This was so predictable.  There is new anti-profiling legislation, co-sponsored by Senator Dick Durbin that would expand federal law enforcement guidelines against profiling and mandate training on racial profiling at all federal law enforcement agencies:

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/18/long_time_coming_trayvons_law/singleton/

It is another example of a solution in desperate search of a problem.  This is all based on a monstrous and deliberate distortion of the facts in the Trayvon Martin case.  The following paragraph is typical of how this is portrayed by the liberal left:

“He was profiled, followed, chased, and murdered,” said Federica Wilson, the cowboy hat-wearing congresswoman from Miami where Trayvon lived with his father. “This case has captured international attention and will go down in history as a textbook example of racial profiling.”

So far, there is zero evidence that Trayvon Martin was profiled; in fact, it is not entirely clear that George Zimmerman committed any crime at all.  He may be guilty of nothing more than self-defense.  The most recent picture, released in court today, shows a bloodied George Zimmerman with significant injuries on the back of his head.  These pictures were taken within 3 minutes after the policy arrived at the scene.

The following article from PJ Media shows just how bad this has become:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/walking-papers-the-incredibly-thin-speculative-zimmerman-affidavit/

One has to ask why the liberal left jumped in with both feet on this case.  I think it is because there is an embarrassing lack of racial profiling abuses.  This is the same reason they hyperventilated about that Harvard professor.  It is also why the Duke Lacrosse team was pillared in the media.  As demonstrated by Dick Durbin, the liberal left has all this neat anti-profiling legislation burning a hole in their pocket, and they are desperately in need of a high profile incident.

The indictment against Zimmerman is not only bad, it is laughably bad.  But this is not funny.  It certainly isn’t funny to George Zimmerman who literally has a bounty on his head from the New Black Panthers.  But it also isn’t funny because liberals are now trying to use this gross misrepresentation of facts to pass irresponsible legislation.  The proposed legislation is not just wrong, it is dangerously wrong.  If police cannot profile against those who are most likely to be a threat, they must treat everyone as a threat.  It is precisely this kind of logic that resulted in a 95-year-old grandmother humiliated into removing her soiled adult diaper so some TSA agent could be sure she was not a threat:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44467

I am unaware of the TSA stopping a single terrorist attack.  There are certainly people who have been caught with weapons, but most of them are celebrities who leave handguns in their carry-on luggage.  The real terrorists, such as the shoe bomber and the diaper bomber, managed to get on planes rather easily and were only stopped by outraged fellow passengers.  Perhaps the terrorists were so intimidated by the mere presence of the TSA that they didn’t even try, but I suspect not.  I think terrorists now know that fellow passengers are on the alert, and they won’t hesitate to fight back.  The 9-11 hijackers only succeeded because official policy, up until then, was to cooperate with hijackers.  Now that aircrews and passengers understand what is at stake, it is going to take more than a box knife to take over an airliner.  I strongly suspect as long as we use good metal detectors and look for handguns and hand grenades, we will be pretty safe.

In addition, there is a shortage of people stupid enough to try and bring down an airliner by blowing their balls off midflight yet smart enough to pull it off.  People that stupid can fool the TSA, but they are unlikely to fool their fellow passengers.  In the meantime, the liberal left wants police to treat everyone as a potential criminal so we won’t risk offending those who actually are criminals.  Of course, if we are talking about white Christians, then profiling is not only acceptable, it is required. 

In 1770, John Adams was the defense attorney for the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.  He took the job because none of the “Tory” lawyers were willing.  The following is from his defense argument:

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

If we are right about the facts, liberals are doomed to defeat.  If we are wrong, they deserve to win.  Those who ignore the facts are incapable of governing effectively.  That is why liberal governments are always voted out of office.  It is only a matter of time.  Eventually, all those strategies based on false assumptions are doomed to failure.  That’s just the way it is.

