Once again we see how clueless Democrats like Illinois Governor Pat Quinn and Senator Dick Durbin are on matters of national security. With Barack Hussein Obama’s decision to treat the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay as if they are common American criminals, as the president bestows all American rights upon them, and with his decision to spread these monsters out across the U.S.A, we see Quinn and Durbin idiotically asserting that terrorists equal “good paying jobs.”

These jobs might come from the sale to the federal government of the Thomson correctional facility in west central Illinois where Obama could send some 100 detainees in preparation of closing down the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba facilities. Obama is struggling to figure out what to do with these detainees after his hastily made, ill-informed decision last January to close down the terrorist detainment facility.

After the idea was announced, both Quinn and Durbin found themselves all excited to welcome these monsters into their state and both imagined that the occasion means that Illinois gets jobs. Durbin is quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying that this is a dramatic opportunity.

“This is an opportunity to dramatically reduce unemployment, create thousands of good-paying jobs and breathe new economic life into this part of downstate Illinois,” Mr. Durbin said. “We should not let the unsupported and misplaced fears of a few stand in the way of this historic economic boost to our region.”

And the Journal reported that Quinn was lobbying Obama for just such an “opportunity.

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn said he had a brief discussion with President Barack Obama this month about using the facility. He also wrote a letter last Thursday to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Mr. Holder, saying the federal government would be hard-pressed to find a more secure prison.

Quinn told reporters “This is an economic opportunity that comes once in a lifetime for the people of Illinois,” and thinks that Illinois will see 3,000 jobs if the terrorists get sent to his state.

Can we review what is going on here? Quinn and Durbin are willing to give terrorists American rights, they are willing to bring terrorists among the families of their own constituents, and they are pretending that this will bring jobs.

First of all, what are these so-called jobs? Are they real jobs that contribute to the state’s and the country’s economy? No they are not. They are faux jobs born of the federal treasury, not jobs that creates any new economic activity. All these so-called jobs will do is shuffle money from other parts of the country (in taxes) and shift them to these make-work jobs in a federalized prison project.

These are not legitimate jobs. They are federal largess.

But all that pales in comparison to the fact that these folks are falling all over themselves to give terrorist enemies all the rights of a natural born American. These politicians are prepared to bestow Constitutional rights on these murderous cretins and bring some of the most dangerous people in the world into our communities.

There is another aspect of this that is absurd enough to border on the surreal. One of the things that leftists held against the Guantanamo Bay facility is the expense of maintaining the facilities. Many Democrats and leftists said it was too expensive for the American people to continue paying for. Of course the Guantanamo Bay facility is one installation, right? Now comes Obama to spread these terrorists all across the country effectively making the costs to house them many times more expensive to house these murderers because now instead of one facility, we’ll have multiple facilities to pay for!

After all this, who can deny that Democrats are not to be trusted where it concerns national security?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

President Barack Obama made no effort to conceal his irritation when his press corps used the first question of his maiden Far East trip to ask what was taking him so long on Afghanistan.

Jennifer Loven of The Associated Press had asked: “Can you explain to people watching and criticizing your deliberations what piece of information you’re still lacking to make that call.”

It looks as though Ms. Jennifer was giving Barry a chance to cover his own a**, but, it was a tough question, and, how freakin’ DARE she question Dear Leader?

“With respect to Afghanistan, Jennifer,” the president scolded, “I don’t think this is a matter of some datum of information that I’m waiting on. … Critics of the process … tend not to be folks who … are directly involved in what’s happening in Afghanistan. Those who are, recognize the gravity of the situation and recognize the importance of us getting this right.”

Gravity of the situation? Really?

The cool president’s heated response reflected second-guessing from the press and Pentagon about a process that has spanned eight formal meetings with his war cabinet, totaling about 20 hours.

