This video comes via the Neo-Marxist Blog, Think Progress:
Money Quote:
SCHULTZ: I told him he was full of sh*t is what I told him. … And then he gave me the Dick Cheney f-bomb. … I told Robert Gibbs, I said “And I’m sorry you’re swearing at me, but I’m just trying to help you out. I’m telling you you’re losing your base. Do you understand you’re losing your base?”
He goes on to yowl about single payer healthcare, The Jewish Cabal which is also known as Neo-Cons, The Iraq War and much of the same of dead tired Democratic Party talking points. As far as his little talking point about the Republicans getting the war that they wanted; you mean, that SAME WAR that the Democrats in Congress voted to authorize funds for, time and time again? You mean, that war? So, that little talking point just does not fly with this former Democratic Party voter, that’s grand standing and bullshit and I think he knows it.
Anyhow, just a peek into the infighting in the Democratic Party, it is quite funny to watch.
A new audio tape allegedly from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden claims responsibility for an attempt to blow up a plane en route to Michigan on Christmas Day and warns the United States of more attacks.
The tape, which aired on the Arabic-language news Web site Al-Jazeera on Sunday, says “the United States will not dream of enjoying safety until we live it in reality in Palestine.”
The tape continues: “It is not fair to enjoy that kind of life while our brothers in Gaza live in the worst of miseries.”
CNN could not independently confirm the authenticity of the message, but the CIA has in the past confirmed Al-Jazeera reports on tapes from the al Qaeda leader.
President Obama’s senior adviser David Axelrod told CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday that while there was no immediate confirmation that the message was authentic, it “contains the same hollow justification for the slaughter of innocent people.”
In another section of the audio tape that Al-Jazeera broadcast, the voice says: “God willing our attacks will continue as long as you support the Israelis and may peace be on those who follow guidance.”
Bin Laden also claims responsibility for the foiled attack on Delta flight 253 in December.
“The message intended to be sent to you was through the hero fighter Omar Farouq, may God release him, confirming an earlier message that the [September] 11th heroes delivered to you and it was repeated before and after [that event],” he says.
A Nigerian man, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, has been charged with attempting to blow up the Delta Airlines plane as it approached Detroit from Amsterdam, Netherlands.
“Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula was behind the failed attack on Christmas Day. That’s clear,” a U.S. counterterrorism official — who is not authorized to speak publicly — told CNN. “So a message like this — no matter whose voice it may be — should come as no surprise. Al Qaeda has, from time to time, tried to build support for its program of murder by talking about the Palestinian issue. That line’s never gotten them much in the past, and it’s unlikely to now, either.
As many of my fellow Conservative Bloggers have asked; I thought all of this was going to, um, change after the election of Barack Hussein Obama? So much for that idea eh? As always, Osama Bin Laden blames the United States of America’s relationship with Israel for the attacks or in this case, botched attacks. Which shows you how bad the Al-Qaeda organization is demoralized since 9/11. Which was, in part, due to the efforts of President George W. Bush. President Obama has basically just continued his policies, which by the way Liberals, WORKED; no thanks to them of course. President Obama, on the other hand, has tried to play footzies with those bastards and look what it has gotten him —- Nowhere!
So, anyhow, the fight goes on and no amount of Hope and Change, Unicorns and rainbows is going to stop that. So, wise up Liberals and realize that the terrorists are not your friends.
Now having said all that; for some oddball reason, I somehow doubt that is actually Osama. I believe it might be someone within the Al-Qaeda group that sounds much like him. But as to that being him, I have my doubts.
I have been trying to piece together something to write about this victory for the Republican Party and more importantly for the people of Massachusetts. This victory means a great deal of things; some that can be articulated well, and some — you would just have to feel. However, being that I am writer, I will try to do my best to bring those thoughts out in writing.
This victory means that the Democratic Party is about to get, or already has gotten a major message; not only from the people of Massachusetts, but from the American people as well, that Government is not supposed to be from the top down, but rather from the bottom up. They also will figure out, that if you try to impose something on the American people, that is not wanted, you pay for it at the ballot box.
