually follow the boring, into the weeds dynamics of internecine party politics, this came as no surprise. The only thing none of us knew was how this inevitability would manifest itself: A somewhat amicable parting, or a train wreck. Train wreck won.
Without going into too much details how the RNC, or in this case Romney's campaign, went about it, if you are one of those that is a devout adherent to Paul and the Libertarian wing, the parting must have felt like a complete repudiation of your beliefs. Or in my vernacular, a bitchslap.
But was it undeserved? In my opinion, the bitchslap was meant to be more than a shot across a bow it was meant to repudiate and dismiss this branch from the party. Let's get one thing clear about party politics, they offer a comforting blanket for splinter factions to push and promote their agendas within the party. It is often rancorous and sometimes dirty, but at the end of the day the in-fighting is supposed to make the party stronger and as a party member, it is implied that all animosities are put aside and the party rallies behind the nominee. In the case of Paul and the Libertarians, Romney was one pill they wanted no part of.
So Romney and the RNC told them, in no uncertain terms, "SCRAM!" And they purposely did it in a fashion that both disenfranchised them at the convention, as well as embarrass them.
Bear in mind, the adherent faithfuls of Paul were not going to vote for Romney. They can't, as far as they are concerned, Romney and Obama are two sides of the same coin. Also, while they don't necessarily brag about this, they know they are leeching unto the party to serve their agenda only. As opposed to the relationship between a shark and a remora whereby the relationship is beneficial to both, Paul has driven his agenda akin to that of a virus to suck all the benefits that the party afforded his cause with no desire of repaying back that relationship.
The Romney campaign realized that the Libertarian wing was never going to vote for him. Furthermore, they knew that the Libertarians were going to be disruptive at the convention. They were also aware that any prolonged disruption was going to work in Obama's favor. The decision was made to kick them out on day one as forcefully and quietly as possible.
So what happens now? The Romney campaign is anticipating that they will not need the Libertarian's to win. But here is where things get interesting, if Romney does win it will be at least eight years before another Libertarian gets a prominent platform to push their agenda, and frankly I don't see the Libertarian party waiting that long to make noise.
Here comes the surprise twist: If Romney wins it will be primarily due to the economy and the different economic principles between the Republicans and the Democrats. Tactically, I see the Democrats reassessing their strategy and may opt to take a more fiscally conservative approach towards the economy (especially is there is an economic turnaround under Romney). With that in mind I can see the Democrats making not too subtle overtures to the Libertarians to bring them under their platform, not only garner their votes but help give credibility that Democrats are fiscally sound as well.
Will it happen? Who knows, but politics do make strange bedfellows
Without going into too much details how the RNC, or in this case Romney's campaign, went about it, if you are one of those that is a devout adherent to Paul and the Libertarian wing, the parting must have felt like a complete repudiation of your beliefs. Or in my vernacular, a bitchslap.
But was it undeserved? In my opinion, the bitchslap was meant to be more than a shot across a bow it was meant to repudiate and dismiss this branch from the party. Let's get one thing clear about party politics, they offer a comforting blanket for splinter factions to push and promote their agendas within the party. It is often rancorous and sometimes dirty, but at the end of the day the in-fighting is supposed to make the party stronger and as a party member, it is implied that all animosities are put aside and the party rallies behind the nominee. In the case of Paul and the Libertarians, Romney was one pill they wanted no part of.
So Romney and the RNC told them, in no uncertain terms, "SCRAM!" And they purposely did it in a fashion that both disenfranchised them at the convention, as well as embarrass them.
Bear in mind, the adherent faithfuls of Paul were not going to vote for Romney. They can't, as far as they are concerned, Romney and Obama are two sides of the same coin. Also, while they don't necessarily brag about this, they know they are leeching unto the party to serve their agenda only. As opposed to the relationship between a shark and a remora whereby the relationship is beneficial to both, Paul has driven his agenda akin to that of a virus to suck all the benefits that the party afforded his cause with no desire of repaying back that relationship.
The Romney campaign realized that the Libertarian wing was never going to vote for him. Furthermore, they knew that the Libertarians were going to be disruptive at the convention. They were also aware that any prolonged disruption was going to work in Obama's favor. The decision was made to kick them out on day one as forcefully and quietly as possible.
So what happens now? The Romney campaign is anticipating that they will not need the Libertarian's to win. But here is where things get interesting, if Romney does win it will be at least eight years before another Libertarian gets a prominent platform to push their agenda, and frankly I don't see the Libertarian party waiting that long to make noise.
Here comes the surprise twist: If Romney wins it will be primarily due to the economy and the different economic principles between the Republicans and the Democrats. Tactically, I see the Democrats reassessing their strategy and may opt to take a more fiscally conservative approach towards the economy (especially is there is an economic turnaround under Romney). With that in mind I can see the Democrats making not too subtle overtures to the Libertarians to bring them under their platform, not only garner their votes but help give credibility that Democrats are fiscally sound as well.
Will it happen? Who knows, but politics do make strange bedfellows
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
