US troops in Germany have been banned from wearing their military uniforms in public in the wake of the Frankfurt Airport shooting that left two American airmen dead and two seriously injured.
A 21-year-old Muslim man of Kosovar background, Arid Uka, was arrested for the attack.
Holy frankfurter, Batman, is that stupid, or what? There's so much wrong with this picture, it's hard knowing where to begin.
First, it doesn't speak well for the state of modern Germany that American troops have to worry about being attacked and murdered in the streets by non-German Muslims.
Second, what's next? Should they don German military uniforms and goose-step up and down the sidewalks? Maybe they should scream "Ich bin Deutsch!" every thirty seconds when outside the base, or "Ich bin nicht ein Amerikaner!" Given the Nazi-like tendencies of Muslims, another possible solution is a T-shirt with the words "Ich liebe Hitler!" emblazoned across the front. Of course, the downside is that those blonde, blue-eyed Aryans might rip you to pieces for dredging up their eternal shame and rubbing it in their faces. Not to mention the likelihood that the Kosovar doesn't speak German, anyhow. In which case your last act on Earth would be convincing a bunch of foreigners that you think death camps are pretty swell.
Third, since when do Muslims only froth after military personnel? I realize that wearing the uniform increases the risk, but plenty of Muslims like killing Americans because they are Americans, or westerners because they are westerners, or anyone who has the audacity not to revere every word and unmentionable deed of their holy sand-flea, camel-spit be upon his name.
Fourth, does this policy project strength -- or weakness? Telling our soldiers that they cannot wear the uniform off-base sends this message to Muslims: we are weak, and we fear you.
It's time that we bring our men and women back from Germany. They should have been called home a long time ago.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
I Like the New Look
I just read that Kaddaffi's plastic surgeon has spoken to the public. Apparently, old Mo didn't pay his bill, so the doc is helping the Busybody Coalition ferret out his new disguise. Here's a recent photo. If you see him, please contact the F.B.I. : 
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
More on Obama's Eligibility
Your contentions are flawed:
"The sole documentary evidence provided by Obama of his birth in Hawaii is a Certification of Live Birth, or C.O.L.B., which is a computer-printout document subject to tampering."
Untrue. There are two Obama birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers dating within a week of his birth. How do you explain their existence?
"Worse, at the time of Obama's birth, the state of Hawaii willingly issued such documents to people born outside Hawaii. How in the world can a document issued to people born outside Hawaii be used as proof that a person was born in Hawaii?"
Two problems with your assertion.
First, Hawaii had no such law until 1982. Therefore, the fact that Obama was issue a certificate number as of August 8, 1961 is pretty clear evidence that the State of Hawaii was convinced at that time that he was born in Hawaii.
Second, pretending that Hawaii did issue birth certificates to foreign-born persons in 1961, such a birth certificate would state the foreign location of that person's birth. No one has ever shown one single example of a person born outside of Hawaii obtaining a birth certificate, original or copy, that incorrectly states he or she was born in Hawaii. If you have such evidence, I'd love to see it.
"As for Mr. Obama's long-form birth certificate, which details the attending obstetrician's name and the hospital's name, as well as the date, time, and location of the birth -- that elusive document has never seen the light of day. Obama has not released it on the Internet. Congress has never laid eyes on it."
This is a fascinating criticism, given that then-Senator Obama was the very first major party presidential candidate to ever publicly release images of documentation of his birth. But when Obama gives an unprecedented inch, his critics want a mile.
""By the way, a CNN poll conducted in August, 2010, revealed that only forty-two percent of Americans believe that Obama "definitely" was born in the United States."
How many of those people polled recognize that the place of one's birth may affect his eligibility to be president? We don't know, and I imagine that would change the
responses a lot.
Here's my response, taking this rebuttal one point at a time:
Untrue. There are two Obama birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers dating within a week of his birth. How do you explain their existence?
The issuance of Obama's Certification of Live Birth (C.O.L.B.) automatically generated the newspaper birth announcements. If a C.O.L.B. fails as proof that Obama is a natural-born citizen, then announcements based upon information taken from the C.O.L.B. fail as conclusive evidence, as well.
First, Hawaii had no such law until 1982. Therefore, the fact that Obama was issued a certificate number as of August 8, 1961 is pretty clear evidence that the State of Hawaii was convinced at that time that he was born in Hawaii.
