Political correctness is in the air, and fear of the truth is everywhere. In the aftermath of the recent attack on soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, President Obama went out of his way not to use the word “terrorism” to describe the massacre. And for good reason, the fantasy that there is no “war on terror” is one of the quintessential cogs in the left’s governing apparatus. Without which, all the other gears in their machine will not turn. It shall be interesting to watch the president and his administration scramble to blame the military and the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq for this incident. They will blame everyone…except those responsible.

In fact, the Fort Hood shooting is the first successful terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11. But Obama, his hands soiled with the responsibility of dis-assembling Bush era protections against such attacks, is attempting make it look like a run-of-the-mill maniac with a gun shooting. The politicization of the massacre was swift and sure as the FBI, within hours of the shootings, decried that this was not terrorist related even before FBI agents arrived at the scene.

Ever the loyal sycophants, the media too has been downplaying any relationship to the attacker, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, to organized terror groups. But alas, not only do such connections exist, they are damning:

Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother’s funeral was held there in May that year.

The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations. -The London Telegraph

It is a shame that one has to consult foreign journalists to get an honest assessment of such critical elements of this story. This man was a follower of the same Imam as several of the 9/11 attackers. Some would say this alone qualifies as a reason to look for a possible terrorist link. Yet, as always, there is more:

Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday’s horrific shooting spree. As investigators look at Hasan’s motives and mindset, his attendance at the mosque could be an important piece of the jigsaw. Al-Awlaki moved to Dar al-Hijrah as imam in January, 2001, from the west coast, and three months later the September 11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour began attending his services. A third hijacker attended his services in California.

Hasan was praying at Dar al-Hijrah at about the same time, and the FBI will now want to investigate whether he met the two terrorists. Charles Allen, a former under-secretary for intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security, has described al-Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen, as an “al-Qaeda supporter, and former spiritual leader to three of the September 11 hijackers… who targets US Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen”.

Last night Hasan remained in a coma under guard at a military hospital in San Antonio, Texas, and was said to be in a “stable” condition. Born in America to a Palestinian family, Hasan, 39, was an army psychiatrist who had chosen to sign up for the US military against his parents’ wishes. But he turned into an angry critic of the wars America was waging in Iraq and Afghanistan and had tried in vain to negotiate his discharge.

He counselled soldiers returning from the front line and told relatives that he was horrified at the prospect of a deployment to Afghanistan later this year – his first time in a combat zone. Whether due to his personal convictions, his stress over his deployment or other reasons, Hasan is alleged to have snapped and gone on a murderous rampage with a powerful semi-automatic handgun after shouting “Allahu Akhbar” (“God is great”), according to survivors. He had earlier given away copies of the Koran to neighbours. -The London Telegraph

Major Nidal Malik Hasan screamed “Allahu Akhbar” and began a shooting massacre that killed 13 soldiers and wounded 30 more. The fact that he acted alone would not make him any less of a terrorist. Lone suicide bombers are the norm in most Islamic terrorist attacks. That Hasan was a trained soldier would certainly make the use of firearms a somewhat more reasonable method of operation. The difference between a stressed out or delusional psychopath and a terrorist is political motivation and the political motivation is certain. Also certain is the unfortunate fact that Major Hasan had been communicating recently with his former Imam, Anwar al-Awlahi who currently resides in Yemen and acts as a recruiter for…Al-Qaeda!

His “Allahu Akhbar” declarations would certainly indicate that he was motivated by the Islamic fanatacism that Obama and his media bootlickers are bending over backwards to deny. This, of course, recalls President Clinton’s deliberate and misleading response to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Like all democrats, he viewed the bombing as a merely a crime, promising to find those guilty and punish them, rather than to attack the international groups that funded and enabled them. We have come full circle to the delusional world of leftist fools who act as though 9/11 never happened. Which, of course, only guarantees something equally disastrous will happen again.

Many people, including myself, have lamented and warned that the the weakening of Bush administration anti-terrorist policies would leave us vulnerable to be attacked again. Now it has happened and our president, fully believing that the only enemy to the United States is the American people, is doing everything he can to delegitimize the terrorist threat in order keep his domestic political agenda front and center. Depriving Americans of their liberties through the confiscation of the health care system and redistributing U.S. sovereignty and wealth through a fraudulent carbon-tax scheme supercedes defending the nation and its antiquated constitution in his eyes.

Lets face it, when the U.S. military is targeted within our own borders, our enemies do NOT fear us. As certainly as the October 12, 2000 attack on the USS Cole was a warning that our Islamic enemies were not impressed with America’s ability to thwart their actions, so too is Major Hasan’s attack on Fort Hood a precursor to an even greater and imminent attack. They our watching our for our response. What will it be?

