Score one for the Swiss!

November 30, 2009

Woohoo!   I think the Swiss voters got this one right!!  But I am pretty sure the ban will be short lived.

Do you think that Christians would be able to build churches in Islamic countries??  NO.  Christians in fact are NOT allowed to build churches in Islamic countries.  In fact,   Christians are actually PERSECUTED in Islamic countries.  And if you are an Islamic convert to Christianity,  often,  in  many if not all Islamic countries,  DEATH is the penalty.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/shock-as-switzerland-votes-to-ban-the-building-of-minarets-1831109.html

Switzerland votes to ban the building of minarets

Swiss government stunned as xenophobic fringe parties exult

By Tony Paterson

Monday, 30 November 2009

A minaret atop a Turkish cultural centre
FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/GETTYA minaret atop a Turkish cultural centre, with a church in the background, in Wangen bei Olten

The spectre of religious and racial intolerance was raised over Switzerland last night as a majority of voters backed a deeply controversial proposal to ban the building of minarets at mosques in a referendum which instilled fear among Muslims and shocked the Swiss government………………………………………..

Most of Switzerland’s established political parties had opposed the ban in the run-up to the poll. In a joint statement they said: “It will be met with incomprehension abroad and damage Switzerland’s reputation.”

When is BO going to stop bowing to everyone??  It’s ridiculous.  And he looks foolish.  First there was the bow to the Saudi Prince,  and yes,   it definitely was a bow.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574558134111577494.html

This week, two points in an emerging pointillist picture of a White House leaking support—not the support of voters, though polls there show steady decline, but in two core constituencies, Washington’s Democratic-journalistic establishment, and what might still be called the foreign-policy establishment.

From journalist Elizabeth Drew, a veteran and often sympathetic chronicler of Democratic figures, a fiery denunciation of—and warning for—the White House. In a piece in Politico on the firing of White House counsel Greg Craig, Ms. Drew reports that while the president was in Asia last week, “a critical mass of influential people who once held big hopes for his presidency began to wonder whether they had misjudged the man.” They once held “an unromantically high opinion of Obama,” and were key to his rise, but now they are concluding that the president isn’t “the person of integrity and even classiness they had thought.”

Associated PressPresident Obama bows as he shakes hands with Japanese Emperor Akihito.

 

She scored “the Chicago crowd,” which she characterized as “a distressingly insular and small-minded West Wing team.” The White House, Ms. Drew says, needs adult supervision—”an older, wiser head, someone with a bit more detachment.”

As I read Ms. Drew’s piece, I was reminded of something I began noticing a few months ago in bipartisan crowds. I would ask Democrats how they thought the president was doing. In the past they would extol, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, his virtues. Increasingly, they would preface their answer with, “Well, I was for Hillary.” This in turn reminded me of a surprising thing I observe among loyal Democrats in informal settings and conversations: No one loves Barack Obama. Half the American people say they support him, and Democrats are still with him. But there were Bill Clinton supporters who really loved him. George W. Bush had people who loved him. A lot of people loved Jack Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. But no one seems to love Mr. Obama now; they’re not dazzled and head over heels. That’s gone away. He himself seems a fairly chilly customer; perhaps in turn he inspires chilly support. But presidents need that rock—bottom 20% who, no matter what’s happening—war, unemployment—adore their guy, have complete faith in him, and insist that you love him, too.

They’re the hard 20 a president always keeps. Nixon kept them! Obama probably has a hard 20 too, but whatever is keeping them close, it doesn’t seem to be love.

***

Just as stinging as Elizabeth Drew on domestic matters was Leslie Gelb on Mr. Obama and foreign policy in the Daily Beast. Mr. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and fully plugged into the Democratic foreign-policy establishment, wrote this week that the president’s Asia trip suggested “a disturbing amateurishness in managing America’s power.” The president’s Afghanistan review has been “inexcusably clumsy,” Mideast negotiations have been “fumbling.” So unsuccessful was the trip that Mr. Gelb suggested Mr. Obama take responsibility for it “as President Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs.”

He added that rather than bowing to emperors—Mr. Obama “seems to do this stuff spontaneously and inexplicably”—he should begin to bow to “the voices of experience” in Washington.

