America Waking Up to the Reality That We Need to Brace for Impact

The pilot was locked out of the cockpit. That phrase finally revealed the full horror of the crash of Germanwings flight 9525. Co-pilot Andreas Lubitz waited for the pilot to leave the cockpit, then locked the door to prevent his re-entry. After which Lubitz, for reasons unknown and perhaps unknowable, deliberately steered the jet into a harrowing 8 minute plunge ending in an explosive 434 mph impact
with a rocky mountainside. 150 men, women and children met an immediate, unthinkably violent death.

Lubitz, in his single-minded madness, couldn’t be stopped because anyone who could change the jet’s disastrous course was locked out. It’s hard to imagine the growing feelings of fear and helplessness that the passengers felt as the unforgiving landscape rushed up to meet them. Hard – but not impossible.

Because America is in trouble. We feel the descent in the pits of our stomachs. We hear the shake and rattle of structures stressed beyond their limits. We don’t know where we’re going anymore, but do know it isn’t good. And above all, we feel helpless because Barack Obama has locked us out.

He locked the American people out of his decision to seize the national healthcare system. Locked us out when we wanted to know why the IRS was attacking conservatives. He locked us out of having a say in his decision to tear up our immigration laws, and to give over a trillion dollars in benefits to those who broke those laws.

Obama locked out those who advised against premature troop withdrawals. Locked out the intelligence agencies who issued warnings about the growing threat of ISIS . He locked out anyone who could have interfered with his release of five Taliban terror chiefs in return for one U.S. military deserter.

And of course, Barack Obama has now locked out Congress, the American people, and our allies as he strikes a secret deal with Iran to determine the timeline (not prevention) of their acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Was Andreas Lubitz depressed, insane, or abysmally evil when he decided to lock that cockpit door and listen to no voices other than those in his head? Did he somehow believe himself to be doing the right thing?

The voice recordings from the doomed aircraft reveal that as the jet began its rapid descent, the passengers were quiet. There was probably some nervous laughter, confusion, a bit of comforting chatter with seat mates, followed by a brief period in which anxiety had not yet metastasized into terror.

It was only near the end of the 8 minute plunge that everyone finally understood what was really happening. Only near the end when they began to scream.

Like those passengers, a growing number of Americans feel a helpless dread as they come to the inescapable conclusion that our nation’s decline is an act of choice rather than of chance. The choice of one man who is in full control of our 8 year plunge. A man who has locked everyone out.

– Author unknown

---

---

Australia Gets it. Why Don’t We???

Are the Australians really that much smarter than we are? Or are we simply choosing to be this stupid?

This quote sums up the entire affair: 

“IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.  Take It Or Leave It.”

America was formed over more than 200 years by trial and error, having learned from thousands of years of history prior to our founding.  We created a nation unlike any other on earth, better and more free than any on earth.  We created a Constitution and form of government to protect the liberties for which we struggled so mightily.  If you wish to live in America, or even become an American, then you must assimilate and adapt to America.  We don’t have to adapt to you. 

‘If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE.   We didn’t force you to come here.   You asked to be here.   So accept the country  YOU accepted.’

The Constitution and our way of life are diametrically opposed to sharia law.  Sharia can not coexist with our Constitution. If you despise liberty and feel the need to live under sharia law, or any other code of conduct that violates out Constitution, then leave.  There are plenty of 3rd world hell-hole sewers in the world who practice such lifestyles and will gladly allow you to submit to the subjugation of sharia law.
+

---

---

http://silentsspeech.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/australian-prime-minister-does-it-again/

AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER DOES IT AGAIN!!!

Posted on January 1, 2011

(Prime Minister Julia Gillard –  Australia )

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the  government targeted radicals in a bid to head off  potential terror attacks.

Separately, Gillard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying she supported spy agencies monitoring the nation’s mosques.

Quote:   ‘IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.  Take It Or Leave It.

British Prime Minister Misses the Mark on Muslim Extremism

British Prime Minister David Cameron at least understands that SOMETHING must be done about islamic terror groups and other extremists, but he wiffs at the slow pitch in his response.

