From “Yes We Can” To “OK, I Get It”

President Obama’s first State Of The Union address will try and re-assure the American people that he “feels their pain” and that he is actually going to do something about it.
Good luck with that one Mr. President.

Seizing a chance to reconnect, President Barack Obama will use his first State of the Union address to try to persuade the people of a frustrated nation that he’s on their side, with a familiar sounding agenda recast to relate better to everyday struggles.

In a time of deep economic insecurity, Obama will use this stage on Wednesday to offer hope after a grueling, grinding first year of his presidency, aides say. For the many who think the United States is still on the wrong track, Obama will attempt to present a clearer sense of how everything he’s pursuing fits together to help.

And for jittery Democrats facing re-election this fall, Obama will seek to give them an agenda they can sell to voters.

Obama will propose ways to help the middle class. But any new ideas probably will play a supporting role to the plainspoken narrative he wants to tell, that his agenda works for people despite their growing doubts.

“Obviously you want to write a speech in a way that is interesting enough that people want to listen, and that leaves them feeling a sense of momentum and progress,” senior Obama adviser David Axelrod told The Associated Press. “But these are serious times. I don’t think this is a time for rhetorical flights of fancy.”

What to expect in the speech, which comes during a rocky period for Obama?

Heavy does of health care, despite the setbacks of the past week, and job creation. Obama will address the budget deficit, his bid to take on the financial industry, energy, education and immigration. All those issues, he says, fit into his plan to rebuild the economy.

Continue reading

Britain Raises Terrorist Threat Level To “Severe”

Counter-terrorism experts in the UK believe an attack could occur any time now.

Britain’s terrorist threat level was raised tonight from “substantial” to “severe” – meaning that counter-terrorism agencies believe an attack is “highly likely”.

The measure was approved at a meeting of the Government’s Cobra emergency committee and announced by Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary.

The Times understands that the decision to raise the threat level is connected to the conference on Afghanistan taking place at Lancaster House, London, next Thursday.

But the shift was also described by one source as “precautionary” rather than rooted in any firm information that an identified terror cell was plotting an attack.

Continue reading.

Who Wants To Get Together To Visit A Mosque?

I wonder if we could put together a group of people to visit New York City?

We wouldn’t actually visit a mosque, just gather around outside of one.

Specifically, the mosque on 96th Street.

That is where the Muslim “Brothers Of Revolution” have set up shop.

As you will see in the video, they have picked this area to spout off their anti-American drivel, and to foster terrorism against American citizens.

And, as we here at the Freedom Medium reported back in June. the citizens of New York City are too cowardly to do anything.

These radical Islamists want to preach terrorism, I think it’s time to show them what it is like to be terrified.

Because if a few hundred patriotic Americans were to suddenly come around the corner to discuss terrorism with them, the word would gain an entirely new meaning for them.

Imagine a member, past or present, of America’s military, someone from the Oathkeepers or the Patriot Riders, or any other patriotic American walking up to these goons one-on-one, standing directly in front of him, and saying:

“OK pal, I’m an infidel. Here I am. Go ahead and terrorize me.”

So, who’s up for a road trip?

Political Correctness Played A Part In The Fort Hood Shootings

I have never been one to be “politically correct.”

And I am not about to break the pattern with this article, so be forewarned.

There are two factors that led to the shooting rampage at Fort Hood.

One is political correctness, the other is a severely flawed U. S. military policy.

As far back as six months ago, the alleged Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan was brought to the attention of the FBI over suspected comments he had made on a website.

It is now coming to light that Hasan had also been known to make some of the same sorts of remarks to his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood.

Among these were such red-flags as:

Describing the U.S. Army as the aggressor in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory.”
It’s being said that he had compared a soldier who died smothering a grenade blast to “suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers.”

Now if both the FBI and the military both knew, or even suspected, that these were the beliefs of this man, why was nothing done about it?

Have we gone this far down the path of fearing being charged with ethnic profiling that we allow a man who appears to have radical Islamist ideals to be a member of our armed forces?

During a time of war, Hasan should have been investigated, brought up omn charges under the UCMJ (Uniform Code Of Military Justice, and dishonorably discharged.

President Obama has promised a full investigation of the circumstances that led to this tragedy, and I hope he starts with the chain-of-command at Fort Hood, and at any other military base where Hasan may have been stationed.

The second thing that was a direct factor in this tragedy is the idiotic U.S. military policy which does not allow the carrying of loaded weapons on base.

This is contrary to the policy of almost every military training facility in the world.

If the troops at Fort Hood had been allowed to carry the weapons that they train with, this would have had a much different outcome.

Instead, it took the brave actions of a civilian female police officer to bring an end to Hasan’s rampage.

What in the hell is wrong with this picture when the largest military facilty in the world has to contract out with a civilian police force to provide base security?