TDM

Roger Clemens is about to be tried, again, for perjury.  It is really quite simple.  Clemens denies ever using performance-enhancing drugs.  There is a fair amount of evidence that he is lying:

http://www.search.yahoo.com/?fr=w3i&type=W3i_SP,204,0_0,StartPage,20120102,16898,0,8,0

The last time the government tried this, the judge declared a mistrial.  The problem is that Andy Pettitte told congressional investigations that Clemens confessed in 1999 (or 2000) that he used human growth hormones.  Apparently, Pettitte told his wife Laura about the conversation.  The judge ruled that her testimony was inadmissible because she didn’t hear Roger Clemens directly.  The prosecutors showed a video of Representative Elijah Cummings, D-MD, questioning Clemens where he referred to Pettitte’s conversation with his wife.  That ended the trial because the jury was exposed to inadmissible evidence:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/6768625/roger-clemens-trial-judge-declares-mistrial

Frankly, this whole thing seems like a gigantic waste of time.  Why did congress need to get involved at all?  Only a naïve fool didn’t realize that baseball players were using steroids.  This was hardly limited to Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds.  This should have been dealt with by Major League Baseball.  There was a problem, but the involvement of the government accomplished nothing.  The government indicted Barry Bonds for perjury.  They convicted him only of giving an evasive answer.  They couldn’t convict Bonds of lying.  He was sentenced to 30 days house arrest and he is even appealing that conviction.  Now the DOJ is back, trying to salvage its pride by getting a conviction of Roger Clemens.  What this would accomplish is beyond me.  I suspect that Roger Clemens, like a lot of other baseball players at the time, was using human growth hormones or steroids.  His denials do not pass the smell test.  But neither does the decision to waste valuable time and money prosecuting him.  Both Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano appear to have also committed perjury, with regard to a far more serious subject

In 2000, the Independent Counsel investigating the White House Post Office scandal (Travelgate) stated there is “substantial evidence” first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton lied under oath in denying that she played a role in the 1993 White House travel-office firing:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000623&slug=4028256

The media yawned, apparently because it was hardly a surprise to learn that Hillary Clinton told a lie.  If Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder or Janet Napolitano happen to say something, under oath,  “inconsistent with the facts” that is not perjury, that is politics.  But if Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens say they didn’t use performance-enhancing drugs, and someone disagrees, that is perjury.

I think it is extremely unlikely that Roger Clemens will go to jail.  Regardless of the facts, I wouldn’t be surprised by an acquittal.  But in the meantime, the DOJ will have spent a fortune prosecuting this case, and they will probably succeed in causing great financial hardship to Roger Clemens.

Senator Ted Stevens was convicted of failing to properly report gifts.  He was convicted on October 27, 2008.  He was convicted of “making false statements.”  As a result, he was defeated in the election by Mark Begich.  Mark Begich arrived in the Senate just in time to cast the deciding vote for Obamacare.  I should point out that this was in addition to the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback and the re-writing of Massachusetts law to allow the Governor to appoint a Democrat to replace Ted Kennedy.   By April of 2009, it was so obvious that the conviction was improper that Eric Holder directed the justice department to “Set Aside the Verdict and Dismiss the Indictment with Prejudice.”

At what point, even to the lame stream media, does it become obvious that there’s a serious disconnect here?

TDM

The liberal left tried to use the Trayvon Martin murder as evidence that innocent black teenagers were at risk of being murdered by angry white men.  They also tried to paint a strong anti-gun message.  But, they may have been wrong on both accounts.

African Americans are twice as likely to be murdered as white Americans.  However, they are not being killed by angry white people.  The stark reality is that 94% of the time when an African American is murdered, it is another African American doing the dirty deed.  African Americans have a right to be outraged, they are just wrong about the color of the people doing the damage. 

As of 2008, approximately 79.9% of Americans were considered white.  African Americans were estimated at 12.84% of the population.  Yet over half of the murders in this country are committed by African Americans, and they usually kill other African Americans.  The media would have us believe that Trayvon Martin was singled out and killed because he was black.  So far, there is little hard evidence of that.  But in reality, the Trayvon Martins of this world have a lot more to fear from other African Americans than they do from angry white men.  Most murders are intra-racial.  When a white person is murdered, there is about an 86% chance that they were murdered by another white person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

(Note:  I verified the data in this article with the source documents.  There is a significant dispute with regard to the analysis in the Wikipedia article, but the statistics appear to be accurate.)

Prior to the civil rights movement, the treatment of African Americans in the United States was intolerable, particularly in the South.  It is easy to understand why African Americans are so sensitive to any hint of racism.  It is probably impossible for those of us who are white to fully understand this.  Immediately after the Civil War, African Americans were given their freedom and the right to vote. But we all know that this was hardly the end of the struggle.  Things didn’t really change until the civil rights movement forced change.  People who experienced this type of racism in the past can hardly be blamed for fearing racism today.

