My Reply to a Liberal Columnist

Editor:

Lisa Pampuch's column of 9/16 reveals that she suffers from an advanced case of LMDD (Liberal Myopic Degenerative Disorder), for what else can be concluded after she says that Barrack Obama will give America a better future? I believe that an objective evaluation of evidence shows that Mr. Obama is 180 degrees away from Ms. Pampuch's ideal truth-teller. And I would challenge her to deny each of the following points for her "hero", specifically:

1. Obama continues to hide the fact that he is a member supporter of the far leftwing Democratic Socialists of America. Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the "champions" of "Chicago's democratic left" and a long-time socialist activist. Obama's stint as a "community organizer" in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored. Obama has never renounced ANY of his socialist leanings.

2. Obama supports the Black Liberation Theology of his former mentor but still friend Rev. Jeremiah Wright, which upon careful examination, is more Marxist than Christian, and reflects the movement's class dialectic that remains unabashedly race-based. Wright's racist rages against white America is well documented.

3. Obama is the documented candidate of choice for the Nation of Islam, the Black Panthers, the Communist Party USA, the Socialist Party USA, and other leftwing anti-America organizations, as well as the political regime of Iran. If the Communist Party USA is happy with Obama, which they are, then clearly he is not someone who is willing to advance American interests anywhere -- and therefore should not be given the keys to the White House.

4. Obama is anti-US Military. Just four years ago, Sen. John Kerry strode onstage at the Democrat National Convention and declared, "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty." In the course of the contest between Kerry and Bush, John Kerry and the Democrats set up the John Kerry Test for Presidential Qualification, one which George W. Bush could only fail, and one which only John Kerry could pass. There are three points to the test: One: To be qualified to be president, a candidate must have military service. Two: Active duty service in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Coast Guard, in a war zone, trumps National Guard service in the states. Three: Active duty service in actual combat trumps service that did not see combat. It appears that Democrats have long since forgotten all about the John Kerry Test, rather nominating Obama, who fails to meet any of the three points of the John Kerry Test, for president. Obama has never been anywhere near the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, or National Guard, in war or in peace.He has no active duty service, no reserve service, no military service of any kind. He has never served in a war zone and he has never been in combat. He fails the John Kerry Test in every respect.

5. Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever. He is so pro-abortion he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons." His pro-abortion record is undisputed.

6. Obama will raise taxes, embrace illegal immigrants, increase gun control, increase welfare payments and move America further towards a fully-blown Socialist State of Big Brother control.
The fact is Ms. Pampuch, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance. He has no real identity.
He is a puppet controlled by his liberal masters. That Ms. Pampuch, is not putting the country first.

New Obama Words

Obamamania: a psychological-induced frenzy that typically effects young liberals of voting age as well as old liberal feminists and the news media, producing in the individual a false sense of political optimism and security without any factual concrete evidence to back-up the euphoria.

Obamaphobia: a inert fear of Hillary Clinton and any other politician or Fox News commentator who is against Obama. Often hits with hot flashes and high body temperature.

Obamacide: what will happen to American government and America if Obama is elected: the swing into full-blown socialism.

Obamaphile: a Democrat-Socialist who worships Obama, even though their candidate has no resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.
Obamaocrat: a Democrat-Socialist who has moved spiritually into the next level of political karma, really believing that Obama is the political savior who not only will bring utopian "change" but will be the great uniter of political and social factions within America, even though no politician has ever been able to accomplish this feat in the history of the world.

Obamasized: the effect that Obama's rhetoric has upon Obamaphiles, specifically turning off and shutting down any ability to think independently about the truthfulness of what the candidate has said and continues to spew out. This is similar to a drug-induced stupor.

Obamation: the process by which Obama will change the US economy, bring world peace, solve the energy crisis, and persuade world dictators that their politics are wrong. Of course, this process is highly theoretical and totally unproven, as well as being vague and ambigious.

Obamanation: what the US absolutely does not need.

Obamatron: the final terminal state of an Obamaphile, where the brain totally shuts down all rational thinking, and the individual becomes a zombie, with a constant dribble from the nose and mouth.

Obamabate: self-induced sexual excitement thinking about Obama. One liberal media type has publically shown signs of this malady indicating that he gets a "thrill down his leg" upon hearing Obama speak.

