The contents are based on Fact and Truth. Challenges are invited.
The days’ top political news:
Napolitano Announces Obama Administration Plan to Give Amnesty to Illegal Aliens
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Friday that the Obama administration will push for “immigration reform” by giving the estimated 14 million people who are in the United States illegally “fair pathway to earned legal status.”
Napolitano said that she has seen a “major shift” in the immigration landscape, which the Obama administration hopes will make it easier for Congress to pass new immigration laws.
http://webmail.aol.com/28878/aol-1/en-us/suite.aspx
Gingrich: Contract with America round 2
Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker and purveyor of the GOP "Contract With America'' that helped his party win control of the House after President Bill Clinton's election, says GOP chairman Michael Steele has started work on a new framework for 2010 that he is calling "First principles.''
"(RNC Chairman Michael Steele) is developing a first principles model that I think is a very exciting , positive step in the right direction,'' said Gingrich, who has said that he will decide by February about waging his own campaign for president. "By September , it might be very, very good for the Republicans in the House and Senate to have a common ground on which to campaign, whether they call it a Contract for America or some other device.
A Gallup Poll this week found that Republicans are doing well in the "generic candidate'' race - with more people saying they are likely to support a Republican than those saying they are likely to support a Democrat. Gingrich suggests that his party needs to put more than names on those ballots, and add some principled promises as well.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/11/gingrich_contract_with_america.html
Senate begins healthcare debate this Tuesday!
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has placed the Obama healthcare bill on the Senate's calendar for this Tuesday.
Reid, who recently declared himself "America's most powerful Senator" yet has extremely low approval rating in his home state of Nevada, is planning to push this bill through the Senate as quickly as possible... the same way that Nancy Pelosi was able to in the House last week.
Meanwhile, other senators have declared the bill “Dead on Arrival” and there seems to be substantial opposition in Reid’s own Democrat party.
http://webmail.aol.com/28878/aol-1/en-us/suite.aspx
Opinion:
Here comes the Obama push for amnesty for illegal aliens
The Obama administration is a clear glutton for punishment.
Having just announced an absurd decision to try radical Islamic terrorists held at Gitmo in New York City – and giving them the same constitutional protections accorded US citizens, Obama has allowed an opening curtain to a new outrageous proposal: amnesty for illegal aliens. The starting gun was fired by controversial Obama cabinet member,
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, as she spoke to the far left organization, the “American Center for Progress” which is run by John Podesta who authors many extremist positions. (the “Center” is funded largely by George Soros – the leftist immigrant who bank rolls many political schemes and organizations that promote the left.)
Her remarks not only laid out her goals for a mass amnesty, but she also argued on behalf of business groups and unions who need reform to fill jobs.
Napolitano said "Let me be clear: when I talk about "immigration reform," I’m referring to what I call the "three-legged stool" that includes a commitment to serious and effective enforcement, improved legal flows for families and workers, and a firm but fair way to deal with those who are already here.
"We know that one-sided reform, as we saw in 1986, cannot succeed. During that reform effort, the enforcement part of the equation was promised, but it didn’t materialize."
Napolitano said she has seen a major shift since the "comprehensive immigration reform" effort failed in 2007, and now is the time to readdress the issue.
"[T]he security of the Southwest border has been transformed from where it was in 2007. The federal government has dedicated unprecedented resources to the Mexican border in terms of manpower, technology and infrastructure—and it’s made a real difference.
"[T]he immigration debate in 2007 happened during a period of historically high levels of illegal entry into the United States. Two years later, because of better enforcement and the current economic circumstances, those numbers have fallen sharply. The flow has reduced significantly – by more than half from the busiest years, proving we are in a much different environment than we were before.
"These are major differences that should change the immigration conversation."
In 2007, an amnesty bill was shouted down by an aroused population. The bill failed despite rabid support by members of the US Senate, the Bush White House, and the massive mainstream media. It is time to repeat that process.
One major difference in now and then is in the tea party movement – a multitude of grass root Americans already aroused and opposing liberal government.
What is truly strange about the Napolitano announcement is the current array of extremist positions and proposals that already heavily engages the Obama administration and liberal Democrats.
A tax scheme disguised by the title “Cap and Trade” barely escaped the House, and faces such opposition in the Senate that some pundits have said it will be dropped. The bill would impose a huge additional tax – estimated at $3,000 a person – on all Americans. Openly violating an oft mentioned pledge of Obama.
At the same time, Obama has bet his administration in efforts to pressure the Senate to pass a massive plot designed to allow the government to take over the nation’s health care – ultimately resulting in Canadian-style socialized medicine.
It seems to me the Obama administration may have “bitten off more than nit can chew”.
It’s the duty of normal America to do all it can to make sure it chokes off the far left threat posed by the Obama administration.