I am furious about what happened at Fort Hood for a number of reasons, but there are two that really hit close to home.

One is that a close family friend has a son stationed at Fort Hood, and we agonized for hours before learning that he was OK.

The other is that next May my daughter leaves for the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at Parris Island.

Up until now, I have felt somewhat secure for her safety in knowing that the odds are highly against her being assigned to a front-line combat unit.
At least that is the policy right now.

Now I am left with the thought that, in spite of receiving the finest traing that the U.S. military has to offer. i have to fear for her safety while she is still stateside?

President Obama and I agree on almost nothing he proposes.

If he were to overturn this ludicrous policy prohibiting uniformed personel from carrying loaded weapons on-base, for that measure he would have my fullhearted support.

I am hoping that, not just for the sake of my daughter, but for the sake of all of the brave men and women who serve in our military, that in this day and age of war and terrorism, the least we can do is allow them the means to protect themselves.

Update: Late Breaking News: Fort Hood Shooter Had Links To 9-11 Terrorists

Obama Already Knows Who He Will Be Running Against In 2012

This shouldn’t come as a big surprise to anyone.

It’s not like It’s a deep, dark political secret.

Actually, it should be fairly obvious to everyone.

In 2012, Barack Obama will be running against the same man he ran against in 2008.

No, not John McCain.

The man Obama ran against in 2008 is the same man he will run against in 2012, George Bush.

If the truth be told, he is still running against Bush.

As the Democrats suffered huge losses in two states that were firmly in the Obama column in last year’s Presidential race, Obama traveled to Wisconson to give a speech.

During his remarks, President Obama had this to say:

His administration faced a “financial crisis that threatened to plunge our economy into a Great Depression, the worst that we’ve seen in generations.”
“We had record deficits, two wars, frayed alliances around the world.”

In other words, it’s all George Bush’s fault.

With all due respect Mr. President, it’s time to step up to the plate.

We all know that President Obama didn’t walk into a job where he wouldn’t be facing any major problems.

On the other hand, Mr. Obama  surely knew what he would be facing.

A financial crisis?

Millions of people are out of work, thousands more continue to lose their homes, the stock market is still in the tank, retirement accounts are still losing money.

Just this week, the Senate passed a bill to extend unemployment benefits.

And in their infinite wisdom, they also tacked on a provision giving a tax credit to first-time home buyers.

President Obama, how in the hell is someone going to buy a house if they don’t have a job?

Record deficits?

Between this administration’s out of control spending, not to mention the pricetag we will face if the health care reform package passes, America’s federal deficit will reach levels undreamed of by even the gloomiest economic forecaster.

Two wars?

We still have two wars, and we are not one step closer to resolving either conflict than we were the day you took office.

Yet as President Obama focuses on passage of health care reform, members of America’s military continue to die in Iraq and Afghanistan, because the President doesn’t want to come to a hasty decision about a request to send additional troops.

Again, with all due respect Mr. President, American soldiers are being killed!

America has managed to survive for over 200 years without nationalized health care, a few more weeks wouldn’t make that much of a difference.

Instead of worrying about if someone can get a free doctor’s visit, focus instead on this country’s young men and women who are giving their lives in a foreign land.

Pull all of our forces out, send more troops, don’t send more troops, but in the respect of all that is decent and honorable, make a decision!

Frayed alliances?

Does the President really think that traveling to various countries and apologizing for the so-called “mistakes” of America has made us the darlings of the world?

The leaders and citizens of most of those countries are laughing behind the President’s back, while North Korea and Iran, two nations run by certifiable nut cases, continue to work towards building a nuclear arsenal.

Yes, President Obama did inherit some serious issues.

However, he asked for the job.

America gave it to him.

It’s time that he stop blaming the guy who had the job before him for everything that he has failed to fix.

And before all of you who will send a comment saying “Well, give the man a chance, he’s only been in office for a year” respond to this article, do us this favor.

Point out where the unemployment rate has dropped, where the stock market has rebounded, where federal spending on dubious programs has been cut back, or where President Obama has made any significant progress towards getting America back on it’s feet.
Those of you who call Iraq and Afghanistan “George Bush’s wars’s” point out where we are any closer to seeing the end of the carnage.
Show us where the threat of a terrorist attack has been significantly reduced.

And when you have failed to do so, it will be time for all of you who apologize for President Obama, as well as the President himself, to face one cold hard fact.

George Bush isn’t President anymore.

Update: The Koran, Barack Obama, And Thomas Jefferson

In recent weeks, the Obama administration has frequently made references to the possibility of reaching out to “the moderate elements of the Taliban” as a way of resolving the war in Afghanistan.

However, such a policy does bring some questions to my mind.

One of which is:

Just how do you define a “moderate” Islamic jihadist?

Because make no mistake about it, that is exactly what members of the Taliban are.

