Jihad In America

One year of Jihad in America
Christopher Holton
This was never a war on "terrorism." Jihad is being waged against us and we have tied ourselves in knots to deny that reality. When will we wake up?

There is mounting evidence that the global Jihadist insurgency is fully entrenched in the United States After the Fort Hood massacre news services seem divided between those hell-bent-for-leather on denying that the Fort Hood massacre was a case of anything other than a persecuted loner "snapping" and those who proclaimed it the first "terrorist" attack on U.S. soil since September 11th.

This focus is wrong. Fort Hood was an act of Jihad and that's really all that matters: It is essential that we find out how extensive Nidal Malik Hasan's ties to other Jihadists were. Of this there can be no doubt.

But we must refrain from entering into a debate on what amounts largely to semantics about whether or not the Fort Hood massacre was an act of "terrorism." We need to get away from focusing on the term "terrorism" anyway. Some observers still don't consider the 1983 Beirut Barracks bombing by Hezbollah, which killed 241 Marines, sailors and soldiers, an act of "terrorism" because, by some widely recognized definitions, attacks on combatants cannot be termed "terrorism."

Conservative Principles Based on Founding Principles

There is much more to read after the jump. I encourage you, especially if you're an elected representative, to do so. The future of this Nation depends upon elected officials acting in the best interests of the people.

From Family Security Matters

The primary legitimate purpose of government is the protection of individual freedom, and conservatism, as a philosophy of freedom grounded in the ideas articulated as the basis of the founding of the nation, has, as its rationale, the preservation and enhancement of that great ideal. That is not just a general intellectual concept. It is a sacred, activist purpose.

Freedom to Work.

Conservatives should start the march to freedom by passing a national right to work law that applies, especially, to workers at all levels of government. In doing so, they will affirm the principle that no person should be limited in the work he does by the artificial imposition of involuntary membership in an organization of which he may not approve and whose message he does not support. Such legislation will recognize the unfairness of subjecting workers to the involuntary confiscation of their wages to underwrite a purely private organization pursuing purely private ends. It will unshackle millions of workers yearning for the freedom simply to do their jobs without, also, having to make a political statement. A national right to work law would enable workers to exercise their free choice and freedom must be conservatives’ mission.

Individual Prerogative.

If freedom is the agenda, conservative office holders must cancel any statute that limits individual freedom in the choice of health care. That includes anti-free market initiatives as well as coercive taxation. It includes legislation that forces individuals to purchase health insurance because such enactments violate the fundamental right of citizens to make their own choices. It includes any program that limits, through regulation, health care choices by making procedures and testing unavailable. It also means that any regulation that makes invidiously discriminatory rules limiting care based on immutable characteristics, such as age, should be prohibited to government.

Economic Liberty.

Ours is supposed to be a free society that protects freedom of enterprise and prohibits government from forcing citizens or companies to provide goods or services without payment. Doing so constitutes the unconstitutional taking of private property without compensation and forced labor on the part of those who must, by government mandate, provide service for free. A conservative agenda must include legislation that repeals federal law requiring the extension of health care services to anyone who shows up, regardless of the emergency or his ability to pay for service received. It should dismantle any public program that competes with the private sector and any tax on people or companies used to fund coverage for those who do not want or cannot afford it. Wealth transfer is not a legitimate function of government. It is the immoral theft of private resources.

State Autonomy.

Unfunded national mandates are breaking state budgets across the nation. The federal government should not be in the unsavory business of extorting cooperation from the states by working its unconstitutional will by threatening to withhold federal funding available to cooperative states from those that want to maintain their sovereignty and constitutional prerogatives. If a state is otherwise entitled to highway funds, for example, they must not be tied to a surrender of state power to federal authority. Conservatives should pass legislation that prohibits extortive federal bribery that impinges on state prerogative and warps the original state/federal relationship.

Drill Drill Drill

Virginia stands to be a leader in the development and use of domestic energy, if the soon to be newly elected Republican majority in the General Assembly, the Senate and the Governor's Mansion have the cajones to stand up to the EPA and government regulations and reaffirm State Sovereignty. Its about states' rights. Its called the 10th Amendment.

