Monthly Archives: September 2008

Katie Couric Edited Interview to Make Palin Look Bad

This article is posted on The Pink Flamingo

Katie Couric Edited Interview to Make Palin Look Bad

The Pink Flamingo’s regular readers know when I agree with Kathryn Jean Lopez we’re getting a little disparate around here. This is one of those times.  We all agree that Palin looked terrible in the CBS interview with Katie Couric.  If the conservtive blogsphere had been willing to defend Palin maybe they would have found the edits from that interview:

“…(2:58) Couric: What, specifically, in your view, could be done to convince the new government in Pakistan to take a harder, tougher line against terrorists in that country?

Palin: At a time when new leadership comes in, that is the opportunity to forge better, tighter, more productive relationships and that’s what we’ll take advantage of with new leadership in the US and in Pakistan. And I’m sure that President Zardari, too, will agree with us as we commit to the support that Pakistan needs, that other nations in the region need, in order to win this war on terrorism. (3:32)

(5:39) Couric: But what lessons do you think you have learned as you’ve watched this unfold in terms of implementing the democracy and the challenges inherent in that goal?

Palin: Well, one is that America cannot be counted on to do this solely, to be the savior of every other nation, but we need friends and we need allies and we need this nation-building effort and we need to forge new alliances, and that is what a new election will provide opportunity to do.

Couric: What happened if the goal of democracy, Governor Palin, doesn’t produce the desired outcome, for example in Gaza, the US pushed hard for elections and Hamas won.

Palin: Especially in that region, though, we have got to protect those and support those who do seek democracy and do seek protections for the people who live there. And you know, we’re seeing today, in the last couple of days here in New York, a speaker, a President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, who would come on our soil and express such disdain for one of our closest allies and friends—Israel—and we’re hearing the evil that he speaks. And if hearing him doesn’t allow Americans to commit more solidly to protecting the friends and allies that we need, expecially there in the Mideast, then nothing will.

If Americans are not waking up to understand what it is that he represents, then nothing is going to wake us up and we will be lulled into some kind of false sense of security that perhaps Americans were a part of before 9/11.(7:25)…”

If you read the edits, Palin does not look like an idiot.  That’s the whole point.  Couric had to make her look bad. And idiots like Kathleen Parker have fallen for Couric’s lies.

Have you ever heard the old adage, if you tell a lie long enough, people will believe it.  Well, that’s happening to Sarah Palin. I don’t mind admitting I’m so angry I’m in tears as I write this.  I don’t know when I’ve seen anyone so abused and mistreated by the press.  Serial killers get more respect.  I swear Hitler gets more positive headlines.  Hugo Chavez is treated better.  Fidel Castro is more revered.  More members of the press defend OJ than defend Sarah Palin.  It has reached the point where they are going to destroy a good woman and her family.  Now “conservatives” have joined the fight, determined to destroy John McCain by demanding she withdraw as his VP nominee.  If she does, he’s done.  Like Rick Moran wrote today:

“…Besides this, if Palin were to withdraw, McCain may as well pack it in and go back to Arizona. No sense in staying in a race you are going to lose hugely….”

I like Ace’s take on things.  Note to Kathleen Parker – get your panties out of a wad!  My question is simple.  Why the H-E-Double-Toothpick did the McCain Campaign even consider letting her go anywhere near bottom-feeder Katie Couric?

Do you want my take on things?  Kathleen Parker (considered an Ann Coulter wannabe) needed a big headline so she went after an innocent victim, Sarah Palin. Now the whole MSM is using what “Conservative” Parker wrote in order to finish the evisceration of Sarah Palin.  Maybe, though, Parker was intending to rally the troops around Palin, for that is what has happened.  Read the comments on her Townhall Column (how the heck do some people get Townhall columns, anyway) and read Lucianne based comments. Did you catch the angry women on Rush today? Maybe we should be a little bitchy about ParkerFortunately AJ Strata calls it the way I see it – she is an embarassment.

There is much more to read in this article. You can read it here.

Chilling Arabic communication: “When School Bus turns to Hell Bus”

You can read this and more at Northeast Intelligence Network (Homeland Security)

An interesting article 3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army

“Rakan Bin Williams may be your neighbor and may be your colleague at work or a member of the local police… Imagine if “Uncle Brian,” the school bus driver carrying your children to school every morning is someone other than he claims to be? Just imagine, you very, very stupid American.”

By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director

25 September 2008: Among Muslims who have immigrated to the United States over the last quarter century, there is a certain element that has not arrived with the intention to adapt, to make a new life for themselves or their families, to make a living, or to be thankful for the country that has openly accepted and embraced them.