Obamanomics: the provenly false Kenysian economic philosophy that raising personal and corporate taxes will improve the economy. In reality, the "goose" laying the golden eggs is chocked to death, and profit incentives are reduced while government entitlements increase.

Hypocrite Obama

“Barack Obama likes to portray himself as a centrist politician who wants to unite the country, but occasionally his postpartisan mask slips. That was the case at Saturday night’s Saddleback Church forum, when Mr. Obama chose to demean Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated. Mr. McCain said, ‘with all due respect’ the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy. Mr. Obama took a lower road, replying first that ‘that’s a good one,’ and then adding that ‘I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas... I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution.’ The Democrat added that he also wouldn’t have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job. So let’s see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General’s office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation’s second most prominent court. Since his ‘elevation’ to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist. Meanwhile, as he bids to be America’s Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn’t yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a ‘community organizer’ and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas’s judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama’s Presidential rèsumè by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas’s rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama’s story look like easy street.

Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat’s answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn’t expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn’t merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing clichè that the Court’s black conservative isn’t up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are. So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama’s advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won’t let slip what he really believes.” —The Wall Street Journal

The West's Islamist Infiltrators

The commentary below by Daniel Pipes illustrates the daunting challenge we in the West face in dealing with the threat of Islamist infiltration of our government and intelligence agencies.


If government officials are deemed as too aggressive in doing background checks of Muslims who seek such positions, they are met with the predictable cry of “discrimination” and “Islamophobia.”

If they are not aggressive or thorough enough in their background checks, radical Islamists slip through and gain access to classified intelligence information that could compromise critical anti-terrorism investigations – putting us at greater risk.

But the blame for this situation does not lie with Americans who are concerned about national security and demand exhaustive background checks of Muslims, and the “victims” are not Muslims who claim they are being discriminated against or treated unfairly.

The blame lies first with those millions of Muslims who are intent on waging jihad against us, whether through violent means or cultural subversion. The blame lies secondly with those Muslims who reflexively cry “discrimination” but do nothing to isolate or stop the Muslims intent on waging jihad.

And the victims are the American people, who, every time they have to take off their shoes to go through airport security…who every time they have to pay more for goods and services because of the increased costs due to the threat of terrorism…who every time they fear for the safety of loved ones who are traveling…are starkly reminded of the cost we are paying for this jihadist assault on our safety, security and values.

So let us never forget. We are in this war against Islamic terrorism, in all its manifestations, because Islamists have declared jihad against us. They are the aggressors, and we have every right to do what we must to protect and defend ourselves, and to do so without apology. And that includes keeping a keen and watchful eye on Muslims who seek positions in our government and intelligence agencies.

The West's Islamist Infiltrators

By Daniel Pipes
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/

Aafia Siddiqui, 36, is a Pakistani mother of three, an alumna of MIT, and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Brandeis University. She is also accused of working for Al-Qaeda and was charged last week in New York City with attempting to kill American soldiers.


Her arrest serves to remind how invisibly most Islamist infiltration proceeds. In particular, an estimated forty Al-Qaeda sympathizers or operatives have sought to penetrate U.S. intelligence agencies.

Such a well-placed infiltrator can wreck great damage explains a former CIA chief of counterintelligence, Michael Sulick: "In the war on terrorism, intelligence has replaced the Cold War's tanks and fighter planes as the primary weapon against an unseen enemy." Islamist moles, he argues, "could inflict far more damage to national security than Soviet spies," for the U.S. and Soviet Union never actually fought each other, whereas now, "our nation is at war."

Here are some American cases of attempted infiltration since 2001 that have been made public:

The Air Force discharged Sadeq Naji Ahmed, a Yemeni immigrant, when his superiors learned of his pro-Al-Qaeda statements. Ahmed subsequently became a baggage screener at Detroit's Metro Airport, which terminated him for hiding his earlier discharge from the Air Force. He was convicted of making false statements and sentenced to eighteen months in jail.

The Chicago Police Department fired Patricia Eng-Hussain just three days into her training on learning that her husband, Mohammad Azam Hussain, was arrested for being an active member of Mohajir Qaumi Movement-Haqiqi (MQM-H), a Pakistani terrorist group.