Buddy
The day’s top blogs:
1.
Perilous Decision Treats 9/11 Terrorists Like Common Criminals
Washington, D.C. – Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) issued the following statement in response to the Obama administration’s decision to bring terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks to New York City for trial in a civilian court.
“The Obama administration is making a grave error by attempting to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow terrorists in a civilian criminal court rather than through the military tribunal process,” said Chairman Price. “Our civilian courts should be reserved for trying civilian crimes. The 9/11 attacks were acts of war, and the fanatical terrorists who masterminded the attacks must be handled accordingly. The decision to treat these individuals as common criminals is an incredibly reckless move that endangers all. Even more distressing is that the risks are completely unnecessary due to the existence of our military commission system, which is the proper arena for prosecuting these individuals. The media frenzy that is sure to accompany these trials will provide the terrorists with a wide platform from which to spew their hatred for the ideas of freedom and liberty.
This is a perilous and misguided decision which will only be made worse if guilty verdicts are not returned.”
2.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/islamism_or_islam_islamist_or.html
'Islamism, or Islam?' 'Islamist or Islamic?'
Andrew G. Bostom
During the autumn of 1843, in the heart of Istanbul, Turkey, Sir Henry Layard, the British archeologist, writer, and diplomat, witnessed the punishment mandated by the Shari'a, i.e., Islamic Law for apostasizing from Islam. He described this abhorrent spectacle as follows:
An Armenian who had embraced Islamism [emphasis added] had returned to his former faith. For his apostasy he was condemned to death according to the Mohammedan [Islamic] law. His execution took place, accompanied by details of studied insult and indignity directed against Christianity and Europeans in general. The corpse was exposed in one of the most public and frequented places in Stamboul [Istanbul], and the head, which had been severed from the body, was placed upon it, covered by a European hat.
Layard's narrative demonstrates how in mid-19th century parlance, "Islamism" and "Islam" were synonymous, and meant to be equivalent to "Catholicism," "Protestantism," and "Judaism"-not to "radical" or "fundamentalist" sects of any of these religions. Moreover, through at least the mid-1950s, scholars devoted to the formal study of Islamic doctrine and history were still referred to as "Islamists."
Turkey's current Prime Minister Erdogan, commenting in August, 2007 on the term "moderate Islam," frequently used in the West to describe his ruling political party, the AKP, stated, "These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that's it." Erdogan's displeasure is ironic, even somewhat humorous, given the contemporary Western apologetic obsession to recast the terms "Islamism," and "Islamist," to denote, exclusively, "radical" or "immoderate" Islam, and its adherents. But the irony of Erdogan's ire aside, artificial distinctions between "Islamism" and Islam, "Islamist" and Islamic are logically incoherent, obfuscating irrefragable truths about living Islamic dogma, and its modern manifestations.
The 1990 Cairo Declaration, or "Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam"-not Islamism-was drafted and ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the Organization of the Islamic-not Islamist-Conference (OIC), a 57 state collective including every Islamic nation on earth. The OIC, currently headed by Turkey's Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, thus represents the entire Muslim ummah (or global community), and is the largest single voting bloc in the United Nations.
Its preamble and concluding articles (24 and 25) make plain that the OIC's Cairo Declaration is designed to supersede Western conceptions of human rights as enunciated, for example, in the US Bill of Rights. The preamble repeats a Koranic injunction affirming Islamic supremacism, (Koran 3:110): "Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation..." The gravely negative implications of this Islamic Law (Shari'a)-based document ("There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari'a") are most apparent in its transparent rejection of freedom of conscience in Article 10, while articles 19 and 22 reiterate Shari'a principles stated throughout the document, which clearly apply to the "punishment"-death-for so-called "apostates" from Islam.
The Cairo Declaration-entirely consistent with Islamic Law-also introduces unacceptable discrimination against non-Muslims and women, while sanctioning the legitimacy of dehumanizing, Shari'a-compliant punishments, from flogging, to mutilation, and stoning.
And polling data from a rigorously conducted WorldPublicOpinion.org survey released April, 2007 demonstrate the Cairo Declaration's Islamic Law principles-antithetical to Western formulations of human rights-are embraced by the preponderance of the world's Muslims. Fully 2/3 of a representative sample of 4400 Muslims from Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia desired the ultimate jihad conquest imperatives: to re-create a unified supra-national Islamic state, or Caliphate, ruled by "strict application of Shari'a."
These quintessential goals of jihad were reiterated by the mass murdering jihadist psychiatrist Nidal Hasan as part of an erstwhile "medical grand rounds" given on June 27, 2007. Although Hasan merely reiterates salient aspects of classical jihad theory (i.e., see slides 35, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 49), this reality is understandably "shocking" to our willfully uninformed elites in the media, military, and government. Nidal Hasan's presentation concludes, in full accord with classical Islamic doctrine regarding jihad war, (slide 49), "Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please Allah, even by force is condoned by (sic) Islam."
