Bare Naked Islam
posted a video of Pat Condell letting fly at those
responsible
for the trial of Geert Wilders. The fast talking Mr. Condell
has
a a way with words & wit that endears him to a loyal band of
fans.
I have transcribed the video because Condell's pace makes contemplation
difficult. Some of the concepts involved need a little time
to be
absorbed properly. The title is "The Crooked Judges
of Amsterdam".
I wonder if they can reach across the channel to haul him up
on
charges of contempt of court? His words leave no doubt about
his
attitude toward political correctness, multiculturalism, Islam, the
Dutch law under which Wilders is charged and the legal process
involved.
Condell is attributing two murders to p.c. and multiculturalism, implying that they set the stage for the murders. He attributes the trial to immorality and cowardice, accusing European governments of selling the citizen's birthright: free speech, out from under them. By his lights, a cowardly regime is persecuting a heroic parliamentarian for defending his civilization against an invading parasitic predator. They are pandering to Islam out of intimidation.
As you watch the video and read the transcript, bear in mind that the process taking place in Amsterdam is one the OIC wants to see duplicated in every Western nation where free speech once prevailed. They are demanding that criticism of Islam be outlawed nationally and internationally.
We have no lever of power with which to affect the travesty unfolding in Amsterdam. We can observe and criticize, venting as Condell has done, but we need to do more. We need to be vigilant to prevent or reverse the enactment by our own legislatures, of legislation patterned after that of the Netherlands or modeled on the resolutions passed by the UN and Human Rights Council in recent years.
We need to turn Islam's own weapon against it in a legal counter attack by pointing out the fact that orthodox Islamic doctrines and practices violate provisions of ICERD,. ICCPR & CPPCG which require that it be proscribed by law. The International Qur'an Petition is our way of turning the tables on Islam. We must exploit it to the hilt. Sign it, copy it, paste it into an email to everyone you can hope to influence and exhort the recipients to sign and forward it.
This week in an Amsterdam courtroom, we saw the beginning of what could be both the trial of the century and the crime of the century. What an honor for the Netherlands so early in the century. Well this determined statement of dhimmitude we've yet seen in Europe, and thats saying something, the Dutch Authorities are pushing ahead with the prosecution of an elected parliamentarian for the crime of embarrassing them with the truth.
There's an ideological fervor about this prosecution thats almost religious in its intensity. because lets be clear that this is a heresy trial by any other name. They can't refute Mr. Wilders' statements since they've resorted to the kind of cheap legal stunt that we'd expect from the likes of Mugabe to shut their opponent up.
They've accused him of being divisive and inflammatory and yes, sometimes the truth can be divisive and inflammatory but its been suppressed for long enough and its become sufficiently taboo as it clearly has in the Netherlands because, according to the prosecution, it doesn't even matter that what he says is true, what matters is that its illegal.
Well, when the truth is against the law, then there's something seriously wrong with the law. Because when the truth is no defense, there is no defense. and the law has no anchor, so it may drift wherever the wind of political expedience blows. And this week it blew straight into a crooked courtroom in Amsterdam, where Justice will now be made to fight for its life, starved of the oxygen of truth that gives it life.
These are desperate tactics from desperate people who've tied themselves up in such knots of relativist guilt they're incapable of acknowledging the truth let alone dealing with it. They're like somebody whose prepared to chop off their own hand to avoid being seen scratching their ass in public. What makes it worse is that clinging to something that doesn't even exist--the multicultural bubble burst a long time ago when Pim Fortuyn: was murdered, when Theo van Gogh. was murdered, both for the crime of expressing an opinion in what's supposed to be one of the world's leading liberal democracies. It was then that the Dutch people, better than anybody else in Europe, came face to face with multiculturalism--what it really is and what it really means.
On the surface, it sounds like a pleasant word , invoking a kind of rainbow society of mutually enriching cultural perspectives, and what could be better than that? But that's not what it is at all and that was never the intention. If they'd been honest from the start about what it really is: Islamization, they know that they'd never have been allowed to get away with it. But people are beginning to realize that now Islam is in fact what they're getting and and its all they're getting and that's why the Freedom Party is leading the opinion polls in the Netherlands from nowhere in just a few short years.
And its also why the ruling class is so desperate to destroy Mr. Wilders before the next election, because they know that his views are popular enough to change things, to put an end to the multicultural lie and give the Dutch people back their country and that's why he is facing trial. Can I say that?
Maybe we shouldn't be too surprised its come to this, after all they do have a history of ganging up on their popular politicians in the Netherlands. Isn't that how Pim Fortuyn: was murdered? Some leftist lunatic took the establishment and the press at their word that he was a public menace for opposing Islamization and killed him for it. The next day, all the people who'd been vilifying him were suddenly his best friends, they were shocked -- how could this have happened? But they all know how it happened, the whole world knows how it happened and if it hadn't happened this trial wouldn't be taking place today.because Islam wouldn't be the problem it is today and maybe Amsterdam would still be the one of the world's favorite cities and not the kind of place where gay people are afraid to go out for fear of being beaten up by gangs of Muslim youths. .
The Dutch ruling class has shown that its prepared to stoop to anything, even as far as undermining the very cornerstone of Western Civilization, freedom of speech to prop up a rotten ideology that is not only dead but whose corpse is now beginning to smell. and you know that smell, its that pungent mix of authoritarianism and cowardice that we've all become depressingly familiar with.
Certainly, here in Britain, we know all about it, we've had twelve years of it and we haven't forgotten the shameful events of this time last year when Mr. Wilders was refused entry to Britain because our government allowed itself to be bullied and threatened by a handful of Muslim loud mouths who took it upon themselves to suppress free speech in a free country and and were allowed to get away with it because otherwise they might have been offended oh, perish the thought!
Why the Hell shouldn't Muslims be offended, what are they anyway, babies? Nobody gives a damn how offended the rest of us are at having our culture squatted on by an aggressive religious totalitarianism and being told to shut up about it. And that's why this trial is not just about the Netherlands, it affects all of us. Now the Dutch people have got a well deserved reputation for tolerance and open mindedness, the very qualities many argue have gotten us into this mess in the first place so they're a bit further down the road of multicultural dhimmitude than most countries, but its a road that we're all traveling in the West and if we stay on it, we'll all arrive at the same unhappy cross roads in another court room in another country; its only a matter of time.
Fear of free speech is a symptom of a profoundly neurotic and dishonest society which is what we've got on our hands now. All over the Western world its the same sorry story. We have governments and police forces who cringe before Islam while fiddling away our civil liberties because of Islam. We have a media that can't even use the word Islam in connection with terrorism when the two things couldn't be more intimately connected if they were Siamese twins yet they're quite happy to label Mr. Wilders as a "far right politician" in the kind of casual slander that passes for journalism these days. especially at the wretched BBC who have been too politically correct even to acknowledge that this trial is taking place.
Anyone who isn't angry and ashamed that it is taking place doesn't deserve to live in a free society. The trial has already left as dark a stain on Dutch history as McCarthyism left on American history and its only going to get worse because not only have the crooked judges denied Mr. Wilders the witnesses he needs to defend himself, but they've also made sure that the trial will coincide with the election campaign making it as difficult as possible for him to put his case to the people.
This man is a hero, not a criminal and its time the rest of stood up and said so loud and clear because there is too much at stake to be polite anymore. And there's too much at stake to be afraid anymore. This intellectual terrorism has got to stop. Our birthright is being deliberately sold from under us by people who don't have the right of ownership.and we are now on the verge of bequeathing our children and grandchildren the kind of society that we wouldn't want to be born into; it doesn't get any more immoral or cowardly than that. You know, in the English Language we have an expression "Dutch courage", its not really courage at all, its the kind of courage you get when you've had a bit too much alcohol to drink-- well there is this new expression: "Dutch justice" its not really justice at all, its the kind of justice you get when you've overdosed on cultural relativism and your spine has completely disappeared.
Shame on the Netherlands; shame on the Western media for not raising a howl of protest against this outrageous attack on our basic freedom and shame upon shame on the crooked judges of Amsterdam. Was there something else? Oh yeah, peace, would be nice, wouldn't it?
At the annual prayer breakfast, President Obama tried to exploit religion for political purposes, in the process exposing his arrogance and contempt for the American people. I heard Conservative radio commentators playing sound bytes of one mispronounced word and asserting that the mainstream media who would have ridiculed Shrub for making the same error are ignoring it when made by their favorite politician.