We have the right as a sovereign state to take care of our citizens first, and I would expect nothing less from the other 56, ahm, I meant 49 states. The federal government has no authority to impose restrictions or mandates which diminish, or restrict the ability to improve, the standard of living of any citizen, regardless of what the law or regulation was intended to do when enacted.

Family Security Matters has a piece posted today, part of which is excerpted here:

Our future prosperity and freedom are at risk. This is because we have a current energy policy that puts them at risk. We are also contemplating a new energy policy, commonly termed “cap and trade” which could very well push our nation’s economy of a cliff, (my conclusion, not that of Chevron). Mr. Watson started his remarks with a plea that we start with some “facts,” what President John Adams called “stubborn things.”

Over the horizon, we will need to invest some $26 trillion in energy production, transportation, and efficient utilization technology. The U.S. population is growing and so is that of the world. The U.S. and world economy also need to grow to raise the standard of living of people everywhere – to secure the “heat, light and transportation” that we all take for granted said Watson. But over eighty percent of the natural gas and petroleum reserves in the world are in the hands of governments. And 85 percent of such U.S. reserves are off limits to exploration and development.

Watson further noted the U.S. oil and gas industry is responsible for 9 million American jobs and 7.5 percent of our GDP. The challenge of providing an affordable energy supply for more than 300 million Americans is being made all the more difficult by the regulatory ambitions of the U.S. government and its growing debt. Yet most Americans want to be less dependent on foreign supplies of oil that can be manipulated to harm our economy. And they believe we need a stable but diverse energy supply. And they also want to do their responsible part for ameliorating any negative impacts on our climate and environment.

/snip

....the current restrictions on the exploration and development for U.S.-owned fossil fuel resources make so little sense. U.S. oil production has declined by 4 million barrels a day over the past 25 years while demand has grown by exactly that amount – 4 million barrels a day. Thus, although we are the number 2 or 3 producer of coal, natural gas and oil from domestic resources, when we import 8 million barrels of oil daily, (the combined drop in production coupled with the increase in demand), it is at a cost that approached some $450 billion a year when oil hit $147 a barrel.

Yet the U.S. Geological Survey is forbidden by federal law from actually doing an accurate assessment of how much oil and gas we have off of our coasts and on Federal land. And we still propose to tax those oil and gas resources we do produce at a rate far greater than other resources. Add to that the prohibition on exploration, and it is easy to understand how oil exploration and development was pushed overseas and with it the complimentary run-up in U.S. oil imports. Reasonable estimates are that at least 30 billion barrels of oil are readily available off our shores or in places such as Anwar. While we cannot “drill for independence,” said Watson, we can and should “drill for more energy security.”

.

I take exception to the remark that we cannot "drill for independence". Once we start extracting our own reserves and refine those resereves into a marketable product, we become independent. We can sell it, or keep it. Either way, its ours, we own it and we'll do with it as we please.

Dirty Tricks Redux

AstroTurfing Dirty Tricks
Obama's Cultists Now Advertising Non-Existent Town Halls to Trick Protesters
Americans who want to express their opinions on health care reform at town halls across the country are encountering a host of roadblocks, ranging from fake schedules to a demand that they show their driver's licenses or photo identification.
H/T Ace of Spades

Dem Doctor Plant Attended Town Hall With Unhinged Che Fan & Obama Office Manager
Yesterday, Patterico discovered that the so-called doctor and Obamacare supporter who asked a question at Rep. Sheila Lee's town hall was a fake.Roxana Mayer was not a doctor.But she was an Obama state delegate!
H/T Gateway

Video: Man Carrying Obama ‘Hitler’ Sign at Rep. Dingell Event Was Democratic Plant

Biden Wrong Then

From Family Security Matters:

....Sarah Palin's views on some key national issues remains a mystery. For example, there is the issue of illegal immigration. I spent hours searching without success for any writings or statements about illegal immigration. As best as I can tell, none exist. Should we therefore assume that her position on the issue is identical to that of McCain - who has generally been a strong supporter of open borders? People who follow this issue very closely have no idea about Palin's views on the issue, and given McCain's past collaboration with Teddy Kennedy in support of mass amnesty, the mystery is troubling.