When longtime political observers start calling for wise men, a president is in trouble.

It also raises a distressing question: Who are the wise men and women now? Who are the Robert Lovetts, Chip Bohlens and Robert Strausses who can came in to help a president in trouble right his ship? America seems short of wise men, or short on those who are universally agreed to be wise. I suppose Vietnam was the end of that, but establishments exist for a reason, and it is hard for a great nation to function without the presence of a group of “the oldest and wisest” who can not only give sound advice but help engineer how that advice will be reported and received.

Mr Obama is in a hard place. Health care hangs over him, and if he is lucky he will lose a close vote in the Senate. The common wisdom that he can’t afford to lose is exactly wrong—he can’t afford to win with such a poor piece of legislation. He needs to get the issue behind him, vow to fight another day, and move on. Afghanistan hangs over him, threatening the unity of his own Democratic congressional base. There is the growing perception of incompetence, of the inability to run the machine of government. This, with Americans, is worse than Obama’s rebranding as a leader who governs from the left. Americans demand baseline competence. If he comes to be seen as Jimmy Carter was, that the job was bigger than the man, that will be the end.

Which gets us back to the bow.

In a presidency, a picture or photograph becomes iconic only when it seems to express something people already think. When Gerald Ford was spoofed for being physically clumsy, it took off. The picture of Ford losing his footing and tumbling as he came down the steps of Air Force One became a symbol. There was a reason, and it wasn’t that he was physically clumsy. He was not only coordinated but graceful. He’d been a football star at the University of Michigan and was offered contracts by the Detroit Lions and Green Bay Packers.

But the picture took off because it expressed the growing public view that Ford’s policies were bumbling and stumbling. The picture was iconic of a growing political perception.

The Obama bowing pictures are becoming iconic, and they would not be if they weren’t playing off a growing perception. If the pictures had been accompanied by headlines from Asia saying “Tough Talks Yield Big Progress” or “Obama Shows Muscle in China,” the bowing pictures might be understood this way: “He Stoops to Conquer: Canny Obama shows elaborate deference while he subtly, toughly, quietly advances his nation’s interests.”

But that’s not how the pictures were received or will be remembered.

It is true that Mr. Obama often seems not to have a firm grasp of—or respect for—protocol, of what has been done before and why, and of what divergence from the traditional might imply. And it is true that his political timing was unfortunate. When a great nation is feeling confident and strong, a surprising presidential bow might seem gracious. When it is feeling anxious, a bow will seem obsequious.

The Obama bowing pictures are becoming iconic not for those reasons, however, but because they express a growing political perception, and that is that there is something amateurish about this presidency, something too ad hoc and highly personalized about it, something . . . incompetent, at least in its first year.

It is hard to be president, and White Houses under pressure take refuge in thoughts that become mantras. When the previous White House came under mounting criticism from 2005 through ’08, they comforted themselves by thinking, They criticized Lincoln, too. You could see their minds whirring: Lincoln was criticized, Lincoln was great, ergo we are great. But of course just because they say you’re stupid doesn’t mean you’re Lincoln.

One senses the Obama people are doing the Lincoln too, and adding to it the consoling thought that this is only the first year, we’ve got three years to go, we can change perceptions, don’t worry.

But they should worry. You can get tagged, typed and pegged your first year. Gerald Ford did, and Ronald Reagan too, more happily. The first year is when indelible impressions are made and iconic photos emerge.

Holocaust deniers………

November 29, 2009

How can anyone in their right mind deny the Holocaust ever happened??  I have never quite been able to understand that.

Is is just plain old denial or is it ignorance or is it racism?

This is a good article.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113444

Forgiveness on the eve of Holocaust

Iranian-born director defies Ahmadinejad’s denials with powerful new film


Posted: October 19, 2009
10:45 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Still scene from “The Desperate”

“Why?” asks the concentration camp prisoner of his Nazi captors. “Why should I help you? You are my enemy.”

So asks the Jewish doctor in “The Desperate,” a new short film from Iranian-born director Ben-Hur Sepehr that defies Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust with a story of forgiveness amid the horrors of a Nazi concentration camp.