I don't care about the mispronounced word or the media's
attitude. I am disgusted by the sheer arrogance evidenced by the
President's statement. I am concerned with substance, not
delivery and style. This speech stinks, like something you
might find sticking to your shoes after a visit to a barnyard.
Remarks by the President at the National Prayer Breakfast quoted out of context, with emphasis added, interspersed with commentary.
I'm privileged to join you once again, as my predecessors have for over half a century. Like them, I come here to speak about the ways my faith informs who I am -- as a President, and as a person. But I'm also here for the same reason that all of you are, for we all share a recognition -- one as old as time -- that a willingness to believe, an openness to grace, a commitment to prayer can bring sustenance to our lives.
In '04, a few days after his nomination to run for the Senate, Obama sat for interview with Cathleen Falsani. These out of context snippets from that interview may help us to understand how his faith informs him. [Emphasis added.]
So that, one of the churches I met, or one of the churches that I became involved in was Trinity United Church of Christ. And the pastor there, Jeremiah Wright, became a good friend. So I joined that church and committed myself to Christ in that church.
Yeah, although I don't, I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I'm not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I've got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others.I'm a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at it's best comes with a big dose of doubt. I'm suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding.
Its' not formal, me getting on my knees. I think I have an ongoing conversation with God. I think throughout the day, I'm constantly asking myself questions about what I'm doing, why am I doing it.
When I'm talking to a group and I'm saying something truthful, I can feel a power that comes out of those statements that is different than when I'm just being glib or clever.
Obama has an ongoing conversation with God and is constantly asking himself questions about his actions. Does he think he is God or can he carry on two conversations at once? Judging by how he speaks without a teleprompter, I suspect that he can't handle simultaneous conversations.
He is suspicious of dogma and takes religion with a big dose of doubt; how does that comport with having faith? The last quote from the interview seems to reveal a little too much. He admitted that he is not consistently truthful in his public remarks.There is a tendency to confuse personal and communal responsibilities. That confusion contributes greatly to the pursuit of the Socialist agenda. President Obama is contributing to that tendency.
It's inspiring. This is what we do, as Americans, in times of trouble. We unite, recognizing that such crises call on all of us to act, recognizing that there but for the grace of God go I, recognizing that life's most sacred responsibility -- one affirmed, as Hillary said, by all of the world's great religions -- is to sacrifice something of ourselves for a person in need.
Sadly, though, that spirit is too often absent when tackling the long-term, but no less profound issues facing our country and the world. Too often, that spirit is missing without the spectacular tragedy, the 9/11 or the Katrina, the earthquake or the tsunami, that can shake us out of complacency. We become numb to the day-to-day crises, the slow-moving tragedies of children without food and men without shelter and families without health care. We become absorbed with our abstract arguments, our ideological disputes, our contests for power. And in this Tower of Babel, we lose the sound of God's voice.
Note the bold faced clauses; are these Freudian slips or a demagogue mocking us by implicitly exposing himself ? At a spiritual retreat, a prayer breakfast, the President raises one of the most divisive issues, framing it in the context of religious obligation so as to imply guilt on the part of those who oppose his contest for power, which is founded on false premises. President Obama falsely asserts that his program will increase availability and decrease costs while its effects will be the exact opposite. Clearly, he is obsessed with the contest for power and employing a false argument in that contest.
Now, for those of us here in Washington, let's acknowledge that democracy has always been messy. Let's not be overly nostalgic. (Laughter.) Divisions are hardly new in this country. Arguments about the proper role of government, the relationship between liberty and equality, our obligations to our fellow citizens -- these things have been with us since our founding. And I'm profoundly mindful that a loyal opposition, a vigorous back and forth, a skepticism of power, all of that is what makes our democracy work.
The men who founded our representative republic had personally experienced and observed the evils attendant to tyranny. They wanted truth and reason to prevail over arbitrary authority, prejudice & passion. Rigorous debate is part of the process, so that competing ideas and arguments can be tested against each other. In the present case, the P:resident's partisans have declared our way or no way, and sought to prevent the opposition from having any input to the process. They have abused rules and procedures to limit debate and prevent scrutiny of the content of their legislation.
And we've seen actually some improvement in some circumstances. We haven't seen any canings on the floor of the Senate any time recently. (Laughter.) So we shouldn't over-romanticize the past. But there is a sense that something is different now; that something is broken; that those of us in Washington are not serving the people as well as we should. At times, it seems like we're unable to listen to one another; to have at once a serious and civil debate. And this erosion of civility in the public square sows division and distrust among our citizens. It poisons the well of public opinion. It leaves each side little room to negotiate with the other. It makes politics an all-or-nothing sport, where one side is either always right or always wrong when, in reality, neither side has a monopoly on truth. And then we lose sight of the children without food and the men without shelter and the families without health care.
The seeds of division and distrust are sown with campaign speeches and advertisements full of lies and half truths. They are fertilized by the habit of ignoring vox populi and a Hellbent determination to impose injurious policies contrary to common sense, experience and the popular will. Their fruits are harvested and a new crop sown with shibboleths such as "families without health care".
Politics becomes an "all-or-nothing sport" when the stakes are raised, when the policies proposed are self-perpetuating, irreversible and threaten economic devastation. The limited powers assigned to the federal government by the Constitution were designed to prevent politics from becoming a threat to life, liberty and prosperity. The erosion of those limits, set in motion by F.D.R., resulted in the current political climate.Empowered by faith, consistently, prayerfully, we need to find our way back to civility. That begins with stepping out of our comfort zones in an effort to bridge divisions. We see that in many conservative pastors who are helping lead the way to fix our broken immigration system. It's not what would be expected from them, and yet they recognize, in those immigrant families, the face of God. We see that in the evangelical leaders who are rallying their congregations to protect our planet. We see it in the increasing recognition among progressives that government can't solve all of our problems, and that talking about values like responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage are integral to any anti-poverty agenda. Stretching out of our dogmas, our prescribed roles along the political spectrum, that can help us regain a sense of civility.
Our immigration system is not broken, it is abandoned, jacked up on blocks in the back yard. Illegal immigrants cross the Mexican border with no substantial interference. They carry drugs & disease over the border. They are accompanied by Muslims from the Mid East who may not have our welfare at heart.
The last sentence of the quote immediately above is an appeal to "bipartisanship" & "compromise". The real meaning of which is "Conservatives, surrender your principles and vote for whatever crap Liberals put forth.". When your friend suggests a suicide pact and hands you a poison pill, do you reject the pact and the pill or do you agree to swallow half of it as a compromise? Why should we abandon our principles and agree to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, making them citizens who can cement the Democrat party in power for the long term? The proposed amnesty will not solve the problem, it will serve as an incentive for even more illegal immigrants to cross the border.
So why should our side abandon our principles and accept legislation
that will destroy jobs, ruin the economy, increase the federal debt and
make health care less available & affordable?
Its about our lives, health, prosperity and liberty, not
about civility
Civility also requires relearning how to disagree without being disagreeable; understanding, as President [Kennedy] said, that "civility is not a sign of weakness." Now, I am the first to confess I am not always right. Michelle will testify to that. (Laughter.) But surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith, or, for that matter, my citizenship. (Laughter and applause.)
In one of your books, you told about kneeling at the altar of Rev. Wright's church to rededicate your life to God. You did not identify your deity. In a later interview, you claimed that you rededicated your life to Jesus Christ. In another interview, you said that the Adhan was the sweetest sound at sunset and recited it to the interviewer. We have plenty of reason to suspect that your Christianity is a political veneer.
The Constitution specifies that the President must be a natural born citizen or a citizen at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. British law makes your father a citizen of Great Britain. You were registered in an Indonesian school as an Indonesian citizen and a Muslim. Where were you really born? If you were not born on American soil, your mother was too young to convey citizenship. We can't know for certain without seeing the birth certificate which declares the time and place of your birth. Why did you spend more than one million dollars to keep it out of our sight? Your Constitutional eligibility is not a function of your policies, it is a function of the circumstances of your birth.Challenging each other's ideas can renew our democracy. But when we challenge each other's motives, it becomes harder to see what we hold in common. We forget that we share at some deep level the same dreams -- even when we don't share the same plans on how to fulfill them.
