The next absurd outrage from Big Government’s TSA may be Taser bracelets:
In 2008, the Washington Times reported on how DHS official Paul S. Ruwaldt of the Science and Technology Directorate, office of Research and Development, wrote to Lamperd Less Lethal, Inc. indicating that the Department of Homeland Security was ready to purchase devices from the company that would be used to deliver incapacitating shocks to airline passengers, all of whom would be mandated to wear the taser bracelet once they checked in for their flight.
The so-called “safety bracelet,” also known as the Electronic ID Bracelet, was designed to replace a boarding pass and be capable of tracking the passenger through the airport by means of GPS technology. The device would also contain details about the passenger and their flight plans.
The primary function of the device was to allow airport officials and flight crews to deliver an incapacitating electric shock to travelers by means of Electro-Muscular Disruption (EMD), completely immobilizing the individual for minutes. The bracelet would be worn by all travelers until they disembarked at their location. The patent for the device admits that all passengers could be incapacitated if the devices are activated.
Numerous government agencies expressed interest in the Taser bracelet, which would also have interrogation applications.
Something that the liberals are in denial. That the muslim world is and has been from day one waging a war on women.
ROMNEY: “BIDEN’S DOUBLING DOWN ON DENIAL!”
RICHMOND, Va. — Mitt Romney criticized Vice President Biden on Friday for “directly contradicting the sworn testimony of State Department officials” during Thursday night’s vice presidential debate, picking up on GOP attacks leveled at the vice president in the hours since the exchange.
“He’s doubling down on denial and we need to understand exactly what happened as opposed to just having people brush this aside,” Romney told a crowd gathered outside an auto dealership in Richmond. “When the vice president of the United States directly contradicts the sworn testimony of State Department officials, American citizens have the right to know just what’s going on.”
Biden said that “we” were unaware of security concerns in Libya. On Friday, White House officials clarified Friday that the vice president was speaking for himself and President Obama. State Department officials, they said, had not passed on requests for more security.
Romney credited his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), for his debate performance, calling the lawmaker “thoughtful, respectful, steady, poised, the kind of person you want to turn to in a crisis.”
Referring to Biden later, Romney said: “The other candidate of course just attacked. The American people are looking for answers, not attacks.”
Romney’s decision to zero in on Biden’s comments regarding the attack last month at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi guarantees that Republicans will continue attempting to chip away at the Obama administration’s foreign policy record in the closing weeks of the campaign.
Making the argument in Virginia — a state with a significant military population — could help Romney close the gap here as the race appears to be tightening. It is the second time this week that the GOP nominee has discussed foreign policy in the state, after giving a speech on his foreign policy agenda Monday at the Virginia Military Institute.
This article comes from Eric Allen Bell, and was published in Frontpagemag.com.
A quick reminder – “Islamophobia” is a fake term, seized by the muslim brotherhood and the left, to silence dissent. Every time you use it, you are aiding the enemies of civilization.
Editor’s note: to get the eye-opening pamphlet “Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future,” by David Horowitz and Robert Spencer, click here.
The word “Islamophobia” was popularized by Hamas, an Islamic terrorist organization, operating under several different names in America – most effectively as the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is the parent organization of, not only Hamas, but Al Qaeda and countless other Islamic terrorist groups.
The Holy Land Foundation trial was the result of the largest bust in FBI history of an Islamic “charity.” This organization was caught funneling about $12 million to Hamas. These monies were to be used to enable Islamic jihadists to murder innocent civilians in the name of Islam.
During this FBI raid, a memo was unearthed. This memo has become known as the “Explanatory Memorandum.” In summary, the Muslim Brotherhood and a couple dozen of its front groups in America declared a “Civilization Jihad.” In plain terms, the Muslim Brotherhood stated its intention to destroy the US from within, using our own culture, media, legal system, academia, law enforcement, you name it. Unfortunately, most people cannot or will not look at this – and consequently, the plan is moving forward like clockwork. As author Dr. Bill Warner reminded me recently, “You can wake a man who is sleeping, but you cannot wake a man who is pretending to be asleep.”