The soldiers killed in this vicious attack were murdered by the president and his follower’s allegiance to the myths of tolerance, diversity and political correctness. As I have documented in previous writings, many of our soldiers are killed by people masquerading as their friends and allies. It is perhaps an unavoidable reality when an Iraqi soldier who goes into battle with Americans suddenly reveals his true allegiance by turning and firing on our soldiers. You cannot tell who is a jihadist just by looking at them. Al Qaeda has long encouraged infiltration into the foolishly politically correct West. However, this killer was no surprise:

In the months leading to Thursday’s shooting spree that left 13 people dead and 29 others wounded, Hasan raised eyebrows with comments that the war on terror was “a war on Islam” and wrestled with what to tell fellow Muslim solders who had their doubts about fighting in Islamic countries. “The system is not doing what it’s supposed to do,” said Dr. Val Finnell, who complained to administrators at a military university about what he considered Hasan’s “anti-American” rants. “He at least should have been confronted about these beliefs, told to cease and desist, and to shape up or ship out.”

Finnell studied with Hasan from 2007-2008 in the master’s program in public health at the military’s Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., where Hasan persistently complained about perceived anti-Muslim sentiment in the military and injected his politics into courses where they had no place. “In retrospect, I’m not surprised he did it,” Finnell said of the shootings. “I had real questions about what his priorities were, what his beliefs were.” -Associated Press

It’s called “discrimination,” and it is exactly what was called for here. Too many people hold onto foolish ideas of tolerance and political correctness and those are the very things that led to this massacre. The saddest part of this story is the revelation that many soldiers who heard the rantings of this Islamic supremacist dared not report what they knew in fear of being labeled a bigot and accused of discrimination. Even worse the Secretary of the Army had this to say after the tragedy:

“I’m concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I’ve asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that. There are about 3,000 Muslims on active duty military service or in the National Guard or reserve forces, They remain a small minority within the U.S. military.” -General George Casey

WHAT!!!!! A fully indoctrinated Islamic supremacist infiltrates the United States Army and kills American soldiers and the army’s top general goes on every major Sunday news show to say he fears a “backlash” against the one thousand Muslim soldiers who currently serve? If there is one group of people who have shown they can keep a level head in these situations it is those serving in our military. We need to stick to the issue at hand instead of fabricating a “backlash” that has not and will not happen. In fact, we need to act in a way that will protect our soldiers from the “backlashes” of future turncoats.

In WW II our ancestors had the wisdom to disallow American’s of Japanese descent from serving in the Japanese theater, and even went so far as to imprison many until their backgrounds could be investigated during the early stages of the war. Obama and his ilk look down on these decisions as discriminatory and bigoted, yet it was entirely reasonable given the suddenness of the Japanese attack and the problems inherent with diverse and multicultural societies.

I tell you we are NOT better than our ancestors. We are weakened by political correctness because we haven’t had the courage to question Muslims in our society…and we are paying for it. It may be true that not every Muslim is a terrorist in waiting, and many are perfectly loyal Americans. But Major Hasan wasn’t, and it doesn’t take a psychological degree to see that he was a threat. What more could he have done to draw attention to himself? Declare war on America? Obama has done that!

Major Hasan was definitely wrong about one thing. Presidents Bush and Obama have gone out of their way to make it clear that the “War on Terror” was NOT a war on Islam. That is why it is doomed to fail. Too many ignorant people inflate their opinion of themselves and their intellect by accepting a foolish moral equivalency of Islam with other religions, particularly Christianity. It is a fool’s lie. Islam is at war with us and has been for 1200 years. It only understands dominance and submission. Tolerance to Islam is dangerous. Thanks to Nadal Hasan, we have learned that lesson yet again. Therefore, what we need is an open declaration of “War on Islam.” Political correctness be damned! Islam is not compatible with Western Civilization. Muslims know this, why do we insist on accepting tolerance, diversity, equality and political correctness mythology? They are all false gods.

“Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what [Hasan] has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.” -Anwar al-Awlaki’s response to the massacre

Discrimination. Its what people do…when they KNOW better. How long does it take for some people to learn?

“This is a dangerous world, and this cat isn’t remotely qualified to handle it. This guy has no clue, I promise you.” – Former President G.W. Bush speaking about then Democratic Presidential nominee Barack H. Obama

War is coming soon. Count on it. I am not talking about the kind of war such as Iraq and Afghanistan, which inconveniences no one beyond the deployed soldiers and their families. No, you are soon going to get the real deal. A conflict that will involve every thought of every moment of your waking lives. President Obama’s announcement that he will not fulfil the United States’ commitment to install an anti-ballistic missile defense system in Eastern Europe has provided further proof, as if any were needed, that so called “progressives,” in spite of all their pseudo-intellectual arrogance, never learn from their mistakes.

VIENNA (AP) - Experts at the world’s top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press. The document drafted by senior officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency is the clearest indication yet that the agency’s leaders share Washington’s views on Iran’s weapon-making capabilities.

It appears to be the so-called “secret annex” on Iran’s nuclear program that Washington says is being withheld by the IAEA’s chief. The document says Iran has “sufficient information” to build a bomb. It says Iran is likely to “overcome problems” on developing a delivery system.

