Monday, February 28, 2011

Military intervention in Libya?

Regular readers of Recliner Commentaries know that I very rarely come to President Obama's defense--but when he's right, he's right.

I've been listening to my fellow conservatives criticize Obama for not being more involved with the crisis in Libya. Indeed, some conservatives are calling for military intervention!

Ordinarily, I might agree but I am now hesitant (to put it mildly) to get involved in the Muslim world unless it is a matter of national security (Iran is a matter of national security. Libya is not).

Under the first Bush, we came to Kuwait's defense, and we even had the support of other Muslim Countries (privately anyway, not always publicly) but we still ended up being vilified in the Muslim world and portrayed as anti-Muslim invaders!

Then we tried to free Iraq from a brutal dictator who deliberately led us to believe (and whom the world believed) had WMD! This 1) cost us thousands of lives, 2) served as an excuse for recruitment of terrorists, and 3) resulted in a "democracy" that, as far as I can tell, oppresses Christians even more than the Saddam regime!

Besides all this, one of the anti-Gaddafi men in Libya said on TV tonight that this is a Libyan battle and that they do not want outside intervention (he probably meant they don't want help from the infidels--which means that even if we do help we will still be considered the enemy).

I am, therefore, opposed to military intervention in Libya until the Libyan rebels, and our "allies" in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, publicly (in English and Arabic!) ask us for our help--and even then I will be probably be hesitant.

All of this to say that I think criticism of President Obama for not doing enough in Libya is unjustified.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Obama's refusal to defend DOMA

Here is an update on President Obama's refusal to defend DOMA in court from Alan Sears, CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund:
We wanted to update you on the litigation involving the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA – which essentially is the law that defines marriage to include one man and one woman for federal government purposes, and allows each state to define marriage without imposing any re-definition on another), and especially the impact of Eric Holder’s unprecedented announcement yesterday that the Department of Justice will no longer defend the law (and in fact actively oppose it). 
As you know, the Attorney General’s announcement only confirms what has been a reality since the Administration began “defending” DOMA in the seven jurisdictions in which it is currently being challenged. It’s no exaggeration to say that the President’s team has been throwing the cases. The Administration has expressly waived advancing winning legal arguments and intentionally failed to cite binding legal precedent in each case. In fact, the Administration has “expressly disavowed” the winning legal arguments that the Bush Administration had made in previous cases. In short, it is clear that the President and his lawyers have been actively sabotaging DOMA in court.

Friday, February 25, 2011

Impeaching President Obama?

According to an article published today:
...former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law eventually could lead to a constitutional crisis, as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law. 
Gingrich even suggested that, if a “President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment. Asked directly whether President Obama could be subject to articles of impeachment, Gingrich said, “Clearly it is a dereliction of duty and a violation of his constitutional oath and is something that cannot be allowed to stand.” 
The President of the United States sometimes has to follow counsel from his lawyers about the constitutionality of actions on which the courts have not ruled. Limited resources may also force the President to prioritize his enforcement of some laws over others.

But when the Congress passes a law, and the courts uphold the constitutionality of that law--how can the President just unilaterally decide that said law is unconstitutional and act on that opinion? The President does not have the constitutional authority to declare a law to be unconstitutional. That power belongs to the courts alone--and they have upheld the constitutionality of DOMA.

Imagine the possible consequences if this was allowed to stand. What if a President declared that that elections were unconstitutional and that he would order his Justice Department to prohibit them?

For the President to just unilaterally decide that the law is unconstitutional and that he will no longer enforce it (or defend it in court) is, in my opinion, a violation of his oath of office. I think Congress should demand that he uphold the law and if he refuses to do so, he should be impeached.

The NAE on the DOMA

Someone just forwarded this e-mail to me from Dr. Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals. Please contact your congressperson.
Dear NAE friend,  
We are at a crossroads in the fight to defend traditional marriage.  Attorney General Holder’s announcement on Feb. 23 that the administration will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court is a break with the time honored tradition in which the Justice Department works to uphold laws passed by Congress.  Congress now needs to step in and hire its own lawyers to defend traditional marriage—IF we can convince them to do so.  Congress must act within 30 days or it will lose the right to defend DOMA in the courts.  
Traditional marriage is fundamental to healthy families and a healthy society.  This is a critical moment!  Let’s flood Congress with calls and letters, asking them to act now to defend traditional marriage.  The NAE has a new website where you can go to find the names and addresses of your legislators: You can write them directly from our site!  I encourage you to take a minute to do so right now.   
If you prefer to call, the website has the phone number for each Member of Congress, and some talking points to help you.  First time caller?  Don’t worry, members of Congress value your input, and their staff are trained to be courteous to their constituents.  After all, they work for you!  
After you have written or called, please do one additional thing. Consider forwarding this email to as many of your friends and family as possible.  There is power in numbers!  And finally, please take a moment to pray by name for your Representative and your two Senators, and ask God to guide them in their decisions on behalf of marriage. 
Leith Anderson 

The vile, racist, sexist, hateful rage from the Left

The Left falsely blamed the Tuscon massacre on the rhetoric of the Right--and continued to do so even after they knew full well it was a lie.