Here’s what he said today.

Cameron told the annual Munich Security Conference that European governments have been too tolerant of some sectors of society that publicly oppose democracy or reject equal rights for all.

Sounds pretty good, right? He goes on to say…

“We won’t defeat terrorism simply by the actions we take outside our borders. Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries,”

Still sounds like someone who is awakening to the fact that his nation is being overrun, right? And he continues…

In an attack on Britain’s previous government, Cameron said authorities there had been too hesitant to intervene when some sectors of society espoused abhorrent views.

“We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values,” Cameron said. “We have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream.”

Oh… my… goodness. Has the clue bird landed on British leadership that they are mere heartbeats away from losing their country? This is what many of Britain’s allies have been saying about Britain’s handling of the islamic terror problem.

Some European allies have criticized Britain for harboring hardline Islamic clerics and failing to clamp down on mosques that promote a perverted view of Islam.

Think the critics are wrong? Here is evidence that the critics are EXACTLY spot on.

British Muslims Protesting Outside US Embassy, London

Muslims with sand in their vaginas protesting over a FREAKING CARTOON

Muslims protest against homecoming British troops

Islamic Extremist protest in London

Cameron steps to the plate, shoulders his bat, the pitch is on the way…

“If we are to defeat this threat, I believe it’s time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past,” Cameron said. “Instead of ignoring this extremist ideology, we – as governments and societies – have got to confront it, in all its forms.”

…He’s watching the pitch all the way in…

…SaaaWing, and a MISS!

He told the conference that developments in the Middle East should be harnessed to disprove Muslims who claim their religion cannot be observed properly within the democratic system.

“If they want an example of how Western values and Islam can be entirely compatible, they should look at what’s happened in the past few weeks on the streets of Tunis and Cairo,” Cameron said.

And there you have it. He thinks western civilization, and I repeat, CIVILIZATION, is compatible with islam. He has bought into the PC line of crap. He can’t see that islam and western civilization are like oil and water. THEY… DO… NOT… MIX.

Sadly, the citizens of western nations, Europe and the US, keep electing these idiots who either think we can coexist with islam, or they are lying to us. If we don’t remove these idiots, and return sanity to our nations soon, we’re doomed.

Read full article HERE> UK’s Cameron: Europe must wake up on extremism

---

Why the Next Elections Will Be the Most Important in US History

2012?  Try 2010!  I would even say it’s time to recall many of our elected officials who are no longer representing us.  They should be replaced with people who honor and obey the constitution, and who will be held accountable to their constituents.  Term limits and an end to congressional/senatorial lifetime pensions would be a fair deal as well.  The founding fathers never envisioned a representative being a life-long, career politician.  They were intended to represent their home communities FOR A SEASON, not for life, then return home and go back to work.  They are supposed to work FOR the people, the people are not supposed to work for them as they have come to believe.

e-mail from a friend

11 reasons why the Elections in 2012 will be the most important in the history of the United States

1. What if I had told you in October 2008, before the last presidential election, that before Barack Obama’s first 100 days  in office, the federal government would be in control of both the mortgage and the banking industries? That 19 of America ‘s largest banks would be forced to undergo stress tests by the Federal government which would determine if they were insufficiently capitalized, so they must be supervised by the government?

Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America .”

2. What if I had told you that within Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office the federal government would be the largest shareholder in the US Big-Three automakers: Ford, GM, and Chrysler? That  the government would kick out the CEO’s of these companies and  appoint hand-picked executives with zero experience in the auto industry, and that executive compensation would be determined, not by a Board of Directors, but by the government?

Would you have said, “C’mon,   that will never happen in America .”

3. What if I had told you that Barack Obama would appoint 21 Czars, without congressional approval, accountable only to him, not to the voters, who would have control over a  wide range of US policy decisions. That there would be a Stimulus Accountability Czar, an Urban Czar, a Compensation Czar, an Iran Czar, an Auto Industry Czar, a Cyber Security Czar, an Energy Czar, a Bank Bailout Czar, and more than a dozen other government bureaucrats with unchecked regulatory powers over US domestic and foreign policy.

Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America .”

4. What if I had told you that the federal deficit would be $915 billion in the first six months of the Obama presidency – with a projected annual deficit of $1.75 Trillion – triple the $454.8 billion in 2008, for which the previous  administration was highly criticized by Obama and his fellow Democrats. That congress would pass Obama’s $3.53 trillion federal budget for fiscal  2010. That the projected deficit over the next ten years would be greater than $10 trillion.

Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never  happen in America .”

5. What if I had told you that the Obama Justice  Department would order FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high-value detainees captured on the battlefield and held at US military detention facilities in Afghanistan . That Obama would order the closing of  the Guantanamo detention facility with no plan for the disposition of  the 200-plus individuals held there. That several of the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo would be sent to live in freedom in Bermuda at the expense of the US government. That our returning US veterans would be labeled terrorists and put on a watch list.

Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America .”

6. What if I  had told you that the federal government would seek powers to seize key companies whose failures could jeopardize the financial system. That a new  regulatory agency would be proposed by Obama to control loans, credit cards, mortgage-backed securities, and other financial products offered to the public.

Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in  America .”

7. What if I had told you that Obama would travel to the  Middle East, bow before the Saudi king, and repeatedly apologize for America ‘s past actions. That he would travel to Latin America where he would warmly greet Venezuela ‘s strongman Hugo Chavez and sit passively in  the audience while Nicaraguan Marxist thug Daniel Ortega charged  America with terrorist aggression in Central America . Would you have said,  “C’mon, that will never happen in America .”

8. Okay, now what if I were  to tell you that Obama wants to dismantle talk radio through  the imposition of a new “Fairness Doctrine.” That he wants to curtail the First Amendment rights of those who may disagree with his policies via  Internet blogs, cable news networks, or advocacy ads. That most major  network television and most newspapers will only sing his phrases like state-run media in communist countries?

Would you say, “C’mon, that  will never happen in America .”

9. What if I were to tell you that the Obama Justice Department is  Doing everything it can to limit your Second  Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. That the federal government wants  to reinstate the so-called assault weapons ban which would prohibit the sale of any type of firearm that requires the shooter to pull the trigger  every time a round is fired. That Obama’s Attorney General wants  to eliminate the sale of virtually all handguns and ammunition, which most citizens choose for self-defense.

Would you say, “C’mon, that will never happen in America ..”

10. What if I were to tell you that the Obama plan is to eliminate states rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and give the federal government sweeping new powers over policies  currently under the province of local and state governments and voted on by  the people. That Obama plans to control the schools, energy production, the environment, health care, and the wealth of every US   citizen.

Would you say, “C’mon, that will never happen in America .”

11. What if I were to tell you that the president, the courts, and  the federal government have ignored the US Constitution and have seized powers which the founders of our country fought to  restrict. That our last presidential election may have been our last truly free election for some time to come. That our next presidential election may look similar to the one recently held in Iran . (And maybe under review by ACORN.)

I know, I know what you will say, “That will  never happen in America .”

If we don’t do everything in our power to stop this madness in 2012, may God have mercy on our souls. Pass this on to every freedom loving American and pray they love America enough to get involved to fight for our freedoms.  Think about what’s happening…  Don’t assume our country is “too big to fail.”

Will the “Fairness Doctrine” Apply to NPR, too?

Don’t laugh. We all know the answer to that question is likely an emphatic “heck no!” Since according to liberals like Chucky Schummer, conservative talk radio is hate speech and akin to pornography, it should be censored. Hate speech is by definition anything a liberal disagrees with.

National Public Unfairness

By Brent Bozell
March 26, 2009

There’s a huge hole in all of the public discussion about the reimposition of a “Fairness Doctrine” or a return to “localism” on the talk-radio format: What about National Public Radio (NPR)? Liberals would like to “crush Rush” and his conservative compatriots by demanding each station balance its lineup ideologically. But since when has NPR ever felt any pressure to be balanced, even when a majority of taxpayers being forced to subsidize it are center-right?

