Ten Years After: We Still Lack The Will

The Spin Cycle has joined a group of conservative bloggers who have formed The Right Blogfest. On some special occasions we will all write a post on the same topic, with each one of us providing our own unique viewpoint.

Today we welcome a new blog to The Right Blogfest, The Samuel Adams Committee.

We are proud to join Two Sisters From The Right,  Raised On Hoecakes,  Steve Bussey.com, The Samuel Adams Committee, and Patriot's Corner in this project. 

We invite you to visit the other blogs for their own perspective on the topic at hand. 

Ten years have passed since Radical Islam declared war on the USA.

The attack on the World Trade Center

On 9-11-2001 19 radical Islamic terrorists hijacked four jet planes, sending two of them into the World Trade Center in NYC, one into the Pentagon building, and one destined for Washington DC that was forced down by the passengers into a rural area in Pennsylvania. Almost 3,000 American citizens were murdered in this attack. 

Immediately following this attack, then President GW Bush launched a "War on Terror" to defeat the terrorist group that sponsored this attack, their sponsor states, and their enablers.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned us at the time, saying:

"They (the terrorists) have the will to destroy us, but lack the means. We have the means to destroy them, but lack the will. It is a race to see who gets what first."

On the tenth anniversary of this inhuman act of terrorism, lets reflect on where we are today.

1. We have adopted a defensive posture, ramping up all our airport airport security measures, at a cost of trillions of dollars and millions of manhours of labor. The net result of this was to make air travel a nightmare for American citizens, adding huge costs and tremendous inconvenience.

Because we wanted to be "fair" we refused to target those most likely to be terrorists, and instead thoroughly inspected everyone, even old women, the handicapped, and infant children. Despite all these efforts, further terror attempts continued, that were prevented by only good luck, and nothing we actually did to prevent them.

2. On Oct 7, 2001, we waged war against Afghanistan, the nation that hosted Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda training camps. After rapidly winning the war, ousting the Taliban, and liberating the people, we decided to stick around and do some nation building to install a democracy in Afghanistan. The theory was we would be safer if Moslems would embrace democracy. The nation building effort resulted in over 1,800 American servicemen and women being killed, and around 10,000 being wounded. Despite nine years of nation building, terrorist acts against our troops continue.

3. On Mar 19, 2003 we invaded Iraq, a nation that was not involved in the 911 attack, but did threaten us and our allies in the region.

After rapidly winning this war too, we also decided to "nation build" in Iraq, and lost an additional 4,500 troops, plus tens of thousands more wounded. And we still have no stable democracy in Iraq eight years later.

4. We took all of the worst terrorists we captured, and moved them to a detention facility at the Guantanamo Bay Marine base in Cuba, holding them for planned military tribunals. However, a sizable minority in the USA ("the Democrats") were sympathetic with the terrorists, and insisted we grant them all the rights and privledges of American citizens. Because of their intense pressure, some of the terrorists were released, and they returned to fighting against and killing our troops.

5. On Nov 4, 2008, we elected a President who is sympathetic with the terrorist cause, and who is a frequent critic of our own country. President Barack Hussein Obama, D-Kenya, not only openly supports and encourages Islamic Jihadists, but has helped fund Hamas, in their efforts to destroy our ally Israel. Despite this, the leader of Al-Qaeda was killed in a raid by the Navy Seals in 2011, which was most likely planned prior to President Obama's election, and politically impossible for him to prevent. However, he did take full credit for the success of the raid.

The bottom line here is that we are losing this war and losing it badly. We are losing because we lack the will to win it. We are losing this war for the very same reason we lost the Vietnam War. We simply are not committed to winning. Once again, political dissension at home has prevented us from reaching a consensus on what we need to do and how we must do it.

This is a total disgrace to the memory of the brave young men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation,

Islamic terrorists have completely disrupted our economy and our transportation system, and have cost us around 7,000 military deaths and trillions of dollars.

The "War on Terror" has become another "War on Drugs." A war that will be fought for the rest of time, at enormous cost, and will yield no good end result. And this is only because we lack the will to win it. We are too worried and distracted about treating the enemy well, and not offending their sponsors.

War should never be waged unless vital American interests are at stake, and unless we have a full commitment at home to win, and win quickly, using every weapon at our disposal.

Anything short of that is fighting a war half-assed, and will destroy our nation over time.

This is the lesson we should have learned in Vietnam.

As long as we keep worrying about terrorist's rights, and not offending Islam at large, we are doomed to failure.

No one ever worried about offending the Germans or Japanese during World War II. This demonstrates how much we have changed, and explains why we won that war, and are losing this one.

We should either wage war to win, or not wage it at all.