Before that, the Left constantly blamed the TEA Party for violent, racist rhetoric even though the Left had no evidence. In fact, sometimes the Left apparently sent people to impersonate TEA Partiers in order to manufacture phony evidence!

It all sounds like the political counterpart of psychological projection, i.e. blame your opponent for that which you yourself are guilty!  The reality is that it is the Left who are the purveyors of vile, racist, sexist hateful rage!

I listen to Sean Hannity and Hugh Hewitt. I occasionally listen to Dennis Prager, Laura Ingraham and Michael Medved. I have sometimes even listened to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and I've read one or two of Ann Coulter's books. I've never heard (or read) anything from any of these Right Wingers that comes close to the kind of hateful rhetoric that regularly comes from the Left.

I've posted on this before, of course, but Michelle Malkin has just published on outstanding article that shows how vile and hypocritical many on the Left really are. If you read only one article this week, please read this one.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Obama decides not to enforce another law

As with immigration, The President of the United States has decided that he will no longer enforce another law. What good does it do to have a Congress that enacts laws if the President can just unilaterally decide not to enforce them? Doesn't that kind of undermine our entire system of government?

CORRECTION: The President has decided that his Justice Department will no longer defend in court challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act.  Not being a lawyer, it seems to me that this is not much different than refusing to enforce it but the way I first stated this is not technically accurate.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

How I lost 100 pounds

How I lost 100 pounds--
without strenuous exercise, surgery, dietary supplements, pre-packaged diets, or giving up junk food!


As I lay in the emergency room writhing in agony the nurse asked, “On a scale of one to ten, how bad would you rate the pain?” “Let’s put it this way” I responded, “If I owned a gun I would not be ready to use it yet, but I would be comforted just knowing it was there.”

She did not think my lame attempt at humor was funny.

I’ve had back pain before but never anything like this! There were some precipitating events that led up to my emergency room visit, of course, but one of the underlying factors was the fact that at only five feet ten inches tall, I weighed 318 pounds!

This was the final straw. I simply had to lose weight. But like most other overweight people, I had tried all kinds of diets and they never worked. In my case I would always loose an encouraging amount of weight at first and then hit a plateau. After a few weeks on the plateau I would decide, “What’s the point of missing out on the food I love when I’m not losing weight anyway?” and that would be the end of the diet.

But clearly I needed to do something. That’s when I discovered that there are free online websites that make calorie counting easy.

It’s all about calories!

Most overweight Christians are painfully aware of what the Bible says about gluttony. For example, “Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor…” (Prov. 23:20-21a, NIV). Or, “Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach…” (Phil. 3:19, NIV). One of the roadblocks to my weight loss, however, was that I was convinced that I was not one of those people. I really didn’t think I ate all that much.

What I didn’t realize was that weight loss is not just about the quantity of food we eat, but about how many calories the food contains. I discovered that the amount of calories a food contains is not always very intuitive.

For example, I never would have dreamed that a single “healthy” taco salad at Taco Bell can contain as many calories as three delicious jelly-filled Dunkin Donuts! I didn’t realize that I could stuff myself with four servings of Culvers’ mashed potatoes and gravy (which I love) for about the same amount of calories as a single Big Mac. It’s not just about quantity. It’s about calories. Understanding this fact, allowed me to eat enough food so that I did not go hungry, while staying within what I soon called, my “budget.”

The Budget

To make calorie counting easier, I signed in to (later changing to and selected a goal of 230 pounds. This was not an ideal weight, of course, but I thought it was a realistic target. The website asked about the level of my physical activity and I selected the lowest level. I admit it, I was a couch potato (mmm, potatoes!).

According to the website, if I ate 2,400 calories per day I should achieve my goal in about 18 months. I knew, of course, that I could lose more weight—and lose it faster—by lowering my calorie goal, but I wanted a calorie total I could live with permanently. I figured that there was little point in struggling to lose weight if I was just going to gain it back again anyway.