One side seeks to preserve the fruits of the grandest dream ever, which were temporarily secured by a miraculous victory in a war of revolution. The other side seeks to tear down the restrictions on government power. Those restrictions are the last line of defense for our liberties. We do not want to let you strangle the golden goose. Nor do we want to allow you to endanger our hard won liberties. The preservation of prosperity and liberty depends on frustrating your entire Socialist agenda.
We do not seek to deny anyone shelter, food, clothing or medical goods & services. We seek to prevent you from permanently destroying the Constitution and the economy.
We may disagree about the best way to reform our health care system, but surely we can agree that no one ought to go broke when they get sick in the richest nation on Earth. We can take different approaches to ending inequality, but surely we can agree on the need to lift our children out of ignorance; to lift our neighbors from poverty. We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are -- whether it's here in the United States or, as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.
There is only one way to reform our health care system, and it is not your proposal! Reducing costs and increasing supply can only be accomplished by removing artificial barriers to competition. That means allowing an open market in insurance policies across state lines. It does not include restrictions on hospital construction & expansion and reductions in the training of new physicians. Reducing costs requires better control of Medicare fraud and the elimination of excessive liability settlements. Your party won't allow tort reform because you are in the lawyer's pockets.
Affordability is ultimately a function of income and living expenses. When you raise taxes, you push every good and service we want and need further out of reach. When you create inflation, you push everything out of reach. You could allow people to set up medical savings plans backed up with catastrophic care policies, but, since that would not cement you in power, you won't consider it.
Surely we can agree to find common ground when possible, parting ways when necessary. But in doing so, let us be guided by our faith, and by prayer. For while prayer can buck us up when we are down, keep us calm in a storm; while prayer can stiffen our spines to surmount an obstacle -- and I assure you I'm praying a lot these days -- (laughter) -- prayer can also do something else. It can touch our hearts with humility. It can fill us with a spirit of brotherhood. It can remind us that each of us are children of a awesome and loving God.
Here we have another classic example of the over confident, narcissistic demagogue waving his arrogance like a red flag before a bull. There is no common ground between Socialism Capitalism, nor between tyranny and liberty. He assumes the content of faith as well as the efficacy of prayer, ignoring the fact that Communism is officially atheistic.
How many times did we rise up and reject alien amnesty schemes when Shrub was trying to shove them down our throats? How many times did we reject Socialized medicine when LBJ & Clinton tried to shove it down our throats? But Obama is deaf to our shouts, he can not hear the protests at the town meetings, tea parties and recent special elections. He has a stiff neck and a stiff middle finger for us, at minimum.
Through faith, but not through faith alone, we can unite people to serve the common good. And that's why my Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships has been working so hard since I announced it here last year. We've slashed red tape and built effective partnerships on a range of uses, from promoting fatherhood here at home to spearheading interfaith cooperation abroad. And through that office we've turned the faith-based initiative around to find common ground among people of all beliefs, allowing them to make an impact in a way that's civil and respectful of difference and focused on what matters most.
"The common good" is an undefined and immeasurable concept, entirely too abstract to allow a useful debate. Likewise "common ground" between faiths. There is no common ground between Islam and any genuine religion. Invitations to "interfaith dialog" are actually demands for submission.
It is this spirit of civility that we are called to take up when we leave here today. That's what I'm praying for. I know in difficult times like these -- when people are frustrated, when pundits start shouting and politicians start calling each other names -- it can seem like a return to civility is not possible, like the very idea is a relic of some bygone era. The word itself seems quaint -- civility.
Yes, there are crimes of conscience that call us to action. Yes, there are causes that move our hearts and offenses that stir our souls. But progress doesn't come when we demonize opponents. It's not born in righteous spite. Progress comes when we open our hearts, when we extend our hands, when we recognize our common humanity. Progress comes when we look into the eyes of another and see the face of God. That we might do so -- that we will do so all the time, not just some of the time -- is my fervent prayer for our nation and the world.
We are supposed to gaze into Obama's eyes and see God. We are supposed to submit to his will. The difference between God and Obama is that God does not think he is Obama.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
There is one thing we can agree on: God bless the United States of America.
The court rejected fifteen proposed defense
witnesses. They also ruled that the testimony of the three witnesses
they allowed will be heard in camera, greatly reducing the potential
educational value of the proceeding.
This information comes from one of two new Geert Wilders web sites, one in Dutch and this one in English for the international audience.Only Hans Jansen, Simon Admiraal and Wafa Sultan were allowed to be heard as expert-witnesses. Their testimony will be heard in a session behind closed doors. Apparently the truth about Islam must remain a secret.
The site includes these features.
- the summons in pdf format
- summary of the proceedings
- Wilders' statement (video)
- links to press coverage
Radio Netherlands Worldwide
had what may be the most important quote.
In this quote, Wilders restated the obvious. The prosecutor had decided that the charges were not worth holding a trial over before being overruled by a court under pressure.Reacting to the rulings later, Mr Wilders told journalists outside the courtroom, "This court doesn't seem to be interested in the truth. I can only conclude that the court is not going to let me have a fair trial. I have no respect for this."
Sky
News reports that Chancellor Alistair
Darling is expected to
announce a plan to issue sukuk in the next
U.K.
budget. To be Shari'ah compliant, the gain in the
bond transaction must be framed in terms other than interest and Zakat
of 2.5% must be paid.
The dirty secret concealed by this story is that 1/8 of the Zakat must be paid to fund Jihad. England will sell bonds to Muslims and finance terrorism in the process. The Jihad factor is .3125% . That is a small multiplier, but on a $1,000,000 transaction, it will yield $3,125.00 to terrorism.
There are eight categories of Zakat recipients. The seventh category is key to this issue. The quote below is from the handbook of Shari'ah: Reliance of the Traveller, Book H, Chapter 8.
H8.17: Those Fighting for Allah
The seventh category is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster (O: but who are volunteers for jihad without remuneration). They are given enough to suffice them for the operation, even if affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing, and expenses (O: for the duration of the journey, round trip, and the time they spend there, even if prolonged. Though nothing has been mentioned here of the expense involved in supporting such people's families during this period, it seems clear that they should also be given it).
As
the trial of Geert Wilders resumes, we should carefully examine its
substance and procedures. Writing on the Editorial
Page of the Wall Street
Journal, Leon De Winter says "Stop the Trial of Geert Wilders"
On trial is not so much Geert Wilders, but the Holy Book of Islam. ... So it is quite conceivable that the court will judge that Geert Wilders was within his right to compare the Quran to "Mein Kampf."
In the view of one Dutch journalist, the trial has been inverted, exchanging the defendant and complainant, resulting in an insult to Muslims over and above the alleged insults issued by the defendant. He wants the trial stopped.The three judges hearing the case—no doubt decent, modest, postmodern Dutchmen with a minimum knowledge of Islam and its culture and traditions—will now be forced to debate the nature of a religious text, something that should have never been heard in the court of an enlightened society. In front of the judges and television cameras, the ancient founding text of an entire civilization will be criticized and weighed against one of the most inhumane texts written in the 20th century—without any doubt a deep insult to Muslims, radical or not.
Unfortunately, there is reason to doubt the chances of an
inverted trial. While it is obvious that Wilders is planning a
defense based on necessity and veracity, it is not certain that the
court will consent to allow those defenses to be presented.
An
article by Arthur Legger, published by Tidsskriftet Sappho,
reveals some details about he trial of Geert Wilders. A surprising
statement from the Public Prosecution
attacks Wilders' truth defense.
The indictment was amended to include accusations of racism. I suspect that was done as an end run around this precedent.“It is irrelevant whether Wilder’s witnesses might prove Wilders’ observations to be correct”, the ‘Openbaar Ministerie’ stated, “what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal”.
Fokko Oldenhuis, Groningen University professor Religion and Law, is quoted as saying:For in a comparable case the Dutch High Court acquitted a Dutchman of his earlier conviction of ‘Group-insult’ of Muslims. He had been sentenced to jail for hanging a poster in front of his window that stated: “Stop the cancerous growth named Islam”. The High Court ruled that “if one insults a religion, one doesn’t automatically insult its believers”.
Does the banning of Nazi literature bring "fear and terror" into the homes of neo-Nazis? Did Wilders call for assaults, murders and pogroms? Did he urge his audience to riot and burn Korans? What then is terrifying about his statements?“He discriminates Moroccans because of their race and causes hate against them”; “His desire to ban the Koran brings fear and terror into peoples homes”.
Take a clear eyed look at the laws Wilders is accused of violating.