But by far the biggest issue about Palin will be foreign policy. Get ready for an onslaught of news reports on the major networks and articles in the Washington Post and New York Times comparing her unflatteringly with Biden - articles that will tout at great length his foreign-policy experience. The point of the pieces will be: "Sure, Obama is an ingenue who got Iraq completely wrong. And yes, he has only been paying attention to the stuff for a few years, but he has a lot of smart advisors around him. And even though he has a lot less experience than John McCain when it comes to foreign policy, Obama's inexperience is compensated for by the fact that Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has 35 years of foreign policy experience, while Palin has none."

This could gain traction for the Democrats unless Palin in the coming weeks begins to give interviews explaining her own worldview (think about a very compressed version of what former California Gov. Ronald Reagan did between 1975 and 1979) and contrasts it with Obama- Biden on so many of the foreign policy issues he has addressed during his Senate career, Joe Biden has simply been on the wrong side of history. In 1972, for example, he was elected to the Senate at age 29, running as an anti-war candidate, as John McCain's time in the Hanoi Hilton was about to end. Biden should be asked about his opposition to the war and what happened after the United States was defeated in the spring of 1975 - including the horrific sagas of the "Boat People" and Cambodian genocide. Perhaps Mr. Biden could talk about his advocacy of President Carter's SALT II Treaty and his opposition to the Reagan defense buildup of the 1980s that helped win the Cold War: Mr. Biden was tireless in working against it, and he also opposed President Reagan's efforts to fight communism in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Biden also fought tooth and nail against the 1991 Gulf War that drove Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Although he voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2002, Biden has spent much of the past five years or so mobilizing opposition to what the United States has been doing in Iraq, including the very successful surge. He has been a strong advocate of dialogue with Iran. And he has opposed efforts to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to ensure that the United States can eavesdrop on foreign terrorists operating outside the United States without obtaining warrants beforehand.

The bottom line is that much of Biden's experience consists of pursuing policies that have undermined U.S. strength in the world. If McCain and Palin are unable or unwilling to make this case, Biden will continue to have a free pass when it comes to foreign policy. And he will try to use it to pound Sarah Palin (and McCain's hopes of winning the election) right into the ground.

Barack Obama’s Record of Poor Judgment

Once again, the folks at Family Security Matters have nailed it.

As an extreme liberal, Mr. Obama's priority is to weaken national security, not strengthen it. He wants face-to-face meetings with America's enemies but won't meet with Chris Wallace on the Fox News Network. He has pledged to withdraw troops fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq and would allow homosexuals in the military. That's his idea of enhancing national security.

Gregory D. Lee

Barack Obama and his supporters are fond of citing his opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq as an example of his superior judgment over his rival John McCain. To me, it's just the opposite, and illustrates how poorly Mr. Obama, as commander-in-chief, would handle national security matters.

Saddam Hussein ignored 16 United Nations resolutions demanding UN inspectors'
unfettered access of his facilities to locate and dismantle weapons of mass destruction. After a protracted cat-and-mouse game, Saddam finally kicked inspectors out and thumbed his nose at the world. How many more resolutions would Mr. Obama like to have seen before forcing Saddam's compliance? If you don't comply with our next resolution and let our inspectors back in the country, we're going to be really, really mad. We mean it this time, Mr. Saddam. At what point does the UN finally protect its credibility and enforce the provisions of its resolutions? Is Mr. Obama suggesting that finally enforcing the resolutions is an example of poor judgment.

And don't tell me President Bush manipulated intelligence and lied to Congress and the American people to justify military action because that is simply ludicrous. Such a lie would have required the complicity and cover up of the entire intelligence communities of the U.S., Great Britain, White House staffers and the U.S. military. Doesn't it stand to reason that at least one person from those organizations would have the integrity and moral fiber to blow the whistle on such a conspiracy?

U.S. and European intelligence agencies concluded that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and that he was most likely conducting covert operations to acquire nuclear weapons. That's pretty scary, especially in a post-9/11 world, since Saddam had a history of attacking his neighbors and using chemical weapons against his own people in northern Iraq. There was every reason to believe he had WMDs at his disposal and would use them against his enemies, namely the United States. President Bush's decisive action was required to not only protect the nation, but also maintain the U.N.'s flimsy credibility.