Once I signed up, it was just a matter of keeping track of my calories for the day. Both and make that easy with extensive databases of foods and restaurants which include calorie and nutrition information. All I had to do was type the name of the food and/or restaurant in the search box, fill in the quantity, and click to add it to my list for the day. The websites automatically tally up the calories and other nutritional information. Since I am on the computer every day anyway, searching for foods and recording calories turned out to be easy and even fun.

I have come to call this weight lost program my “budget” rather than my diet. To me, diet implied something I discarded after I reached my goal. I knew if I discarded this, I would immediately begin to gain weight again.

It’s about choices

Next to losing weight, the main goal of my “budget” is to make the right food choices to ensure that I do not get hungry and do not run out of calories before the day is over. After awhile, I discovered that this was relatively easy to do.

It’s all about choices, but contrary to popular opinion it is not always about healthy choices. For example, I significantly cut down on the amount of healthy milk and orange juice I consumed and replaced them with Crystal Light and Diet Coke. Diet Coke may not be the most healthy choice, but for me it cut hundreds of calories out of my daily calorie budget.

In fact, one of the great features of this “budget” is that I can eat just about anything I want. I did not have to cut out the sweets or fast food which I love. I just have to “budget” for them. So for example, I will sometimes cut down on the amount of food I eat during the day just so I have enough calories left over at the end of the day to enjoy cookies or ice cream! This may not be the most healthy choice but being able to enjoy the delicious foods I love is one of the things that has kept me on this “budget” for so long. Besides, when it comes to being unhealthy, weighing 318 pounds at my height has to be near the top of the list.

Paradoxically, although my budget has allowed me to make some less than healthy food choices, overall, I am actually eating more healthy now than I ever ate before! This is because, first, the budget has required me to limit my overall intake of sweets, which is certainly healthier. Second, in order to make my calories stretch for the day, I tend to chose lower calorie (and more healthy) foods like turkey or grilled chicken rather than high fat, high cholesterol (albeit delicious) cheeseburgers or fried chicken. Or, as another example, since I love mashed potatoes, I order Culver’s mashed potatoes and gravy instead of fries. This is not only a more healthy option, but a more filling and lower calorie option as well.

Don’t get me wrong. I still enjoy my cheeseburgers and fried chicken. I just have to budget for them. The point is that while I still eat some junk food, overall I am making more healthy choices than before I was on my budget.

Exercise and going over budget

So what happens when I go over my budget? Simple. I never go over budget on purpose. I have discarded too many diets by thinking, “Well, I’ve blown it again. What’s the use?!” But on those rare occasions when I have accidentally gone over, I compensate by cutting back on calories the following day.

Another strategy for some might be to make up for the added calories by exercise. Both CalorieCount.Com and Livestrong.Com give the option of factoring in exercise. The more I exercise the more calories I’m allowed to consume. I decided against this option, however, because my goal was to lose weight not to exercise so I could eat more.

Speaking of exercise, at first my new “budget” was almost entirely about counting calories. I was, after all, in physical therapy for back pain and even the required walking around the block was uncomfortable. When the back pain went away, however, I began walking more and more. While walking, I often pass the time by listening to an ipod or wrist-radio, talking on my cell phone or praying. This makes walking even more enjoyable.

Once my back was healed, I even began using weights. Nothing serious, mind you. All I have is a cheap incline bench and a couple of dumbbells. Muscle tone helps increase metabolism which helps lose weight!

At 318 pounds, exercise was drudgery but I discovered a happy--rather than vicious--cycle. The more weight I lost, the more I enjoyed the exercise. I discovered, however, while exercise is essential to good health, it did very little to help me lose weight. Losing weight was all about calories.

Other strategies

One of the websites suggested that I should eat all of my allotted calories for the day. If I consistently come in under my target for the day, it may cause me to start becoming hungry which would make it harder to stay on the budget. I love this rule because if I get to the end of my day and have calories left over, I can eat the rest of my calories just for the sheer pleasure of eating— and do so entirely guilt-free! This was one of those features that helped me stay on the budget for so long.

Finally, I mentioned earlier how those pesky plateaus have been the downfall of many of my previous diets. I found a simple solution. I only weigh myself once a month. This turned out to be great strategy! There were times—especially as I got closer to my goal—that my weight loss for the month would be minimal, but I almost always lost something each month and that was enough to keep me going. Even if I only lost a couple pounds for the entire month, I would look at a pound of hamburger in the freezer to remind myself that losing two pounds is no small accomplishment.