Obama has spent a heck of a lot more time doing campaign stops since he was Coronated, but, not so much on actually running the country, and certainly not much on Afghanistan, as has now been reported by The Politico, and was stated by Robert Gibbs.

The White House has been deliberately portraying the process as thorough, emphasizing the opposing views the president has considered, as a way of positing a contrast with President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

If they thought the decision to invade Iraq was quick, something which went on for well over a year, I can’t imagine the amount of time they will dither on Afghanistan. We might get a decision on what Obama called a “war of necessity” sometime around September, 2012.

Meanwhile, many Democrats and the media are attempting to give Obama cover over the time he is taking with a new report about what a surge would cost. They aren’t worried about the massive costs of their Porkulus, their 2010 budget, their health system bills, nor the cap and tax, but, a war to take out Islamic terrorists? That they are worried about?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Related: President Obama Urges Congress To Halt Ft. Hood Probe

President Barack Obama on Saturday urged Congress to hold off on any investigation of the Fort Hood rampage until federal law enforcement and military authorities have completed their probes into the shootings at the Texas Army post, which left 13 people dead.

On an eight-day Asia trip, Obama turned his attention home and pleaded for lawmakers to “resist the temptation to turn this tragic event into the political theater.” He said those who died on the nation’s largest Army post deserve justice, not political stagecraft.

“The stakes are far too high,” Obama said in a video and Internet address released by the White House while the president was flying from Tokyo to Singapore, where Pacific Rim countries were meeting.
…
Rep. Howard McKeon, R-Calif., said he wanted to go ahead with an investigation from the House Armed Services Committee, where he is the top Republican. He said he wanted an investigation that wouldn’t compromise law enforcement or military investigations that were continuing on separate tracks.

In the Senate, Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, said his Homeland Security Committee was opening an investigation.

Obama said he was not opposed to hearings — eventually. But he strongly pressed lawmakers to hold off until the probes now under way are completed.

“There is an ongoing investigation into this terrible tragedy,” Obama said. “That investigation will look at the motives of the alleged gunman, including his views and contacts.”

“We must compile every piece of information that was known about the gunman, and we must learn what was done with that information. Once we have those facts, we must act upon them.”
Source

Also see POWIP

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

A sampling of those from Jay’s post from last night: Smack Down of Obama Administration on KSM Trial Decision

And guess who celebrates this as some sort of victory for “justice?”

It’s no secret that the greatest threats to America on the international stage can depend on the ACLU’s extended hand of friendship. The ACLU, as the most dangerous threat to this country from within, has long been writhing around passionately with every enemy of this country like mating slugs at the end of a mucus thread. That the ACLU cheers this latest attack on American national security is no surprise. After all, they are up to their ear holes in making sure KSM and Da Boyz get sprung, although the MSM seems to be ignoring the ACLU role. Jay wrote last year at PJM about the execrable “John Adams Project” that undoubtedly played a lead role in securing three hots and a cot for KSM while he awaits his circus trial:

The ACLU has launched an initiative called the “John Adams Project.”…What is it? In a nutshell, the ACLU has assembled a “Dream Team” of attorneys with an $8.5 million budget to defend terrorists currently held at Guantanamo. Who’s the primary object of the ACLU’s affection? Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

The ACLU, true to form, impugns the professionalism and competence of men and women of infinitely more honor than their accusers by referring to tribunals as “kangaroo courts.” But could the ACLU really be so scandalized that this mass murderer will stand before a military tribunal? Could the ACLU truly be standing up for his “fundamental rights?”

What is the true purpose of a multi-million-dollar campaign to get KSM off the hook?

The ACLU explains: “The ACLU chose to focus on Mohammed’s defense, Romero said, because he appears to be “the government’s top priority in the prosecution. And whether or not they are able to convict Khalid Sheik Mohammed under these rules may well determine the fate of the almost 300 other men who are detained at Guantanamo.”