The International Free Press Society posted this
link to an
English translation of the summons. Jihad Watch
reproduced it in this article. [Bold face
emphasis added to critical clause for clarity.]
![]()
Article 137c
Dutch Penal Code
o
1.
He
who publicly, verbally or in writing or image,
deliberately expresses himself in an way insulting of a group
of people
because
of their race, their religion or belief, or their
hetero- or homosexual
nature
or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be
punished with
a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.
o
2. If the offence is committed by
a person who makes
it his profession or habit, or by two or more people in association, a
prison
sentence of at the most two years or a fine of fourth category will be
imposed.
![]()
· ![]()
Article 137d
Dutch Penal Code
o
1. He who publicly,
verbally or
in writing or in an
image, incites hatred against or discrimination of
people or violent
behaviour
against person or property of people because of their race,
their
religion or
belief, their gender or hetero- or homosexual nature or their
physical,
mental,
or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence
of at the
most one year or a fine of third category.
o
2.
If
the offence is committed by a person who makes it his profession or
habit, or
by two or more people in association, a prison sentence of at the most
two
years or a fine of fourth category will be imposed.
Insulting and inciting are undefined, thus they are highly subjective.
In effect, guilt is presumed arbitrarily; no defense is
possible against these charges. If Geert Wilders is found
guilty and the law is upheld, the code reproduced above will become
boilerplate for national and international legislation demanded by the
OIC & UN.
Critical Issue
Geert Wilders perceives Islam as an existential threat to his society. The threat arises from Islam's Jihad doctrine which mandates world conquest. The conquest is not limited to military and terror attacks, it also takes the form of demographic conquest, which Europe is now experiencing.The threat is real, proximate and persisting. Pim Fortune and Theo Van Gogh were assassinated by Muslims. Aayan Hirsi Ali & Geert Wilders have needed 24 hour security because of death threats. French Muslims have done millions of dollars in property damage by rioting.
Wilders documented the threat by quoting Qur'anic violence imperatives and displaying video of Imams ranting about killing disbelievers. He also displayed video of a hostage being decapitated.
Wilders spoke out about a
threat to his nation, documented that threat and called on the
government to mount a defense. For that he is being
persecuted.
The summons includes a frame by frame analysis of Fitna and out of context
quotes from newspaper interviews. The pdf file is more than
20 pages long.
Geert Wilders spoke in New York City
September 25 '08. Sheik Yermami provided a transcript.
The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world – by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.
The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza.
In April of '09, Wilders spoke at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Iranic Surrealism has the transcript.
October 22 '09, Wilders spoke at Columbia. Answering Muslims has video of the speech. Is the content of those speeches factually true? The answer is contained in Islam's canon. http://snooper.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/fitna-supporting-documentation/ documents the Qur'an quotes contained in Fitna. and Wilders' address to the Dutch Parliament.Allow me to give you a brief introduction to Islam, an Islam 101. The first thing everyone needs to know about Islam is the importance of the Koran. As you probably know the Koran calls for submission, hatred, violence, murder, terrorism and war. The Koran calls upon Muslims to kill non-Muslims. The Koran describes Jews as monkeys and pigs. The biggest problem is that the Koran is to be considered as Allah’s personal word, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. That’s the reason why the Koran is not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims, but a moderate Islam does not exist. As the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan once said: “There is no moderate Islam, Islam is Islam”. For once I have to agree with this islamist Turkish Prime Minister.
When the trial resumes, the judges could dismiss the case. More likely, they will rule on Wilders' proposed defense and witness list. If they severely restrict the latter and/or close the trial to the press, we can assume that the outcome is preordained and that our precious liberty has suffered a vital blow.
The enemy seeks to suppress our right to
identify, name and shame them so that, in the words of George Washington,
Let us make good use of our precious freedom while we still have it. Let us echo and amplify the warning call issued by Geert Wilders. Let us summon our fellow citizens to join us in disrespectfully demanding the preservation of the right of free expression without which we stand defenseless against impending tyranny. In this step, they squelch our criticism of Islam; in the next, they squelch our criticism of Socialism. One will follow the other as surely as rain and wind follow storm clouds.“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
I have furnished links to Wilder's documentary and speeches. I also furnished a link to another blog post which documents the most essential facts presented in those warning calls. What you do with them is up to you. Will you read the speeches and documentation, watch the video and share them or will you go back to sleep, ignoring the dangers that face us?
The article reproduced below was written by a fluent speaker of Arabic who translated some of the original materials used as a basis for his research. His footnotes are linked to internal anchors in the original article. clicking them will open the original in your browser, replacing this blog post until you hit the back button.
While the article is long and detailed, it is very much worth reading. I recommend bookmarking it so that you can skim it immediately and return later for a more careful reading.
The article highlights the difference between the Islamic and Western mindsets. The author took great care to demonstrate the difference between what Muslims say to the Western media in English and what they say to their brethren in Arabic.
Speaking to the West, Usama bin Ladin
emphasizes reciprocity which is based on this scripture.
Speaking to his brethren, he emphasizes the religious obligation of Jihad, which is founded primarily on two ayat and one hadith which confirms them. The author quotes 9:29. which enjoins waging war against people with scriptural religions. The ayeh which commands waging war against polytheists and atheists is 8:39.5:45. And We ordained therein for them: "Life for life , eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allâh has revealed, such are the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrongdoers - of a lesser degree).
The confirming hadith has several variants, this form makes the issue extremely clear: Allah ordered Muhammad to fight us until we become Muslim, until we do, we have no rights and our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims. In other words, he opened a season on us. Islam is a predator, we are the prey. [Emphasis added for clarity.]8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.
For a more complete appreciation of the legal application of those verses and the saying which confirms them, see Book O, Chapter 9 of Reliance of the Traveller.Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."
Two quotations from the writings of Usama bin Ladin are cited, regarding the justice and kindness of attacking disbelievers and how failure to attack us would be oppression.
Muhammad was sent as a mercy, if we reject his message, then he makes war on us. Refraining from forcing us to embrace Islam would be oppression.21:107. And We have sent you (O Muhammad ) not but as a mercy for the 'Alamîn (mankind, jinns and all that exists).
21:109. But if they (disbelievers, idolaters, Jews, Christians, polytheists, etc.) turn away (from Islâmic Monotheism) say (to them O Muhammad ): "I give you a notice (of war as) to be known to us all alike. And I know not whether that which you are promised (i.e. the torment or the Day of Resurrection) is near or far."
If you are still curious about the "religious obligation of Jihad" try these sources.
- www.islamistwatch.org/texts/azzam/defense/defense.html
- www.islamistwatch.org/texts/azzam/caravan/intro.html
- http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/379
- http://hss.fullerton.edu/comparative/jihad_relmora.pdf
Research and Writing
Related Articles
An Analysis of Al-Qa'ida's Worldview
Reciprocal Treatment or Religious Obligation?
by Raymond Ibrahim
Middle East Review of International Affairs
December 2008http://www.meforum.org/2043/an-analysis-of-al-qaidas-worldview
![]()
By analyzing what al-Qa'ida preaches to Muslims regarding Islam's relationship to the non-Muslim world at large, and what it states to the West are its reasons for battling it, this essay seeks to highlight the many disparities behind al-Qa'ida's words. Juxtaposed in themes, the following excerpts are all derived from Usama bin Ladin's and Ayman al-Zawahiri's writings and speeches as found in The Al Qa'ida Reader.[1]
Is al-Qa'ida waging war on the United States--issuing a fatwa to "kill the Americans and seize their money"[2] (p. 13)in retaliation to U.S. oppression, or is this animosity founded on something else? Is it mere reciprocity or is it a religion-based ideology? Talking to the West, al-Qa'ida insists it is reciprocal treatment; talking to fellow Muslims it insists that Islam demands this animosity. Consider the following discrepancies:
When addressing the United States, bin Ladin writes in response to the rhetorical question "Why we [al-Qa'ida] are fighting you," "[b]ecause you attacked us and continue to attack us." (p. 197) In fact, reciprocal treatment has been al-Qa'ida's sole justification for all the terrorist acts it has perpetrated against the West. The West attacks Muslims----for oil, Israel, land, or "Crusader" hatred----and al-Qa'ida retaliates on behalf of Muslims.