Inaccurate. According to Jerome Corsi at World Net Daily: In 1961, Hawaiian law specifically allowed "an adult or the legal parents of a minor child" to apply to the health department and, upon unspecified proof, be given a birth document in the form of a Certification of Live Birth.
The only requirement stated in Hawaiian law is "that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child."
So there's no way under the sun that possession of a C.O.L.B. constitutes proof that Obama is a natural-born citizen, which is the item in contention.
Second, pretending that Hawaii did issue birth certificates to foreign-born persons in 1961, such a birth certificate would state the foreign location of that person's birth. No one has ever shown one single example of a person born outside of Hawaii obtaining a birth certificate, original or copy, that incorrectly states he or she was born in Hawaii. If you have such evidence, I'd love to see it.
There's no pretending involved, except perhaps on your part. Since no one has seen Obama's actual long-form birth certificate, and since we have had for our examination nothing more than a computer-generated document with less information than the longer, more comprehensive birth certificate, I'm unclear as to what point I'm supposed to glean from this. The key information that you're ignoring is that Obama's full birth certificate remains hidden. You've never laid eyes on it. Neither have I. And neither has Congress or the media. In fact, a congressional document released on the Internet admitted that no official vetting process occured regarding Obama's eligibility.
This is a fascinating criticism, given that then-Senator Obama was the very first major party presidential candidate to ever publicly release images of documentation of his birth. But when Obama gives an unprecedented inch, his critics want a mile.
What fascinates me is your evasion of the point being made. The C.O.L.B. is not the same document as the Certificate of Live Birth. It is a shorter document with less information included. For example, it does not include the attending physician's name, and it omits the birth hospital's name. In addition, the Hawaii Department of Health "refused to authenticate either of the two versions" of President Obama's C.O.L.B. images online -- "neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by FactCheck.org."
The burden of proof lies with Obama -- not with me, you, Congress, the media, or election or state officials. So far, it is a burden that he has refused to meet, with the complicity of most media outlets, and Congress.
Friday, March 4, 2011
The Incuriosity of a Dead Cat
Perhaps you've heard about this recent interview of John Boehner by David Gregory of Meet the Press. Gregory takes Boehner to task for not combating "misinformation" and "stereotypes" regarding Obama's nativity myth and his religious beliefs. Boehner's answer isn't a complete disaster, but it leaves a lot to be desired. Here's how he should have responded:
"Mr. Gregory, I think your question conceals certain unstated assumptions -- assumptions that I do not accept.
"First, the American people elected me to represent their interests in Congress. They did not elect me to correct "misinformation" and fight "stereotypes" aimed at Obama. That's not part of my job description. Nor is it my obligation. You seem to think that this is one of my duties. Why? And did you hold Nancy Pelosi to the same standard? Did you interview her during her tenure as Speaker of the House and hold her feet to the fire about defending George W. Bush from perceived injustices? Did you consider that burden her sworn duty as an elected official?
"Mr. Obama has the bully pulpit of the presidency at his disposal to defend his words and actions any time he feels the need. Most radio and television networks would give him free airtime for the purpose of addressing the public and setting the record straight. Mr. Obama also has the Democratic Party in his corner. In addition, he has a press secretary whose whole reason for being is the explication and defense of Obama's policies, actions, and words. No, Mr. Obama doesn't need my help.
"Second, I reject the notion that questioning Obama's birth narrative and religious views is the same as stereotyping or spreading misinformation. The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, describes a stereotype as: a generalization, usually exaggerated or oversimplified and often offensive, that is used to describe or distinguish a group. I don't see how suspicion that Obama is a Muslim, or skepticism about his birth origin is stereotyping. The issues-in-question seem of a singular nature, not stereotypical.
"As for spreading misinformation, the people most guilty of doing so are those who claim that Obama has proven his eligibility for the presidency. At best, this is a statement of ignorance; at worst, a lie. The standard "birther" position is not that Obama was born in Kenya or Indonesia. The prevailing view is that we do not know the facts of Obama's birth. No one knows -- not the American people, not Congress, and not you, Mr. Gregory.
"Let's stay with the birth issue for a moment. The sole documentary evidence provided by Obama of his birth in Hawaii is a Certification of Live Birth, or C.O.L.B., which is a computer-printout document subject to tampering. Worse, at the time of Obama's birth, the state of Hawaii willingly issued such documents to people born outside Hawaii. How in the world can a document issued to people born outside Hawaii be used as proof that a person was born in Hawaii? The answer is that it does not and cannot constitute proof. Only a liar or an imbecile would suggest otherwise. If my home state suddenly begins issuing driving licenses to anyone who can scrounge up twenty-five dollars -- even if he never has stepped foot inside a car -- then I cannot continue using my license as documented proof that I have taken a written driving exam, a road test, and an eyesight evaluation.