But, at least in this case, there does not appear to be much evidence of racism.  George Zimmerman may or may not be guilty of a crime.  That does not necessarily make him racist.  So far, the only evidence of racism is in the knee jerk response by the main stream media.  At least some of the so-called evidence of racism has been discredited.  After further review, CNN had to admit that George Zimmerman probably didn’t utter a racist slur.  NBC deliberately altered the audio to make Zimmerman look racist.  When NBC played the entire 9-1-1 tape, it was obvious George Zimmerman only mentioned that Trayvon Martin was black when the dispatcher asked him to describe the “suspect.”  It also turns out that Zimmerman has a lot of black friends. 

There is a lot about the Zimmerman-Martin case that we do not know, but we do know that the main stream media reported a lot of it wrong.  The whole point of the civil rights movement was to get away from judging people by the color of their skin.  Neither George Zimmerman nor Trayvon Martin should be judged because of their race, they should be judge based on the facts.

It is quite possible that if George Zimmerman had not been armed, he would have been seriously injured and possibly killed.  There are at least some reports that it was Trayvon Martin who attacked Zimmerman.  If that had happened, and it was Zimmerman who was killed or injured, no one in the main stream media would care very much.  It is easy to understand why.  Every day we hear stories of people, who are not armed, getting killed by criminals.  However, it is rare to hear of an unarmed criminal being shot by a licensed gun holder.

Every year, there are about 2.5 million people who use a legallyl purchased handgun to protect themselves.  Rarely is anyone shot.  That is the whole point. 

http://www.rense.com/general76/univ.htm

Since the FBI concentrates on reporting crimes, after they have been committed, we do not have totally accurate information on this subject.  However, there clearly are a lot more cases where legal handguns prevent crimes than reported in the mainstream media.

With regard to gun control laws, liberals are concerned about the wrong people having access to firearms.  They ignore the obvious fact that criminals seldom bother to purchase a gun legally.  The only people who obey gun laws are law abiding citizens.  Liberals also shudder at the thought of untrained and irrational people being armed.  I agree.  We should have laws that restrict access to guns by people who tend to be angry and irrational.  How about some legislation preventing liberals from owning firearms?  Problem solved.

TDM

One of my favorite moments in television was when Geraldo Rivera did a show called
The Mystery of Al Capone’s Vault.  Everyone was so excited that he managed to syndicate a special.  On live television they did the excavation, which took several hours, as his team penetrated the vault.  There was even a medical examiner on scene in case they found some bodies.  Finally the great moment arrived and they opened the vault to find nothing other than some broken bottles.  It was hysterically bad.

Recently, we saw the Presidential version of the empty vault.  For years we have been hearing about the brilliant Barack Obama, the former President of the Harvard Law Review and constitutional scholar.  There has actually been zero evidence supporting this myth, but Obama is a far left liberal, and the main stream media just assumed brilliance.  After all, he agrees with them on just about every issue.  But now Obama gave a very public statement about the Supreme Court’s review of Obamacare and personally destroyed the myth of his brilliant legal mind.  No second-year law student would say something as stupid as claiming the Supreme Court overturning a law passed by congress would be unprecedented.  That has only been happening for about 200 years.  That is the whole point of the Supreme Court!  This is so pathetic that even the fawning main stream media pounced on it.  They absolutely hammered his Press Secretary and Obama himself has resorted to stammering incoherent attempts to try and spin this away.  The following article, from Reuters of all places, is typical:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/04/usa-court-obama-idUSL2E8F4B8N20120404

The real problem is that Obama’s blunder absolutely shatters the myth of Obama the brilliant legal scholar.  The only other possible explanation is that Obama doesn’t care about the traditional rule of the judiciary in the U.S. legal system.  That may be true, but stupidity would be a better defense than that!  The courts were not amused.  A three-judge panel from the Fifth District court ordered the Justice Department to explain, by Thursday, whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.  It was a slap in the face and a shot across the bow.  No one, and I mean no one, is taking Obama’s side on this.  The DOJ attorney on the case, Dana Lydia Kaersvang quickly wilted under a blistering verbal assault from Federal Judge Jerry Smith.  Even Attorney General Holder genuflected and said the DOJ would respond to the demand.  This is the same Holder who earned his name by holding on to documents in spite of repeated subpoenas from congress.  He folded on this one like a cheap umbrella.