So that’s it. The ACLU wants to set KSM and 300 other terrorists free or at least make it impossible for the tribunals to serve their function. Because KSM is the worst of the worst, because he is the terrorist in custody most responsible for 9/11, the ACLU is his champion.
This PR stunt can only serve to undermine American credibility by creating the illusion – sure to be propagated by the mass media – that mass killers are somehow being denied “justice.” Think our enemies don’t appreciate the ACLU’s efforts on their behalf – on both legal and the PR fronts? Clearly, this will leave America more vulnerable to attack.

So is it really any surprise that the ACLU would be reaching around to pat itself on the back yesterday?

NEW YORK – In a major victory for due process and the rule of law, the Obama administration will announce today that the five defendants represented by the John Adams Project who have been charged in connection with the 9/11 attacks will be tried in federal court rather than in the Guantánamo military commissions. However, the administration will also announce that it will continue to use the illegitimate military commissions system to prosecute some Guantánamo detainees, including the defendant accused in the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. The American Civil Liberties Union has been working through the Project, a joint effort with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), to provide legal assistance to the five individuals accused of masterminding the 9/11 attacks and other military commissions defendants. The Guantánamo military commissions proceedings have been plagued from the start with legal challenges and international condemnation due to their disregard for basic due process rights.

“The transfer of cases to federal court is a huge victory for restoring due process and the rule of law, as well as repairing America’s international standing, an essential part of ensuring our national security. We can now finally achieve the real and reliable justice that Americans deserve. It would have been an enormous blow to American values if we had tried these defendants in a process riddled with legal problems,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “However, it’s disappointing that the administration has chosen to prosecute some Guantánamo detainees in the unsalvageable military commissions system. Time and again the federal courts have proven themselves capable of handling terrorism cases while protecting both American values and sensitive national security information. Justice can only be served in our tried and true courts.”

This just didn’t seem to smell right, so I ran it through Babel Fish (translating from ACLUgandan to English) and here’s what came out:

BIZARRO CITY – In a major legal and propaganda victory for al Qaeda, the Obama administration will announce today that the five demented killers represented by the John Alan Muhammad Memorial Project who were responsible for the slaughter of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans will await acquittal in federal court by Leftists in New York rather than standing before the incompetent troglodytes who “serve” our country in the Armed Forces…The American Civil Liberties Union has been working through the Project, a joint conspiracy with the National Association of Criminals Disguised as Lawyers (NACDL), to provide legal assistance to the five individuals who’ve blessed us with the glorious 9/11 holiday. The Guantánamo military commissions are staffed by drooling fools in odd uniforms with weird oak leaves, eagles and stars on their shoulders and collars and who are despised by our international comrades.
“The transfer of cases to federal court is a huge victory for al Qaeda and is sure to threaten our national security. We can now finally achieve the real and reliable justice that Americans deserve, but we think should be applied to international terrorists, who until now have never in history been granted the constitutional rights that were once reserved for American citizens. It would have been an enormous blow to ACLU self-esteem and fundraising if we had tried these murderous thugs in a process that actually would have resulted in justice being done,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “However, it’s disappointing that the administration has chosen to prosecute some terrorists using those idiots with really short haircuts. Time and again the federal courts have proven themselves willing to advance the ACLU agenda — truth, justice and national security be damned. This has us just tickled pink.”

As diabolical as this latest move by the Obamanable Administration is, even more demented is the symbolism of trying Mohammed mere steps away from the site of the greatest act of evil — an act of war, not the street crime the Obamanable Administration is treating it like — ever committed against America on our own soil. Miles, or even blocks, away from the husbands, wives, children, mothers and fathers who were left behind to mourn because of the act of terrorism directed by the very man who has now been extended all the protections of the American constitutional system by virtue of nothing but robbing so many innocent AMERICANS of the same, forever.

Say KSM goes free…the blood of all those innocents murdered, on 9/11 and by those aspiring future Islamist killers emboldened by our manifest lack of will and strength, will be splattered and smeared all over the walls of ACLU headquarters.