Democrats Approve Another Half Trillion in Spending

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has a message for America

Washington DC, Sep 9, 2011. The Democrat controlled U.S. Senate, in an unusual procedure, cleared the way yesterday for the U.S. to lift its borrowing authority by $500 billion to $15.19 trillion, enough to keep the support federal government borrowing through late January or early February.

The action came under an unusual legislative procedure spelled out under the August agreement to raise the U.S. debt ceiling and avoid a U.S. credit default.

In a 52-45 vote, the Senate blocked an attempt by Republicans to slow down the process that will result in the $500 billion debt-ceiling increase.

This was essentially a straight party vote... with only one Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-NE, breaking ranks with his party to vote with the Republicans in trying to move forward with the measure.

The increase stems from a deal between Congress and the White House, finalized last month, that spells out how the borrowing limit would be increased by $500 billion. Under the process, lawmakers in both the House and Senate must vote on a resolution of disapproval against the increase in the borrowing limit. President Barack Obama would then have to veto the resolution of disapproval, and Congress would then vote to try and override that veto.

President Obama wants to spend even more

The complicated procedure, designed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), would allow an increase of the borrowing limit while allowing most Republicans to vote against such an increase.

There was a twist in this scenario Thursday evening, however. Democrats held firm, rejecting the resolution of disapproval, thereby speeding the process and increasing the borrowing limit immediately.

The next increase in the borrowing limit, likely in the first quarter of next year, will be dependent on the ability of a panel of 12 lawmakers to reach a deal that cuts at least $1.2 trillion from federal budget deficits over the next decade.

Opinion: Why Does the Radical Left embrace Islam?

Radical Mullah offers proof that Obama is Muslim

For some reason that only they can explain, the radical left has chosen to support Islam and reject conventional western religious beliefs.

We actually have a President who celebrates Ramadan at the White House, and who routinely praises this religion.

Of course, that is his right, since Christian Presidents also celebrate their own religion.

President Barack Hussein Obama, D-Kenya,  has plainly stated in his autobiography The Audacity of Hope:

“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

During an interview with George Stephanopoulus, President Obama has told us that:

"you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith."

Stephanopoulus quickly corrected Obama, saying "Don't you mean your Christian faith?" And Obama agreed. But the significance of the Freudian slip was hard to miss.

President Obama's father was a Muslim, as was his stepfather. He has not one, but three Muslim names. As a small child, Barack Obama was enrolled in a Madrass School in Indonesia, where studied the Koran in Arabic.

President Obama recently hosted an Iftar Dinner at the White House, a tradition shared by all Muslims during Ramadan.

I realize some will say that they "don't support Islamic fundamentalism any more than they support Christian fundamentalism." The common belief is that "all religions are good." It is only the radicals in each group who distort their beliefs and cause harm.

But it is not radical Islam that should be the only problem from the so called "progressives."

Young Obama in Muslim garb

It is "mainstream Islam" that preaches all the things that progressive liberals say they oppose:

* banning all types of abortions
* banning all homosexual acts
* very harsh treatment for petty criminal
* completely banning equal rights for women
* banning freedom of religion
* selectively banning books
* allowing polygamy for men
* banning all freedom of expression
* the merging of church and state
* a judicial system run by clerics

Every one of these things are violently opposed by leftists, yet they all are embraced by "mainstream Islam." Mind you, it isn't just the Islamic Fundamentalists who hold these beliefs, but all 1.5 billion Muslims on the face of the earth.

To their credit, Mainstream Islam seems to generally oppose honor killings of family members and the beheading infidels. I suppose this is what separates the radicals from the mainstream.

And the liberal "progressives" in the USA seem to have no problem worshiping a President who was raised with these beliefs, and still praises this religion, even though he says that he converted to a radical Christian Cult of Liberation Theology some time ago.

I see this as a major disconnect for liberals.
The support and defend a belief system that contradicts everything else they believe in.

A textbook used in some public schools

While they violently oppose Christmas trees in public schools, they have absolutely no problem installing  prayer rooms and foot baths for Moslems. It seems like their "wall of separation between church and state" has holes in it.

They have renamed the school Christmas break as a "Winter Solstice Break" so they won't offend Muslims. But they have no problem teaching school children how wonderful the Islamic religion is under the guise of "diversity training."

Perhaps they will say... "the Constitution separates church and state.... not mosque and state?"

Do these people really believe in anything?
Or is everything framed in partisan terms?

Profiles in Stupidity: Albert Arnold Gore Jr.

This is the ninth installment of "Profiles in Stupidity" in which we  highlight the dumbest politicians in America today.

Albert Arnold Gore Jr. is a former U.S. Senator, who also served as the 45th Vice President of the United States (1993–2001). He was the Democratic Party's losing candidate for President in the 2000 U.S. election.