Otherwise, they probably wouldn’t have become part of the Taliban in the first place.

Perhaps a “moderate” member of the Taliban is a suicide bomber who only targets grown men, but not women and children.

President Obama obviously is not a student of history.

And he surely has no concept of warfare, otherwise he would be following one of the first rules of any conflict, which is “Know Thy Enemy.”

So in the (forlorn) hope that President Obama won’t put even more U.S. troops at risk, or further endanger the safety of all of America, we are once again offering a history lesson for the President, which we originally presented back in June:

During his recent tour of the Mid-East, President Obama made many inaccurate references as to the place of Islam in the history of modern civilization.

The fact that the majority of them were incorrect seemed to be a moot point, as the apparent point of the trip appeared to be for the President to apologize for America being such an evil country, and that now that he is in charge, American and Islamic cultures can live in peace and harmony.

And among his many miscues made in the hope of getting radical Islamists to lay down their arms and give all of America a group hug, he did get one thing right.

The fact that Thomas Jefferson kept a copy of the Koran (Qur’an) in his Presidential library.

Allah only knows why Mr. Obama would cite Jefferson’s ownership of the Koran as an attempt to show solidarity between America and the Muslim world.

Well Mr. President, I’m not quite sure how to break this news to you, but Thomas Jefferson did not have a copy of the holy book of Islam in order to learn more of the various religions of the world.

He kept it for reference!

As in an effort to learn more about his, and America’s, foes.

President Obama, as do most American’s, believe that our battle against radical Islam began with the attacks of 9-11, or perhaps with the first World Trade Center bombing.

Mr President, as you do with so many other things, once again you have the wrong idea.
This country has been fighting the fanatics who have perverted the teachings of the holy book of Islam since the time Jefferson was President, hence his ownership of the book.

For over a thousand years, Muslim pirates traveled along the coastline of Africa seizing women and young boys to sell off to slave traders.

This became a concern for America shortly after our country came into being, as after the Revolutionary War, what were now American merchant ships no longer had the protection of the Royal Navy.

Muslim pirates, under the control of an Islamist warlord who ruled Algiers, began attacking American merchant ships and enslaving their Christian crews.

These actions were leading to the the destruction of American trade in the Mediterranean, so in 1784 the Continental Congress attempted to negotiate a treaty with the four Barbary Coast States, and formed a panel with Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin as members to carry out negotiations.

John Adams held the belief that paying tribute to the pirates was the simplest way to restore the safe passage of the merchant ships. (Obama also totally twisted Adam’s statements during his speech as a means to achieving his own ends. Hope and Change is one thing, the truth is for suckers in Obama’s world.)

Jefferson,  fearing that there would be no end to the demands for tribute, disagreed, and wanted matters settled by military force.

In a negotiating session, Jefferson and Adams questioned the Algerian ambassador as to the reasons behind such hostile actions towards the United States, when there had been no previous contact between America and the Muslim world.

They received the following reply:

“Islam was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in the Quran that all nations that did not acknowledge it’s authority were sinners,that it was the right and duty of all Muslims to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Where have we heard that before?

Jefferson’s recommendation of the use of force to end the piracy did not prevail, and for the next 15 years the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars to ensure the safe passage of ships and as ransom for captured crews.

Jefferson was proven correct when he had said that the amount of money demanded would be ever-increasing, by the year 1800 the amount being paid out came to nearly 20 percent of the revenue the American government was taking in.

All of that was about to change.

Shortly after his inauguration as President, Jefferson declared that the United States would spend “Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute”, and informed Congress that he was dispatching American warships, along with a force of U.S. Marines to the Muslim Barbary Coast.

Intense naval bombardment, as well as shore raids by the Marines began to take their toll on the pirate havens.

The end of Muslim piracy was sealed when the U.S. Marines marched across the Egyptian dessert into Tripolitania, leading to the surrender of Tripoli.

This military action was the origin of the immortal verse in the Marine Corps hymn “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli…”

Jefferson knew that the majority of the followers of the Muslim faith were a peaceful people.
He also had the foresight to know that appeasement was not the solution to a conflict with any group, regardless of their national origins or religious beliefs, that declared themselves to be sworn enemies of America.

President Obama, I respectfully suggest that before you use Thomas Jefferson, or any of the other great leaders this country, as an example of anything, that you study some American history first.

Try and learn just what it is you are talking about.

After all, you did say in response to a question at a White House press conference that you like to know what you are talking about before you comment on a matter.

So why not take a break from enjoying the sound of your own voice and inform yourself beforehand.

Then perhaps, at least on one issue,  you can try telling the truth in order to make your point.

The Nobel Prize Committee Could Be Racists

What the heck were the nitwits in Norway thinking?

Don’t they realize how much they have disrespected the President Of The United States?

There has been a worldwide backlash against this, and it is the Committee’s own fault.