Go for more HERE.
Hear about Bill Whittle’s trip to Oberlin College in Ohio. Oberlin is among the most liberal colleges in America. While Bill Whittle is grateful for the hospitality of his hosts, he was shocked by the campus intolerance. especially the limitations on freedom of speech. Hear what Whittle saw, and why he thinks liberalism is a regressive rather than a progressive ideology.
From Patriot’s Corner.
“The entire reason that this has become the political topic it is, is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.”
Thus, Stephanie Cutter, President Obama’s deputy campaign manager, speaking on CNN about an armed attack on the 9/11 anniversary that left a U.S. consulate a smoking ruin and killed four diplomatic staff, including the first American ambassador to be murdered in a third of a century. To discuss this event is apparently to “politicize” it and to distract from the real issues the American people are concerned about. For example, Obama spokesperson Jen Psaki, speaking on board Air Force One on Thursday:
“There’s only one candidate in this race who is going to continue to fight for Big Bird and Elmo, and he is riding on this plane.”
She’s right! The United States is the first nation in history whose democracy has evolved to the point where its leader is provided with a wide-body transatlantic jet in order to campaign on the vital issue of public funding for sock puppets. Sure, Caligula put his horse in the Senate, but it was a real horse. At Ohio State University, the rapper will.i.am introduced the President by playing the Sesame Street theme tune, which, oddly enough, seems more apt presidential walk-on music for the Obama era than “Hail To The Chief.”
Obviously, Miss Cutter is right: A healthy mature democracy should spend its quadrennial election on critical issues like the Republican Party’s war on puppets rather than attempting to “politicize” the debate by dragging in stuff like foreign policy, national security, the economy and other obscure peripheral subjects. But, alas, it was her boss who chose to “politicize” a security fiasco and national humiliation in Benghazi. At 8.30 p.m., when Ambassador Stevens strolled outside the gate and bid his Turkish guest good night, the streets were calm and quiet. At 9.40 p.m., an armed assault on the compound began, well-planned and executed by men not only armed with mortars but capable of firing them to lethal purpose – a rare combination among the excitable mobs of the Middle East. There was no demonstration against an Islamophobic movie that just got a little out of hand. Indeed, there was no movie protest at all. Instead, a U.S. consulate was destroyed and four of its personnel were murdered in one of the most sophisticated military attacks ever launched at a diplomatic facility.
This was confirmed by testimony to Congress a few days ago, although you could have read as much in my column of four weeks ago. Nevertheless, for most of those four weeks, the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and others have persistently attributed the Benghazi debacle to an obscure YouTube video – even though they knew that the two events had nothing to do with each other by no later than the crack of dawn Eastern time on Sept. 12, by which point the consulate’s survivors had landed safely in Tripoli.
To “politicize” means “to give a political character to.” It is a reductive term, capturing the peculiarly shrunken horizons of politics: “Gee, they nuked Israel. D’you think that will hurt us in Florida?” So media outlets fret that Benghazi could be “bad” for Obama – by which they mean he might be hitting the six-figure lecture circuit four years ahead of schedule. But for Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, it’s real bad. They’re dead, over, gonesville. Given that Obama and Secretary Clinton refer to Stevens pneumatically as “Chris,” as if they’ve known him since third grade, why would they dishonor the sacrifice of their close personal friend by peddling an utterly false narrative as to why he died? You want “politicization”? Secretary Clinton linked the YouTube video to the murder of her colleagues even as the four caskets lay alongside her at Andrews Air Force Base – even though she had known for days that it had nothing to do with it. It’s weird enough that politicians now give campaign speeches to returning coffins. But to conscript your “friend’s” corpse as a straight man for some third-rate electoral opportunism is surely as shriveled and worthless as “politicization” gets.
In the vice-presidential debate, asked why the White House spent weeks falsely blaming it on the video, Joe Biden took time off between big toothy smirks to reply: “Because that was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community.” That, too, is false. He also denied that the government of which he is nominally second-in-command had ever received a request for additional security. At the risk of “politicizing” things, this statement would appear also to be untrue.