The failure to follow through on the previous administration’s promise, combined with Iran’s continued, and now possibly completed, development of nuclear weapons is an invitation for war…and a big one at that. If you count the cold war as World War Three then gird your loins for World War 4. It’s coming.

You have to work very hard to make as many mistakes as fast as this administration has in just nine months. Fear matters in a dangerous world, and make no mistake about it, no-one is afraid of Barack H. Obama. So far he has alienated all of America’s traditional allies while encouraging those countries hostile to us.

Obama failed to stand with Iranians protesting the pre-ordained election results that returned Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to office. He is so determined that he can negotiate with this maniacal lunatic that he has acted to keep him in power just so he can prove it to us. He likewise has sided with the Hugo Chavez backed president of Honduras who was rightly ousted by the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress for trying to illegally alter their constitution. Even now, this administration is insisting that Chavez’s man be put back into power or the U.S. will not recognize this government or ANY future elected government! Thats insane.

He has also been pressing Israel for more concessions while authorizing money for Palestinians. Such financial aid has historically been returned to Israel in the form of unprovoked rocket attacks. Throw in an ill-conceived investigation into the CIA’s interrogation of terrorist detainees, and even our own people see no reason to trust this administration. What’s next, granting terrorists captured on the battlefield as prisoners of war rights of Habeas Corpus?

BAGRAM, Afghanistan – Afghan inmates held in the US’s Bagram military custody center will soon have their first opportunity to exercise expanded rights to challenge indefinite detention. The Obama administration has prepared a new set of guidelines regarding the legal rights of over 600 Afghan inmates detained at Bagram air-base.  The administration hopes to implement the new system during this week.  The new system will also grant extended rights to an unknown number of captive nationals from numerous other Middle Eastern states. - Impunity Watch, Asia

The “Blame America First” people are now in charge and they are on an appeasement crusade. The decision not to deploy the missile defense system was part of the Obama administration’s “reset” negotiating policy with Russia. Although he was willing to make this concession to Russia, alienating still more U.S. allies in Poland and Czechoslovakia, he apparently got nothing in return other than the possibility that Russia might assist in future negotiations with Iran. This is not what one would call savvy negotiating. The only thing less comforting than this administration’s weak negotiating skills is its apparent tactlessness. How do you announce you are backing out of a defense deal with Poland on the 70th anniversary of the day that the Russians and Germans invaded the country to start the second world war? Are they really this callous, or worse, ignorant? These arrogant people pride themselves on their intellectual superiority…where is it?

For their part the government of Poland reacted as you should well expect they would. They refused to to take Secretary Of State Hilliary Clinton’s calls. The Czech and Polish governments put themselves out on a limb to be supportive of the United States, and this is their reward? Interestingly, although this decision is an offense to the governments of these countries, the people themselves actually approve of this decision. It is their fear that allowing such a system to be deployed on their territory would make them a desirable target for terrorists.

If there is one thing you can count on, it is the consistency of European cowardice. We have seen their willingness to appease aggressors lead to disaster time and again in the last century. Yet they not only fail to learn from those disasters, they also fail to remember the lesson of Ronald Reagan. In the 1980’s, at the peak of the cold war, he deployed medium range nuclear missiles in West Germany…and oh how the people did complain. Once again, they argued it would increase the likelihood of war. What happened? Ten years later both the missiles AND the Soviet Union were gone, without a shot being fired. Peace through strength is the only thing that will prevent a war. Weakness will always provoke an aggressor to strike. Unfortunately cowardice comes too easily to the European. Too bad.

Our “Appeaser in Chief’” should have insisted on one very important concession from Russia. His failure to do so has guaranteed war. The Russians have agreed to sell Iran anti-aircraft missiles. Obama should have insisted that the sale be canceled in exchange for betraying our allies. He insisted on nothing and bowed to the Kremlin’s wishes. Those anti-aircraft missiles are for the purpose of defending Iran from a potential strike by Israel on their nuclear facilities. Failure to get that sale stopped, combined with the IAEA report claiming Iran can now build an atomic weapon, makes it imperative that Israel strike sooner rather than later. Rhetoric like this doesn’t help either:

“The pretext (Holocaust) for the creation of the Zionist regime (Israel) is false … It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim. Confronting the Zionist regime is a national and religious duty. This regime (Israel) will not last long. Do not tie your fate to it … This regime has no future. Its life has come to an end.” – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Sept. 18, 2009

Israel knows those weapons have but one purpose, their annihilation. They will strike, and they will strike first. They must. But that will present several problems. Last year the Democratically controlled Congress blocked the sale of several “bunker buster” bombs to Israel. They thought that, by depriving Israel of these deep penetrating conventional weapons, they could discourage a war with Iran. However, for Israel, this is about survival. Denying Israel the use of these weapons does not reduce the likelihood of military action. It just forces them to use different munitions. Israel dares not risk a failed attack, or one that does not significantly disable Iran’s nuclear capability. With hardened facilities buried deep underground, you need devastating firepower. Thanks to the shortsighted actions of the Democrats in Congress, Israel may be forced to use nuclear weapons to destroy their targets. Consider the ramifications of that.