"As for Mr. Obama's long-form birth certificate, which details the attending obstetrician's name and the hospital's name, as well as the date, time, and location of the birth -- that elusive document has never seen the light of day. Obama has not released it on the Internet. Congress has never laid eyes on it. This exemplifies a terrible failure, as determining that prospective presidential candidates fit constitutional criteria was an official duty of Congress -- an obligation that Congress shirked. I'm not climbing up on my high horse, as I was a member of Congress, at the time.
"The simple fact is that Obama's birth origin remains a mystery, and it remains a mystery because he refuses to release his full birth certificate. In fact, he has hired a legal team and spent well over a million dollars keeping the document suppressed. I submit that if this behavior doesn't pique your curiosity, then nothing would drag you away from your uncritical acceptance of everything that Obama says and does. Speaking of job descriptions, I've always understood the media's position as that of a watchdog against government excesses, not as a partisan standard bearer for whoever holds the presidential office. I thought that telling Americans the truth was the highest responsibility of the media, not catching flak for Obama. Mr. Gregory, as long as Obama has you on his side, he'll never need me.
"By the way, a CNN poll conducted in August, 2010, revealed that only forty-two percent of Americans believe that Obama "definitely" was born in the United States. Polling data across the board indicate that Americans have questions about Obama's origins -- questions that cross partisan lines.
"Now let's address Mr. Obama's religious beliefs. His biological father was a Muslim; according to Islamic law, this makes Barack Obama a Muslim, as well. His stepfather was a Muslim. Mr. Obama spent part of his formative years living in his stepfather's house in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country. He attended an Islamic school. His records of attending that school remain hidden from the American people.
"In the U.S., Obama attended a church for twenty years led by an anti-white, anti-American pastor (Jeremiah Wright) who promoted black-liberation theology. Obama professed ignorance of Wright's beliefs, despite his long attendance of the "church," his personal friendship with the pastor, and Wright's openness regarding his hatred of whites and America. Videos exist depicting Wright preaching his hatred from the pulpit. An interesting sidebar: Wright is a supporter of Louis Farrakhan, a Muslim black separatist.
"Mr. Obama has a history of talking up Islam and coming to the defense of Muslims in public. In a 2009 speech in Cairo Obama said: 'And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.' I submit that this statement is alien to the American presidential tradition. This is not the typical focus of a self-proclaimed Christian who governs a Christian people with a Christian heritage. It emanates from far outside the mainstream.
"Does Obama spend significant time extolling the virtues of Christianity and defending Christians against negative stereotypes? No. He's far too busy perpetuating negative stereotypes against Christians. One example is a comment that he made at a 2008 fundraiser:
'You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.'
"I could go on and on, miring us in the perpetual slime of inconsistencies and peculiarities of Obama's birth narrative and supposed religious views; but I think I've been thorough in making my point: that looking askance at the details of Obama's birth and religion isn't fringe kookery or racism or mere partisanship. Rather, it is a logical and reasonable response to suspicious behavior that belies his claims -- behavior that remains wholly unexplained by Obama, the Democratic Party, or the media."
"Mr. Gregory, I think your question conceals certain unstated assumptions -- assumptions that I do not accept.
"First, the American people elected me to represent their interests in Congress. They did not elect me to correct "misinformation" and fight "stereotypes" aimed at Obama. That's not part of my job description. Nor is it my obligation. You seem to think that this is one of my duties. Why? And did you hold Nancy Pelosi to the same standard? Did you interview her during her tenure as Speaker of the House and hold her feet to the fire about defending George W. Bush from perceived injustices? Did you consider that burden her sworn duty as an elected official?
"Mr. Obama has the bully pulpit of the presidency at his disposal to defend his words and actions any time he feels the need. Most radio and television networks would give him free airtime for the purpose of addressing the public and setting the record straight. Mr. Obama also has the Democratic Party in his corner. In addition, he has a press secretary whose whole reason for being is the explication and defense of Obama's policies, actions, and words. No, Mr. Obama doesn't need my help.