No one, even in the Obama administration, is even pretending that Obama got this right.  They are just trying to defend his blunder by claiming he was speaking only of a law passed by congress on an economic issue, such as health care.  That didn’t even pass the giggle factor with the folks from MSNBC.  They aren’t reporting on this, mind you, they are just ignoring it.  But even MSNBC isn’t trying to defend Obama’s position.  The other networks, including CNN, are reporting it and no one is agreeing with Obama.

This is a worse mistake than the brain freeze on national television by Rick Perry during a Presidential debate.  Perry never recovered from that.  Obama has been permanently damaged because the illusion of the brilliant legal scholar has been shattered.  The genie is out of the bottle and no one is going to be able to put it back.  They finally opened the secret vault containing the brilliant Obama and found nothing. 

TDM

If the following article is accurate, then the main stream media is guilty of gross negligence in the reporting of the death of Trayvon Martin.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_arizona-iced-tea-suv-unarmed-black-teenager

Unfortunately, the usual suspects, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, rushed for a microphone in a desperate attempt to exploit what appeared to be a racist incident.  Even President Obama weighed in on the controversy.  We were told by everyone, including Fox News, that an angry white male shot an innocent black teenager for no reason.  At a minimum, there was a lot more to the story.

A few years ago one of our neighbors shot someone to death just around the corner from our home.  This was an upscale gated community.  We were shocked.  What happened is that another neighbor had a nephew visiting who got hopped up on PCP.  This guy started to stab his uncle while in the house, but the uncle ran outside trying to escape.  His nephew followed him and continued to stab him in the middle of the street.  The uncle’s wife yelled from the front porch for help.  Help came—from their next door neighbor–with a gun in hand.  He fired a warning shot and then shot the young man, high on PCP, killing him.  (Unfortunately, the uncle died, as well.)

The first thing the cops did when they arrived was to arrest the neighbor who did the shooting.  Earth to liberals:  Even in places like Sanford, Florida, if the police arrive and find a dead person and someone else with a gun, the person with the gun usually gets arrested.  At a minimum, he gets handcuffed and asked a lot of tough questions.  Our neighbor was taken to the police station, but was released because it was an obvious case of self-defense; in fact, the police noted that with the act of shooting the nephew, it was highly possible that more lives were saved. 

In the Trayvon case, it is becoming really obvious why the police didn’t arrest George Zimmerman.  He had a broken nose, his back was soaked from the ground, and he had cuts and bruises on the back of his head where Trayvon Martin was slamming his head against the ground.  It is entirely possible that if Zimmerman was not armed, he would be dead.

But the truth is never a barrier to a run-a-way main stream media with a juicy story like this.  They are anti-gun and convinced that innocent people are frequently shot by out-of-control and poorly trained amateur gun owners.  Add in a hint of racism and they were off to the moon.

Unfortunately, we are likely to see a lot of irresponsible behavior and possibly violence in response to the malpractice by the mainstream media.  George Zimmerman is unlikely to be even charged with a crime.  If he is charged, he is even more unlikely to be convicted.  But, he was already tried and convicted by CNN, ABC, NBC and even Fox News.  The Black Panthers even put a bounty on him.

This irresponsible behavior by the media, by Jesse Jackson, by Al Sharpton and particularly by President Obama will do grave damage to race relations in this country.  However, I wouldn’t expect a correction or even an admission of error.  Instead, they are already off looking for some other situation to exploit.

It is a real tragedy that a 17-year-old black man lost his life.  It is also a tragedy that George Zimmerman was assaulted and had to shoot someone in self defense.  But the greatest tragedy is the enormous damage done by the rush to judgment by those who could not resist an opportunity to exploit the opportunity to claim racism.

TDM

The following interview of Bill Maher by Jake Tapper from ABC News is extremely revealing:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/four-questions-for-bill-maher/

This is so typical of liberals, who consider themselves brilliant in spite of all evidence to the contrary.  The most telling moment is when Maher admitted that calling Sarah Palin the “c” word was always one of the biggest laughs in his act.  I am sure that is true because Bill Maher has zero skills as a real comedian, and the only way he can get laughs is to make rude, profane and disgusting remarks about conservative republicans.  All he has to do is mention George Bush, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann with some sarcastic remark and the crowd goes wild.  There is a consistent minority of liberals who find this juvenile and disgusting behavior to be hysterically funny.  It is this extremely small audience that keeps Bill Maher on the air.