Unapologetic observations from 1950 by a great 20th century "Islamist" scholar of the Shari'a, G.H. Bousquet, contextualize these ominous trends. Bousquet described Islam itself as "as a doubly totalitarian system," which, "claimed to impose itself on the whole world and it claimed also, by the divinely appointed Muhammadan law...to regulate down to the smallest details the whole life of the Islamic community and of every individual believer."
3.
Muslim Suffers Bruised Ego in Fort Hood Tragedy
WND.com
The massacre at Fort Hood last week is the perfect apotheosis of the liberal victimology described in my book "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America."
According to witnesses, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan entered a medical facility at Fort Hood, prayed briefly, then shouted "Allahu akbar" before he began gunning down American troops. Now I don't know which to be more afraid of: Muslims or government-run health-care systems.
President Obama honored the victims by immediately warning Americans not to "jump to conclusions" – namely, the obvious conclusion that the attack was an act of Islamic terrorism. As conclusions go, it wasn't much of a jump.
But the mainstream media waited for no information – indeed actively avoided learning any information – before leaping to the far less obvious conclusion that the suspect's mass murder was set off by "stress."
The day after the slaughter, the New York Times ran one editorial and two of three op-eds asserting as much – which was at least one more than the Times usually runs about psycho-killer soldiers going on rampages.
Two days after the mass shooting, the Times' laughably predictable headlines about the Fort Hood bloodbath were:
"Preliminary Inquiry Finds No Link to Terror Plot"
"Painful Stories Take a Toll on Military Therapists"
"When Soldiers' Minds Snap"
The Los Angeles Times jumped to the exact same conclusion, running an article on the massacre titled: "Fort Hood Tragedy Rocks Military as It Grapples With Mental Health Issues." Time magazine followed suit, posting an article titled: "Stresses at Fort Hood Were Likely Intense for Hasan."
Inasmuch as Maj. Hasan had never been deployed overseas, much less seen combat, liberals seem to have discovered the first recorded case of "pre-traumatic stress syndrome."
Their point was: The real victim of Fort Hood was Maj. Hasan. Indeed, all Muslims were the victims that day.
The media quickly set to work assembling lachrymose accounts of taunts Hasan had been subjected to in the military for being a Muslim, the most harrowing of which seems to have been his car being keyed at his off-base apartment complex.
I suppose we should be relieved that liberals weren't claiming Hasan snapped because of the dimming prospects for a health-care bill by the end of the year.
The evidence for the manifestly obvious conclusion we were supposed to avoid jumping to is rather more extensive.
According to numerous eyewitness accounts, Hasan denounced the "war on terror" as a war against Islam, said Muslims should attack Americans in retaliation for the war in Iraq, defended suicide bombers and said he was "happy" when a Muslim murdered a soldier at a military recruiting center in Arkansas earlier this year.
Stranger still, he wasn't auditioning for his own show on MSNBC when he made these statements.
Hasan shared a "spiritual adviser" with two of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, whose unseemly enthusiasm for jihad got him banned from speaking in Britain, even by video link.
A few years ago, Hasan delivered an hour-long PowerPoint lecture to an audience of doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, arguing that non-Muslims should be beheaded and have burning oil poured down their throats.
He had tried to contact al-Qaida, and at least one U.S. intelligence official says the Army knew it.
Despite being well aware of Hasan's disturbing views and conduct, the Army did nothing.
Far less offensive speech has been grounds for discipline or even removal from duties in the military. In the aftermath of the Tailhook scandal, for example, two Navy officers were reprimanded and reassigned after putting up a sign with the words of a nursery rhyme altered to include a vulgar sexual reference to liberal congresswoman Patricia Schroeder.
But a Muslim Army doctor can go around a military installation somberly advocating the beheading of infidels, and the girls running the military treat him like he's Nicole Kidman and they're press junket reporters.
The Army's top brass, Gen. George Casey, responded to the military's shocking decision to keep a terrorist-sympathizing Muslim in the Army by announcing: "Our diversity ... is a strength." And I thought gays couldn't openly serve in the military.
On Sept. 11, 2001, Muslims moved to the top of liberals' victim pantheon on the basis of having slaughtered 3,000 Americans. Muslims were "victims" of Americans' displeasure with them for the biggest terrorist attack in world history. The only American deserving of more coddling than a Muslim is the first African-American president.
So, now any dyspeptic expression toward a Muslim is grounds for calling in a diversity coordinator. And when the "victim" attacks, as at Fort Hood, the rest of us are supposed to feel guilty because Hasan's car got keyed once. As with all liberal "victims," it is the victim who is massively guilty.
Comments