SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: MJ who wrote (60205)2/27/2009 8:01:05 AM
From: lorne2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224729
 
MJ..IMO. This is one of the mst important events to occur in the USA since 9/11...will the United States of America go the way of Britain and appease or give in to moslum demands or will the USA fight back??????????????????????????????

Will barrak hussein obama stop this visit??????????????

..."At least one congressman has publicly opposed his visit to Washington. Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota, who is Muslim"....

February 26, 2009, 3:31 pm
Mr. Wilders Goes to Washington
By Anahad O'Connor
thelede.blogs.nytimes.com

On Capitol Hill, the events that usually make the news are the ones that take place in front of television cameras, from votes to testimony to speeches. But an event scheduled to take place today behind closed doors, in a cozy chamber of the Capitol known as the L.B.J. Room, is creating some buzz.

At first glance, the event sounds innocent enough: a screening of a short film.

But the film’s content — and the identify of its creator — are raising eyebrows. It is a documentary entitled “Fitna,” by Geert Wilders, a Dutch lawmaker and leader of the right-wing Party for Freedom. Mr. Wilders is best known for his fierce criticism of Islam, which has brought widespread condemnation from Muslim leaders and anti-discrimination groups. Just this year alone, a Dutch court ordered that Mr. Wilders be prosecuted for hate speech, and the British government banned him from entering the country, calling him an “undesirable person.”

The British ban came just as he was planning to screen “Fitna” for conservative lawmakers in London. Mr. Wilders was invited to the Capitol by Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, who has been at the center of immigration debates in America.

Mr. Wilders’ film, just 17 minutes long, has been described by some as hate-filled propaganda; at the very least, it is provocative. Throughout the film, which opens with a warning about the “very shocking images” it contains and can be viewed online, video clips of violence and bloodshed committed by Muslims are interspersed with verses from the Koran.

At one point in the film — whose title is apparently an Arabic term referring to “disagreement and division among people” — video footage of one of the planes striking the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, is juxtaposed with a verse from the Koran:

Prepare for them whatever force and cavalry ye are able of gathering, to strike terror, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies.

Other clips show images of Westerners being beheaded; carnage from the 2005 London transit bombings; and imams making statements like “Allah is happy when non-Muslims get killed.” At one point a young child is shown saying that she learned from the Koran that Jews are “apes and pigs.” The film ends with a message from Mr. Wilders that Islam “seeks to destroy our Western civilization” and “has to be defeated.”

Mr. Wilders has said that the film is meant to demonstrate how verses from the Koran push Muslims toward violence. Mr. Wilders has defended the film and his positions by saying in interviews, “I don’t hate Muslims — I hate Islam.”

In an interview with the conservative talk-show host Glenn Beck on Tuesday, Mr. Wilders said:

I have nothing against Muslims. But my point is, that the Islam is a totalitarian ideology that should be compared not so much with other religions but with other totalitarian ideologies — like communism or fascism.

Mr. Wilders’ appearance on the Beck program was one of several stops on a media tour of conservative outlets in the United States. He has posted video of that interview and links to many blog posts and Web site articles about him on his own blog.

At least one congressman has publicly opposed his visit to Washington. Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota, who is Muslim, compared the screening of “Fitna” on Capitol Hill to showing the infamously racist film “The Birth of a Nation” at the White House. In a statement, Mr. Ellison said the movie compares Islam to Nazism, and added that he was disappointed by Sen. Kyl’s decision to screen it in the Capitol:

I am a strong advocate of First Amendment free speech. However, this is not about free speech, but rather an issue of propriety, timing and venue. Senator Kyl has every right to host anyone he chooses. However, it becomes a question of propriety to use the United States Capitol as a venue for the condemnation of an entire religion.

Oddly enough, the screening is taking place on the same day that Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts is holding a hearing on Capitol Hill entitled “Engaging with Muslim Communities around the World.” Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state under President Clinton, is scheduled to share her thoughts at the hearing “on strengthening U.S.-Muslim relations.”

Whether the hearings were scheduled to coincide with the screening, or vice versa, is unclear. A spokesman for Mr. Ellison said the congressman planned to issue a statement this afternoon. Calls to Senator Kyl’s office on Thursday morning were not immediately returned.

Mr. Kyl, a staunch conservative, is best known for his work on immigration. In 2006, during a bid for re-election, he broadcast a series of television ads that criticized his opponent, Jim Pederson, as a supporter of “amnesty” for illegal immigrants. But a year later, Mr. Kyl enraged many of his supporters when he backed a bipartisan Senate immigration bill that allowed most illegal immigrants to remain in the country and file for permanent residence or become guest workers. Swarms of protestors gathered outside his Phoenix office, calling for Mr. Kyl to step down, and state Republicans lashed out at him.