Why no Fairness Doctrine attention to NPR? It is because those preaching “fairness” on the radio are hypocrites.

Conservatives argue that the media’s liberal bias drives people to talk radio for an opposing viewpoint. Limbaugh jokes: “I am the balance.” But new numbers from NPR suggest its ratings may be nearly as imposing as Limbaugh’s: The cumulative audience for its daily news programs — “Morning Edition” and its evening counterpart, “All Things Considered” — has risen to 20.9 million per week.

It’s not just news that’s drawing listeners in. Talk-radio programs increasingly have become part of the nationally distributed NPR diet. Indeed, NPR’s developing talk-show lineup was an obvious factor in the commercial failure of competing liberal networks like Air America. One could argue that NPR’s audience gains came directly in response to liberal desires to vent about Team Bush.

Radio shows like “Fresh Air with Terry Gross” were a regular forum for Bush-bashing authors and experts, especially on the War on Terror and the liberation of Iraq. Gross was memorably upbraided by NPR’s ombudsman in 2003 for showing great hostility to Bill O’Reilly, in stark contrast to her giggly rapport with liberal Al Franken. Now NPR is touting that “Fresh Air” was NPR’s “first non-drive-time show in public radio to better 5 million weekly listeners” on over 300 stations.

NPR also sounded thrilled at the news that its afternoon show “Talk of the Nation” showed “remarkable gains,” up 21 percent to 3.5 million listeners weekly. On Inauguration Day, that show featured NPR Baghdad Bureau Chief Lourdes Garcia-Navarro reporting that Iraqis wished good riddance to President Bush and hoped for change under Barack Obama. She said she had yet to find a single Iraqi who was grateful for the American defeat of Saddam Hussein. She asked many Iraqis: “Did this invasion, do you feel, give you a better life? And across the board, I didn’t find one Iraqi who said to me, actually, I’m glad this happened.”

Only on NPR does one hear journalism that calmly suspends logic.

The other talk show NPR publicists touted was “Tell Me More,” hosted by Michel Martin, a former reporter for ABC. Martin recently told NPR listeners she is far too similar to Michelle Obama to feel objectively about her, and she thinks Rush Limbaugh is racist, and explains thusly: “Some people hate the federal government because they can’t get past the fact that the government switched sides from being a weapon in the violent oppression of black and sometimes brown people, to being one of the tools creating opportunity for them, as well as other people.”

NPR regularly airs liberal commentators (like former CBS reporter Daniel Schorr), and its idea of a conservative is David Brooks of the New York Times. A few weeks ago, in one of their regular evening political roundtables with liberal columnist E.J. Dionne, “All Things Considered” anchor Robert Siegel asked Brooks if he, as a moderate, was comfortable with Obama: “Are you getting more or less comfortable or more or less moderate?” Brooks replied candidly: “I’m getting less comfortable. I don’t know about my gross ideological disposition these days.”

Neither do conservatives, and yet Brooks is the man who’s supposed to represent us.

Public broadcasting has been incredibly hostile to anyone who would dare to police it for fairness and balance. Conservatives ought not forget what happened to Kenneth Tomlinson, the former board chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Fur flew when liberals discovered Tomlinson had conducted a private study to determine if PBS and NPR shows tilted to the left. An inspector general’s report suggested Tomlinson somehow had violated CPB bylaws, and he was forced to resign.

Liberal congressman John Dingell insisted Tomlinson had “inserted politics” into public broadcasting, and yes, feel free to insert a laugh track at this point.

It’s only “inserting politics” when anyone bothers to object to the everyday liberal politics of NPR and PBS. Ever since Congress passed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, the nation’s taxpayer-funded news outlets have operated free of any real fear that someone would disturb their pattern of putting their big broadcasting thumb on the scale of liberalism.

If NPR’s drawing a Limbaugh-sized audience, isn’t it time someone started asking why a “Fairness Doctrine” shouldn’t apply to them?

—

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center.