Instead, the State Department outsourced security for the Benghazi consulate to Blue Mountain, a Welsh firm that hires ex-British and Commonwealth Special Forces, among the toughest hombres on the planet. The company’s very name comes from the poem “The Golden Journey To Samarkand,” whose words famously adorn the regimental headquarters of Britain’s Special Air Service in Hereford. Unfortunately, the one-year contract for consulate security was only $387,413 – or less than the cost of deploying a single U.S. soldier overseas. On that budget, you can’t really afford to fly in a lot of crack SAS killing machines, and have to make do with the neighborhood talent pool. So who’s available? Blue Mountain hired five members of the Benghazi branch of the February 17th Martyrs’ Brigade and equipped them with handcuffs and batons. A baton is very useful when someone is firing an RPG at you, at least if you play a little baseball. There were supposed to be four men heavily armed with handcuffs on duty that night, but, the date of Sept. 11 having no particular significance in the Muslim world, only two guards were actually on shift.
Let’s pause right there, and “politicize” a little more. Liberals are always going on about the evils of “outsourcing” and “offshoring” – selfish vulture capitalists like Mitt Romney shipping jobs to cheap labor overseas just to save a few bucks. How unpatriotic can you get! So now the United States government is outsourcing embassy security to cheap Welshmen who, in turn, outsource it to cheaper Libyans. Diplomatic facilities are U.S. sovereign territory – no different de jure from Fifth Avenue or Mount Rushmore. So defending them is one of the core responsibilities of the state. But that’s the funny thing about Big Government: the bigger it gets, the more of life it swallows up, the worse it gets at those very few things it’s supposed to be doing. So, on the first anniversary of 9/11 in a post-revolutionary city in which Western diplomats had been steadily targeted over the previous six months, the government of the supposedly most powerful nation on Earth entrusted its security to Abdulaziz Majbari, 29, and his pal, who report to some bloke back in Carmarthen, Wales.
In the days before the attack, Joe Biden had been peddling his Obama campaign slogan that: “Bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive.” The first successful terrorist attack on U.S. sovereign territory since 9/11, and on the very anniversary and by al-Qaida-linked killers, was not helpful to the Obama team. And so the nature of the event had to be “politicized”: Look, over there – an Islamophobic movie! “Greater love hath no man than this,” quoth the President at Chris Stevens’ coffin, “that a man lay down his life for his friends.” Smaller love hath no man than Obama’s, than to lay down his “friend” for a couple of points in Ohio.
Read more OCR.
I have never witnessed a more poorly officiated political debate than the Vice Presidential debate of October 11, 2012, between Paul Ryan and Joe Biden at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky. Moderated by ABC’s Martha Raddatz, the widely respected journalist appeared to give Vice President Joe Biden nearly twice as much time to speak as his republican challenger. While it’s true she really never checked either of the men, both of whom became frustrated with the other at various points along the way, Raddatz should have lip checked Biden after he repeatedly interrupted Ryan’s allotted time. It went waaaaay too far, way over the line of professionalism on Biden’s part.
The 90 minute long oversight was so blatant that I decided to dig a little deeper to see if there was a personal connection between Raddatz and the Obama campaign, and like most of my gut in-”stinks” … it proved fruitful.
Raddatz’s former husband, Julius Genachowski, who Raddatz shares a son with, went to law school with Barack Obama – who was a guest at her wedding. Today Genachowski is the current head of the Federal Communications Commission(FCC) under the Obama Administration. The FCC is the federal agency that Raddatz’s bosses at ABC as well as all other mainstream media – answer to.
Biden knew Raddatz was going to let him act belligerent – rude – and just flat out “low -pro” because of her affiliations with Barack Obama.
What was even more frustrating for me was Ryan’s unwillingness to return the favor when he had the chance even though he had aggravated cause throughout.