The reality is that if Bill Maher was trying to make a living by smearing liberal women, the way he smeared Sarah Palin, he wouldn’t have any audience.  Conservatives are not amused by cheap personal attacks of this nature, regardless of the target.  Rude and disgusting should always be considered rude and disgusting.

Even Democrats are only amused if the target is a conservative female, like Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann.  George Bush used to be the favorite target, but lately that doesn’t work anymore.  This is probably because George Bush has a higher approval rating than Obama.

Can you imagine Bill Maher making the same type of slams about Hillary Clinton, or Nancy Pelosi.  The liberal left would go nuts.  They would have demanded Maher be fired long ago.  On the other hand, if someone makes any remark about a liberal that could possibly be misinterpreted as racist or sexist the liberal left goes ballistic. 

Perhaps the problem is that liberals just aren’t that bright.  There is a reason conservatives dominate talk radio.  Liberals aren’t smart enough to be funny.  That is why liberal talk show hosts can only build an audience by making outrageous and cheap personal attacks on conservatives.  The part of the audience that eats that stuff up loves it, but everyone else is quickly bored.

In the meantime, it appears that liberals forgot about video.  Just about the time they were salivating over the opportunity to finally drive a stake intp Rush Limbaugh’s heart, they were confronted with all those clips from people like Bill Maher and Ed Schultz.  Suddenly, Limbaugh looks like a choir boy in comparison.  Casting stones at Limbaugh for calling Ms. Fluke a slut is the classic example of why people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. 

And oh, by the way, Limbaugh is a lot smarter than either Maher or Schultz.  Unlike them, he can keep an audience without resorting to the lowest form of potty language humor.  Ultimately, neither Maher nor Schultz is likely to stay on the air if they have to rely on their non-existent skills to hold an audience.

TDM

There was an amazing article on MSNBC.com today.  It basically is an admission that the Obama Presidency is a major failure.  Of course, MSNBC tries to spin this as the result of problems outside of Obama’s control, but that will not work.  This is like excusing a coach for a losing record by complaining that the other team is deliberately trying to defeat his team.  Duh!   Following is the article:

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/13/10666856-analysis-obama-tested-by-events-outside-control

All of the Republican candidates for President have been talking about reining in the Fed.  So it should not have been a surprise that the Fed gave a rosy report today about the economy.  They have to know they are in for a tough ride if Romney, or any of the other Republicans, get elected.  It seems the stock market soared in response.  Obama and his legion of main stream media supporters immediately began singing his praises. 

However, I can’t imagine this working, or lasting.  The situation in Europe is dire.  Even China is showing strain with an increase in the trade deficit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9137130/China-has-biggest-trade-deficit-for-20-years.html

Today, President Obama accused China of breaking global trade rules by restricting exports of rare earth elements.  He is probably right, but his timing, as always, is absurd.  It will be quickly recognized as a political stunt.  China is already feeling the pinch because of the failing world economy.  Obama is naïve to think China is about to expand the export of rare earth elements so other countries can compete more effectively with Chinese manufacturers.  He also made a major mistake by publicly embarrassing China.  Odds are high that they will not respond well.

Gas prices are skyrocketing, as Obama promised.  This is hardly a surprise since he has done everything possible to prevent further drilling.  The only increase in oil production has come from leases signed by Bush or from development on private property.  Obama’s real energy policy is to force people to stop using gas by making it so expensive that there will be no alternative.  Gas is headed toward $5 and possibly $6 per gallon.  This may appeal to naïve liberals who live in New York and don’t even own a car, but doesn’t play well in Peoria.

Afghanistan is in full meltdown.  The only solution left is to withdraw our troops now, while we can.  This is one of the worst foreign policy blunders in American history.  Obama came into office promising to show Bush how it was done by winning the “necessary” war in Afghanistan.  In June 2009, we had less than 30,000 troops in Afghanistan.  Two years later, in June, 2011, we had 90,000 troops.  But Obama also implemented new rules of engagement that made it much more difficult for our troops.  Two thirds of all combat deaths in Afghanistan happened during Obama’s watch.  He is far from winning the necessary war.  Instead, he is about to leave with his tail between his legs, probably apologizing all the way to the exit.  Then, of course, he will blame everything on Bush.

In reality, Obama has made everything worse, and it is becoming impossible to ignore.  The MSNBC article is an admission of this.  Of course they are trying to shift the blame.  Ultimately, when a team continues to lose, the coach gets fired. 