Update by Lobo: Just a point I want to get covered, but not enough for a post of its own.

The military commissions are obviously constitutional because Congress instituted them and that power is vested in them.

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Congress set up the Commissions for the express purpose of trying enemy combatants. I can not find any vested power in the Executive branch to order ECs tried in federal courts.

I do find it amusingly ironic that for 8 years, liberals screeched about the US going into foreign countries and forcing “democracy” on it and now their leader is ordering foreign enemies be brought into a country they hate, filled with people they want to kill, and force a democracy they despise, on them.

You might want to check out a point that Levin made. (I couldn’t get to it from Google search and could backout)

he said something to the effect that the combatants weren’t “mirandized” and that will create a technicality right from the get go. I’d be willing to bet that Obama is counting on that one!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Eric H. Holder Jr. called his order Friday to send the suspected plotters of the Sept. 11 attacks to trial in Manhattan “the toughest decision I’ve had to make as attorney general.” But what the nation’s chief law enforcement officer did not lay bare for public consumption was the four months of deliberation, lobbying and tug of war inside his own Justice Department that preceded an announcement that will follow him into history.

Hmm, that’s more time than they have spent on Afghanistan, a situation which requires a more immediate response.

In his nine months in office, Holder has jettisoned a public corruption case against former senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) because of prosecutorial lapses, launched an inquiry into CIA interrogators who abused terrorism suspects and announced a turnaround on medical-marijuana enforcement. Each decision has drawn a measure of criticism from Capitol Hill and some of his predecessors.

Interesting. No mention of Holder dismissing the case against the New Black Panthers, who were caught dead to rights violating federal voters rights statutes.

Nevertheless, the fate of the five men who allegedly conspired to use fully fueled airliners as weapons of mass destruction in 2001 posed the single biggest legal and political question that Holder is likely to face. The criminal proceedings against Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his four alleged confederates may display to the world all the protections and failings of the U.S. justice system.

Allegedly? They all admitted to it, then withdrew their guilty plea’s when they realized they wouldn’t get their platform to speechify and martyrdom. Notice the language is turn terrorist attacks into strictly a legal issue, which is called a 9/10 mentality.

“The stakes are high,” Holder said Friday in a brief conversation. “You have what is truly the trial of the century. The American people are committed to the resolution of this, and I considered that closely in picking the right place, the right forum, the right team.”

In other words, he wanted a place which would have great visuals. Do you want the circus in Manhattan, or Dickinson, ND?

For Holder, a native New Yorker who observed the construction of the World Trade Center’s twin towers as a student at Columbia University, the decision to send the detainees to a heavily secured courthouse in Lower Manhattan held special meaning. His brother, William, is a retired Port Authority police officer who lost friends in the attacks, and many of their relatives continue to reside in the Queens neighborhood where Holder grew up playing street basketball.

Why should the personal stuff have any bearing on the case? This is just plain idiocy about Holder playing basketball, though, I wonder if Holder asked his brother what he thought?

At a news conference, Holder emphasized the location to full symbolic effect: “After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September 11th will finally face justice. They will be brought to New York — to New York — to answer for their alleged crimes, in a courthouse just blocks away from where the twin towers once stood.”

Right there is the money quote. The Obama administration is trying to create a photo op, something they can hang their hats on as being “tough on terrorists,” because this is what stands for being tough on terrorists in Liberal World.