Clear And Present Danger

Clear And Present Danger
By Oliver North
January 23, 2009

Now that the festivities are over, it is time for the masters of the media to stop asking inane questions of the new folks in town — such as, “How do you like your new office?” — and for the Obama administration to get down to work on a clear and present danger.

Notwithstanding the “day one” and “first week” coverage, the most pressing issue confronting the American people isn’t closing “Gitmo” or the always ephemeral “Mideast peace process” in the aftermath of Gaza or even “fixing the economy.” Item No. 1 ought to be preventing the world’s No. 1 exporter of radical Islamic terror from obtaining nuclear weapons: Iran. Unfortunately, the new administration is not off to an auspicious start.

On Wednesday, less than 24 hours after his inaugural, the Obama White House Web site announced, inter alia , that they will engage in “tough and direct” diplomacy with Iran “without preconditions” and that he intends to use “the power of American diplomacy” to deal with “Iran’s illicit nuclear program, support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel.” According to the statement, the new commander in chief believes that “seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.” If that’s really what Mr. Obama believes, he is — to put it politely — mistaken. This “new approach” includes little more than what our European allies have been trying for more than five years.

The White House statement suggests that if Iran abandons its effort to acquire nuclear weapons, the U.S. will offer incentives, such as membership in the World Trade Organization, new economic investment and normalized diplomatic relations. It also notes that if Iran continues its “troubling behavior,” we will lead efforts to further Iranian economic and political isolation. The only difference between this proposal and the Bush administration’s is that the U.S. now will have an official seat at the table while Tehran’s emissaries diddle the diplomats with deceit, deception and delay.

Before issuing such a “bold initiative” and “outreach” toward the theocrats ruling in Tehran, Mr. Obama’s advisers should have shown their boss the report provided late last month to French President Nicolas Sarkozy from a nonpartisan parliamentary commission on Iran’s nuclear program. The report details Tehran’s success in circumventing U.N. sanctions and concludes that Iranian scientists already have the know-how to build a nuclear weapon and that unless action is taken to prevent it, they will possess all necessary technology, equipment and fissile material to deploy nuclear weapons no later than the end of next year, “perhaps sooner.”

Note to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and CIA Director-designate Leon Panetta: President Sarkozy has shared this report with other Western intelligence and diplomatic missions, but only the Europeans appear to have read it. They are not waiting for the “new hand of progress” to do a grip and grin with a radical Iranian ayatollah who believes “Zionism should be wiped from the earth.”

On Thursday, while Mrs. Clinton was doing a meet and greet with her new staff at Foggy Bottom, diplomats from the 27 states of the European Union recommended removing an Iranian exile opposition group, the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran, from the EU terror list. The agreement is expected to be ratified by the EU foreign ministers when they meet in Brussels, Belgium, Monday.

If the EU determination is affirmed, only the U.S. will continue to describe the PMOI as a “terrorist organization” — a designation it earned in the 1980s, when it received support from Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. I know because I chaired the meeting that made the recommendation. But that was then; this is now.

The PMOI, it should be noted, is the group that first alerted the world to Iran’s covert nuclear program. Though most Western intelligence agencies dismissed the charge in 2002 and the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency scoffed at the allegations, the information was spot on. Since then, the PMOI has provided covert surveillance and reporting on inbound and outbound Iranian arms shipments, such as the weapons-laden vessel bound for Syria interdicted this week in the Red Sea by a U.S. warship on counter-piracy patrol. Unfortunately, only the lawyers were at work Wednesday, so the Cypriot-flagged ship was allowed to proceed toward the Suez Canal with hopes that perhaps the Egyptians would find a reason to stop it.

If Mr. Obama is truly serious about getting the attention of the ayatollahs, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the people of Iran, he ought to remove the PMOI from the U.S. terror blacklist immediately and give the EU kudos for their leadership. Such action would be an extraordinary signal of support for those who want to bring about a change in Tehran. After all, isn’t “change” what this administration is all about?

—

Oliver North is the host of “War Stories” on Fox News Channel, the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance, and the author of “American Heroes.”