This victory should be an open message to the Democratic Party; Never, ever, under any circumstances run political campaigns with any sort of entitlement attitude. No one, regardless of what party you represent, is entitled to any sort of political office. If you do attempt to run a political campaign with that sort of idiotic attitude, you will pay for it at the polls and you will lose horribly in that election.
Now to the Republicans, I have some thoughts for you as well:
This is not the time for the Republican Party to getarrogant. You all have to remember, you all just got your tails kicked in 2008. Under no circumstances should you repeat the same stupid mistakes of the Bush era — This will lead to your humiliating defeat in the 2010 elections and in the 2012 elections. The Bush-Karl Rove “Center-Right Coalition” had one fetal flaw, it was blind arrogance; which ultimately lead to its demise.
Scott Brown did not run a Republican Senate campaign; Scott Brown ran a campaign for the people of Massachusetts. The Republican Party would be wise NOT to try to capitalize on his victory, because right now, the Republican Party, in the eyes of the American people, especially among independent voters, is damaged goods now. They will be able to recover from that, it will take time and you cannot rush that at all. If you attempt to rush that along, you will utterly fail at a comeback.
This victory, while small, is a sweet one. I just hope and pray that for once in their lives that the Republican Party establishment uses this victory to their advantage and does not louse it up — Because at this point, we the American people, have just too much lose, if Republicans screw this comeback up. On the other hand, America has much to gain, if the Party does things right.
So, please, Republicans, for once… Do the Republican Party’s return to its rightful place in American politics the proper way, please?
Coded references to New Testament Bible passages about Jesus Christ are inscribed on high-powered rifle sights provided to the United States military by a Michigan company, an ABC News investigation has found.
At the end of the serial number on Trijicon’s ACOG gun sight, you can read “JN8:12”, a reference to the New Testament book of John, Chapter 8, Verse 12, which reads: “Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” The ACOG is widely used by the U.S. military.
The sights are used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the training of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers. The maker of the sights, Trijicon, has a $660 million multi-year contract to provide up to 800,000 sights to the Marine Corps, and additional contracts to provide sights to the U.S. Army.
U.S. military rules specifically prohibit the proselytizing of any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan and were drawn up in order to prevent criticism that the U.S. was embarked on a religious “Crusade” in its war against al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents.
One of the citations on the gun sights, 2COR4:6, is an apparent reference to Second Corinthians 4:6 of the New Testament, which reads: “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”
Other references include citations from the books of Revelation, Matthew and John dealing with Jesus as “the light of the world.” John 8:12, referred to on the gun sights as JN8:12, reads, “Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.
UPDATE: I had some stuff written here, that I wish I had never written. Snark is fun, but only if everyone else is laughing. I blew it and I apologize. Please, go read this….NOW.
President Barack Obama received a high-level briefing only three days before Christmas about possible holiday-period terrorist threats against the US, Newsweek has learned. The briefing was centered on a written report, produced by US intelligence agencies, entitled “Key Homeland Threats”, a senior US official said.
The senior Administration official, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information, said that nowhere in this document was there any mention of Yemen, whose Al-Qaeda affiliate is now believed to have been behind the unsuccessful Christmas Day attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to bring down a transatlantic airliner with a bomb hidden in his underpants. However, the official declined to disclose any other information about the substance of the briefing, including what kind of specific warnings, if any, the President was given about possibly holiday attacks and whether Yemen came up during oral discussions.
According to the senior official, the holiday threat briefing, one in a series of regularly-scheduled sessions with top counter-terrorism officials, was held in the White House Situation Room on December 22. Present were representatives of agencies involved in counter-terrorism policy and operations, including Attorney General Eric Holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and FBI Director Robert Mueller. The CIA and National Intelligence Directors Office were represented by deputy agency heads: CIA deputy director Steven Kappes, and David Gompert, the principal deputy to National Intelligence Czar Dennis Blair. Also present was Michael Leiter, director of the National Counter-terrorism Center, a unit of the Intelligence Czar’s office which was created after 9/11 to ensure that intelligence reporting about possible terrorist plots was shared quickly among all US agencies who might have some capability to do something about it.
