The Ft. Hood terrorist: Did he act alone, or was he a Sleeper?

"He was a typical fundamentalist Muslim":

"Major Nidal Malik Hasan worshipped at a mosque led by a radical imam said to be a 'spiritual adviser' to three of the hijackers who attacked America on Sept 11, 2001."

More:

" 'So many time I talked with him,' said Akhter, a community leader who is sort of like a mosque gadfly, challenging congregants to reject literal, rigid interpretations of Islam. 'I was trying to modernize him. I tried my best. He used to hate America as a whole. He was more anti-American than American.'

Despite all the conversations, Akther said, 'I couldn’t get through to him. He was a typical fundamentalist Muslim.' "

...and this:

"Throughout the Muslim community, there is a battle over legitimacy, authority and identity. Back in Silver Spring, on the day of the debate between the engineer and the doctor over the meaning of jihad, Akhter said that Hasan told him that if he didn’t believe in jihad as warfare, 'Then you are not a Muslim.'

....finally:

"In the midst of the many conversations he had with Hasan, Akhter stood outside the Muslim Community Center, distributing photocopies of a Washington Post article about an Afghan mother who tried to stop her radicalized son from carrying out a suicide bombing; the bomb exploded in the family’s home, killing the mother, her son and her three other children. In a later email to mosque members, he urged them, 'Let us wake up, and take note of who are potential terrorists, who are fanatics, who are fundamentalists' in the community.' "

The new and improved way to handle legal obstacles at the federal level

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

--James Madison

From the Patriot Post U.S.

#

It's clear that Obama and his Dem cronies are putting the nation in greater peril from our enemies

Pete Hoekstra:

"There was a lot of rationale as to why we had the policies in place that we did over the last 7 1/2 years. We also recognize that there has not been another attack on the homeland, so the policies worked.

The administration and liberal Democrats have a different agenda and a different framework for how to combat these terrorists, these threats to the United States. I personally believe that they will not be as successful as what we've had.

You could then make the rationale conclusion that, yes, I do believe that they're putting the country at greater risk. I think the threats are very very real, and we're now providing our enemies with a little bit more latitude and a bigger opening to attack the United States again."

Obama wants a "Two State" solution in the Middle East?

It's not going to happen, regardless of what the Anti Israeli/Pro Palestinian enablers on the Dem/Lefty/"Progressive" side would wish to happen.

Stratfor's George Friedman:

"....That Israel has a new prime minister and the United States a new president might appear to make this meeting significant. But this is Netanyahu’s second time as prime minister, and his government is as diverse and fractious as most recent Israeli governments. Israeli politics are in gridlock, with deep divisions along multiple fault lines and an electoral system designed to magnify disagreements.

Obama is much stronger politically, but he has consistently acted with caution, particularly in the foreign policy arena. Much of his foreign policy follows from the Bush administration. He has made no major breaks in foreign policy beyond rhetoric; his policies on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia and Europe are essentially extensions of pre-existing policy. Obama faces major economic problems in the United States and clearly is not looking for major changes in foreign policy. He understands how quickly public sentiment can change, and he does not plan to take risks he does not have to take right now.

This, then, is the problem: Netanyahu is coming to Washington hoping to get Obama to agree to fundamental redefinitions of the regional dynamic. For example, he wants Obama to re-examine the commitment to a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. (Netanyahu’s foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has said Israel is no longer bound by prior commitments to that concept.) Netanyahu also wants the United States to commit itself to a finite time frame for talks with Iran, after which unspecified but ominous-sounding actions are to be taken.

Facing a major test in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Obama has more than enough to deal with at the moment. Moreover, U.S. presidents who get involved in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations frequently get sucked into a morass from which they do not return. For Netanyahu to even request that the White House devote attention to the Israeli-Palestinian problem at present is asking a lot. Asking for a complete review of the peace process is even less realistic.

The foundation of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process for years has been the assumption that there would be a two-state solution. Such a solution has not materialized for a host of reasons. First, at present there are two Palestinian entities, Gaza and the West Bank, which are hostile to each other. Second, the geography and economy of any Palestinian state would be so reliant on Israel that independence would be meaningless; geography simply makes the two-state proposal almost impossible to implement. Third, no Palestinian government would have the power to guarantee that rogue elements would not launch rockets at Israel, potentially striking at the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor, Israel’s heartland. And fourth, neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis have the domestic political coherence to allow any negotiator to operate from a position of confidence. Whatever the two sides negotiated would be revised and destroyed by their political opponents, and even their friends.

