i agree with the comments on ”can this all be comming home at the same time”. all i think of is the expansive format of the S.E.C. 10k requirement each quarter. like…no one knew Lehamn was heading into the rocks. ditto the other banks—naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa…this will all surface soon and i pray the fuse is lit for BHO’s birth crtificate.

the Times of India is reporting it as a “tacit endorsement”. It wrote, “although Obama said he did not want to comment on the specific situation involving India and Pakistan, his tacit endorsement of New Delhi adopting the same policy was circumscribed by two caveats: first, let the investigators reach definite conclusions about the Mumbai carnage, and second, see if Pakistan will follow through with its commitment to eliminate terrorism.” But the damage if any, is slight, because India is unlikely to openly strike at Pakistan in any case; at least not while there’s hope Islamabad will crack down on its resident terrorists. It’s a rhetorical close call and nothing more.

Barack’s vacuous words worked wonders for him because when they permitted voters to project their own feelings onto what he said. They won’t work so well when players on the world stage turn them to their own ends.

As Zim said, “Obama’s toe isn’t even in the water and already he is in over his head.”

But for the Left, do words mean anything? Remember “..what the meaning of ‘is’ is”? Words are very important for the Left because they are all about using words to attempt to twist reality and cloud the minds of others (and themselves). But in the end, the words are meaningless to them other than a means of manipulation. “Mistakes were made; let’s move on” is their ultimate reply when faced with facts that can’t be denied.

It seems unlikely that Obama or the media will allow mere words spoken at some time in the past to hold them to any position or to be used against them. “Just words. It’s all relative. Let’s not be judgemental.” Unless of course the words have been spoken by their enemies (that would be the rest of us).

I find it interesting that so many are of the mind to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and to presume that he will be a “centrist” or a “pragmatist” or “forced to deal with …” despite the lack of any evidence in his past to suggest such behaviour. I hope to be proved wrong, but then I also hope to win the Lotto someday.

“whiskey: ‘Obama wrote in “Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance” that he would stand with Muslims against America in the event of terrorist attacks on America by Muslims.’I need the quote and page number.Thank you.”

Actual quote is from “The Audacity of Hope,” p. 261, not “Dreams”:
“Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

but just consider the following.

one of the main bars to wisdom is charged words. “conspiracy” ipso facto neutralizes credibility. but take the well-known dynamic among the Muslims: clerics at madrassas preach jihadi militancy and teach that the oppression so often noted in the Quran occurs today in the form of Western cultural, economic, and military imperialism. more importantly, the astronomically wealthy princes and ruling juntas of present day Islamic countries either fund and support militant groups – laundering money, providing diplomatic cover, buying them off, purchasing weapons for them, printing propaganda. in reality this is all done by a reasonably small number of people. certain groups arise in the dog-eat-dog guerrilla army underground in the central asian hinterlands and become clearing houses, holding companies, for the development of doctrine and strategy, for purposes of having a quasi-sovereign to administer the various groups and cells. they provide an example, and groups in areas unclaimed by the already-established arise as offshoots or declare their allegiance.

now, the thing that’s interesting to me in my reading of conventional history is the extent to which these terrorist groups originally began as proxy armies of the Soviet Union under Nikita Khruschev’s policy of supporting “national liberation” groups all over the rapidly de-colonializing third world in the wake of world war 2. did you know, for example, that the current head of Fatah and the PLO, Abu Mazen, got his PhD in Holocaust Denial from Patrice Lamumba University in Moscow? Patrice Lamumba University was a venue for the KGB to attract and train the future leaders of national liberation groups, whose victories over the local colonial/imperial power the USSR would foster, whereupon the KGB would have yet another puppet to use against the West.

For some reason, because of the Islamic thing, this doesn’t jive with popular imagination – but what did the Soviet Union do the countries of the Eastern Bloc during 1945 – 1956? How did those countries *become* Soviet police states, ruled by Communist Parties and KGB sister organizations? In fact, and even less well known – how did the USSR go from the Russian Empire to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? They have many many Islamic people in the USSR – how did they avert the jihad in atheist, brutal Russia? Is it not well known and uncontroversial that the KGB completely co-opted the Russian Orthodox Church? Well – could they not have done the same thing to the mullahs and clerics and muftis? In fact they did. Russia – Communist Russia, meaning the Committee for State Security (KGB) – has had very long practice at using an Islamic front to achieve its (brutal, police-state) purposes.

This is all uncontroversial. And then you read Ion Mihai Pacepa, who claims (in 1987) that he was told in the 1960s that the KGB realized that, in the age of nuclear armaggedon, the best weapon against the West was terrorism? And you read Victor Suvorov in 1984 said that he heard, while in the Soviet Army, that in preparatio for the 3rd World War and triumph of Communism there would first begin a period of “grey terror” – that is, terror by groups who could not be traced to the Soviet Union.

What better way to deliver a nuclear device to the USA than by a group who had no territory other than one in which the people were supposedly held hostage?

I’m just saying that this is *not* a conspiracy theory. This is exactly the kind of thing the KGB, the Chinese Communists, and so on *do* for a living. What is a police state or totalitarian dictatorship if not a conspiracy holding a nation’s population hostage? But *strategy* would be a better word for conspiracy, don’t you think?

In any case, I just think the Soviet/Communist angle is certainly real and knowable up to a point, and so significant that the public silence on the subject is as big an omission as the government’s failure to call it “Islamic” terrorism.

Just do me a favor – read Richard Pipes’ “The Formation of the Soviet State,” written in 1954 (I think) and tell me whether you aren’t a little curious about this Marxist-Islamist thesis. Also – really look at the Islamic world: these people can’t do sh*t. Is it really credible that they could disrupt all global order on their own?

Of course, since Muslims breed like bacteria, eventually the First Amendment might be changed or repealed by entirely legal means. At which time, any American non-Muslim will become a dhimmi slave.

It can’t happen in America? Hitler and Mussolini were both legally elected.