The senior official said that beginning in early December, based on reports coming in from intelligence agencies, policy-makers had begun tracking a stream of information which alluded to a possible holiday-period plot against the US orchestrated from somewhere in Pakistan. However, the official said, this reporting later turned out to be “garbled” and it was determined that the threat probably was a washout. The official denied that the White House received any report, representing the concensus of US intelligence agencies, warning that a Holiday-period plot originating in Yemen and targeting the US homeland could be in the works.
In a background briefing for reporters on December 29, also attributed in an official White House transcript to a “senior administration official”, that official asserted that in the wake of the attempted underpants attack, it had become clear to the President and top advisers that before Christmas, the US government was in posession of “bits and pieces” of information, which, if they had been properly knitted together, “could have…allowed us to disrupt the attack or certainly to know much more about the alleged attacker in such a way as to ensure that he was on, as the President suggested in his statement, a no-fly list.” In the briefing, the official identified three rough categories of information that the government had which could have been relevant to foiling the attack: information about Abdulmutallab and his plans, info about Al-Qaeda and their plans, and info “about potential attacks during the holiday period.”
Asked about what kind of intelligence reporting was circulated to senior officials about possibly holiday period attacks before the failed underpants attack, a US intelligence official, who also asked for anonymity, explained: “As everybody knows, terrorists often speak in coded language, especially when they think their communications might be intercepted. There was no clear discussion of an attack, on Christmas or any other time, in the Middle East or anywhere else. But as veiled as the message was, it was spotted, processed, analyzed, and presented to senior policymakers as a warning sign-however vague-of a holiday attack. While this was handled properly, there were, to put it mildly, virtually no details at all. That happens.” When Newsweek asked a senior Administration official about this characterization of a warning which was passed to White House policymakers, and whether it tracked what was presented at the December 22 Presidential briefing, the official would not comment.
I quoted a good lot of that; because I think that it is important to note, that United States Government, in particular, the President; cannot look into a crystal ball and tell the American people where we are going to be hit next. Also too; there seems to be a bit of rumbling amongst the Conservative Bloggers about how Obama handled the attacks. Yes, I know, it looked horrible. In fact, it kind of pissed me off as well. But, Bush did the same stuff, prior to 9/11.
We’ve known for years now that George W. Bush received a presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, in which he was warned: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” We’ve known for almost as long that Bush went fishing afterward.
What we didn’t know is what happened in between the briefing and the fishing, and now Suskind is here to tell us. Bush listened to the briefing, Suskind says, then told the CIA briefer: “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.”
The point that I am trying to make here guys, is that while it might be fun to try and tag this President and blame him directly for the attempted terrorist attack; I am afraid that I just cannot play along here. President Obama just cannot sit and predict when something like this is going to happen. Blaming Obama for this sort of a thing is just plain stupid. Was the ball dropped? Yes. Did someone screw up? Yes. Can Obama be blamed for any of that. Sorry, I’m afraid that is just plain wrong. President Obama cannot predict when one of the Governmental agencies is going to make a mistake, much less when a terrorist attack is going to happen.
Now, if you are one of those people that believes that Obama is somehow trying to undermine the Nation’s intelligence; because he is some sort of pseudo-Muslim. Then, you are just a plain idiot that believes every damned e-mail that you read, then you have issues that is beyond the scope of this blog, much less this blog entry.
So, in short, while this might not look good. I am afraid this finger pointing by the right — is just plain silly.
Update: Since I originally wrote this earlier today; there has been some new informationcome to light. I have funny feeling, that after the Holiday and the weekend are past. You are going to see some resignations of some posts within Obama’s cabinet. I could be wrong though. We will have to wait and see. But, from the looks of this; someone’s head is going to roll, when Obama gets back from his Holiday vacation.
Egad, when an American Conservative like me, and a warmongering Wilsonian Conservative, like Bill Kristol are actually agreeing. You know stuff is fudged up in the Country:
Unable to defend themselves on the merits, the administration and Democratic leaders are trying to change the topic to blaming Bush and Republicans. This is pathetic.
First of all, Obama is president. He has been for almost a year. Whatever mistakes Bush did or didn’t make, Obama is in charge — and the issue isn’t partisan score-settling, it’s whether the system he is in charge of is working. It isn’t.