In any event, an Israeli attack will lead to worldwide condemnation of Israel, and likely, a worldwide counter-attack via terrorism. Decades of acquiescence to Islamic immigration will envelope Europe in a firestorm of internally delivered attacks. Perhaps it is the just reward for their perpetual cowardice. Such attacks will certainly find their way to the United States as well. After all, the President has been in a rush to dismantle the apparatus that the previous administration built to protect us after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Fortunately, this time, the terrorists will have adequate legal representation in the event they get caught.

Israel has the capacity to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, but can they, or will they, attempt to destroy all of Iran’s military assets? Almost certainly not. The consequences of an Israeli attack will be the certainty that the Iranian navy will close the Persian Gulf, shutting off the oil supply to the West. Welcome to world war. Oil prices will spike the world over from the instantaneous shortages this will create. Someone will have to reopen the Persian Gulf. Conventional wisdom says that “someone” will have to be the United States.

But in the Obama administration there is no place for either convention or wisdom. The crisis that will occur when the oil spigot is cut off will have spectacularly useful repercussions to an administration that doesn’t believe a crisis should be allowed to go to waste. Therefore, there is no guarantee that Obama will give the order to reopen the Persian Gulf. Failure to do so will definitely prolong the crisis and almost certainly will have the effect of suffocating every Western economy. If the crisis can be prolonged long enough, it may prove fatal. Not a bad days work if you are not only the president of the most powerful economy on earth, but also the president of the Karl Marx/Che Guevara fan club. Considering the economic decisions this administration has made thus far, such a crisis could be irresistible. For a man with Obama’s ego, the opportunity to rebuild the world in his own image may be too much of a temptation. To hell with the rest of us.

GENESIS 27:29 Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.

And yet there is another possibility. One that may be the most diabolical of them all. For Israel to have any chance of succeeding in its’ primary objective of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities, it must have the element of surprise on its’ side. If it trusts the Obama administration, and there is no reason that it should, Israel may, as a courtesy, notify Washington of its’ intentions. Israel may, however, choose not to tell Washington in advance since the Obama administration, unlike Bush’s, is not likely to offer any assistance.

In either event, the United States has plenty of military assets in the region that will be able to detect that such a strike is underway. I propose that, given this administration’s tendency to cater to the Muslim world, it is very possible Obama will tip off the Iranian’s that such an attack is coming and from where. After all, have you ever seen a nation more determined to switch sides in all of its commitments, both internationally and domestically, than this one? This will guarantee that the Israeli attack fails. Perhaps, in return, Obama will extract a promise from Iran not to close the Persian Gulf…but only by betraying one of our our closest allies. Of course, who but a naive negotiator like Obama could trust the government in Tehran to keep such an agreement? Muslim history is full of backstabbing.

If you think I am just an alarmist and talking out of my hat consider this conversation with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama’s top foreign policy adviser United States National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter, and notorious anti-Semite in an interview with the Daily Beast:

Daily Beast: How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?

Brzezinski: We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?

Daily Beast: What if they fly over anyway?

Brzezinski: Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.

To the contrary, there are plenty on the far left, particularly among Reverend Wright style Black Liberationists, who would be delighted to see a battle between the United States and Israel. This is the conversation happening in the White House right now. Obama’s top adviser in this very matter is encouraging a military confrontation against our ally Israel in defense of our enemy Iran. And you thought it couldn’t get worse. If you voted for change in the last election, you certainly got it!

“Under section 370 of the House Of Representatives Rules and Manual it has been held that a member of the house cannot refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” Yet, as he alienates our allies and coddles our enemies, it would appear he is doing just that. And you know what that means…WAR!

But whose side are we on? Ask Poland and Czechoslovakia. They know…and Israel is soon going to find out.

With the recession, and President Obama’s subsequent stimulus debacle, dominating the media, recent revelations about the true origins of the financial crisis have been (deliberately?) ignored. Contrary to popular perception, the recession and the crisis in the financial markets are two separate and distinct events even though the effects of one affects the other. If you will recall, in September we were led to believe that a financial disaster was imminent. The President, at the urging of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, insisted that drastic action had to be taken immediately or the financial markets would collapse. The stock market plunged and trillions of dollars in value just evaporated. Therefore congress, in a rush, passed the 700 billion dollar bank bailout known as the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Although most of us “informed” citizens are aware of the long term root causes of the financial collapse (the Community Reinvestment act and the toxic assets it spawned) this in and of itself would not have presented its effects as an emergency of such dire proportions. These assets had been fermenting for decades awaiting a flame to ignite them. Now the revelations are coming forth…

On Thursday at roughly 11 AM The Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the USA to the tune of $550 Billion dollars in a matter of an hour or two. Money was being removed electronically.