Even the September 11 strikes are rationalized as mere acts of reciprocity. After describing the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, where a massive bombing campaign leveled several high-rise apartment buildings and left thousands of Arabs dead, bin Ladin said, "[A]s I looked upon those crumbling towers in Lebanon, I was struck by the idea of punishing the oppressor in kind by destroying towers in America----giving them a taste of their own medicine and deterring them from murdering our women and children." (p. 215)
After September 11, when several more terrorist acts were committed around the world, targeting mostly Europeans, bin Ladin declared:
The events that have taken place since the attacks on Washington and New York [September 11]----such as the killing of Germans in Tunisia, the French in Karachi, the bombing of the giant French tanker in Yemen, the killing of marines in Failaka, of British and Australians in the Bali explosions, the recent operation in Moscow, and various other sporadic operations[3]--are all reactions of reciprocity, carried out by the zealous sons of Islam in defense of their faith and in response to the order of their Lord and Prophet. [p. 231]
After the bombings in Madrid, where 191 people were killed and 1460 injured, bin Ladin again addressed the Europeans:
There is a lesson [to be learned] regarding what happens in occupied Palestine and what happened on September 11 and March 11 [Madrid train bombings, killing 191 and injuring 1,460]: These are your goods returned to you. It is well understood that security is a vital necessity for all of mankind--though we do not agree that you should monopolize it for yourself. [p. 234]
After the July 2004 London bombings, Zawahiri addressed the citizens of the United Kingdom thus: "I speak to you today about the blessed raid[4] on London that... made it take a sip from the same glass from which it had long made the Muslims drink.... So taste some of what you have made us taste." (p. 238)
There is no question, then, that al-Qa'ida's defense for committing all these acts of terrorism is that it is merely, as bin Ladin puts it, returning the West's "goods"--that is, "terrorism"--back to itself. Such a defense is plausible--provided, of course, that the West is guilty of initiating the terror. Under this interpretation, al-Qa'ida gouges the West's eye since the West first gouged Islam's eye.
Moreover, this defense is ultimately rooted in the "universal" concept of justice. Most people around the world, irrespective of religion or race, understand the concept of crime and punishment. And the Torah's "eye for an eye" injunction has been the standard for many people--no doubt due to its primordial, and thus universal, sensibilities. Yet even though al-Qa'ida implies that it is acting under some sort of "universal law" that both Muslims and non-Muslims can appreciate, that is not fully true. For Muslims there is only one particular set of laws that are to be adhered to--Shari'a --and even if Shari'a contradicts something that non-Muslims consider a "universal right"--such as equality--still, Shari'a must have the final word.
When a group of Muslim scholars wrote to the Americans saying that there should be equality, justice, and freedom, between the West and Islam, bin Ladin had this to say about it:
[The Muslims' declaration] came supporting the United Nations and their humanistic articles, which revolve around three principles: equality, freedom, and justice. Nor do they mean equality, freedom, and justice as was revealed by the Prophet Muhammad [Shari'a]. No, they mean the West's despicable notions, which we see today in America and Europe, and which have made the people like cattle. [p. 26]
Islam, or "submission" to Allah, is the ultimate form of justice, the Islamists argue; everything else, depending on how far it deviates from Shari'a is oppression, injustice, and corruption. To be sure, under Shari'a, Muslims are to defend themselves against infidel aggression--to wage a "Defensive Jihad" as al-Qa'ida claims to be doing. Indeed, most of Shari'a's divine guidelines concerning jihad have to do with the legitimacy and obligation of waging Offensive Jihad, simply to gain territory and lord over infidels; how necessary is Defensive Jihad, then, when there is a need to repulse the infidel from Islamic lands?[5]
However, Shari'a has other notions--equally binding according to Islamists like those who make up its leadership--that do not comport so well with al-Qa'ida's claim that all this terrorism is simply due to Western aggression and Muslim retaliation. In other words, under Shari'a law, even if the West completely ceased all its hostilities, real or imagined, against the Islamic world, total peace would still not commence. Under Shari'a, permanent peace can only commence when the entire world either embraces or at the very least is governed by Islam.[6]
Discussing the need to overthrow those Muslim "apostate" governments that do not rule in accordance to Shari'a, bin Ladin, addressing Americans, says: "The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Islamic umma [community], make Shari'a law supreme, and regain Palestine. Our fight against these governments is one with our fight against you." (p. 199)
Ayman al-Zawahiri similarly exhorts Muslims:
We also extend our hands to every Muslim zealous over making Islam triumph till they join us in a course of action to save the umma from its painful reality. [This course of action] consists of staying clear of idolatrous tyrants, warfare against infidels, loyalty to the believers, and jihadin the path of Allah. Such is a course of action that all who are vigilant for the triumph of Islam should vie in, giving and sacrificing in the cause of liberating the lands of the Muslims, making Islam supreme in its [own] land, and then spreading it around the world. [p. 113]
That last sentence--"making Islam supreme in its [own] land, and then spreading it around the world"--raises questions regarding al-Qa'ida's statements to the West, the fundamental one being: Even if all of the West's perceived or real hostilities vis-à-vis the Islamic world were to cease, would Islam then be at peace with the outside world?
Concerning this question, bin Ladin has been forthright--though only when speaking to fellow Muslims. "Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West" (p. 17-61)--the most revealing and straightforward document produced by al-Qa'ida--puts its vision of Islam's relationship with the rest of the world in clear context.
In this essay, Muslims (in the guise of Saudi intellectuals who, in response to a letter of cooperation[7] written by Americans, responded with their own letter[8]) are chastised for even daring to want to coexist with the infidel West. Bin Ladin makes clear that the animosity between the Muslim and the infidel--which should always be "directed from the Muslim to the infidel" (p. 43)--far transcends any talk of grievances.
UNIVERSAL JUSTICE VS. SHARI'A JUSTICE
Here, the concept of "universal justice," which al-Qa'ida constantly makes appeals to in its messages to the West, is ridiculed with contempt. For example, when writing to the Europeans bin Ladin said: "I call upon just men--especially ulama [scholars], media, and businessmen--to form a permanent commission to enlighten the European peoples of the justice of our causes, particularly Palestine." (p. 235)
Yet when the Saudi intellectuals wrote, "the heart of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is justice, kindness, and charity--this is the equity that Allah loves and has commanded us with [p. 42]," bin Ladin was quick to clarify what true justice is:
As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High's Word: "You have a good example in Abraham and those with him. They said to their people: 'We disown you and what you worship besides Allah. We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us--till you believe in Allah alone' " [Koran 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility, and an internal hate from the heart. And this fierce hostility--that is, battle--ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [a dhimmi],[9] or if the Muslims are [at that point in time] weak and incapable [of spreading Shari'alaw to the world]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the hearts, this is great apostasy; the one who does this [extinguishes the hate from his heart] will stand excuseless before Allah. Allah Almighty's Word to His Prophet recounts in summation the true relationship: "O Prophet! Wage war against the infidels and hypocrites and be ruthless. Their abode is hell--an evil fate!" [Koran 9:73]. Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred--directed from the Muslim to the infidel--is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them. The West perceives fighting, enmity, and hatred all for the sake of the religion as unjust, hostile, and evil. But who's understanding is right--our notions of justice and righteousness, or theirs? [p. 43]
The Saudi intellectuals had tried to clarify to the West that all peoples--irrespective of religion--were entitled to justice and should never be oppressed: "Justice between people is their right, while oppression between them is forbidden--no matter what their religion, color, or nationality is" [p. 44]. When addressing and accusing the West, al-Qa'ida has relied on similar language. Writing to the Americans bin Ladin, implying that he shares universal notions of justice and injustice, sarcastically asked, "How many acts of oppression, tyranny and injustice have you carried out, O you 'callers to freedom?'" (p. 204)
Yet writing to the Saudis, bin Ladin clarifies al-Qa'ida's true notions of oppression and injustice:
As for the word "oppression," those addressed [Americans] take it to mean being placed under the authority of Islam by the sword, as the Prophet did with the infidels. They think that something that denies them [the freedom] to pursue obscenities, atheism and blasphemy, and idolatry is an "oppression." They think that an attack launched against their ground, as in an Offensive Jihad, is an "injustice." And so forth. Then come the [intellectuals] declaring that justice is a right while oppression is forbidden. If they mean justice and oppression, as understood by those addressed... then this is a great calamity, and a blasphemous conversation.... As for oppression, the only oppression is to forsake them in their infidelity, and not use jihad as a means to make them enter into the faith--as the Prophet did with them. [pp. 45-46]
UNIVERSAL COMMONALITIES VS. OFFENSIVE JIHAD
In fact, Offensive Jihad, something about which al-Qa'ida dissembles vis-à-vis the West, figures prominently in bin Ladin's diatribe to the Saudi intellectuals. In 1997, a direct question was asked of bin Ladin by a Westerner: "Mr. bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States?" Bin Ladin responded:
The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the U.S.' aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian Peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the Defensive Jihad against the U.S. does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian Peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.[10]
However, bin Ladin's ultimate motives became apparent after the Saudi intellectuals wrote: "Thus we say in all earnestness and plainly that we can open a mature dialogue around every issue that the West submits, ever cognizant that we share a number of understandings, moral values, rights, and ideas with the West, which, if fostered, can create a better [world] for all concerned" (p. 37)
To this "blasphemy," bin Ladin wrote extensively:
Regarding which shared understandings, exactly, is it possible that we agree with the immoral West?... What commonalities, if our foundations contradict, rendering useless the shared extremities--if they even exist? For practically everything valued by the immoral West is condemned under sharia law.... [T]he issues most prominent in the West revolve around secularism, homosexuality, sexuality, and atheism [p. 37].... As for this atmosphere of shared understandings, what evidence is there for Muslims to strive for this? What did the Prophet, the Companions after him, and the righteous forebears do? Did they wage jihadagainst the infidels, attacking them all over the earth, in order to place them under the suzerainty of Islam in great humility and submission? Or did they send messages to discover "shared understandings" between themselves and the infidels in order that they may reach an understanding whereby universal peace, security, and natural relations would spread--in such a satanic manner as this? The sharia provides a true and just path, securing Muslims, and providing peace to the world [p. 31].