That particular element has arrived with the surreptitious agenda of Islamizing America; to convert our country that is rooted in Judeo-Christian principles to Islam. They are here to corrupt our country from within, exploit the freedoms they have been granted, our multicultural tolerance, and our laws for the purpose of eradicating our democracy and establishing a one-world caliphate. They have, in fact, admitted as much.

This process has increased exponentially over the last decade, and consists of the influx of a much more dangerous portion of the element referenced above. While the former group consists of individuals who are cunning but patient, supportive of terrorism but covertly so, the latter group is arriving to avenge what they perceive as the evils committed by the Great Satan and our friends and partners in the Middle East, Israel.

read more »

Directives for Islamic terrorist attack in U.S. appear on the Internet

SPECIAL REPORT: “Commandments Before The Strike” ALERT: Instructions for actions Muslims are to take before, during & after an attack in the U.S. posted;

Message suggests activation of worldwide jihad following U.S. attack;

Message indicates large-scale attack within the U.S., perhaps early October;

Text, posting under analysis by U.S. Intelligence officials

Analysis by Douglas J. Hagmann, Director & By Randy Taylor, Independent Analyst

Intelligence provided by “Archangel”

24 September 2008: A posting uncovered in an Arabic language Internet forum is currently raising a few eyebrows in the intelligence community. The single posting, which is presently being scrutinized by intelligence officials, appears to provide detailed instructions for Muslims living within the United States, giving them specific actions to take before, during and after an upcoming attack in the U.S. The communication was discovered by “Archangel,” a well-known independent intelligence analyst active within the intelligence community.

The post was initially published on August 2, 2008 under the title “Commandments [Directives] Before the Strike,” and appears to be a sort of a conflict management guide, or instructions on what Muslims should do prior to the attack, actions that should be undertaken concurrent with the attack, and well as additional instructions following the attack.

The text addressing the nature, location and timing of the planned attack, although specific to the U.S., appears otherwise ambiguous. For instance, the timing appears to focus on the Tuesday following the end of Ramadan, which would be October 7, 2008. The nature of the attack is less clear. Although the author appears to talk about a strike greater in magnitude than the 9/11 attacks and makes reference to the possibility of it being nuclear in nature, the text references to the nuclear aspect of the attack appear somewhat muddled.

In terms of the location of the attack, it is clear that the author identifies both New York, as the financial capital of the U.S., and Washington, DC, as the nation’s capital, as being both desirable and affected. It is interesting that under analysis, the details of “the attack” referenced by the author are nestled within the text of instructions, rather than being prominently placed to serve as an overt warning as seen in the past. The relative subtlety in which the targets and type of attack was referenced is most interesting from a historical and analytical perspective.

The author who wrote the posting appears to be well established and respected by the community of terrorists and their supporters who frequent such forums. Research of the various membership profiles within that community indicates the author could be a sheik or other Muslim with leadership status. To be clear, research indicates the author has a level of credibility within the forum community. Accordingly, it would be completely consistent for the author to be able to issue a set of instructions that could be expected to be followed by the readers of the forum.

An investigation of the post, in terms of placement, links and replies, also provides significant insight with regard to its weight and credibility. Looking at a specific patterns of posting on Arabic language forums over the last seven years, investigation and research takes into account the number, type and authorship of follow-up postings or replies, for example to the original communication.

What makes this post particularly interesting is the limited number of replies to date – a total of three- despite the length of time it has been posted. Further, the replies in this case are general blessings, such as “May Allah Bless You” and general wishes of support for the operation. Based on extensive research of historical posting patterns over the last seven years suggest that this posting could be classified, recognized and acted upon as an order, as opposed to being a point for further discussion.

The commandments or directives are written as a set of instructions to an audience the author has divided into six groups as follows, most if not all having some presence in the United States:

1. Muslim scholars, students, followers of Islam;
2. Various Islamic movements.
3. Islamic peoples not belonging to any specific movement.
4. “Dubai Islamic Emirate of the Caucasus” the Islamic State of Iraq and other jihadist movements;
5. Sleeper cells and potential recruits;
6. The general command of al Qaeda.Various directives are issued to each of the groups referenced above, providing direction to each group on activities that need to be conducted before and after “the” attack. For example, members of “sleeper cells” should immediately seek out those who are already activated – known by some Islamic scholars and religious leaders – for further tactical advancement.

Specific instructions were also given to the Muslim people to move Muslim children to the safety of training camps at a time that would correspond to the Tuesday after Ramadan – a date that was established as the potential attack date within this posting.