The Treasury tried to help, opened their window and pumped in $150 Billion but quickly realized they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. So they decided to closed down the accounts.- Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D) of Pennsylvania

In an interview broadcast on C-Span’s Washington Journal, Representative Kanjorski explained what the former Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told congress during the September 2008 closed door session. The meeting was held a few days after the electronic run on the banks on Monday September 15. The Thursday before, that Representative Kanjorski is referring to, was SEPTEMBER 11. Does that day have any significance to anyone??? He continued…

Had they not closed down the accounts they estimated that by 2 PM that afternoon. Within 3 hours. $5.5 Trillion would have been withdrawn and the entire economy of the United States would have collapsed, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.

So there you have the story, as it was told to President Bush and the congress. Action had to be taken quickly to stabilize the markets due to an electronic bank run. It also goes a long way to explaining why one of the first actions taken was to boost the FDIC deposit insurance up from $100,000 per depositor to $250,000. They were pre-empting a possible run on all banks in the event that word leaked out about what had happened.

In contemplating the timing of this event and the reaction of certain key figures, both before and after the electronic bank run, the obvious must be stated: THE FINANCIAL CRISIS WAS DELIBERATELY PLANNED AND DELIBERATELY EXECUTED!! Just who was it that initiated the bank run? The timing of the event, both in the deliberate choice of September 11 as the attack date and the proximity to a presidential election prohibit any realistic acceptance of a “coincidence.” Somebody took 550 billion dollars out of the banks. Even down here in Alabama we know that is a serious amount of money. The question is, who took it out? Why did they take it out? And of course…where is it now? Rest assured SOMEBODY knows!

All of those transactions produced records. You can be certain that all of this was investigated and fast. Yet no-one has revealed any information. Hell, if it weren’t for Representative Kanjorski we wouldn’t even now know that there was a run on the banks. Why is he now talking? Was the United States the victim of an economic terrorist attack? Certainly the choosing of the September 11 date for the bank run leads one to consider Islamic terrorism. However the extreme amount of money involved would eliminate any possibility of any known terrorist group, unless of course they were supported by a wealthy state with the economic resources to pull this off…Saudi Arabia anyone? Venezuela? The attack occurred at a time of surging oil prices, which just happens to financially benefit countries that would like to do the United States harm. The time would never be better for one of these known enemies to make their move. It is also rather telling how swiftly afterward world oil prices plummeted…U.S. economic counterattack?

Certainly we can see how this could have perplexed President Bush. Evidence suggests that the attack was, essentially, repulsed and perhaps the sudden drop in oil prices could have been a U.S. reprisal. However, you must ask yourself how the President would be able to present this to the American people? If he had suggested that the U.S. was attacked the American media, already swooning in their adoration of Barack Obama, would have accused him of playing the “terrorism” card. They would never have acknowledged the reality of such an attack and announcing it may have hurt John McCain’s chances even more than the subsequent stock market crash. Also, a significant part of Bush’s legacy rests on the fact that he prevented further terrorist attacks after September 11, 2001. Even though this was a different type of attack, he may have felt a desire to not acknowledge it publicly to preserve that impression.

It is clear that one of, if not THE, overriding motives for the attack was to influence the election results. If you will recall that in March of 2004 there was an Islamic terrorist attack in Madrid, Spain. This attack also was presented just before an election. It resulted in the appeasement party winning the elections and the government subsequently pulling Spanish troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is exactly the result the terrorists were seeking.

If a bombing such as the one in Madrid were replicated in the United States, the result would have almost certainly have been just the opposite. The country would have been, once again, wakened from the slumber that seven years of successfully preventing an attack had induced. John McCain, the tough military man, would have won in a landslide. By contrast, if you want to do something that will help Barack Obama…you have to hurt the economy. Remember Bill Clinton got elected by riding a minor recession and repeating the slogan: “it’s the economy, stupid.” Therefore it would need to be an attack on the U.S. economy that would have the effect of sending a democrat to the White House.

Interpreting the motive for the attack opens still more possibilities. I have thus far suggested that the most likely motive for striking the U.S. financial markets would be to alter the presidential election. It is not likely than an external adversary would have really suspected they could actually destroy the U.S, economy, nor would any country on earth benefit from such a result as we would take every other economy down with us. Therefore if influencing the election was the most reasonable motive for the attack we must also entertain another possibility…that the attack originated from elements WITHIN the United States.

A person, or group of people are absolutely within their rights to take money from their own accounts. It is 100% legal and can only be prevented by the government shutting down the market as it eventually did. We are told that as much as 5 trillion dollars would have been removed had they not interceded. How could they know that? That presumes that an uncontrollable panic involving large numbers of investors had to be involved. If this was designed as an action to induce a stampede of withdrawals then this would have had to be done in a way that was visible so the bank run could continue to build momentum on itself. Was this panic induced by several key investors who went out of there way to be seen withdrawing large amounts of money? Was it their intention to be noticed and subsequently have their actions followed and repeated by thousands of other investors? For it to work, it had to be noticed, observed and recorded. A record of all the withdrawals exists. Therefore the people who monitor such things, The Securities and Exchange Commission, has to be able to know, and most certainly does know, who was responsible. And yet we have been told nothing. Why?