For this reason, the entire peace process — including the two-state solution — is a chimera. Neither side can live with what the other can offer. But if it is a fiction, it is a fiction that serves U.S. purposes. The United States has interests that go well beyond Israeli interests and sometimes go in a different direction altogether. Like Israel, the United States understands that one of the major obstacles to any serious evolution toward a two-state solution is Arab hostility to such an outcome.

The Jordanians have feared and loathed Fatah in the West Bank ever since the Black September uprisings of 1970. The ruling Hashemites are ethnically different from the Palestinians (who constitute an overwhelming majority of the Jordanian population), and they fear that a Palestinian state under Fatah would threaten the Jordanian monarchy.

For their part, the Egyptians see Hamas as a descendent of the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks the Mubarak government’s ouster — meaning Cairo would hate to see a Hamas-led state.

Meanwhile, the Saudis and the other Arab states do not wish to see a radical altering of the status quo, which would likely come about with the rise of a Palestinian polity.

At the same time, whatever the basic strategic interests of the Arab regimes, all pay lip service to the principle of Palestinian statehood. This is hardly a unique situation. States frequently claim to favor various things they actually are either indifferent to or have no intention of doing anything about.

Complicating matters for the Arab states is the fact that they have substantial populations that do care about the fate of the Palestinians. These states thus are caught between public passion on behalf of Palestinians and the regimes’ interests that are threatened by the Palestinian cause. The states’ challenge, accordingly, is to appear to be doing something on behalf of the Palestinians while in fact doing nothing.

The United States has a vested interest in the preservation of these states. The futures of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are of vital importance to Washington. The United States must therefore simultaneously publicly demonstrate its sensitivity to pressures from these nations over the Palestinian question while being careful to achieve nothing — an easy enough goal to achieve.

The various Israeli-Palestinian peace processes have thus served U.S. and Arab interests quite well. They provide the illusion of activity, with high-level visits breathlessly reported in the media, succeeded by talks and concessions — all followed by stalemate and new rounds of violence, thus beginning the cycle all over again."

#

Paying for ObamaCare

Here's a look at who and what is going to be taxed to pay for ObamaCare.

Noteworthy:

"The soda pop tax would apply to drinks sweetened with sugar, high-fructose corn syrup or other high-calorie sweeteners. That includes iced tea and noncarbonated drinks like punch. But diet drinks would escape the tax man.

The tax increase on alcoholic drinks would hit beer and wine hardest. Per ounce of alcohol, hard liquor now faces the highest federal tax rate. The Senate option would raise the current tax rate, and then apply the same rate to all types of alcoholic drinks. Small wineries and breweries would get some consideration.

Health insurance provided by employers isn't taxable now, even though it's considered part of overall compensation. Senators are considering several options, including taxing health insurance benefits for individuals making more than $200,000 a year, or $400,000 for a couple. Another would limit the tax-free status of health insurance to the value of the standard plan available to federal employees.

Potential revenue raisers also include doing away with flexible spending accounts, limiting the income tax deduction for out-of-pocket medical costs, and charging upper income seniors more for their Medicare drug plans.

Congress is forging ahead on health care, with no consensus in sight on how to pay."

Oh, come on!

You REALLY didn't expect it to actually be "free", did you?

Notice how, in their infinite wisdom, the Obamanation is considering taxing a dis-incentive against ObamaCare (taking away tax deductions for market-based private sector health insurance)?

Other than that, I could almost support the rest of these funding proposals for selfish reasons.

In recent decades, I have imbibed almost nothing of the beverages mentioned as ObamaCare revenue sources.

#

The Genocide that never gets noticed: The Muslim persecution of Christians across the globe

WARNING --

THE VIDEO IN THIS LINK CONTAINS SCENES WHICH SHOW THE END RESULTS OF GRAPHIC VIOLENCE INFLICTED UPON CHRISTIANS.

#

The end of Israel draws nigh

There's a good chance that Obama's negligence/incompetence/mission agenda will lead that particular outcome to becoming a reality.

Noteworthy:

"...This year, however, may be one of the last that 'next year in Jerusalem' will be said at Jewish tables and in synagogues while there still are Jews in Jerusalem.