I’ve now been on my “budget” for over two years and I have exceeded my initial goal of 230 pounds. In fact, after I got down to 230 I was able to comfortably lower my calorie limit to 2,000 and am now down to 210 pounds and still dropping. I feel better, look better, and have much fewer back problems. In fact, I think I’ll celebrate by having some cake and ice cream—but only if it fits within my budget for the day.

Leftist "tolerance" at Columbia University

In yet another example of the Left's tolerance and civility:
Columbia University students heckled a war hero during a town-hall meeting on whether ROTC should be allowed back on campus.
"Racist!" some students yelled at Anthony Maschek, a Columbia freshman and former Army staff sergeant awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq in February 2008. Others hissed and booed the veteran.
Thanks to Professor Ed for sending this in.

The Left's version of civility and tolerance!

Take a look at these pictures!  This is apparently the Left's idea of civility and tolerance! The amazing thing is that it comes so soon after their endless lectures against the Right about being more tolerant and civil!

Monday, February 21, 2011

America's global image since Obama

This is what all President Obama's apologizing for America and bowing to tyrants has brought us: See the article at the New York Times.

The Left calling for the death of Scott Walker

You may recall all the Leftists coming out of the woodwork pleading for tolerance and civility after they mistakenly assumed that the criminal who shot Congresswoman Giffords was a right-winger. Somehow the Leftists who are now calling for the death of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker didn't seem to get the message.

I hope law enforcement is investigating this.

Friday, February 18, 2011

Star Spangled Banner

Everyone knows the Star Spangled Banner (even if singers sometimes accidentally mess it up at ball games
: - )  What I didn't know is that it has several verses. The former marine in the video below sings the the last verse.

Thanks to Professor Ed for sending this to me.

More on the treatment of women in Egypt

 In the aftermath of the assault of Lara Logan, here is more on the treatment of women in Egypt. If these assaults happened at a TEA party rally, the Left in general and the National Organization for Women in particular would rightly be outraged. Yet, because the assaults occur in Muslim Egypt, they are met with silence.

I guess that's the logic of political correctness.

They yelled, "Jew! Jew!"

Not long ago, CBS news correspondent Lara Logan was assaulted by some of those freedom-loving protesters of the Mubarak reign. What was not reported--probably because it wouldn't have been politically correct to do so--is that this freedom-loving crowd of "moderate Muslims" was shouting "Jew! Jew!" as they brutalized Ms. Logan.

Diana West wonders why CBS kept quiet about this for so long. She wonders why this antisemitism has not become a big story. She asks us to imagine the outcome if these had been TEA partiers who had attacked Ms. Logan.

If this antisemitism and brutality is at all representative of the Egyptian mindset, I wonder what Egyptian "democracy" will look like if the military ever gives up their power (think "Hamas"). I'm not optimistic.

Please read Diana West's outstanding article on Townhall.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Censorship and the American Library Association

The American Library Association apparently practices what it preaches against: Censorship. See SafeLibraries: The Undemocratic ALA Muzzles Members

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

The wrath of God

I've been reading Is God a Moral Monster by Paul Copan. In this book he quotes "Yale theologian Miroslav Volf" who "was born in Croatia and lived though the nightmare years of ethnic strife in the former Yugoslavia that included the destruction of churches, the raping of women and the murdering of innocents." Volf writes,
I used to think that wrath was unworthy of God. Isn't God love? Shouldn't divine love be beyond wrath? ?God is love,and God loves every person and every creature. That's exactly why God is wrathful against some of them. My last resistance to the idea of God's wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, a region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed, and over 3,000,000 were displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalize beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Or think of Rwanda in the last decade of the past century, where 800,000 people were hacked to death in one hundred days! How did God react to the carnage? By doting on the perpetrators in a grandfatherly fashion? By refusing to condemn the bloodbath but instead affirming th perpetrators' basic goodness? Wasn't God fiercely angry with them? Though I used to complain about the indecency of the idea of God's wrath, I cam to thin that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn't wrathful at the sight of the world' evil. God isn't wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love (Miroslav Volf as quoted in Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan, 192).

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

You fix the federal budget. Tool from NYT

Check out this fascinating budget tool from the New York Times. It really puts things in perspective!