No matter which way you look at it, this is going to backfire badly on Holder and Obama. As all the information comes back to the public conscience regarding 9/11, we will remember why the attacks happened, namely, because Democrats are extremely weak on national security, and most Americans could care less that a scumbag like KSM was waterboarded to get information that will protect America and American lives.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Bush Attorney General Mukasey

Speaking at the Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention, Mukasey described the move, as “a decision I consider not only unwise, but based on a refusal to face the fact that what we are involved with here is a war with people who follow a religiously-based ideology that calls on them to kill us, and to return instead to the mindset that prevailed before Sept. 11 that acts like the first World Trade Center bombing, the attacks on our embassies in Africa and other such acts can and should be treated as conventional crimes and tried in conventional courts.”
Describing a pattern of decisions made since the the Obama administration pledged in January to close Guantanamo Bay prison within a year, Mukasey said that, “What’s followed has seemed in many instances to be a system in which policy is fashioned to fit and proceed rhetoric rather than being thought out in advance with arguments then formulated in support of it.”…
The difficulty of trying terror suspects through civilian courts, he said, is that the discovery process, the public presentation of evidence, and other elements of a trial “could turn a criminal proceeding into a cornucopia of information for those still at large and a circus for those in custody.”
He pointed out that when capturing the enemy combatants, pieces of information “were not gathered, nor was evidence gathered, on the assumption that they would be presented in a federal court.”
There would also be tremendous security issues involved with making sure that courthouses, jails, the judge and jury, were all safe.

Tip: Hot Air

Rudy:

Fellow Democrat Webb:

I have never disputed the constitutional authority of the President to convene Article III courts in cases of international terrorism. However, I remain very concerned about the wisdom of doing so. Those who have committed acts of international terrorism are enemy combatants, just as certainly as the Japanese pilots who killed thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor. It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts.
The precedent set by this decision deserves careful scrutiny as we consider proper venues for trying those now held at Guantanamo who were apprehended outside of this country for acts that occurred outside of the country. And we must be especially careful with any decisions to bring onto American soil any of those prisoners who remain a threat to our country but whose cases have been adjudged as inappropriate for trial at all. They do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons.
I have consistently argued that military commissions, with the additional procedural rules added by Congress and enacted by President Obama, are the most appropriate venue for trying individuals adjudged to be enemy combatants.

Krauthammer:

“Please spare us talk of the ‘rule of law.’ If that was the primary consideration, the U.S. already has a judicial process in place. The current special military tribunals were created by the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which was adopted with bipartisan Congressional support after the Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision obliged the executive and legislative branches to approve a detailed plan to prosecute the illegal ‘enemy combatants’ captured since 9/11.
“Contrary to liberal myth, military tribunals aren’t a break with 200-plus years of American jurisprudence. Eight Nazis who snuck into the U.S. in June 1942 were tried by a similar court and most were hanged within two months. Before the Obama Administration stopped all proceedings earlier this year pending yesterday’s decision, the tribunals at Gitmo had earned a reputation for fairness and independence…
“Most Americans, we suspect, can overlook the legal niceties and see this episode through the lens of common sense. Foreign terrorists who wage war on America and everything it stands for have no place sitting in a court of law born of the values they so detest. Mr. Holder has honored mass murder by treating it like any other crime.”

As Rudy says this is unnecessary, irresponsible, and dangerous. We are going backwards to where we were before 911. As Krauthamer says, we are putting on a show trial that could very well end with acquittal. How will America react? It is giving the terrorists, propaganda material. We are giving the enemy a pedestal. It opens too many doors. Never in our history have we given enemy combatants, American rights, and it is sickening.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The Obama administration will insist on measures to give legal status to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants as it pushes early next year for legislation to overhaul the immigration system, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Friday.

Good deal. We would be adding 12-20 million illegal aliens on the the federal health care roles if the Democrats health system legislation passes. 12-20 million who will be on the welfare role, who will want free money, who will demand free services, overload our schools and medical systems, etc and so on. By about February, we should start hearing the stories out of our southwestern states about massive numbers of people illegally crossing the borders and people overstaying their visas.

In an address at the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy group in Washington, Ms. Napolitano sought to dispel any notion that the administration — with health care, energy and other major issues crowding its agenda — might postpone the most contentious piece of an immigration overhaul until after midterm elections next November.