One news story comes to mind immediately. It involves New York Senator Charles Schumer who is credited with initiating a run on the banks a short time before the financial attack of September 11, 2008:

OTS (Office of Thrift Supervision) announced Friday that it was taking over the $32 billion IndyMac and transferring control to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - and the agency pointed the finger directly at Schumer for the failure, accusing him of sparking a bank run by releasing a letter that “expressed concerns about IndyMac’s viability.”

“In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts,” the OTS said in a statement announcing the California-based lender’s takeover. The statement included a quote from OTS Director John Reich saying, “Although this institution was already in distress, I am troubled by any interference in the regulatory process.”

Schumer’s letter on June 26 said he was “concerned that IndyMac’s financial deterioration poses significant risks to both taxpayers and borrowers.” - CNN

Charles Schumer is certainly no stranger to hardball partisan politics, so finding him entangled in a premeditated ploy to intimidate the public into voting democratic is hardly a surprise. As always George Soros’ name also comes up as a likely major player in this affair. After all, he does have the financial resources to initiate a panic and he likewise has a history of trying to use his vast wealth to interfere with government policy. You will recall that in 1992 he sold short more than $10 billion worth of British money thereby forcing The Bank of England to withdraw its currency from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism causing the pound sterling to be devalued. Soros earned an estimated  1.1 billion in the process. Of course George Soros is also a known supporter of various liberal causes including bankrolling the legal team currently trying to Railroad Al Franken into the Senate.

Once again we have to put ourselves in the position of President Bush. How can he possibly present this scenario to the public without himself being accused of trying to mislead the public? Who would have believed him if he had presented evidence that democratic supporters were sabotaging the economy in order to acquire a victory for themselves? Considering his approval ratings, he had almost no choice but to sit on the information. Even if he had released the names of all involved after the election it could have had a devastating effect on our population. But do we not need to know this? Should this be allowed to go unacknowledged? Should we not consider the penalty we must pay as a nation if we allow people to deliberately damage our economy just to further their own political objectives? And what of those political objectives? Considering the damnable stimulus bill they just rammed through the congress do we dare assume they have our best interests at heart? Perhaps President Bush let us down. This will come out, and its effects on the social order of our country will be catastrophic. This of course will be no problem for our current President who will use this impending threat to social order as an opportunity to consolidate more power. H.R. 645 anyone?

Before you write this off as making a worst case scenario out of the, thus far, limited revelations of a little known house member, it would be wise to consider the actions of both Barack Obama and John McCain at the time of the attack. If you will recall, John McCain famously suspended his campaign to return to Washington and lead the efforts that would result in the TARP bill. This put the first presidential debate in serious jeopardy of being canceled or delayed. What, pray-tell, did Barack Obama do? Insisting that the debates should go on as scheduled, he uttered one of his most infamous statements:

“There are times for politics, and then there are times to rise above politics and do what’s right for the country. And this is one of those times. It is going to be part of the president’s job to deal with more than one thing at once. I think there’s no reason why we can’t be constructive in helping to solve this problem and also tell the American people what we believe, and where we stand, and where we want to take the country. You know, what I’m going to do is, I’m going to — what I have told the leadership in Congress is that, if I can be helpful, then I am prepared to be anywhere any time.” - Barack H. Obama

Ahh, the the notorious “call me if you need me” line. Not the kind of reaction you expect from a presidential hopeful concerning a crisis of an uncertain nature. No, this is the kind of reaction you get from someone who figures things are going according to the plan. A plan that was designed entirely for his benefit. A plan that succeeded in making him the President of the United States. What wouldn’t a man such as this do to fulfill his ambitions? Dare we want to know what those ambitions portend?

And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” [John 8:32].

There is a belief that permeates our legal system. It is the idea that the truth is an absolute defense in all things. Well, it turns out this old judicial truth may not be true after all. “The times they are a changin,” and not for the better! The greatest test Western Civilization will face is happening now in the Netherlands as the truth is actually on trial. The mere fact that this trial is happening is a great victory for all those who oppose freedom, let alone what the consequences will be for the outcome…

Islam film Dutch MP to be charged (BBC News)
A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements. Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
“In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to… draw a clear line,” the court in Amsterdam said.

Mr Wilders said the judgement was an “attack on the freedom of expression. Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted,” he said. Not only he, but all Dutch citizens opposed to the “Islamisation” of their country would be on trial, Mr Wilders warned. “Who will stand up for our culture if I am silenced?” he added.