In addition to the varied instructions within this post, there is an additional directive that appears to serve as a worldwide activation order for Islamic terrorists to carryout maritime missions subsequent to the attack, with the obvious intent on disrupting all major maritime supply routes.

Instructions were given to jihadists in the following areas for such operations:

“[T]he Philippines – Indonesia – Maldives – the coast of Yemen – the coast of Somalia – the coast of Chinguetti – and perhaps the coast of Algeria;”

“The skyline of the Islamic many important straits and sea lanes that have articulated by the march of trade and military forces of infidelity:”

“The Strait of Malacca between Malaysia and Sumatra, one of the most important corridors of the world trade.”

“[The] Torres Strait, which lies between New Guinea and northern Australia…”

Perhaps the most disconcerting aspect of this posting might not be the message itself, but the message when viewed through the prism of historical patterns exhibited subsequent to the 2001 terrorist attacks. While the contents of the message are revealing, they become even more relevant when analyzed in tandem with the threat of worldwide jihad in advance of the bombings in Yemen and Pakistan.

We are seeing a resurgence of Islamic jihad previously before unseen, with few notable exceptions. Those exceptions, however, are indeed notable: the time periods before the London & Madrid bombings, both described as each country’s own 9/11.

Additional information and further analysis will be published as developed

New NRA Ad – Defend Freedom, Defeat Obama

Posted on Youtube by m1media

The Democrats Did It!

Crossposted from Faith and Facts

Posted on September 24th, 2008 by Dr.Bruce

After days of moaning and blaming, perhaps a few facts should be inserted into the discussion about the current financial melt-down.

Barak Obama blames John McCain and Republicans for the mess. Why? According to Obama, Conservatives have been advocating de-regulation and free market controls and this de-regulation produced the current fiasco. Sounds great to liberals. Must be true.

However, a tiny bit of knowledge regarding economics and the free market concept are helpful. De-regulation did not cause this problem. New regulations caused it; new regulations from the Democrats.
Rewind to the 1995 Clinton Administration. Bill Clinton believed that everyone has a right to own a home. Everyone should own a house whether they can afford it or not. It was in the Constitution; or at least it should be. Banks were hesitant to follow the President’s lead however. They knew that there were certain geographic and demographic areas that foreclosure was a near certainty.

Mr. Banker, do you think it is too risky to loan money to people with a history of non-payment? Are you worried about default and foreclosure on loans to unstable people with unstable incomes?  Enter Fannie and Freddie. They will cover the risk. When the loans fail (and they did by the thousands), someone else will take the loss. So, give them the loan.

To the average consumer this is great news. To the poorest in our country it is better news. It no longer takes a good work history and 10% cash down to buy a house. You just need a smile and a signature and you can finance 105%, buy the house of your dreams, and make payments when it is convenient. Trillions of federally insured dollars, that never should have been there in the first place, flowed into the credit markets.  Understandably, home builders loved this plan. So did the Finance industry. All markets were booming. Politicians, especially friends of Obama, cashed in on the deals.

But everyone ignored some core principles of the free market. They forgot that risk requires compensation. Financial activities with risk fail, sometimes frequently, and require a high rate of potential return to cover the losses. Bill Clinton and Fannie Mae tried to remove the risk. But they couldn’t. They could only shift it to someone else; Fannie and Freddie. They forgot (if they ever knew) how money is actually made and how goods and services are exchanged.

Which brings us to the big, bad, predatory bankers and their outrageous practice of loaning money to people that could never afford it. This is exactly the change Bill Clinton and the Democrats were pushing. The created and changed laws so that people that could not afford a house could buy a house. Barney Frank is STILL trying to make this happen. The mortgage lenders were fulfilling the wishes of the White House. To vilify them now is to distort history.

This is not how the free-market works. It is not de-regulation it is changing regulations to produce a desired outcome with political pressure. Just the opposite of what McCain has advocated and exactly what Obama has supported. In 2005 when Conservatives tried to deal with the mess before it got out of control, McCain supported action and Obama opposed it.

Politicians are now crying that we must provide a $700 billion dollar bail-out, which is not nearly enough by the way. And who will be paying this enormous tab? You and me. People that have worked hard, paid our bills, scrimped, saved and managed our money wisely are absorbing the risk and paying the bills.

And who created this fiasco?
The Democrats did it.

What Can a Civilian Really Do?

What Can a Civilian Really Do?

NOT ONLY ARE Jihadis killing people around the world in impressive numbers, but they are also invading democracies, demanding and gaining concessions from non-Muslims, and slowly encroaching on democratic freedoms with the end-goal of establishing the repressive form of law known as Shari’a. Obviously, this must be stopped. The situation is urgent and your help is needed.