One reason the system isn’t is some of the people he put in charge — Janet Napolitano and Dennis Blair come to mind. Another reason is certain concrete policy choices they’ve made — e.g., embracing a law enforcement approach and, without even weighing the choice, immediately choosing to treat Abdulmutallab as a criminal suspect, not an enemy combatant.
Go read the rest. It is very good….and yes, I agree with it all.
Obama promised change, and change he might be able to deliver, like mending the long standing rift between the Paleo-Conservatives and the notorious Neo-Conservatives. Yeah, I know, not everyone would go along with it. But it would be some, dare I say it? Progress!??! (In the Republican Party? GASP!) 😉
I present two videos; the first by reason magazine, which is a very funny take on the past 10 years. Which comes via HotAir.com, who has a poll up with this decade versus a few other notable decades:
The second video comes via Jack Hunter, who video blogs over at the American Conservative. Here Jack lays out a very compelling case for the fact that starting with George H.W. Bush, continuing with Bill Clinton and finally with George W. Bush; the entire big government, got even bigger:
As Jack says, and yet, conservatives are now griping about Barack Obama’s big government agenda. However, it is to be said, that Jack Hunter does point out the hypocrisy of the Democrats, when it comes to the wars. They were, in fact, loudly condemning of Bush’s Wars, but now, they’re all but silent. (Except for a few… and I mean very few…)
One point that I will offer a rebuttal to, is Jack’s point that Bush touted a more peaceful Foreign Policy, when he ran back in 2000. Jack points out that this suddenly changed after 9/11. What he fails to realize is this; on September 11, 2001, the game changed. Terrorists slammed two planes into the World Trade Centers, one plane into the Pentagon, and one plane that was headed to the White House; ended up in a field in Pennsylvania. As someone who had a terrorist almost blow up a plane near my house. I can fully understand why this game changed. However, because I am not a overly partisan blogger, I will say this; I do fully realize that Iraq, in hindsight was, in fact, a mistake. I have yet for anyone at all, to convince me otherwise, that Iraq was a direct threat to our Republic. I personally believe it was because of this massive screw up of the Bush Administration, that Afghanistan is now possibly a lost cause, and why Al-Qaeda is now attacking us once again. If I were Jack and those who agree with him; I would be watching the Yemen situation very closely. Because I tend to believe that Yemen is going to become Obama’s war, especially if he does not root out that Al-Qaeda group there.
As a fiscal Conservative; I must say that I wholeheartedly agree with Jack’s assessment of the G.O.P. and Republican establishment’s hypocrisy on spending; the same very people that are bitching to high heaven about Obama’s spending, were all but silent during the eight years of George W. Bush and his reckless drunken sailor like spending, which was primarily on a war in a country that really, when you get down to it, had zero to do with 9/11. But, yet, you have Bloggers, who are pro-war, bitching about Obama’s socialist agenda and take over of health care, plus his screwing of the economy into the ground. My question is, where were these people back in Bush’s day? Oh, that’s right, partisanship —- Which is such a horrible disease.
In fact, just here the other day; I was ripped by a “so-called” Conservative blogger, because I went to his blog and left a rather nasty message about Obama, because I was quite pissed off about his handling of the attempted terrorist act here at the airport, which is less than 10 miles from my house. (I also e-mailed him and apologized for it too..) This man goes out of his way to rat me out, and offers to give my damned IP address to anyone that wants it. But yet, on that same blog, he does the rather unfunny Osama/Obama joke on his blog. He removed it, presumably after one his readers bitched at him about it, but just the same, this idiot is going to bitch at me for being a ‘so-called’ racist and he does the same thing? That is hypocrisy and I think he knows that, because it was changed, I wish I had screen capped it and posted it here. But, I didn’t. Also, one of his commenters proceeded to give out my real name and drudge up crap that happened years ago. She also went out of her way to say that I, according to her, criticized the right more than the left. Which is, of course, stupid. I have pointed out stupid stuff on the far right and I will continue to do so; as much as I criticize the left. My point that I am trying to make is this here. Just as much as I am not drinking the idiotic socialist Kool-Aid of the Democrats; I am also not drinking the idiotic Kool-Aid of the far right either, I consider myself to me a critical, or dare I say it? A free-thinker.