Democrats are so desperate that they are trying to repeat the 2008 smear campaign against Sarah Palin.  But Palin is not even running.  Smearing her name may be great fun, but it won’t save Obama.  Recently there have been numerous main stream media pundits moaning and groaning about how we came so close to electing someone as unqualified as Sarah Palin to be Vice President.  They shudder at the thought of someone so naïve and inexperienced only a heartbeat away from the Presidency.   Well, earth to liberals:  I actually agree that Sarah Palin did not have the experience necessary to be President, but she was far more experienced than Barack Obama.  America did elect someone too naïve and inexperienced to be President.  The results have been increasingly difficult to ignore.  That is why even an Obama campaign outlet, like MSNBC, is doing failure analysis.

TDM

In case any of you had lingering doubt about the bias in our main stream media, check out the following article from Pravda. 

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/07-03-2012/120708-arizona_sheriff_obama-0/

Since Pravda is controlled by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, it is hardly an unbiased source.  However, the sad fact is that article is far more objective than any U.S. media outlet. 

If Sheriff Arpaio is wrong, the main stream media should be investigating and demanding an apology.  If he is right, then we have a President who may have participated in a felony.  Either way, this is far too important to ignore.

This is a consistent pattern with Obama.  He was BFF with admitted terrorist, William Ayers.  The media yawned.

He attended a church, for twenty years, led by a preacher who taught black liberation theology when he wasn’t screaming: “G## D### America.”  This is the same out of control radical preacher also accused the U.S. of infecting Africa with the Aids virus.  The media did not care.

He bought his home in a shady real estate deal involving Antoin Rezko.  Antoin Rezko is currently in prison for bribing public officials.  No one in the media noticed.

Video tapes have surfaced showing Barack Obama embracing yet another racist black professor.  The media wonders why this is a problem?

But there is something missing from Barack Obama’s background.  He is missing any friends who are not left wing radicals.

In the meantime, no one appears to be the least bit interested in the Sheriff Arpaio investigation.   I used to think one of the main strengths of this country was the freedom of the press.  But what good is freedom of the press if, if the main stream media is unable or unwilling to report objectively.  George Bush was hardly a popular man in Russia, so the following comment by Pravda is very revealing:

One can easily imagine the reaction of the press had this scenario been about George W. Bush in 2004.

The Pravda article is a slap in the face to the entire main stream media.  But, based on past performance, I doubt seriously they will even notice.

TDM

Obama has spent a lot of time recently apologizing for the U.S. military burning some copies of the Quran.  Following is the link to an article about this in Politico:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73201.html

“I wish to express my deep regret for the reported incident.  I extend to you and the Afghan people my sincere apologies.:  The error ws inadvertent, I assure you that we will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible.”

If Obama had done any investigation he would have quickly learned that “the Qurans had been confiscated from Afghan prisioners at Bagram and were thought to have contained coded messages.”

http://english.sina.com/world/2012/0223/442818.html

Obama could have pointed out that it was the Afghan prisoners themselves who defiled the Quran by apparently using it as a code book.  But, like far too many of our politicians, apologizing for the slightest hint of criticism of Islam is par for the course.

I understand why Obama did this.  The Arab world has a nasty habit of rioting and killing people whenever they feel Islam or the Quran has been disrespected.  Obama was just trying to prevent even worse violence.  This is the same justification for all those well-intentioned people who carefully tiptoe around any criticism of Islam.  I wonder if they realize that these apologies never actually work.

This reminds me of the time we were having problems with our dog, Molly, barking too loudly at visitors.  I was talking to a dog trainer and mentioned that the best solution we found was to give Molly a dog treat to shut her up.  He smiled at me and said, “So…you reward her for bad behavior?”  Ouch!  Sometimes the truth hurts.  (She no longer gets a treat for barking.)

This is exactly what the entire world is doing with regard to Islam.  The more violent and inappropriately Muslims respond to the slightest hint of criticism, the more fearful people are of pointing out the obvious problems.  The entire world has been intimidated into silence. 

Christians, on the other hand, have a tradition of not responding violently.  As a result, Christians are considered to be fair game.   Go ahead, Mr. Maher, produce a program ridiculing Islam.  See what response that generates!