Moreover, when the Saudi intellectuals dared write: "It's imperative that we bid all to legitimate talks, presented to the world, under the umbrella of justice, morality, and rights, ushering in legislations creating peace and prosperity for the world," [p. 31] bin Ladin lamented:
Surely there is no power save through Allah alone! We never thought that such words would ever appear from those who consider themselves adherents of this religion. Such expressions, and more like them, would lead the reader to believe that those who wrote them are Western intellectuals, not Muslims! Those previous expressions are true only by tearing down the wall of enmity from the infidels. They are also expressions true only by rejecting jihad--especially Offensive Jihad. The problem, however, is that Offensive Jihadis an established and basic tenet of this religion. It is a religious duty rejected only by the most deluded. So how can they call off this religious obligation [Offensive Jihad], while imploring the West to understandings and talks "under the umbrella of justice, morality, and rights"? The essence of all this comes from right inside the halls of the United Nations, instead of the Divine foundations that are built upon hating the infidels, repudiating them with tongue and teeth till they embrace Islam or pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission and humility.... Muslims, and especially the learned among them, should spread sharia law to the world--that and nothing else. Not laws under the "umbrella of justice, morality, and rights" as understood by the masses. No, the sharia of Islam is the foundation. [pp. 32-33]
FREEDOM VS. TERRORISM
Al-Qa'ida has maintained that its hostilities to the West have absolutely nothing to do with the latter's freedoms. Speaking to the Americans, bin Ladin asserted, "From the start, I tell you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life; free men do not underestimate their security--contrary to [President George W.] Bush's claim that we hate freedom. [11] If so, let him explain to us why we have not attacked Sweden, for instance." [p. 214].
Speaking to the Europeans, bin Ladin tries to define terrorism: "[W]e inform you that your description of us as 'terrorists' and our actions as 'terrorism' necessarily means that you and your actions must be defined likewise. Our actions are merely reactions to yours...." (p. 234)
Finally, bin Ladin makes it quite clear that terrorism is used only in reciprocity since al-Qa'ida has no other choice: "Shall a man be blamed for protecting his own? Self-defense and punishing the wicked in kind--are these shameful [acts of] 'terrorism'? And even if it is, we have no other option." (p. 216)
Taken together, all these messages assert that the terror al-Qa'ida inflicts upon the West has nothing to do with Western freedoms and everything to do with reciprocal treatment. Moreover, by stating "we have no other option" than to engage in acts of terrorism, bin Ladin clearly implies that terrorism is being relied upon as a last resort out of desperation. Thus al-Qa'ida maintains that there is no correlation between Western freedoms and Islamic terrorism--that the latter is never used simply to suppress the former.
This is not the case when addressing the Saudis. After they wrote to the Americans saying that Islam does not allow coercion in matters of religion, bin Ladin, once again, revealed his true beliefs and ultimate goals. The Saudi intellectuals had declared, "It is not permitted to coerce anyone regarding his religion. Allah Most High said: 'There is no compulsion in religion' [Koran 2:256]. Thus Islam itself does not comport with coercion." (p. 40) After explaining that this verse has to do with matters of the heart and not Islam's destiny to rule the whole world,[12] bin Ladin quotes the Hadith:
Whenever the Messenger of Allah appointed someone as leader of an army or detachment, he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and be good to the Muslims with him. Then he would say: "Attack in the name of Allah and in the path of Allah do battle with whoever rejects Allah. Attack!... If you happen upon your idolatrous enemies, call them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, accept it and stay yourself from them. [1] Call them to Islam: If they respond [i.e., convert], accept this and cease fighting them..... [2] If they refuse to accept Islam, demand of them the jizya: If they respond, accept it and cease fighting them. [3] But if they refuse, seek the aid of Allah and fight them." Thus our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue--one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice--and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission; or payment of the jizya, through physical though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or the sword--for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die. [pp. 41-42]
When the Saudi intellectuals wrote: "Man, from his very make-up, is a sacred creation. Thus it is impermissible to transgress against him, no matter what his color, race, or religion." Bin Ladin, after mocking their language for its "UN" tone, wrote extensively:
Now, then, how can you speak about Allah without knowledge? Who told you that transgression against man is impermissible--if he is an infidel? What about Offensive Jihad? Allah Exalted, the Most High, said: "Fight them! Allah will torment them with your hands".... [Koran 9:14] Indeed, these expressions of yours are built upon the principle of equality, as found in the charters of the United Nations, which do not distinguish [among] people, neither by way of religion nor race nor sex. Islam improves; it is not improved.... [p. 38] Furthermore, how can they [intellectuals] claim that we have no right to force a people to change its particular values, when they transgress the bounds of nature? Such are lies. In fact, Muslims are obligated to raid the lands of the infidels, occupy them, and exchange their systems of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts the sharia from being publicly voiced among the people, as was the case at the dawn of Islam....[p. 50] Thus they make claims and speak about Allah without understanding. They say that our sharia does not impose our particular beliefs upon others; this is a false assertion. For it is, in fact, part of our religion to impose our particular beliefs upon others. Whoever doubts this, let him turn to the deeds of the Companions when they raided the lands of the Christians and Omar imposed upon them the conditions of dhimmi[tude]. These conditions involve clothing attire, specific situations, and class distinctions known to ulamaas the pact of Omar,[13] and they are notoriously famous. Let the signatories review them so they know that we are to force people by the power of the sword to [our] particular understandings, customs, and conditions, all in order to induce debasement and humility, just like Allah commanded when he said: "[...]until they pay the jizya by hand, in complete submission and humility." [Koran 9:29] Now, if you are incapable of jihad and placing people into the religion, like the Companions did, your impotence does not mean that it is not a legitimate aspect of the religion. [p. 51]
As for direct support for terrorism, bin Ladin again refers to the Koran:
"Muster against them [infidels] what fighting-men and steeds of war you can, in order to strike terror in the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them whom you do not know, but Allah knows well." [Koran 8:60] Thus whoever refuses the principle of terror[ism] against the enemy also refuses the commandment of Allah the Exalted, the Most High, and His sharia. The West prepares to defend itself in face of this extremist verse. [p. 54]
The Saudi intellectuals wrote: "Terrorism, according to the universally agreed meaning being used today, is but one of many manifestations of unjust aggression against life and property." Bin Ladin, outraged, responds:
Behold! Today they are agreed to the meaning and definition of "terrorism" as acknowledged and agreed to by the Americans, that is, "unjust aggression against life and property." And such acknowledgment by necessity must apply to and include the Prophet who assaulted the lives, properties, and women of the infidels, who were living in secure and settled cities. As did his Companions after him. Such aggression, as understood by the West, is not justified; nor does such hostility agree with the Western notion of "freedom of religion." Thus our Prophet and his Companions and the righteous forefathers have all now become "terrorists."[14] [p. 58]
Taken together, the above three sections all demonstrate that for al-Qa'ida, hostility and violence towards the West is not merely "reciprocal treatment"--that is, "an eye for an eye"--but rather religious obligation that far transcends any and all notions of "universal justice" and claims to grievances. However, there are two more notable contradictions between what they say to the West and what they affirm to Muslims. Consider the following disparities:
TRUCE VS. TAQIYYA
On two separate occasions, al-Qa'ida, in the person of bin Ladin, has offered the West a truce. In April of 2002, bin Ladin offered European nations an apparently long-lasting truce: "I therefore offer them this peace treaty [mudabarat sulh], which essentially is a commitment to cease operations against every country that pledges not to attack Muslims or interfere in their business--including the American conspiracy against the greater Islamic world.... Stop shedding our blood and thereby save your own." [p. 235]
In late January 2006, bin Ladin, who had not been heard from for over a year, resurfaced by way of an audio-tape and offered the Americans a truce: "So we have no qualms in offering you a long-term truce on fair conditions that we adhere to. For we are the umma that Allah has forbidden from double-crossing and lying." [p. 224]
However, while Islam does permit the making of truces with infidels, it only allows this under certain conditions--namely, when Muslims are in a weakened position and unable to wage an Offensive Jihad effectively.[15] In "Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Killing of Innocents," Ayman Zawahiri declares:
Whenever they are able... believers are to enjoin good and forbid evil [i.e. enforce Shari'a law]--which, by nature, is [waging Offensive] Jihad in the path of Allah and spreading the call to [conversion to the religion of] the Most High: "Those whom we have given mastery over the earth uphold prayers, render alms, enjoin good and forbid evil; Allah controls the destiny of all things" [Koran 22:41].... Therefore if believers are weak, they are to wage jihad with their hearts and tongues; if they are able, they are to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil, fight the infidels, and spread the call of Tawhid. [pp. 150-51]
In this same treatise, Zawahiri stresses the need for deception in warfare. Based on Muhammad's assertion--"War [is] deceit"--Zawahiri goes on to say:
Deception in warfare requires that the mujahid bide his time and wait for an opportunity against his enemy, while avoiding confrontation at all possible costs. For triumph, in almost every case, is [achieved] through deception: triumph achieved through confrontation possesses many dangers.... And in the Hadith, practicing deceit in war is well demonstrated. Indeed, its need is more stressed than [the need for] courage. [p. 142]
More importantly, however, in Ayman al-Zawahiri's treatise "Loyalty and Enmity," Muslims are flat-out told that lying and dissembling in front of infidels is permitted. This is the doctrine of taqiyya (religiously sanctioned lies for purposes of self-preservation),[16] which has plenty of Koranic but especially Hadith support. The Koran states: "Let Believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than Believers: and who so does this shall have no relationship left with Allah--unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions." (Koran 3:28) Two of the more famous Hadiths evoked by al-Qa'ida say, "Truly, we grin to the faces of some peoples, while our hearts curse them"; and "Protection is not secured by deeds but with the tongue." (p. 73)
Finally, there are also several Hadiths of Muhammad that justify oath-breaking. For instance, "Allah's Messenger [Muhammad] said, 'He who takes an oath but eventually finds a better way should do that which is better and break his oath.'" (Sahih Muslim 15: 4057)
Considering that al-Qa'ida subscribes to the view that Islam must war with the non-Muslim world till the former subsumes the latter, and that they also subscribe to these doctrines of deceit, what is to be made of al-Qa'ida's truce-offers?
WHY THE WEST IS HOSTILE TO ISLAM
As aforementioned, in their messages to the West, al-Qa'ida maintains that the former is unjust towards Islam for a plethora of reasons--Israeli interests, oil, land, and Crusader hatred being prominent among them. A quick perusal of The Al Qaeda Reader's "Propaganda" section will clearly confirm this. Even in most of their messages to Muslims, al-Qa'ida is quick to stress these reasons in order to incite Muslims, gain their sympathy, and grow in recruits. However, in "Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West," bin Ladin changes his tune. He repeatedly states that the West is ultimately hostile to Islam because it knows that Islam is hostile to it--that "the West avenges itself against Islam for giving infidels but three options: Islam, jizya, or the sword." (p. 42)
The West is hostile to us on account of Loyalty and Enmity, and [Offensive] Jihad.... What the West desires is that we abandon [the doctrine of] Loyalty and Enmity, and abandon [Offensive] Jihad. This is the very essence of their request and desire of us. Do the intellectuals, then, think it's actually possible for Muslims to abandon these two commandments simply to coexist with the West? [p. 30] In fact, the West did not treat Islam in this atrocious manner until after it [first] understood the truth about Islam--comprehended its essence and soul. And the West is knowledgeable of all religions, but it would never confront any of them, nor persecute their people. But it is bent on pulverizing the Muslims, since first learning of their enterprise [Offensive Jihad and the "three choices"]. [p. 55]
RECIPROCITY OR RELIGION?
All of the above clearly demonstrates that, for al-Qa'ida, the war with the West is not finite but eternal. The current battles may ostensibly revolve around U.S. presence in Islamic lands, or support for Israel, or support for secular though dictatorial regimes, or even oil. Even so, the ultimate war does not end with a cessation of these real or perceived injustices, but rather with the West's--indeed, the rest of the non-Islamic world's--submission to Islam. As the words of Usama bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri--all grounded in the traditional sources of Islam--make clear, the war with the West revolves around something more transcendent than temporal grievances. It revolves around "eternal truths."
How, then, should al-Qa'ida's messages to the West--wholly crafted to vindicate al-Qa'ida, weaken Western resolve, and incite the umma--be taken? Should one conclude that all those grievances that al-Qa'ida cite are wholly unfounded? Not necessarily. In fact, it is precisely because the vast majority of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims, not to mention a considerable number of non-Muslims, believe these grievances to be true that al-Qa'ida enjoys the apparent widespread--sympathetic if not actual--support that they receive.[17]
All that said, Westerners should also be cognizant of what al-Qa'ida and like-minded Islamists ultimately want as the former consider the long list of alleged wrongs the Islamic world has suffered at the hands of the West. In other words, if al-Qa'ida's arguably "just" demands are met--if the United States evacuates Iraq and Afghanistan, if the West keeps its nose out of the Islamic world's affairs, even if Israel were to disappear--would all that be enough to satisfy al-Qa'ida and their supporters? Certainly, it would be a start. Yet based on their words and convictions that all injunctions of the Koran must be fulfilled, it is clear that, when the time is ripe, the jihad would merely shift from being Defensive to being Offensive--the latter being the true and historic manifestation of jihad.[18]
Nor should Westerners believe that al-Qa'ida is the root of the problem. The "problem" between the West--in fact, the world--and Islam is the "radical" version of the latter articulated by al-Qa'ida but also other Islamists--past, present, and no doubt future. This is even historically demonstrable: When Hasan al-Bana and Sayyid Qutb (respectively, founder and ideologue of Egypt's famous Muslim Brotherhood) were assassinated, that organization did not fall apart but continued thriving underground for decades until to international dismay it won a fair number of seats in Egypt's recent elections; the Iranian Islamic Revolution did not die with its spiritual leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, but is as strong now as it was then--with the exception that its nuclear aspirations are nearly realized; after the spiritual leader of Hamas, Ahmad Yassin was assassinated, far from losing influence, Hamas won the majority of house seats in Palestine's recent elections. Ayman al-Zawahiri summarizes this phenomenon well:
Jihad in the path of Allah is greater than any individual or organization. It is a struggle between Truth and Falsehood, until Allah Almighty inherits the earth and those who live in it. Mullah Muhammad Omar and Sheikh Osama bin Ladin--may Allah protect them from all evil--are merely two soldiers of Islam in the journey of jihad, while the struggle between Truth and Falsehood transcends time. [p. 182]
The bottom line is, perceived Western injustices--as propagated by bin Ladin's mantras--have nothing to do with the ultimate source of hostilities between Islam and the West (Infidelity). The doctrine of Offensive Jihad, spreading the laws of Allah to every corner of the world by the sword and enforcing the practice of dhimmitude (that is, discriminating and humiliating those who, having been conquered and living under Islamic suzerainty, still do not embrace Islam officially), was and remains a basic tenant of Islam--well before it ever encountered the West:
Fight those amongst the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden [i.e. enforce Shari'a law], and who do not embrace the religion of truth [Islam], until they pay the Jizya with willing submissiveness and feel themselves utterly subdued. [Koran 9:29]
The word "until" (hata) highlights the perpetual nature of this command. Enmity for non-Muslims, irrespective of whether or not they harm the Muslim is also a basic tenant of the faith, established before Islam and the West met:
"O you who have believed! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are but friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them [i.e., he apostasies from Islam]." [Koran 5:51]
You have a good example in Abraham and those who followed him, for they said to their people, "We disown you and the idols which you worship besides Allah. We renounce you: enmity and hate shall reign between us until you believe in Allah alone." [Koran 60:4]
It is important to keep in mind that these verses have nothing to do with reciprocity; instead they express the standard relationship between Muslims and infidels--even when the latter do not interfere in Muslims' affairs, militarily, economically, politically, or culturally, and completely mind their own business. Moreover, such hostility is perceived as altruistic, as bin Ladin concludes: "As for oppression, the only oppression is to forsake them in their unbelief, and not launch an [Offensive] Jihad against them till they submit to the faith--as the Prophet did with them." (p. 46)
At this point many will proclaim that al-Qa'ida is misusing, misinterpreting, or taking these otherwise straightforward verses out of context. That is hardly the point here: Even if this were true, that does not change the fact that many men before al-Qa'ida, going back to the first jihads of the seventh century, have also "misused" them, or that many today who have nothing to do with al-Qa'ida, "misinterpret them," or ultimately that many after al-Qa'ida will also be taking them "out of context." In other words, even if those verses really do not mean what they seem to be saying, they certainly led themselves to the sort of hostile interpretation that al-Qa'ida and other Islamists, past, present and future, give to them. This is all the more troubling since it took only 19 men who follow such "interpretations" to cause September 11.