Regardless, the score is now 1 up. Obama had better take some pointers from Biden because his opponent, heavyweight debater Mitt Romney – isn’t as obliging with his time and was last seen pounding on the prez like a sack of potatoes.
I predict Obama chokes in the upcoming debate and ends his slim chances of returning to Washington for a second term because once a man takes a pounding from another guy, the ripple effects go on and on. Barack Obama has been eating and sleeping Mitt Romney. All he can hear when he lays down at night is Romney pounding away at him, eye to eye about the economy and taxes – telling Obama what a failure he’s been in front of an audience of 67 million people, many of whom agree.
Romney is flawless. Never stutters … never slips … never makes that weird eye contact thing as if he’s unsure of something he’s saying. Obama’s ultimate nightmare because a self-indulged narcissist only wants “good attention.”
Romney was the guy we wanted all along, many of us at some point along the way, however, have slighted him as ‘not a true conservative,’ – not a member of the club – and it’s bullshit. I don’t know any other politician who could have taken Obama to the woodshed like Romney did – not Gingrich, not Palin, not even the conservative movements golden boy Allen West. No one else is that smooth and polished.
By the time election day rolls around, Romney will fly out of a phone booth with a damn cape on and into history as our next great American President.
A rogue Afghan soldier identified as Ghazi Mahmood sat, smiling a smile of extreme satisfaction for the camera, as he stated “I opened fire on three Americans who were sitting together. The reason I killed them is because they have occupied our country. They are enemies of our religion.”
So far in 2012 there have been 33 U.S. soldiers killed by the very Afghan forces they are training. In the past 3 years, uniformed Afghans, trained by our beloved American military, have murdered at least 97 US and NATO troops. Referred to as “green on blue” attacks, the Taliban has taken credit for many of the killings, but Pentagon officials working with the Obama administration, have been very reluctant to admit the infestation – even in the face of the bloodshed of Americans. The bottom-line truth is, there has been a widespread infiltration of radicalism within Afghan security forces which our troops are training.
To add insult to injury, the Pentagon is now responding by – wait for it – blaming our troops, and requiring that all U.S. military personnel step up existing Islamic Sensitivity Training. Our pentagon officials believe it’s culturally offensive behavior, perpetrated by our troops on poor, victimized and thin skinned Islamic militants, that’s responsible for the loss of American life.
On the cover, it stinks. A few pages in, and the stench from this latest handcuffing of our military is so overwhelming it will physically make you sick. It’s the philosophy of our Pentagon that a soldier with his feet up on a table is being offensive. A U.S. soldier that in casual conversation asks to see a picture of his Afghan training partners family, is offensive. And the list goes on (and will continue a little further down this article).
In a recent interview, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey had this to say on the matter:
“There’s a percentage [of attacks] which are cultural affronts. It is our duty to teach this to them. Our indifference about these issues causes the incident.”
Dempsey’s remarks are a near carbon copy of concerns Gen. Sher Mohammad Karimi, the Afghan National Army’s chief of staff, made earlier this month. Both men claim that more needs to be done to “teach” foreign troops Islamic traditions and values.
In 2011 the U.S. Army published a special handbook for soldiers that attempts to justify Islamic jihad – describing it as the “communal military defense of Islam and Muslims when they are threatened or under attack.” The new manual was created to help soldiers become “culturally literate” with sensitivity and understanding of Islamic civilization. The manual has nearly three dozen informative chapters dedicated to subjects such as Muslim taboos, the five pillars of Islam, Jihad, the Quran and Muslim festivals. At the end of each section there’s a question that’s supposed to stimulate “critical thinking.” At the end of the jihad section the question is: “How can the concept of jihad add legitimacy to the claims and aims of Al Qaeda and others?”
It was around that same time last year that the Pentagon issued a request that all female U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan wear a Hijab , or headscarf, in an effort to get closer to the local population. It wasn’t an order, but it was heavily encouraged, and according to Major Kyndra Rotunda, the executive director of the Military Law and Policy Institute, being “encouraged” to do something in the military is tantamount to being “ordered” to do it.