I am haunted by a vision that soon the prayer will revert to the same lament it was since the year 70, when the Romans threw the Jews out of Jerusalem and razed the city.

It seems clear as can be. You'd have to be a fool, willfully blind, an American Jew even, not to see it.

Israel has no other options. If there is to be an Israel two years from now, it must flatten the Iranian nuclear program immediately.

I'm afraid, terrified, that it is already too late. Time has run out. The end of the Jewish state is closing in. And there is nothing that can be done to save it. Thoughts will all too soon turn to saving and resettling the six million Jews who now live there."

It's a good probability the writer's lament will come true. A great majority of Dems/Lefties/"Progressives" world-wide hate the state of Israel, first and foremost because of that nation's strong support of freedom, and of the United States in it's foreign policy. Secondarily, some of those illiberal liberals are are downright anti-Semites, and see Palestinians and terrorists like Hamas, Hezbolla, and others as oppressed victimes of "unchecked Zionism" and evil American hegemony.

With the onset of the Obamanation, that sick and perverted worldview will gain power. The end result will leave Israel twisting in the wind at the hands of all those who hate what she stands for, and there will no longer be a Jewish homelanf, as scenarios play themselves out to its natural conclusion.

Israel has no choice but to take positive action to save itself, regardless of any babble, dribble, drool, spew, and hate that will be employed against them.

#

The Obamanation set to fund Islamic terrorists from your wallet

Barry, Harry, and Nancy have plans to see that your tax dollars gets in the hands of Hamas. That's all the better to press their cowardly aggression toward Israel and the United States, and kill a few more of those pesky Jews, right?

IBD:

In addition to solar water heaters for rural Puerto Rico and the Raul Alvarez Golf Course in Austin, Texas, Obama administration sources say the U.S. is also planning to relieve taxpayers of $900 million for Gaza, much of which can be expected to land in the pockets of the terrorist group Hamas, which runs the region.

To a family being foreclosed on, or a businesswoman forced by tough times to close up shop, this doesn't exactly signal that Uncle Sam is in solidarity with you.

'Cease fire? What cease fire?'

"We don't need no cease fire with those filthy Jews!"

From the Jerusalem Post:

"Palestinians in the Gaza Strip continue to fire rockets at the western Negev on Saturday evening, despite a cabinet decision that the IDF would halt their fire from 2 a.m. Sunday. At least seven rockets were fired after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced the unilateral cease-fire, with one Grad-type rocket causing power outages in Ashdod.

Rockets also hit Ashkelon and Beersheba. No casualties were reported in the attack, however many suffered shock.

On Saturday afternoon, Hamas exploited a humanitarian lull in IDF activity to fire two rockets at Beersheba. The projectiles hit in open areas, causing no injuries or damage."

Meanwhile, certain members of the Religion of "Peace" exercised their "free speech rights" yet again in what was obviously just some boyish pranks.

ACLU lectures Obama on Constitutional Rights, Real and Invented

"Anyone who has ever run for office knows this: Running FOR an office is far, far different than serving IN an office if you win. ... During the recent campaign for President, candidate Obama pledged to close the prison at Guantanamo. The American Civil Liberties Union ran a full-page ad in the New York Times to remind one and all of that promise. In the accompanying press release the ACLU wrote: 'Obama, as a candidate, pledged to "close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions."'

The ACLU, also called for President Obama to foreswear anything stronger than reduced potty breaks in interrogations, saying, 'The ACLU calls on President-elect Obama to sign Day One executive orders banning the use of torture and abuse.' In case you didn't think they were serious, the ACLU wrote: 'There is no room for patience or delay in these areas. We have to hold President-elect Obama's feet to the fire if we're going to turn hope into reality.'

Let's take a moment to examine that phrase: 'Feet to the Fire.' In one sentence the ACLU's demands that unsavory techniques be banned from questioning suspected terrorists. In another, the ACLU urges putting the feet of the President of the United States into a flame to force him -- torture him, if necessary -- to do what they want.

Interesting, huh!?"

--political analyst Rich Galen, from The Patriot Post US

Meanwhile, here's how the Religion of Peace-niks react

....to pro Israeli demonstrations:

Pro Hamas supporters: 'Go back to the ovens'

Check it out.

It's at the 3:25 mark.

(hat tip:Gateway Pundit, where there is much more)