I noticed, however, that is does not provide options for such things as 1) eliminating the Department of Education, 2) eliminating the Department of Energy, 3) eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development. All three of these have been complete failures. Other options would be to defund programs like Planned Parenthood, PBS, NPR, and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Obama's state run media

"The administration has narrowed access by the mainstream media to an unprecedented extent,"

"They're opening the door to kicking the press out of historic events, and opening the door to having a very filtered format for which they give the American public information that doesn't have any criticism allowed,"

These observations about the Obama administration did not come from Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity or anyone else at Fox. The first quote came from long-time ABC news White House corespondent, Ann Compton and the second came from Heather LaMarre, a journalism professor at the University of Minnesota (I don't know anything about Ms. LaMarre, but the U. of MN is not known for its conservatism)!

Obama apologists will no doubt quickly dismiss this pointing out that Obama is certainly not the first President to want to filter or limit what goes out in the press. That's true, but I believe Ann Compton has been a White House correspondent for more than 35 years and she is no conservative. So when she says this administration "has narrowed access by the mainstream media to an unprecedented extent" I would guess that "unprecedented" means "unprecedented." 

In other words, not even Nixon was this bad! In fact, a journalism professor at the University of Iowa said that if Nixon had done something similar the public would be screaming that "this is like Communist Russian state media." 

Read the whole article, "Obama's Media Machine: State Run Media 2.0" on ABC News.

Telling the truth about Vietnam

In his outstanding article about his recent trip to Vietnam, Dennis Prager writes, Dennis Prager writes,
Here is the truth: Every communist dictator in the world has been a megalomaniacal, cult of personality, power hungry, bloodthirsty thug. Ho Chi Minh was no different. He murdered his opponents, tortured only God knows how many innocent Vietnamese, threatened millions into fighting for him -- yes, for him and his blood soaked Vietnamese Communist Party, backed by the greatest murderer of all time, Mao Zedong. But the moral idiots in America chanted "Ho, ho, Ho Chi Minh" at antiwar rallies, and they depicted America as the real murderers of Vietnamese -- "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"
Reminds me of the "moral idiots in America" who sided with the followers of another bloodthirsty dictator chanting, "Bush lied, people died."

If you read only one article this week, please read, "Trip to Vietnam revives hatred of Communism" by Dennis Prager.

Monday, February 14, 2011

Multiculturalism has failed

The leaders of Britain, Germany and now France are acknowledging that multiculturalism has failed.

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Why would the Muslim Brotherhood support democracy?

Why would the Muslim Brotherhood support democracy in Egypt?

Could it be that that the Muslim Brotherhood is more organized and has more power and money than any other potential political contenders? Could it be that they think they can get themselves elected--just like Hamas got elected in Gaza? After that, it may be Iran all over again.

Only time will tell. In the mean time I am a little surprised by all the optimism I see on TV.

Friday, February 11, 2011

Democracy in Egypt?

I've been watching an interview on TV in which both the interviewer (a TV news anchor) and interviewee are celebrating Egypt's new democracy.

What democracy!? Egypt was overthrown by a military coup! No one yet knows how this will play out (how many military coups end up in democracy?). Even if it does end up in democracy, what reason do we have to believe that it will be a peaceful democracy rather than the the kind of democracy they have in Gaza in which the people freely elected a terrorist government?

President Bush had a much too naive view of democracy. Unfortunately, all too many Americans (Republicans and Democrats) share that naivete.

White House in over their heads?

A headline in today's Wall Street Journal reads, "Crisis Flummoxes White House."

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Free speech at UC Irvine

At the University of California--Irvine, 11 Muslim students disrupted the speech of the Israeli foreign minister in what an investigation determined was a "coordinated...effort to shut down the event."

The New York Times report on this story reads, "Chargers against Muslim Students Prompt Debate over Free Speech."

What is there to debate? These Muslim students (and their ACLU supporters) apparently think the Muslims should have free speech but the Israeli foreign minister should not!

Unfortunately, all too many Muslims do not want free speech (as evidenced, among other things, by the thousands who march in the street over cartoons). Their religion is so intellectually fragile and flimsy that it could not begin to withstand the kind of assaults made on Christianity!

That is why in many Muslims countries you take your life in your own hands if you dare to criticize Islam and especially if you convert from Islam to another religion. This practice goes back all the way to Muhammad himself who ordered the executions of those who criticized or turned away from his religion.

Ever since Muhammad's day Islam has been spread by the edge of the sword (Making a mockery of the Qur'an's teaching that there is no compulsion in religion). Muslims are afraid to question or turn away from Islam out of very real fear of the consequences--by other Muslims! The greatest oppressors of Muslims in the entire world are other Muslims!