The rash of “green on blue” killings recently has prompted the Pentagon to require all troops be re-introduced to the philosophies in the Islamic Sensitivity manual. The new intense Muslim Sensitivity Training comes with “orders” – NOT encouragement to do so, but direct orders, which include the following:
If this seems like a list of “suggestions,” think again: Troops that violate Muslim Sensitivity Rules shall face severe punishment.
Wonder how old this picture is?
The most damaging decisions we make in life are often a function of the lies we tell ourselves. For Barack Obama, I imagine those include “I am important — I can do this job — I am better than anyone else — I am special, more than special, I am a great man and everyone loves me.”
When Barack Obama walked off that stage in Denver last week, he believed he had won the debate. Why wouldn’t he? Just showing up has always been enough in the past. Remember, this is a man who became successful without having actually ever succeeded.
Apart from campaigning, Obama hasn’t really ever done anything. Yet, his delusion of victory should surprise no one, since he also believes he is a great president doing a sensational job.
The problem with delusion is that even though its fallacious nature is obvious to the rational, it is invisible to the truly deluded. And this is why the President and his supporters can’t stop talking about the debate.
One would think that a failure by the President of such epic proportion would be something minions would be reluctant to mention, but Barack doesn’t think he failed. He thinks we, as a people, are just not smart enough to see his true margin of victory.
So now he will enlighten us by talking about it, because the excuses are important. Without excuses, he simply lost because he is a failed president, who was unprepared, arrogant and not as smart as Romney — the same guy he’s always been. He can’t have Americans believing that, so he has provided an alternate narrative to be incorporated in his story — his way. He needs us to believe in him, because without us, there is no him.
To paraphrase Jefferson, the tree of delusion must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of truth.
So he will keep talking about it, bending reality to his whim, telling a story where he was somehow cheated out of winning by a deceptive Mitt Romney. Or… he was too high… excuse me, I meant to say, Denver was too high.
But then, Obama has always been all about the story.
“When I think about what we’ve done well and what we haven’t done well, the mistake of my first term — couple of years — was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right. And that’s important. But the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times.
It’s funny — when I ran, everybody said, well he can give a good speech but can he actually manage the job? And in my first two years, I think the notion was, ‘Well, he’s been juggling and managing a lot of stuff, but where’s the story that tells us where he’s going?’ And I think that was a legitimate criticism.”
Who said the man couldn’t take criticism?
If supporters on his staff, sycophants in the press and minions in the electorate were honest with the nation and themselves, they would see the depth of his delusion.
But not only are they colluding with his delusion, they are deluded themselves. They will never see that the biggest mistake Barack Obama ever made is that he thought he was Barack Obama.
Polling and realists, reluctantly relaying a tiny bit of rare realism to the president, may have forced him to admit publicly his loss, but in his heart of hearts, he doesn’t really believe he did.
He has always been told how great, brilliant and unique he is, so it’s hard for him to accept that he failed — not just at the debate, but at everything.
Remember when he said:
“I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any President — with the possible exception of Johnson, FDR, and Lincoln — just in terms what we’ve gotten done in modern history.”
For Obama, lying to himself is just as important as lying to us.
In the end, what are we left with — the Big Bird President? That’s the problem with delusion; you can’t see the truth, because you refuse to. You need the delusion to maintain the illusion.
Does anyone doubt that the President believes he is winning this election? And when he wakes up early on November 7th, does anyone doubt he will be shocked that he has lost?
Dylan Thomas implored man to “not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.” And surely Barack Obama will take his advice. Because to him, the world has never known a brighter light; and the nation’s voters would never willingly choose another.
He won’t believe it; he will insist — just as with the debate — that the result is wrong, that someone cheated — that it is all Bush’s fault, or the tsunami, or an obstructionist congress — really, any excuse will do, maybe he was “too polite” with America.
There will be many excuses at first, but finally, he will claim voter fraud – because he is incapable of believing that the nation doesn’t want four more years of him.