The Chicago Police Department also fired Arif Sulejmanovski, a supervising janitor at its 25th District station after it learned his name was on a federal terrorist watch list of international terrorism suspects.

Mohammad Alavi, an engineer at the Palo Verde nuclear power plant, was arrested as he arrived on a flight from Iran, accused of taking computer access codes and software to Iran that provide details on the plant's control rooms and plant layout. He subsequently pleaded guilty to transporting stolen property.

Nada Nadim Prouty, a Lebanese immigrant who worked for both the FBI and CIA, pleaded guilty to charges of: fraudulently obtaining U.S. citizenship; accessing a federal computer system to unlawfully query information about her relatives and the terrorist organization Hizballah; and engaging in conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Waheeda Tehseen, a Pakistani immigrant who filled a sensitive toxicologist position with the Environmental Protection Agency, pleaded guilty to fraud and was deported. World Net Daily explains that "investigators suspect espionage is probable, as she produced highly sensitive health-hazard documents for toxic compounds and chemical pesticides. Tehseen also was an expert in parasitology as it relates to public water systems."

Weiss Rasool, 31, a Fairfax County police sergeant and Afghan immigrant, pleaded guilty for checking police databases without authorization, thereby jeopardizing at least one federal terrorism investigation.

Nadire P. Zenelaj, 32, a 911 emergency operator of Albanian origins, was charged with 232 felony counts of computer trespass for illegally searching New York State databases, including at least one person on the FBI's terrorist watch list.

Three other cases are less clear. The Transportation Security Administration fired Bassam Khalaf, 21, a Texan of Christian Palestinian origins, as an airport baggage screener because lyrics on his music CD, Terror Alert, applaud the 9/11 attacks. FBI Special Agent Gamal Abdel-Hafiz "showed a pattern of pro-Islamist behavior," according to author Paul Sperry, that may have helped acquit Sami Al-Arian of terrorism charges. The Pentagon cleared Hesham Islam, an Egyptian immigrant, former U.S. Navy commander, and special assistant to the deputy secretary of defense, but major questions remain about his biography and his outlook.

Other Western countries too - Australia, Canada, Israel, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom - have been subject to infiltration efforts. (For details, see my weblog entry, "Islamists Penetrate Western Security.")

This record prompts one to wonder what catastrophe must occur before government agencies, some of which have banished the words "Islam" and "jihad," seriously confront their internal threat?

Westerners are indebted to Muslim agents like Fred Ghussin and "Kamil Pasha" who have been critical to fighting terrorism. That said, I stand by my 2003 statement that "There is no escaping the unfortunate fact that Muslim government employees in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps need to be watched for connections to terrorism."

4 Political Cartoons I'd Love to See

HOW ABOUT:

- An Obama puppet, being juggled by strings attached to puppet masters labeled Abortionists, Socialists, Communists, Muslims, CAIR, ACLU, Labor Unions, and the other radicals who control the Democrat Party. Obama's 143 days of "experience" shows that he is at best a puppet being controlled by masters other than his own convictions.

- A galley slave ship (named the Demonstrative Democrat) with the oarsmen/slaves labeled "American Taxpayers" and the whip crackers labeled "Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Kerry, Kennedy, etc., yelling to the slaves "just row harder and we'll get to utopia faster..." but like all slave masters, always thinking of lining their own political pockets while lying to the people on a consistent basis.

- Obama dressed as the Pied Piper, playing his pipes of "change" as he lures the naive into the river (symbolizing America) of economic and political destruction. "What fools ye mortals be..." wrote Shakespear, and how true this is as Obama leads a mass of fools.

- The Obama facade: a smooth well-polished front, but when examined in depth, absolutely nothing behind it. Obama has virtually no experience in goverment when compared to the likes of McCain. The Democrats have truly picked a "flea-weight" as their "Champion".

What Constitutes a Contemporary Liberal?

What, in the broadest terms, constitutes a contemporary liberal -- and why?