In May, 2009, a Christian church sent Bibles printed in the two most common Afghan languages to Afghanistan.  The military confiscated the Bibles and then publically burned them.  The explanation given by the Obama administration for the desecration of the Bibles was:  “troops at posts in war zones are required to burn their trash.”  The Christian community should have been outraged, but that is not our style.  Following is the link to a CNN story on this event:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/20/us.military.bibles.burned/

Obama not only didn’t feel any need to apologize to Christians for burning Bibles, he apologized to the Afghan people on behalf of the Christians.  How dare Christians promote their faith to someone else?  Who do we think we are?  Why can’t we be more understanding of other cultures, like the Muslims respect Christianity?

I don’t know if Obama did these things because he is a secret Muslim, a Muslim supporter, or merely because he is a naïve coward.  Regardless of the reason, the result is identical.  We are rewarding bad behavior with more genuflecting and apologies.

Isn’t it about time Christians started standing up and protesting those who defile Christianity?  How can a President of the United States apologize for burning a Quran, after burning Bibles?  How many insults do we need to endure before enough is enough? 

Here is my simple request:  Mr. President, we understand why you apologized for our troops burning the Quran.  We agree that all religions should be respected.  How about a little respect for the religion you call your own.  How about an apology for burning those Bibles in 2009?  How about apologizing for demanding the Catholic Church fund contraceptives in violation of their religious principles?  You’re obviously very good at apologizing, Mr. President, give it a shot!

TDM

Sherriff Arpaio held a press conference today where he said there is probable cause to believe that Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud.  Sheriff Arpaio is no dummy.  He chose his words carefully.  He did not say that he doubted where Obama was born.  What he said was that he had probable cause to question the authenticity of the documents. 

 Naturally the folks at WND.com are hyperventilating:

 http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/sheriff-joes-posse-probable-cause-obama-certificate-a-fraud/

Unfortunately, this is far from conclusive.  I suspect that everything the Sheriff says has some merit and I am equally convinced that in the end, we will find out that Obama was born in Hawaii.

No matter what document Obama produces, it generates more questions than answers.  His supporters try to spin this as a racist witch hunt by wild-eyed zealots who would never be satisfied with any documentation.  They are probably right about some of the birthers, but there are legitimate questions about the documents that have been released.  These problems are all too real.

It doesn’t help that the main stream media is incapable of reporting this story straight up.  The following CBS report is typical:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/03/01/arpaio-im-just-doing-my-job-investigating-obamas-birth-certificate/

The entire article is based on a premise that is not true.  CBS claims that “Hawaii officials have repeatedly confirmed Obama’s citizenship. “  They pretend there are no legitimate concerns regarding the documents released by Obama.  Actually the State of Hawaii has given conflicting and misleading comments on several occasions.  And there are legitimate concerns with regard to the documents released by Obama.  No official from Hawaii has ever handed out a document and said:  “here is Obama’s birth certificate.”  No official from Hawaii has ever said that the document released by Obama is a true and accurate copy of his birth certificate.  If they did, this story would be done.  This is more complicated than the main stream media is reporting. 

The pattern is clear.  The documents released by Obama never completely pass the smell test.  Eventually he produces another copy of another document.  But he never releases the actual document; instead we get a “photo copy” or a blurred picture.  This is like watching a sleight of hand magician.  They are brilliant at making it appear like they are showing you the real thing, while actually showing you nothing at all.  The only “witnesses” ever called up on stage are either people chosen from the audience who are clearly too stupid to ask the right questions, or shills in on the act.  This is the identical strategy used by Obama.  No one competent ever gets to see the real document. 

I believe that Obama was born in Hawaii.  Not because of these documents, but because that makes the most sense.  The theory of him being born in Kenya has more holes than his birth certificate.  It doesn’t make sense, because his parents never lived together as husband and wife.  Based on what we know about Obama’s father, the last thing he would have done is bring his white wife back to Kenya to deliver her baby.  For one thing, he already had a wife in Kenya.

One must assume that the people handling this for Obama are somewhat competent.  They could easily produce a clear copy of his birth certificate.  But they never do that.  Instead they always release another photo copy or picture that leaves more than ample room for doubt.  I believe this is deliberate.  I suspect it is either because they want the story to go on, or because they have something really important to hide.  Otherwise, this is just silly.  They may be Kool-Aid drinking left-wing socialist radicals, but they are still sharper than this. 

While I believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, I cannot ignore the obvious fact that there has been a deliberate and sustained cover-up.  At best, this is merely a blatant disregard for the American public.  At worst, Obama is desperately trying to hide “something” that really matters.   I don’t know which is worse.

TDM