But you’re not a soldier. You don’t work for a counterterrorist organization. What can you do? There are a surprising number of practical, effective actions you can take to become a Citizen Warrior right where you are:

1. Help cut off money to Jihadis.

2. Get Jihadi videos removed from YouTube.

3. Help and support the Mapping Sharia Project.

4. Stop sending money to Jihadis when you buy gas.

5. Share DVDs with your friends.

6. Read the Qur’an.

7. Help and support Watch Obsession, the organization.

8. Talk to your friends about jihad. (It will help to study the art of influence.)

9. Share online articles, but skillfully.

10. “Advertise” the URL,

11. Learn how to recognize suspicious activities and report them to authorities.

12. Contribute news items to Concessions to Islam.

13. Contribute stories of citizen warrior heroes to Citizen Warriors.

Don’t try to do all of these. You’ve got to be smart about this, and that includes keeping your motivation level high, getting enough sleep, and having a life. Feeling overwhelmed by things that must be done is not good for your motivation and it can impair your ability to persist.

So choose one or two of these things that most interest you, and get to work on it. You can always come back to this list later if you want to do more.

Also, I urge you to share this list with people you know who want to do something about “terrorism” but don’t know what. Let’s defeat the Jihadis and Islam’s relentless encroachment with our effective actions.

Definition of Sedition

Citizen Warrior: Definition of Sedition

I’ve Crossposted this article from Citizen Warrior so I could introduce you to Citizen Warrior. It’s a great website with a wealth of information.

Sedition is conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.

Sedition is the crime of creating a revolt, disturbance, or violence against lawful civil authority with the intent to cause its overthrow or destruction. Because it is limited to organizing and encouraging opposition to government rather than directly participating in its overthrow, sedition is regarded as falling one step short of the more serious crime of treason.

Every legitimate government in existence has a law against sedition. It is a basic principle of the survival of a government that it doesn’t allow itself to be usurped. Those governments who did not have laws against plotting to overthrow the government do not exist any longer. They have been overthrown.

The bad news for Jihadis is that as soon as enough of us non-Muslims realize that jihad and Shari’a in other words, primary Islamic teachings are inherently seditious and punishable according to already-existing laws. The sooner we have that collective insight, the sooner the relentless Islamic political encroachment will be stopped.

Here’s how you can help that time come sooner.

Read more: Is Shari’a Seditious?

Is Dessent Patriotic?

Obama Committed Treason!!!

The New York Post’s Amir Taheri reported September 15th that Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Sen. Barack Obama had asked Iraqi officials “… why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington.”

Fearful that the success in Iraq would harm his political aspirations, Obama sought to keep U.S. troops in Iraq so he could continue attacking the Bush Administration for not imposing a timetable for withdrawal.

Zebari also confided another important theme: a lack of confidence by the Iraqi officials in Obama’s abilities and the political friends he’s made on his quest for political power…specifically those in the anti-war lobby.

Obama’s campaign is now trying to cover-up his abhorrent anti-military position he took with the Iraqi foreign minister, but never thought would be revealed to the American people. He has shamelessly tried to claim that people are mixing up two different documents being negotiated — the Status of Forces Agreement and the Strategic Framework Agreement, which sets the terms for U.S. military involvement in Iraq.

But the New York Post columnist ripped apart this phony explanation. He cited an NBC report that proved Obama is either forgetful or plain lying. Taheri uses specific examples of why Obama’s defense is flawed.

“Here is how NBC reported Obama’s position on June 16, after his conversation in the U.S. with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari: “Obama also told Zebari, he said, that Congress should be involved in any negotiations regarding a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. He suggested it may be better to wait until the next administration to negotiate such an agreement,” Taheri’s Wednesday article said.

The bottom line is that Obama shamefully and recklessly tried to delay progress in Iraq for political gain. That is despicable and unbecoming a presidential candidate. That is why he must be stopped.

Make a comment on it!


And visit Melanie Morgan as

A Failed Business Model by Peter J. Wallison

I watched Peter J. Wallison being interviewed on C-Span this past weekend. He goes into great depth about the failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and why they fail. You can listen to that podcast here.

Crossposted with permission from

By Peter J. Wallison
Posted: Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Publication Date: September 8, 2008

Arthur F. Burns Fellow
Peter J. Wallison

Henry Paulson’s plan is a major disappointment.Although it was certainly necessary to bail out ailing mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the plan put forward by the treasury secretary this weekend prioritizes steering them back to financial health and defers into the future what is to become of the companies.

What’s worse, after blaming the collapse of the companies on a “flawed business model,” the plan will preserve that model indefinitely, allowing the shareholders of what are now insolvent entities to recover some value.