They pulled a massive blunder, and they gave Obama the wrong prize!

Was there an element of racism involved here?

After all, millions of Americans have been labeled as racists simply because they disagree with the President’s policies.
And they tend to ignore, or take him to task, for his accomplishments.

So what does the Nobel Prize Committee do?
They do pretty much the same thing, ignoring his accomplishments, yet they give Obama an award!
But they didn’t give him the right award.

They gave President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize.
When by all rights he should have been awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics.

Let’s take a look at what Obama has done to earn the award he was given.

He has talked about how he will reach out to America’s enemies.

He has talked about how Iran must halt it’s nuclear program.

He has talked about the U.S. role in Afghanistan.

He has talked about getting tough with North Korea over their missile program.

He has talked about a ban on nuclear weapons.

Yes, the President has talked about a lot of things.

He hasn’t gotten any of them done, but that’s another story.

However, when it comes to economics, he has accomplished quite a bit.

A 787 billion dollar “stimulus” package.
(Just because it has failed to stimulate the economy, well, only you Tea Party people would hold that against him.)

He hasn’t called for the resignation of the man in charge of America’s income tax code, Charles Rangel.
(By letting a tax cheat keep his job, he is helping to keep the revenue pouring into the IRS.)

He has, for all intents and purposes, taken over control of the American financial system.
(It’s better to have government bureaucrats in charge than to let free market economics decide things.)

He is hard at work, not talking about, but working on, the largest tax increase in world history.
(Cap And Trade may bankrupt many Americans, but bankruptcy is an economic theory, right?)

He siezed control of General Motors and Chrysler.
(And when that didn’t seem to do the trick, he instituted Cash For Clunkers, which was great for the Asian economy.)

He continues to promote his call for health care reform.
(Turning over one-sixth of the U.S. economy to the sort of people that work at the DMV should be prize-worthy.)

So how do the numbskulls from Norway explain this?

They recognize Obama for things that he hasn’t done.

And they totally ignored his accomplishments.

What in the world were they thinking?

Obama Is Losing A War To Win Re-Election

On the weekend of Oct. 3, Taliban fighters in northern Afghanistan launched a mini-Tet Offensive against American troop bases. Over 300 terrorists and their allies stormed the bases in an attack that started in a nearby mosque, which had been used to store weapons and ammunition. While the American soldiers repelled the invaders, they suffered heavy casualties: eight deaths, plus two Afghan Army officers killed and 12 missing Afghan National Policemen. It was one of the deadliest days of fighting since the start of the war.

For the last several weeks, high-ranking members of the military establishment have called for a troop “surge” in Afghanistan similar to the surge in Iraq. Last week, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, promoted by Obama in June 2009 to command all U.S. forces in Afghanistan, rejected Vice President Joe Biden’s suggestion that allied forces rely on airstrikes rather than increased troop levels in Afghanistan. “A strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short-sighted strategy,” McChrystal stated…Read the rest of this entry

What Is More Important? Universal Health Care Or The War In Afghanistan?

It was recently leaked to the Washington Post that General McChrystal requested more troops be deployed to Afghanistan by President Obama.

McChrystal asked for 40,000 additional soldiers, much like the troop surge that helped us regain the momentum in the war in Iraq during the Bush administration.

The General is so adamant about the need for more troops for the war in Afghanistan to be brought to a successful conclusion that if they are not forthcoming, he has threatened to resign.

In recent days, President Obama has stated that he has not taken this matter under consideration because he has not received a written request for additional troops from the McChrystal.

However, it turns out that statement is not factual.

In the first major “leak” to come from the Obama White House, Bob Woodward of the Washington Post just broke the story that not only has McChrystal made the request through the proper channels, it was made weeks ago!

For those of you who wish to see it, we have an unclassified report that you can read here.

This is going to be a major embarrassment for the Obama administration.

The question is, why not be forthcoming, rather than deny having seen such a document?

Some have speculated that President Obama has an ulterior motive.

When a troop surge was first proposed during the war in Iraq, the hue and cry could be heard all across the United States.

And some feel (we here at the Freedom Medium being among them) that this is the last thing President Obama wants right now.

Such a nationwide debate would take the focus off of the President’s top priority, the passage of a health care reform bill.

So by claiming that he has not received a request for additional troops, Obama would not have to deal with the public discussion, Congressional debate, etc. that would take away health care from being a front page issue.

It will be interesting to see just what sort of spin the White House attempts to put onto this story.

However, anyone with an ounce of common sense will know that there had to be a reason that the President would deny the existence of the request.

Perhaps there is a plausible reason for the President’s actions. (Or lack therof.)

Until such time (if ever) legitimate reasons are forthcoming for Obama’s denial, we will continue to speculate:

What has a higher priority on the President’s agenda?

Winning the war in Afghanistan,and ultimately the war against terrorism?

Or socialized medicine?