Who indeed? In March of 2008 Geert Wilders posted a short film that he made called “Fitna.” Fitna is an Islamic term meaning “strife.” Predictably this film was called an abomination and an offense to Islam even though there is not one false statement presented. The film featured quotes from the Qu’ran dubbed over video of actual scenes of these verses being brought to their full and violent fruition. Mr Wilders even had the audacity to compare the Qu’ran to Hitler’s famous book “Mein Kampf” and likened Islam to Nazism. Gee, I wonder where he got that idea…

“Muslims responded to the call of Muslim leaders and joined our side because of their hatred of our joint Jewish-English-Bolshevik enemies, and because of their belief and respect for, above all — Our Fuehrer.” - Heinrich Himmler

“…a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. The Mohammedan religion…would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” - Adolf Hitler

That truth stuff sure does get in the way of a good hate crimes prosecution doesn’t it? One might even call it…”inconvenient!” The two leading Nazi’s of the Third Reich are not only endorsing Islam with all of its Jew-hating consistencies with their own regime, but also, as clearly pointed out by Himmler, noting the fact that Islamic nations did ally themselves with the Nazi cause. So how are they going to prosecute Mr. Wilders for telling the truth? Well, obviously there has to be a higher authority. Something, or someone, whose interests outweigh the value of spreading TRUE information throughout a society. Reckon what that could be?

The three judges said that they had weighed Mr Wilders’s “one-sided generalisations…which can amount to inciting hatred” against his right to free speech, and ruled that he had gone beyond the normal leeway granted to politicians. The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs.”
The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders,” it added.

“This is a happy day for all followers of Islam who do not want to be tossed on the garbage dump of Nazism - Gerard Spong, lawyer

So there you have it. “Offensive” speech is now a prosecutable offense. Never mind that the offending speech is all true or the offended are all guilty. The complaint alleges it is “one sided,” and of course, it just happens to be the provably true side. Nevertheless Muslims have been offended and everything must be done to ease their inability to handle the truth. Offensive speech a.k.a. “hate speech” is the natural and necessary by-product of the foolish concept known as a hate crime. The idea of punishing people for “insulting” religious beliefs is exactly what Islamic countries have been practicing within their own societies and have long been clamouring for similar laws in the West. They desire that Western nations adopt blasphemy laws and stop the “defamation” of Islam. Defamation being defined as saying anything they decide they don’t like, which can and often does, include the simple act of repeating their own words.

There are, of course, limits to free speech, such as calls for violence but one doesn’t have to agree with Mr. Wilders to realize that he hasn’t even approached that line. In fact, he is only guilty of reporting the violent actions of Muslims. Some Muslims say they are outraged by his statements, but why are they not equally outraged by the violence done in the name of Islam? It seems their outrage would be better spent persecuting the actions of their own people rather than wasting it on the righteous condemnation of those act by others. They make a controversial issue about the speech while ignoring the action that is the subject of that speech. Nonetheless, if freedom of speech has any meaning, it must apply to the freedom of controversial speech. Non-controversial speech needs no protection. Without the right of free speech, all the other freedoms we cherish will soon perish.

For his part, Geert Wilders is convinced he has already been convicted and will go to prison:

“The decision of the court today was so strong that there is a real chance unfortunately that there will be a guilty verdict. In fact, it was so bluntly motivated that it already looks like a verdict instead of just ordering the public prosecutor to start a trial. I lost my freedom already four and a half years ago in October 2004, when my 24-hour police protection started because of threats by Muslims in Holland and abroad to kill me. So of course I don’t want to go to jail as a criminal, but I don’t fear losing my freedom since I already lost my freedom in 2004.” - Geert Wilders

And yet, this is not an isolated incident:

Vienna - Austrian far-right parliamentarian Susanne Winter was convicted Thursday of incitement because of her anti-Muslim statements, including the claim that Islam’s prophet Mohammed was a paedophile. A court in Winter’s home town of Graz also found the 51-year-old politician guilty of humiliating a religion. She was sentenced to a fine of 24,000 euros (31,000 dollars) euros and a suspended prison term of three months, Austrian news agency APA reported.

The politician, who took a seat in parliament last fall for the Freedom Party (FPOe), made the anti-Islamic remarks in January 2008. She also proposed in a discussion with students that Muslim men should commit bestiality rather than making “indecent advances” on girls. The politician had pleaded innocent Thursday, claiming that she “did not want to insult anyone, but only to point out problems.” The verdict is not yet legally binding.

Once again the truth was not allowed to be a defense. Muhammad’s consummation of his marriage with his wife Aisha is in the Hadith collection, Bukhari, several times. Of course you will remember that the girl was NINE YEARS OLD at the time of this consummation. Muslims consider Muhammad to be their “perfect example” and take emulating his behavior very seriously. How seriously you ask? Well consider the case of the infamous Ayatollah Khomeini. The leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran married a ten year old girl when he was twenty eight. Of course he didn’t call it pedophilia. No, he referred to it as a “Divine Blessing.”

“Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” - Ayatolla Khomeini

It will probably come as no surprise to learn that the the legal age for marriage in Iran is nine for girls and fourteen for boys. Where do you suppose that magic number of nine years old came from? One could call Iran a pedophiles paradise. Certainly a Westerner speaking in a Western country should not be convicted of “incitement” for pointing out that the values of Islamic civilization are in conflict with the values of our own, especially when the “incitement” consists of citing examples from Islam’s own accepted traditional writings. Yet here it stands as another example of Western culture bending over and grabbing our ankles while the ever uncompromising ambassadors of Islam proudly mount us saying: “who’s your daddy?” Is our only response always going to be the infamous Kevin Bacon line from the Animal House movie? (Thank you sir, may I have another)

You are probably thinking to yourselves that this could never happen here. Perhaps President Obama would even be willing to grant Geert Wilders political asylum in America. After all, do we in America not have an absolute right to free speech as granted by the first amendment to the Constitution? Well don’t be so sure about that. Our new president is a “sensitive” sort of fellow to the feelings of certain groups of people, particularly those who like to fabricate the illusion of their own victim-hood, as is evidenced by the official White House website:

President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice’s Criminal Section.

Uh oh. There are those words again. Hate Crimes. As if there are any other kind. This is the kind of nonsense that leads to “incitement” laws prohibiting offensive speech. Slowly but surely, every group of people who perceives themselves as having been aggrieved by someone else seeks to have themselves added to the list of those “protected” classes of citizens who shall not be offended. You might as well call them “blasphemy laws” because Muslims will use them to stifle all criticism of their religion just as surely as the homosexuals will use them to repulse the condemnation of their deviant lifestyle. However you can be certain that speech offending Christians and Jews will somehow find a way to be excluded from such protections. We wouldn’t want to stifle all the “artistic creativity” in Hollywood now would we? Their freedom to mock all things decent, traditional and Judeo-Christian must not be infringed!

How is it you can be charged with offending someone’s beliefs, even as those very beliefs insult you and everything you stand for? Whenever we hear the words ‘human rights’ in connection with Islam, we are repeatedly confronted with ugly opportunism that spits in the face of real and genuine human rights and insults everyone’s intelligence. They get away with saying one thing to us while saying something entirely different and considerably more unsavory amongst themselves. We should not be expected to respect an ideology that doesn’t respect us. Be very clear about this: Islam respects nobody. It claims the right to dominate. Our portion is OBEDIANCE. They have not been shy about making that clear:

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur’an should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth” - Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations)

It could be fairly said that I have a somewhat biased view on the issues of free/hate speech. After all, I am guilty of exactly the same crime as Geert Wilders. The Babylon Mystery Orchestra CD essentially does the same thing as Mr. Wilders movie Fitna. There are direct quotes from Muslims and the Qu’ran and an intentional linking of Muslim words to violent Muslim actions. I even went as far as to construct the lyrics of one song, God Given Right, entirely out of very offensive statements made by very offensive Muslims. However if Fitna or BMO’s “Axis Of Evil” are to be considered “hate speech” and guilty of the crime of “incitement,” might the same also be said of the Qu’ran itself or Muslim clerics like Omar Ahmed? Isn’t it amusing how much you can get away with if you simply claim yourself to be oppressed?

It does worry me that the first major interview our new President has done was with Al Arabiya, where he went out of his way to pacify the sensitivities of the Islamic world. It makes me wonder how far he is willing to go to placate them. These are dark days for the West if we don’t stand against Islam’s desire to remain beyond criticism. “Tolerance” and “multiculturalism” may seem like noble pursuits to some people but there is one group of people who have never and will never acquiesce to such ideas…Muslims. They can’t. Although the very act of saying that may soon be a prosecutable offense here too! Incitement crimes are coming to America! Still don’t believe me? Observe this:

The National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645 mandates the establishment of “national emergency centers” to be located on military installations for the purpose of to providing “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster,” according to the bill. The legislation also states that the camps will be used to “provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations”.

Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse. Many credible forecasters have predicted riots and rebellions in America that will dwarf those already witnessed in countries like Iceland and Greece.

With active duty military personnel already being stationed inside the U.S. under Northcom, partly for purposes of “crowd control,” fears that Americans could be incarcerated in detainment camps are all too real. (PrisonPlanet.com)

There is coming a time when Americans will be locking away people who say things that incite others in the name of “crowd control.” Freedom of speech is a dying principle. Such “emergency centers” are an ideal place to locate the incorrigible dissenters who fail to quietly follow the edicts of this, or any, administration. Dissent, which we were told was patriotic when Bush was President can now be seen as “incitement.” A wonderful method for making sure that everyone accedes to the will of the new Socialist Godhead that is Messiah Obama. It begins by failing to uphold the right of someone to offend someone else with simple words. It ends with the incarceration, or worse, of all those who dare oppose the all powerful state. What is happening to Geert Wilders in The Netherlands is going to come here.

Perhaps there is a place being prepared for me in one of President Obama’s new gulags. Guantonemo Bay may not be closed down after all. We will just change the kind of people we incarcerate there! If we do not act to restrain the coming speech codes soon, there are going to be a lot of you in there with me. But hey, at least we will get to meet Rush Limbaugh! The President has actually went so far as mentioning him by name. How long will it be before he decides he has to do something about all of us who won’t go along with his social engineering ideas. Hate speech and incitement laws are a fine way to get rid of us.