Paulson’s plan is relatively simple, but its implications for the future are troubling.

Long after Paulson is gone from the Treasury, Washington will be wrestling with the problem of what to do about Fannie and Freddie. And if the two companies are eventually nationalized, privatized or liquidated, the government–meaning taxpayers–will have to compensate the existing shareholders in some way.

The plan is relatively simple, but its implications for the future are troubling. First, Fannie and Freddie will be put under government control in an arrangement called a conservatorship. The purpose of a conservatorship is, essentially, to keep things as they are.

A conservator does not have the power to make any significant changes to the business model of a company; rather, its focus is to guide the company back to stability. Why anyone would sustain what Paulson himself called a flawed business model is hard to understand.

It gets worse. Under the plan, the Treasury is committed to providing equity capital to Fannie and Freddie. Another puzzle: Why is it necessary to inject taxpayer funds into these companies as equity? Ordinary companies need capital so that they can meet their obligations, but both these companies will have access to a financial facility at the Treasury that will allow them to borrow all the funds they require.

They don’t need capital. The injection of capital is, in fact, a gift to the existing shareholders, who–as the owners of insolvent companies–own nothing and deserve no benefits from the taxpayers. By injecting these taxpayer funds and enabling the companies to survive, the Treasury plan opens the possibility that the existing shareholders will eventually profit from their investments, when, by all rights, they should be wiped out.

The nature of this gift is further emphasized by the fact that the Treasury is taking warrants for its agreement to finance these companies. These warrants will only be worth something–and thereby allow the Treasury to compensate the taxpayers–if the companies are nursed back to financial health under the conservatorship. So the government has created an incentive for itself to keep the companies alive and restore their well-being.

Once that occurs, the current shareholders will again be able to reap the benefits of holding interests in government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs)–only in this case, the two companies will not be implicitly backed by the government; they will be explicitly backed. In that case, the shareholders and the managements will once more profit from the government backing, while the taxpayers will still be the ones taking the losses.

There was an alternative, one that was simpler and much more sensible from a policy perspective. Since Fannie and Freddie operated under this “flawed business model”–by which Paulson probably meant government backing for shareholder-owned companies, the essence of a GSE–the plan should have set things in motion for the elimination of this model.

Instead of a conservatorship, the plan should have provided for a receivership. That system would get rid of the common stockholders while still monitoring the companies for an indefinite period in order to keep the mortgage market functioning smoothly.

Thus, while Paulson’s plan was intended to provide some “breathing room” for consideration of the companies’ future, what it will do in effect is restore them to health as government-sponsored enterprises, and, more critically, allow them and their newly empowered shareholders to bargain about the companies’ collective future from a position of strength.

No wonder U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York–probably the GSEs’ most ardent supporter in Congress–issued the following statement after Paulson addressed the press on Sunday: “This plan will be met with broad acceptance in Congress, because it doesn’t prejudge the ultimate fate of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” Translation: Prepare for a fight–because we intend to keep the GSEs alive.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain has been campaigning against the culture of corruption in the federal government. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has based his campaign on the idea of change in Washington. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are telling illustrations of corporate welfare–the profitable private exploitation of a cozy relationship with the government. And the Paulson plan will foster just what a cynic might expect: more of the same.

Peter J. Wallison is the Arthur F. Burns Fellow in Financial Policy Studies at AEI.

Related Links
Related article on GSEs and discipline by Alex J. Pollock
Related article on the Paulson Plan and GSEs by Wallison
Related On the Issues on Fannie and Freddie by Wallison, Allan H. Meltzer, and Vincent R. Reinhart
AEI Print Index No. 23445

Petraeus vs Obama: The Truth About the Surge

Vets for Freedom today released a new ad — “Petraeus vs. Obama” — fourth in a series asking for political leadership to acknowledge the truth about the surge. The ad highlights Senator Obama’s refusal to acknowledge that the surge in Iraq was successful, despite countless reports from General Petraeus that we have made significant progress. The ad encourages Congress to support the current surge resolutions that give recognition to the strategy of the surge and honor our troops that have made that strategy a success.

Vets for Freedom today released a new ad — “Petraeus vs. Obama” — fourth in a series asking for political leadership to acknowledge the truth about the surge. The ad highlights Senator Obama’s refusal to acknowledge that the surge in Iraq was successful, despite countless reports from General Petraeus that we have made significant progress. The ad encourages Congress to support the current surge resolutions that give recognition to the strategy of the surge and honor our troops that have made that strategy a success.

Click Here to Read the text of S. Res. 636

Click Here to Sen. Obama’s previous statements about the surge.