I will admit, that I am a supporter of the United States Military; but I will the first to admit, that I beginning to be very skeptical of the war in Afghanistan; and I will go out of my way to say that this is NOT the fault of the United States military. It never was, it is the fault of the jackasses in Washington D.C. who could not define a damned military mission, if their lives depended on it. This is nothing new, it was the same way during the Bush Administration, much worse in fact. The problem is, our lives do depend on it. Al-Qaeda is still a damned threat and what does Obama do? Gives a half-assed speech as to the fact, that the government is on it. Yeah, uh-huh, sure. You mean, like the Government has been on the hunt of Osama Bin Laden for the last damned eight years? I call B.S. people, big time.
So, to those who come here and think this is a far right, rabid Conservative Blog. Be forewarned; my criticism and skepticism of Government and politics; and those who engage in that profession, is NOT on a partisan basis. I am quite bi-partisan on my criticisms. This blog has always been that way, and always will be.
Karl Rove, former senior adviser to President George W. Bush, has been granted a divorce in Texas after 24 years of marriage, family spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
“Karl Rove and his wife, Darby, were granted a divorce last week,” said Perino. “The couple came to the decision mutually and amicably, and they maintain a close relationship and a strong friendship. There will be no further comment, and the family requests that its privacy be respected.”
The Roves were married in January 1986.
A family friend told POLITICO: “After 24 years of marriage, many of which were spent under incredible stress and strain during the White House years, the Roves came to a mutual decision that they would end the marriage. They did spend Christmas together with their son, and they plan to spend time together in the future. They maintain a strong friendship, and they both feel that that friendship is a source of comfort and inspiration for their friends and family.”
This proves what I have believed all along. That social Conservatism is nothing more, than a well-planned and executed joke. I will not do the pile-on about Rove’s stances on Gay Marriage. However, I will present this video, done by Jack Hunter, who now Video Blogs over at the American Conservative. In this video, Jack makes some very valid points about the establishment Republicans in Washington D.C. at the 3:13 mark is where Jack really makes the point that I am making here.
I will be the first to admit; I do not always agree with Jack on foreign policy and war. However, I am in total agreement with him on the subject of social Conservatism. I being a child of the 1980’s, I remember very clearly all the talk that Reagan was going to get prayer back into schools, was going to see to it that Abortion was outlawed. Now did any of that stuff ever happen? Um, No. That is because the Republicans of that era, were exploiting the Conservative Christian community for their vote. Sort of like what Barack Obama’s campaign did to the far left during the election of 2008.
Now, you say, “Well, that was different!” and to that I ask you, “How so?” Is liberal Democratic organization like the Center of American Progress politicizing a natural disaster any better, than a Republican Representative supposedly politicizing a terrorist attack? The answer is, no. They are both wrong. But, yet, the liberals believe that they are right, because they’re defending the current socialist President.
Think Progress has much Chutzpah, after how they accused President Bush of some of the most outlandish crap back after the hurricane; including the Hollywood crowd and the Music people saying that Bush hated black people and so forth. The truth of the matter is that the CITY and STATE Government failed, not the Federal Government. It was after the droning of the Liberal WHINE, that the federal Government had to step in and take over.
I mean, does anyone remember THIS picture?
Those were buses, buses that could have been used by the city to get people out of the area. But did Ray Nagin do that; no, he sat on his ass and did not use them and then blamed Bush and Co. in Washington D.C. for not coming to the rescue.
So, much Chutzpah on the part of the liberals to even dare to complain about politizing of anything at all. As they have done the same very thing themselves.
I must admit that for the first time, since my journey began into political blogging has began, much less, Conservative political blogging; I am divided on an issue. While I believe that what the Democrats are doing with the healthcare bill, with the protecting parts of the bill from being overturned is wrong. I also believe that the Republicans have zero right to complain.
This is what I mean
Let us not kid ourselves folks; The Bush Administration sold America using some very deceptive means, into a war in Iraq. The intelligence was bad; the Bush Administration knew this and did not care. They were determined to strike Saddam Hussein. So, while I am sympathetic towards the Republicans on this issue, I feel they have zero right to complain about this one, as it was the Republicans who backed the imperialistic actions of President Bush.
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
1 minute
_gac_
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.