The film presents a powerful moral dilemma, as a renowned Jewish doctor, plucked in his tattered, striped clothes from the line of men sentenced to die in the Nazi ovens, is asked by his captors to save the life of the German general’s son, wounded in battle.

Sepehr told WND “The Desperate” was filmed by a coalition of Jews, Germans, Christians, Muslims and atheists dedicated to the organization’s goals. Donations to Tolerance Through Knowledge will fund future projects with a similar purpose.

“Anyone who wants to join us with this endeavor,” Sepehr said, “our arms are open.”

Happy Thanksgiving

November 26, 2009

I hope you all enjoy this day as we celebrate our nation, our faith and our families.

This is totally obnoxious….

November 25, 2009

Why oh why is this happening???  Who are the idiots in charge of this and who are the cowards that let it even move forward???

This is a WAR and the poor “victim” was not a victim at all. HE KILLED AMERICAN’S!!  A fat lip????  For all we know he hit himself in the lip.

I just cannot believe this case is moving forward.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/24/three-navy-seals-court-martialed-after-giving-most-wanted-iraqi-terrorist-a-fat-lip/

Three Navy SEALs court-martialed after giving most-wanted Iraqi terrorist a fat lip

posted at 5:32 pm on November 24, 2009 by Allahpundit

Looks awful, but I’m suspicious that it’s as bad as it seems given Fox’s misleading headline: “Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist.” That makes it sound like the act of capturing him is the offense here, which would be insane even by the Army’s Nidal-Hasan standards of political correctness.

Global warming….

November 24, 2009

Turns out it actually is all a lie.  And the biggest liar of them all in the global warming hoax??  Al Gore.  Yes,   Al Gore.  The same Al Gore that goes flying around the country in his GULFSTREAM jet that sucks fuel at an alarming rate.

But wait!!! I guess it is ok for the “elite” to use all the fuel that they want because you know, they are worth it and us peons that live the middle class life are, well, just that–middle class.

So, the whole science community has been doctoring the numbers and reports just so everyone,  including our elitist president will buy into the global warming hoax.

But as per usual,  the lamestreet media is no where around to report on this.  So they can cover up for their liberal buddy scientists lying about global warming.

Well,  hurray to them.  What a lovely bunch of coconuts.

Here is the article.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024993.php

Global Warming Bombshell

November 20, 2009 Posted by John at 11:17 PM

The biggest news story of the day is one that has barely begun to break and will continue to reverberate for months or years to come. Someone hacked into a computer at the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climatic Research Centre, one of the main centers of anthropogenic global warming research. The hacker downloaded over 200 megabytes of data from the server, consisting of around 1,000 emails and a variety of other documents. He uploaded them to an FTP server, where they were available to the public, apparently, for only a few hours. The event is described here.

More updates–well worth the read.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/025011.php

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024996.php

Diversity?

November 23, 2009

Let me just add that General Casey is a whackjob.

Maybe if the officers at Walter Reed hadn’t been too cowardly to report Hasan,  maybe there wouldn’t be 3 dead soldiers,  and don’t forget the baby,  along with all the wounded at Fort Hood.  Just maybe……

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/70444222.html

The Elephant in the Room: Diversity, but at what cost?

Political correctness in the military is not merely absurd. It’s dangerous.

By Rick Santorum

Six U.S. Naval Academy students were to form the color guard at Game 2 of the World Series, played Oct. 29 at Yankee Stadium. Everything was going fine until the academy brass discovered something terribly amiss, and Capt. Matthew Klunder jumped into action. Klunder, the commandant of midshipmen, ordered that two members of the color guard be replaced.Were the midshipmen cut because of incompetence? Was there some disciplinary problem? No. They were benched because they are – white men. The Naval Academy’s top officials had decided the color guard needed a white woman and a Pakistani American man for the sake of “diversity.”……………………………………

It’s not a critical national-security matter when a few white male midshipmen almost get bounced from a color guard. After the Fort Hood killings, however, we should look at the military’s blind commitment to “diversity” and see if it’s blinding us to the obvious – and the dangerous.


Rick Santorum can be reached at rsantorum@phillynews.com.