Liberals are almost uniformly defined by their hypocrisy and dissociation from reality. For example, the wealthiest U.S. senators -- among them Kerry, Kennedy, Corzine, Kohl, Rockefeller, Feinstein, and Rhode Island RINO Lincoln Chaffee -- fancy themselves as defenders of the poor, but they have no idea of what it's like to live without a bloated trust fund. Liberals speak of unity, but they appeal to the worst in human nature by dividing Americans into dependent constituencies. Just who are these liberal constituencies? They support freedom of thought, unless your thoughts don't comport with theirs. They feign tolerance while practicing intolerance. They resist open discussion and debate of their views, yet seek to silence dissenters. They insist that they care more about protecting habitat than those who hunt and fish. They protest for nature conservation while advocating homosexuality. They denounce capital punishment for the most heinous of criminals, while ardently supporting the killing of the most innocent among us -- children prior to birth. They hate private-gun ownership, but they wink and nod when it comes to WMD in the hands of tyrants. They advocate for big government but want to restrain free enterprise.

Liberals constantly assert their First Amendment rights, except, of course, when it comes to religion. Here, they firmly impose the doctrines of secular atheism on everyone else. They believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than marijuana smoke. They believe that one nut accused of bombing an Alabama abortion clinic deserves far more law-enforcement attention than Jihadi cells planning the 9/11 attacks. They call 9/11 victims "Hitlerian" while calling their murderers "oppressed." They hate SUVs, unless imported and driven by soccer moms. They believe trial lawyers save lives and doctors kill people. They believe the solution to racism is to treat people differently on the basis of their skin color. They deride moral clarity because they can't survive its scrutiny. They promote peace but foment division and hate -- ad infinitum.

Why do liberals believe what they believe -- and act the way they act? Psychopathology dictates, or frames, worldview, and worldview manifests in such things as political affiliation. Liberal pathology is very transparent and, thus, well defined.

Generally, liberals tend to be mentally rigid and closed-minded because they are insecure, the result of low self-esteem associated, predominantly, with fatherless households or critically dysfunctional families in which they were not adequately affirmed. (For Leftist over-achievers like Bill Clinton, see narcissistic boderline personality disorder.) They exhibit fear, anger, and aggression -- the behavioral consequences of arrested emotional development associated with childhood trauma (primarily rejection by a significant family member of origin as noted above).

Liberals display pessimism, disgust, and contempt for much the same reason. They focus on loss prevention because they have suffered significant loss. They fear death because they have little or no meaningful connection with their Heavenly Father -- often the result of the disconnect with their earthly fathers. They often come from socially and/or economically deprived homes, but those who are inheritance-welfare trust-babies (see Kennedy, et al.) manifest similar expectations about being helpless without external sustenance. Liberals reject individual responsibility and social stability because these were not modeled for them as children -- the generational implications of pathology.

Sound familiar -- apparently the profs at Cal-Berkeley and Maryland attributed their own pathological traits to their opposition. It's called projection -- or, yes indeed, hypocrisy.

While the aforementioned environmental and behavioral factors are not universally causal in the emergence of a liberal worldview, they certainly are predominant. Close examination of the early childhood of most liberals will reveal they were "victims" of many of these circumstances, which is, in part, the basis for their "victim mentality."

Of course, there are many conservatives who were raised by a single parent or in critically dysfunctional and impoverished homes. However, somewhere along the way, they were lifted out of their misery by the grace of God -- often in the form of a significant mentor who modeled hope and responsibility for them. As a result, they have the courage to internalize their locus of responsibility, unlike liberals, who externalize responsibility for problems and solutions, holding others (read "conservatives") to blame for their ills, and bestowing upon the state the duty for arbitrating proper conduct -- even proper thought.

On a final note, it's no coincidence that conservative political bases tend to be suburban or rural, while liberal political bases tend to be urban (see http://PatriotPost.US/map.asp). The social, cultural and economic blight in many urban settings are the catalysts for producing generations of liberals. Many urbanites no longer have a connection with "the land" (self-sufficiency) and, thus, tend to be largely dependent on the state for all manner of their welfare, protection and sustenance -- "It Takes a Village" after all.

source:
From Patriot Post Vol. 05 No. 08; Published 25 February 2005

Tolerant Liberals? Hardly.

Today's liberals are always ready to pound their chests with their virtue of tolerance. But the facts show time and time again that liberals are really not tolerant at all, especially when it comes to being "tolerant" towards any one who does not agree with them especially in secularism, evolution, or politics.

Liberals are hypocrites, mouthing one thing and practicing another. When are thinking Americans going to wake-up and see that liberal "tolerance" is truly an OXYMORON?