And it is a sad statement on America that millions will believe him. When you buy a false dream, it’s not possible to return it — all sales are final. A multitude of people bought the Barack Obama myth and now they are stuck with it. Because to admit how small he really is and the degree of his spectacular failure as president is to admit their own failure — and what’s the point of having a delusion if you own up to being deluded? No… reality must be changed to support the illusion.
The Supreme Court this week took up a case that just might put an end to race-based college admissions. The justices heard arguments Wednesday involving an affirmative action program, at the University of Texas, whose whole purpose seems to be to give special preference to black and Hispanic applicants who come from middle-income and affluent homes.
Long past are the days when affirmative action proponents could argue they were simply trying to help disadvantaged minorities, much less actual victims of discrimination. Now, the rallying cry is simply to bolster the number of black and Hispanic students on campus — even if it means denying admission to better-qualified white and Asian students who also happen to be more economically disadvantaged than the favored minorities.
The University of Texas affirmative action program is one of the most egregious in the nation. It is also unnecessary as the university boasts one of the country’s most racially and ethnically diverse student bodies, with over half the students non-white.
In 1996, Texas adopted a race-neutral program aimed at increasing diversity in the state university system. The policy guaranteed admission to the state university to any student who graduated within the top 10 percent of his or her high school class. The purpose was to ensure that high-performing students from low-income schools would have access to the state’s best public higher education. It worked remarkably well to increase the number of black and Hispanic students. By 2004, 21 percent of the incoming freshmen were black or Hispanic and 18 percent were Asian.
But the university’s obsession with creating even more “diversity,” led it to adopt a race-conscious preference to ensure that blacks and Hispanics who didn’t graduate in the top 10 percent of their class would also be given preferences. The result was a small boost in the number of blacks and Hispanics admitted — but most of these preferences went to privileged minorities.
The beneficiaries were no longer disadvantaged minority kids who had attended underperforming schools but middle-class and even wealthy students who went to integrated, often suburban or private schools.
Several of the justices at Wednesday’s arguments voiced incredulity at the need for such a preference for the privileged. Justice Samuel Alito posed a hypothetical to the university’s attorney involving an applicant whose parents “have income that puts them in the top 1% of earners in the country. They deserve a leg-up against, let’s say, an Asian or a white applicant whose parents are absolutely average in terms of education and income?” he asked. The attorney’s response was that these students bring “different experiences” from those of disadvantaged blacks or Hispanics.
Well, yes — affluent blacks and Hispanics share more in common with their affluent white peers than they do with other blacks and Hispanics who are poor. And that’s the point. Why should they be given special preference in college admission when they already benefit from a privileged upbringing?
It has been nearly ten years since the Supreme Court wrestled with the thorny issue of racial preferences in higher education. Last time around, in the 2003 University of Michigan law school case Grutter v. Bollinger, the court kicked the can down the road, upholding racial preferences by a 5-4 decision.
In her majority opinion for the court, former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said, “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today,” referring to increasing diversity. But the effect of that opinion was not only to prolong preferences long after they served their original purpose but also to extend their rational to benefit even wealthy kids solely on the basis of the color of their skin.
In every state that has abandoned the use of racial preferences in college admission — California, most prominently — the number of black and Hispanic students attending universities has actually gone up. The difference is these students are now attending colleges where their academic skills are the same as their non-minority peers. Instead of being admitted to selective schools where they struggle to compete with better-prepared students, they attend colleges where they are on an equal academic footing with everyone else. The effect has been to boost the graduation rate of blacks and Hispanics — which should be the aim of true affirmative action in the first place.
Read more HERE.
“The grim trade is being run from China where corrupt medical staff are said to be tipping off medical companies when babies are aborted or delivered still-born.
The tiny corpses are then bought, stored in household refrigerators in homes of those involved in the trade before they are removed and taken to clinics where they are placed in medical drying microwaves.
Once the skin is tinder dry, it is pummelled into powder and then processed into capsules along with herbs to disguise the true ingredients from health investigators and customs officers.”