Liberal policy group? They are a massively far left group, about as far left as one can get. To put it plainly, this would be like a Bush appointee speaking to the neo-Nazi group Stormfront.

You really can’t call these folks in the White House liberals. That is insulting to liberals. They are completely tone deaf to the American People, and are basically telling you, the American People, to STFU and GFYS with all their policies.

I wonder how many Islamic terrorists will be provided blanket amnesty as they sneak into our country, just in time for KSM’s trial?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

OK, he isn’t going to accept any plan provided to him. What is his plan? Does he have one? 10 months into his presidency, perhaps it is high time to formulate one? Then again, 10 months in, it is high time to formulate an actual plan to deal with the economy.

That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.

In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Shocker! He’s taking the advice of the guy who says he should just keep throwing over to first base to avoid throwing to the plate. Tough decisions are just not in his makeup. Unless they are on which American(s) to demean.

Uncle Jimbo writes

He has already had the advice of his entire military chain of command with a near unanimous call for reinforcements to move to the strategy that won in Iraq. We have watched as he has heard from the deep wisdom of Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel. We have seen him dither and quibble and show a completely ineffectual and uncommitted face to our enemies and the rest of the world. Now months after his hand-picked commander has told him the situation is bad and getting worse, our troops in the field fight and die without the support of their Commander in Chief. He sent 21,000 more brave men and women there and now they are flappin’ in the breeze. How can a squad leader look his men in the eyes and tell them to saddle up and head out on a patrol, perhaps to be the last to die for a cause their President no longer believes in?

If Obama is not going to put any more troops in Afghanistan, he needs to decide. Now.

Update: Some more interesting words to replace the use of a sarcastic “Decider in Chief.” Blogs For Victory: The Ditherer. Legal Insurrection: The Dawdler In Chief.

I still want to know what President Neophytes proposals are.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The jihadi movement has never made any bones about the fact that it intends to destroy western civilization from within using the West’s own principles as weapons against it. This is why, for instance, that radical Islamists have been angling to institute Sharia “law” inside England and Canada and to a lesser extent in the U.S.A. But this effort isn’t even necessary when, in the U.S. for instance, a large part of the political class cannot even agree upon what the word “sacrifice” means for its own, much less find themselves able to define the terms of enemies to their civilization. What does terrorism, Sharia, or radicalism mean when Democrats cannot even properly understand what “sacrifice” means in the context of what happened at Fort Hood, Texas?

On November 7, it was reported by the New York Daily News that President Obama shamefully exploited the murderous Hasan’s crime in Texas in an effort to flog his healthcare bill in Congress.

According to the Daily News President Obama “invoked the Fort Hood shootings in an emotional appeal to Democrats to pass health care reform.” The Daily News followed this statement up with a quote from New Jersey Democrat Rob Andrews.

“He was absolutely inspiring. In a very moving way, he reminded us what sacrifice really is,” said New Jersey Rep. Rob Andrews, estimating the persuader-in-chief turned several votes.

“Sacrifice is not casting a vote that might lose an election for you; it is the sacrifice that someone makes when they wear the uniform of this country and that unfortunately a number of people made this week,” said Andrews.

This is an astonishing disconnect with reality, an execrable failure to understand even simple definitions. These soldiers murdered by Hasan didn’t “sacrifice” their lives for their country in this incident. Those that were killed didn’t get a chance to “sacrifice” their lives as they died. They were cruelly and criminally gunned down without being given the opportunity to make a conscious choice at the moment of their demise. Yes, their lives have been sacrificed, taken away in colloquial terms, but these soldiers were not in a place where they might have expected a life or death situation. They were purportedly safely at home in the care of doctors and nurses charged with ensuring the health of our uniformed personnel.