The bill ultimately crumbled in the Senate.

Mr. Wilders has also been outspoken on immigration issues in his home country, espousing views so incendiary that he has had his own security detail for years. Among his more controversial stands has been calling for an end to “all immigration from Muslim countries” and for Muslim immigrants to be paid to leave the Netherlands.

Other than Senator Kyl, it was unclear who else would be attending the screening.



To: MJ who wrote (60205)2/27/2009 8:06:45 AM
From: lorne2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224729
 
MJ...A lovers spat maybe? :-)
Maybe obama will start to understand who is really running the show.

Obama seeks 'assault weapons' ban
AG: 'I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum'
February 26, 2009
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
worldnetdaily.com

Pelosi throws cold water on weapons ban
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 02/26/09
thehill.com

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.

“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”

Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.

The White House declined to comment on Holder's remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hill's request for comment.



To: MJ who wrote (60205)2/27/2009 9:24:58 AM
From: Peter Dierks3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224729
 
The Obama Revolution
Paid for by the people.
FEBRUARY 27, 2009

In the closing weeks of last year's election campaign, we wrote that Democrats had in mind the most sweeping expansion of government in decades. Liberals clucked, but it turns out even we've been outbid. With yesterday's fiscal 2010 budget proposal, President Obama is attempting not merely to expand the role of the federal government but to put it in such a dominant position that its power can never be rolled back.


The first point to understand is the sheer magnitude of federal spending built into this proposal. As the nearby chart shows, federal outlays will soar in fiscal 2009 to $4 trillion, or 27.7% of GDP, from $3 trillion or 21% of GDP in 2008, and 20% in 2007. This is higher as a share of the economy than any year since 1945, when the country was still mobilized for World War II. It is more spending by far than during the Vietnam War, or during the recessions of 1974-75 or 1981-82.

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Obama is right that this spending is needed ...



Message 25449466



To: MJ who wrote (60205)2/27/2009 1:30:28 PM
From: Hope Praytochange3 Recommendations  Respond to of 224729
 
Obama enthusiastically perpetuates the myth that the American people can have everything they want without a dose of shared sacrifice. They can have health care, education reform, even a cure for cancer, and 98 percent of them need pay nothing. The burdens of progress will be borne by the rich while everyone else can enjoy their tax cuts and go shopping.

Obama perpetuates base-line gimmickry. He claims to save hundreds of billions by drawing down forces in Iraq. But even the Bush administration was going to draw down. Obama is claiming bogus savings by not spending money that never would have been spent anyway.

Obama grades himself on a curve. He’s set a target of merely cutting the deficit in half from 2010 to 2013. But the red ink has quadrupled in one year. Cutting the deficit to still unsustainable levels as the economy recovers is about as challenging as riding a sled downhill.

The greatest shortcomings are sins of omission, not commission. If you watched Obama’s magnificent speech Tuesday night, you got the impression that he bestrides Washington like a colossus. He imposes his authority in ways large and small, purging old habits. In reality, the situation is messier. At times, there is a weird passivity emanating from the White House, a deference to the Washington establishment. Almost no sacred cows are cut from this budget. The president is now engaged in an argument with Democratic appropriators about whether to strike earmarks from the omnibus spending bill. He’s apparently getting rolled even on a matter as easy and clear-cut as this.

The bigger problem is health care. This is an issue where everybody wants benefits they don’t pay for, where perverse incentives have created an expensive system that doesn’t deliver results. This is an area where aggressive presidential leadership is mandatory.

Yet in no other area does the administration cede so much authority. The administration has over-learned the lessons of the Clinton-care fiasco. They’re not going to send up a detailed 1,400-page program. Fine. But they’re not pushing a plan at all.

Instead, replicating the model that did such harm to the stimulus package, they are merely outlining eight general principles and then sending the matter up to Capitol Hill. They vow to have a series of “conversations” and then presumably at some point some group of committee chairmen will write a bill or a bunch of bills.

The balance of power will be clear. The White House will have no dominating figure to ride herd day to day now that Tom Daschle is out of the picture. Instead, the same old chairmen habituated by the same old interest groups will dominate everything.

If Hillary Clinton were still in the Senate, at least there would be a focus. If Ted Kennedy were at full strength, the negotiations would be coherent. Instead, there will be a wide array of committee chairmen in the House and Senate scrambling for influence, maneuvering with and against each other through a Machiavellian process of secret negotiations and back-room deals.

Thursday, there was a weird burst of optimism in the halls of the Washington Establishment. Most members of Congress and lobbyists are delighted that the White House has surrendered so much authority to Capitol Hill. Everybody is working on a way to push their own particular vision of reform through the muddle.

nytimes 02/27/09