He currently is working as a an environmental terrorist, professional hoaxer, and national embarrassment. I was stunned that I hadn't highlighted him earlier in this series, because Gore is the textbook definition of "liberal goofball," and is much more deserving than anyone else I wrote about.   

Albert Gore has a long and colorful history of saying very stupid things, thereby making him someone all liberals could admire and respect.

This dope could have been President if he just wore less rouge, or just had shown up at all three Presidential debates with the same "Gore personality."

Gore probably would have won the 2000 election if he had asked for a recount in all of Florida, rather than just the  four counties Gore had asked for recounts in. But that's Al Gore for you. An idiot who even screws himself.

Gore is best known for his stupid statements, things like....

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water."
"We are ready for an unforeseen event that may or may not occur."
"I discovered Love Canal"
"A zebra does not change its spots" 
"The book Love Story was written about me and Tipper."
"I was on a tour of Latin America, and I regret that I didn't study Latin harder in school'" 

But the more significant problems Gore had were in his outright lies. For example:

LULLABY LIE
USA Today, Sept. 19, 2000
CLAIM: Addressing a Teamsters meeting, Gore spoke of lullabies from his youth and sang, “Look for the union label.”
TRUTH: The song was written in 1975, when Gore was 27.

TOBACCO LIE #1
March 1, 2000; San Jose Mercury News 
CLAIM: “It’s not fair to say, ‘Okay, after his sister died, he continued in the same relationship with the tobacco industry.’ I did not. I did not. I began to confront them forcefully. I don’t see the inconsistency there.”
TRUTH: The same month Gore’s sister died in 1984, he received a $1,000 speaking fee from U.S. Tobacco. The next year, he voted against cigarette and tobacco tax increases three times and favored a bill allowing major cigarette makers to purchase discounted tobacco.

In the 1988 campaign, Gore bragged of his tobacco background: “I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put [tobacco] in the plant beds and transferred it. I’ve hoed it, I’ve dug in it, I’ve sprayed it, I’ve chopped it, I’ve shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn, and stripped it and sold it” (Newsday, 2-26-88). 

TOBACCO LIE #2
March 1, 2000; San Jose Mercury News
CLAIM: “My family had grown tobacco. It was never actually grown on my farm, but it was on my father’s farm.”
TRUTH: Gore had already admitted growing tobacco on his own farm: “On my farm, we stopped growing tobacco some time after Nancy died” (Cox News Service, 4-26-99). Also, Gore received federal subsidies for growing tobacco on his farm (Wall Street Journal, 8-10-95).

ABORTION LIE
February 20, 2000; New York Times
CLAIM: Gore said he has “always, always, always” supported Roe v. Wade.
TRUTH: In 1977, Rep. Gore voted for the Hyde Amendment, which says that abortion “takes the life of an unborn child who is a living human being,” and that there is no constitutional right to abortion. He cast many other votes favorable to the pro-life cause and earned an 84 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee.

VIETNAM SERVICE LIE

October 15, 1999; Los Angeles Times
CLAIM: “I carried an M-16. . . . I pulled my turn on the perimeter at night and walked through the elephant grass, and I was fired upon.” In 1988, Gore told the Washington Post: “I was shot at. . . . I spent most of my time in the field.”
TRUTH: Gore never faced direct enemy fire, although several times he may have arrived on the scene shortly after fighting was completed. The photo at the left shows Gore in Vietnam, hauling his typewriter around with him far, far away from any combat zone.

INVENTING THE INTERNET LIE
March 9, 1999; CNN interview
CLAIM: “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”
TRUTH: The Internet is an outgrowth of a Pentagon program established in 1969. In the 1980s, Gore supported legislation considered favorable to the Internet’s development. 

PEACE CORPS LIE February 16, 1992; C-SPAN’s Booknotes
CLAIM: Gore said his sister was “the very first volunteer for the Peace Corps.”
TRUTH: Nancy Gore Hunger was a paid employee at Peace Corps headquarters, 1961-64.

Rare Childhood Photo of President Obama Found

Young Barack, honing his can kicking skills

NYC, Sep 3, 2011. A rare photo of President Barack Hussein Obama, D-Kenya,  was found by Emmaual R. Schwartzman, a prominent NYC memorabilia collector.

Mr. Schwatzman says he plans to offer it to the major auction houses, and says it should be worth millions.

In the photo, a very young Barack Obama is seen practicing what would someday be his economic policy.

The photo was either taken in Kenya, Indonesia or Hawaii, based on which version of the President's childhood you are willing to believe.

President Obama has to kick the can for another year or so, and then he can retire comfortably and earn a seven figure salary giving speeches to liberal groups. As President Clinton abundantly demonstrated, "the real money comes after you retire. You can cash in giving speeches for $200,000 a pop."