(Thanks to Professor Ed for drawing my attention to this article).

Wednesday, February 09, 2011

Muslim Brotherhood and worldwide domination of Islam

A book by a leader in Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood makes it clear that their goal is worldwide domination of Islam:
“It should be known that jihad and preparation towards jihad are not only for the purpose of fending off assaults and attacks of Allah’s enemies from Muslims, but are also for the purpose of realizing the great task of establishing an Islamic state and strengthening the religion and spreading it around the world.”
“Jihad for Allah,” Mashhur wrote, “is not limited to the specific region of the Islamic countries, since the Muslim homeland is one and is not divided, and the banner of Jihad has already been raised in some of its parts, and shall continue to be raised, with the help of Allah, until every inch of the land of Islam will be liberated, and the State of Islam established.”
Read the rest in the Jerusalem Post and remember, as reported a couple of days ago, Egypt is now apparently working on WMD!

Tuesday, February 08, 2011

"The Judicial Activism Ploy" by Thomas Sowell

This is another one of those must-read articles. It is short but outstanding! "The Judicial Activism Ploy" by Thomas Sowell.

"Obama's Muslim Brotherhood Ties"

While Egypt's political future still hangs in he balance, with the Muslim Brotherhood lurking in the background, please take time to read, "Obama's Muslim Brotherhood Ties" by Robert Spencer.

Saturday, February 05, 2011

Suppression of archaeological sites in Saudi Arabia

Google Earth uncovers archaeological sites in Egypt, which the clerics try to suppress
Thus, news of the existence of these sites in Saudi Arabia is a double-edged sword: it opens them up for research and discovery, or pious destruction. Of course, it never seems to occur to clerics who order such suppression and destruction that their paranoia is a sign of weakness. They cast their own faith as fragile and flimsy -- a house of cards that would topple over in a gentle breeze -- and they give the appearance of having something to hide.
Read the story at Jihad Watch.

Cameroon: State multiculturalism has failed

David Cameron, the Prime Minister of England, says state multiculturalism has failed.

Ya think?!

Friday, February 04, 2011

Obama, Democrats and the energy crisis

Some are saying that turmoil in Egypt has the potential for shutting down the Suez Canal which would have serious consequences for our oil supply, oil prices and our economy. So what is the Obama administration doing about it?  They are blatantly and illegally defying a court oder to continue drilling in the Gulf! Michelle Malkin writes,

Federal judge Martin Feldman in Louisiana excoriated the Obama Interior Department Wednesday for defying his May 2010 order to lift its groundless ban on offshore oil and gas drilling in the Gulf. Nine months later, not a single permit has been issued. Several deepwater platforms have moved out of the area to take their businesses -- and an estimated 5,000 jobs -- overseas. Billions of dollars in potential oil revenue and Gulf lease sales-related rent have also dried up.
Meanwhile, because of the Obama Administration, Shell Oil will put off another season of drilling in the Arctic as well!

And speaking of energy, Texas is apparently experiencing a different energy crisis:
State and local electric grid operators expect no repeat of Wednesday's rolling blackouts, but the ongoing cold could still knock out power.
Some 3,000 megawatts of power plant capacity were still offline Thursday afternoon, down from the 7,000 megawatt shortfall that hit the state Wednesday morning, said Trip Doggett, CEO of the state's main grid operator, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas.
That shortfall prompted ERCOT to ask local power distribution firms such as Houston's CenterPoint Energy to cut 4,000 megawatts of power use via rolling blackouts.So while excessive government regulation (brought on by Democrats) kills domestic oil production, throttles coal production, and squashes new dams, refineries and nuclear power plants, and while oil is projected to rise to $4.00 per gallon or higher this summer even apart from any crisis--or oil supply from the Suez Canal is in serious jeopardy.
When California and Texas already have trouble meeting electrical needs, what's going to happen when more and more people are plugging in their new electric cars?
Obama and the Democrats may not be deliberately trying to destroy the country, but the effect may be the same anyway. 

Thursday, February 03, 2011

Persecution continues in Egypt

The persecution of Christians continues in Egypt as 15 more Christians are murdered. "Robberies, rape, looting, and car theft are occurring routinely now." Read the story at Fox News.

Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Freedom of speech in the cross hairs

Sometimes liberty disappears slowly--so slowly that you don't realize its gone until its too late. Dennis Prager has an absolutely outstanding article on freedom of speech in Townhall. If you read only one article this week, please read this one!