In the same way, we cannot say that those nearly 3,000 that lost their lives on 9/11/01 sacrificed their lives for their country or civilization. A sacrifice is an offering and these people had no notion on their way to work that fateful morning that they’d soon be in a situation where they might be killed by radical Islamists. In truth a sacrifice requires a surrender of something for the sake of something else. This all implies a conscious offering not a sudden extraction of a thing (such as a life taken by criminal actions). Neither the victims of 9/11 nor the soldiers innocently going about their lives at Fort Hood were offered the chance to make that sacrificial bargain.

Both were craven criminal acts. Acts of terrorism. It was not “sacrifice.” It was murder. And it was motivated by a hateful, radical religious tenet that holds such cowardly acts as a means to an end.

Worse, what we have here is a clueless Democrat and his president using this senseless act of terror as cover to get a healthcare bill passed. Obama is using these murders as fodder to push a mere legislative effort. It is stunningly disgusting.

But, it does illuminate why Democrats in general and Obama in particular simply have no logical basis by which to understand the real sacrifice that our soldiers choose to make when they enter national service and subsequently perform their duties in all branches of the military. Democrats don’t even understand the most basic premise of what sacrifice means so it is no wonder that Rep. Andrews was so surprised that Obama might mention that sacrifice isn’t just making a “hard” vote in Congress. Andrews was stunned with a definition of sacrifice that seemed not to have occurred to him.

And therein lies a major problem between the left and the right. Simple definitions cannot even be agreed upon at this point. If even so simple a thing as the definition of the word sacrifice cannot be agreed upon, we are at loggerheads to define our civilization.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Our world is upside-down. Democratic leaders say they do not share the concerns of the Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee that Nidal Hasan’s red flags were, perhaps, ignored.

Just a few short months ago, Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the CIA liars, offered no proof and then refused to talk about it again – leaving the stain on the agency’s  credibility in full view for the world to see.

Yesterday, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) accused Obama of withholding “critical” information. The House Intelligence Committee, chaired by a Democrat, dismissed Hoestra’s concerns.

Rep. Hoekstra went even farther and effectively said the President was not truthful when he claimed that Hoekstra and other intelligence committees had been “briefed:”

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) is blasting President Obama for withholding from the Congressional intelligence committees information on the Fort Hood killings suspect, while at the same time acknowledging the leaders of those panels — including Hoekstra himself — have indeed been briefed on Nidal Malik Hasan.

In his statement, Hoekstra repeated Obama’s plea that we not “jump to conclusions” about the alleged Fort Hood killer:

…but the administration is in possession of critical information related to the attack that they are refusing to release to Congress or the American people,” Hoekstra said

Hoekstra said he was concerned that more information had been provided, piecemeal, to the news media by anonymous sources than had yet been provided to the Committee. He criticized the Obama administration for not being more immediately forthcoming with details and specifically requested information, and for restricting the limited information provided so far to the so-called “Gang of Eight.”

So perhaps the Gang of Eight is the problem? No. Hoekstra is a member of the Gang of Eight. Members are Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Silvestre Reyes, Pete Hoekstra, Diane Feinstein and Kit Bond. So what is going on? Was Hoekstra appropriately briefed as Obama claims, or was he not? And how about Pelosi and Reid? What do they know?

This is the height of hypocrisy and the culmination of evil. The administration and Democrats are salivating over Eric Holder’s investigation into CIA so-called torture of Guantanamo prisoners - after promising the Bush administration that they would drop that atrocious idea.

But today, with the Fort Hood memorial tribute still on the calendar, they have no concern that intelligence and the U.S. Army may have put troops side-by-side with a radical jihadist – with red flags flaring.

Democrats know Americans are fed up with their politically correct posture. We know Americans are dying in this country, in Afghanistan and still yet in Iraq because military fears the wrath of Congress, and the administration, loathes any attempt to profile or point a knowing finger at an extremist. In the video below, Hoekstra speaks about preventing terrorism and keeping soldiers safe…February 2008. Listen as he talks about homegrown terrorism. Democrats told him the “threat is not real.”

Pete Hoekstra  “threat not real”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post