This explains why the President insisted on a debt ceiling compromise that wouldn't require another vote "until after the next election." The last thing he wanted was to revisit this issue while campaigning for reelection next year. If he wins reelection, then it will become a moot point, since he is limited to only two four year terms.

So he will "kick the can down the road" to the next President, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican.

African-American Unemployment Highest in 27 years

NYC, Sep 2, 2011. The August jobs report was dismal for plenty of reasons, but perhaps most striking was the picture it painted of racial inequality in the job market.

Black unemployment surged to 16.7% in August, its highest level since 1984, while the unemployment rate for whites fell slightly to 8%, the Labor Department reported.

"This month's numbers continue to bear out that longstanding pattern that minorities have a much more challenging time getting jobs," said Bill Rodgers, chief economist with the Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University.

Black unemployment has been roughly double that of whites since the government started tracking the figures in 1972. Obviously, President Barack Hussein Obama, D-Kenya, hasn't done very much for his own race. (0r, is it half race?) This might explain why the Black Congressional Caucus is so upset with him.

Economists blame a variety of factors. The black workforce is younger than the white workforce, lower numbers of blacks get a college degree and many live in areas of the country that were harder hit by the recession. all of which are things that could lead to a higher unemployment rate.

But even excluding those factors, blacks still are hit with higher joblessness.

"Even when you compare black and white workers, same age range, same education, you still see pretty significant gaps in unemployment rates," said Algernon Austin, director of the Race, Ethnicity, and the Economy program at the Economic Policy Institute. "So I do think the fact of racial discrimination in the labor market continues to play a role."

About 155,000 blacks got jobs in August, but the group's unemployment rate still went up because those jobs weren't enough to make up for all the people who started looking for work during the month.


However, the gain for whites of 211,000 jobs was enough to bring their unemployment rate down.

Overall, black men have it the worst, with joblessness at a staggeringly high 19.1%, compared to 14.5% for black women. Black unemployment has now remained above 10% for four straight years, and the given current economic sluggishness, some experts say it's safe to predict the rate will remain above 10% for four more years.

Obama is working hard on the problem

"Our job creation is just not happening -- certainly not at the rate necessarily to bring rapid reductions to the unemployment rate," Austin said.

Latinos saw their unemployment rate remain unchanged at 11.3% in August. Unemployment remains at 9.1% for the country as a whole.

President Obama tells us that he could have solved this problem by now, if it wasn't for the earthquake in Japan and the Tea Party Movement obstructing his legislative initiatives.

In Praise of Liberal Columnist Thomas Friedman

Friedman, sporting his Saddam style mustache

Yes, you read that correctly. I will now say something nice about NY Times left-wing columnist Thomas Friedman.

This is actually a painful thing for me to do, since Friedman is usually wrong about every subject he writes on. But I distinctly recall one time that he was right. So, he deserves a brief word of praise.

That one time he was right was around five years ago, when he wrote a column in the NY Times that essentially said "The way to win the war on terror is to become energy independent. This means we should drill all our own oil and force the price of oil downward."

I forget the exact title of the Op-Ed piece, but it struck me as being such a complete and thoughtful analysis, that I still remember his key points. If anyone can supply a link to it, I'd be glad to post it here.

Friedman's theory was that terrorism is largely funded by oil money supplied by the oil rich Sheikdoms and Monarchies that are supposed to be our allies in the region. The higher the price of oil goes, the more discretionary money these Kings and despots have to divert to terrorist activities.

But in the overall scheme of things, funding terrorism is a luxury for them that they can only afford when the going price of oil is very high.  Because they have other, much higher priorities that require funding first. Namely, their vast array of social services they provide their people to prevent insurrections.

President Obama bows down to Saudi King

You see, one of the reasons you had a popular revolt in Egypt and not in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait is because the oil Sheiks can maintain their power by providing generous social benefits to their people by using some of their oil money to pay for it.

Their people get free healthcare, free college educations, and even free air-conditioning.

These benefits include funding to offset high inflation and to aid young unemployed people studying abroad, as well the writing off some loans.

Overall these monarchies provide a lot more for their people than the western democracies do.Would you revolt against a government like that?

Their highest priority is preventing rebellions, and assuring the Royal Families stay in complete control of their nations. And it is very easy for these Monarchs to do this, plus fund terrorist groups when oil income is high.

But, when oil prices drop, then something has to go. And it won't be free healthcare or free air conditioning. It will be the money they donate to terrorist groups that gets cut first.

Friedman's theory was that by drilling every drop of our own oil we could effectively force down the price of oil, to the point where the Oil Sheiks wouldn't have the luxury to fund terror groups.

As long as we depend on foreign oil, then every time you fill up your gas tank you are donating money to Al-Qaeda. Force the price of oil back down around $40 a barrel, and the terror groups lose their funding.