"Second, I reject the notion that questioning Obama's birth narrative and religious views is the same as stereotyping or spreading misinformation. The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, describes a stereotype as: a generalization, usually exaggerated or oversimplified and often offensive, that is used to describe or distinguish a group. I don't see how suspicion that Obama is a Muslim, or skepticism about his birth origin is stereotyping. The issues-in-question seem of a singular nature, not stereotypical.
"As for spreading misinformation, the people most guilty of doing so are those who claim that Obama has proven his eligibility for the presidency. At best, this is a statement of ignorance; at worst, a lie. The standard "birther" position is not that Obama was born in Kenya or Indonesia. The prevailing view is that we do not know the facts of Obama's birth. No one knows -- not the American people, not Congress, and not you, Mr. Gregory.
"Let's stay with the birth issue for a moment. The sole documentary evidence provided by Obama of his birth in Hawaii is a Certification of Live Birth, or C.O.L.B., which is a computer-printout document subject to tampering. Worse, at the time of Obama's birth, the state of Hawaii willingly issued such documents to people born outside Hawaii. How in the world can a document issued to people born outside Hawaii be used as proof that a person was born in Hawaii? The answer is that it does not and cannot constitute proof. Only a liar or an imbecile would suggest otherwise. If my home state suddenly begins issuing driving licenses to anyone who can scrounge up twenty-five dollars -- even if he never has stepped foot inside a car -- then I cannot continue using my license as documented proof that I have taken a written driving exam, a road test, and an eyesight evaluation.
"As for Mr. Obama's long-form birth certificate, which details the attending obstetrician's name and the hospital's name, as well as the date, time, and location of the birth -- that elusive document has never seen the light of day. Obama has not released it on the Internet. Congress has never laid eyes on it. This exemplifies a terrible failure, as determining that prospective presidential candidates fit constitutional criteria was an official duty of Congress -- an obligation that Congress shirked. I'm not climbing up on my high horse, as I was a member of Congress, at the time.
"The simple fact is that Obama's birth origin remains a mystery, and it remains a mystery because he refuses to release his full birth certificate. In fact, he has hired a legal team and spent well over a million dollars keeping the document suppressed. I submit that if this behavior doesn't pique your curiosity, then nothing would drag you away from your uncritical acceptance of everything that Obama says and does. Speaking of job descriptions, I've always understood the media's position as that of a watchdog against government excesses, not as a partisan standard bearer for whoever holds the presidential office. I thought that telling Americans the truth was the highest responsibility of the media, not catching flak for Obama. Mr. Gregory, as long as Obama has you on his side, he'll never need me.
"By the way, a CNN poll conducted in August, 2010, revealed that only forty-two percent of Americans believe that Obama "definitely" was born in the United States. Polling data across the board indicate that Americans have questions about Obama's origins -- questions that cross partisan lines.
"Now let's address Mr. Obama's religious beliefs. His biological father was a Muslim; according to Islamic law, this makes Barack Obama a Muslim, as well. His stepfather was a Muslim. Mr. Obama spent part of his formative years living in his stepfather's house in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country. He attended an Islamic school. His records of attending that school remain hidden from the American people.
"In the U.S., Obama attended a church for twenty years led by an anti-white, anti-American pastor (Jeremiah Wright) who promoted black-liberation theology. Obama professed ignorance of Wright's beliefs, despite his long attendance of the "church," his personal friendship with the pastor, and Wright's openness regarding his hatred of whites and America. Videos exist depicting Wright preaching his hatred from the pulpit. An interesting sidebar: Wright is a supporter of Louis Farrakhan, a Muslim black separatist.
"Mr. Obama has a history of talking up Islam and coming to the defense of Muslims in public. In a 2009 speech in Cairo Obama said: 'And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.' I submit that this statement is alien to the American presidential tradition. This is not the typical focus of a self-proclaimed Christian who governs a Christian people with a Christian heritage. It emanates from far outside the mainstream.
"Does Obama spend significant time extolling the virtues of Christianity and defending Christians against negative stereotypes? No. He's far too busy perpetuating negative stereotypes against Christians. One example is a comment that he made at a 2008 fundraiser:
'You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.'
"I could go on and on, miring us in the perpetual slime of inconsistencies and peculiarities of Obama's birth narrative and supposed religious views; but I think I've been thorough in making my point: that looking askance at the details of Obama's birth and religion isn't fringe kookery or racism or mere partisanship. Rather, it is a logical and reasonable response to suspicious behavior that belies his claims -- behavior that remains wholly unexplained by Obama, the Democratic Party, or the media."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)