Irrespective of real or imagined Western injustices, the real question of permanent peace revolves around the above Islamic doctrines. In this sense, then, real peace ultimately depends on Islam and how it defines itself: Either Islam will dominate the whole world fulfilling its destiny, or else Muslims themselves will reject the doctrines of jihad, dhimmitude, and general enmity for non-Muslims. The problem, however, is that even if all these divisive doctrines are formally repudiated--will that be merely a show of taqiyya, a stratagem of war?
Based purely on al-Qa'ida's, that is, radical Islam's, worldview, it is readily apparent that the West is given no choice but to fight--to gain the upper-hand and strive to keep it, even at the risk of being oppressive. What good are al-Qa'idist appeals to justice in face of its belief that every person has but three choices (convert to Islam, live the life of a dhimmi, or die)? What good is it telling the West that they have "choices" in face of an immutable Shari'a? What good is a truce in face of doctrines of deception?
This is unfortunate for Muslims, and in this sense al-Qa'ida's "version" of Islam brings them more harm then good. If Islam is perceived as being intrinsically hostile to the infidel world at large--as al-Qa'ida and many other Muslim insist--all of the possibly legitimate grievances that many Muslims believe they are suffering become moot, since the West is doing what it must to stay dominant against a potentially hostile force. Thus even if Muslims are being oppressed, as long as these grievances are being articulated through an Islamic paradigm that perceives justice solely through Shari'a and not through anything universal or innate to the human condition, the West--in the interest of self-preservation as well as the preservation of freedoms--has no choice but to reject all accusations, offers, and threats from Islamists, and fight.
Indeed, according to this worldview, upheld by al-Qa'ida, where the Abode of Peace (Islam) and the Abode of War (the rest) are forever in a struggle of life and death, the West can hardly be blamed for behaving oppressively, if in fact it does, towards the Islamic world. In this context, such oppression can be understood as a sort of "preemptive" reciprocal treatment, as the argument can be made that if the West does not keep Islam suppressed, Islam will suppress it. A survival of the fittest mentality--"get them before they get us"--is the only mentality that can withstand radical Islam, as so well represented by al-Qa'ida.
In fact, bin Ladin's many statements of reciprocity work both ways: "Shall a man be blamed for protecting his own?" "The road to safety begins by eliminating the aggression." "Reciprocal treatment is part of justice." "He who initiates aggression is the unjust one." "We believe that this right to defend oneself is the right of all human beings."[19] "We want to defend our people and our land. That is why I say that if we don't get security, the Americans, too would not get security.
This is a simple formula that even an American child can understand. This is the formula of live and let live."[20] Ironically, every single one of these statements actually justifies Western aggression against radical Islam.
Thus, the West is damned if it does, damned if it doesn't. If the West voluntarily concedes to the demands and grievances of al-Qa'ida, it will be perceived as a weakness or an admission of defeat, and will eventually only encourage an Offensive Jihad, when the time is right. If the West actually loses the current war, that too will provoke an offensive response, one seen as the natural next stage in the struggle toward the total victory of Islam. This is an important reminder to those many who, while condemning al-Qa'ida's methods, agree or sympathize with their grievances. The current battle at hand may ostensibly revolve around those grievances; but the forthcoming war will ultimately be about militarily establishing Islamic supremacy over the entire globe.
Some will discount this possibility as implausible since it seems so distant; but the wild vicissitudes of history are constantly proving otherwise.
Raymond Ibrahim is Associate Director of the Middle East Forum. He writes regularly about radical Islamism and is the author of The Al Qaeda Reader (Broadway, 2007), translations of religious texts and propaganda.
NOTES
[1] Though they are representative of the entire book, many of the more revealing remarks come from "Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West," where Saudi bin Ladin, writing to fellow Saudis and "pouring out his heart," unrestrainedly discusses many topics related to Islam that are otherwise taboo, especially here in the West.
[2] Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader (New York: Broadway, 2007). Excerpts from the book are followed by the page number in the text.
[3] Germans in Tunisia: On April 11, 2002, a 24-year-old Tunisian man, who is suspected of spending some time in Afghanistan between 2000 and 2001, carried out a suicide operation in the Tunisian island and popular tourist destination Djerba: Fourteen German tourists, one Frenchman, and six Tunisians were killed, and 30 were wounded. French in Karachi: On May 8, 2002, a suicide bomber detonated a car bomb alongside a crowded bus in Karachi, killing 11 Frenchmen and two Pakistanis. Fifty others were wounded. French tanker in Yemen: On October 6, 2002, the Limburg, a French oil tanker carrying 397,000 gallons of crude oil stationed in the Gulf of Amen off the Yemeni coast, was rammed by an explosive-laden boat. One Bulgarian crewman died, 12 were injured, and nearly 100,000 barrels of oil leaked out. Marines in Failaka: On October 8, 2002, while U.S. marines were conducting war games on the Kuwaiti island of Failaka, two Kuwaiti nationals walked up to the troops and opened fire, killing one American and wounding two. British and Australians in Bali: On October 12, 2002, three bombs were detonated in the town of Kuta on the Indonesian island of Bali, killing 202 people and injuring a further 209. It is considered the deadliest act of terrorism in Indonesian history. The majority of the dead were foreign tourists, including some 88 Australians, 26 British, and 38 Indonesians. Operation in Moscow: On October 23, 2002, 40 armed Chechen rebels seized a crowded Moscow theater, taking over 700 hostages and demanding the withdrawal of Russian forces from Chechnya. After a siege of two and a half days, Russian special forces stormed the building after firing in some sort of anesthetic gas. All of the Chechen rebels were killed, along with 130 of the hostages.
[4] The "blessed raid" on London occurred on July 7, 2005, during rush hour and consisted of a series of coordinated suicide bombings that struck the city's public transport system. The bombings killed 52 civilians and injured over 700.
[5] As far as the thirteenth century jurist Ibn Taymiyya--known as the Shaykh of Islam--is concerned, Defensive Jihad is second only after belief itself. Al-Qa'ida often quotes the following passage from Taymiyya's fatwas to demonstrate the obligation for Muslims to join the Defensive Jihad against the United States and its allies: "Defensive warfare is the most critical form of warfare, [since we are] warding off an invader from [our] sanctities and religion. It is a unanimously accepted duty. After belief, there is no greater duty than to repulse the invading enemy who corrupts faith and the world. There are no rules or conditions for this; he must be expelled by all possible means. Our learned ulama and others have all agreed to this. It is imperative to distinguish between repulsing the invading, oppressive infidel [Defensive Jihad] and pursuing him in his own lands [Offensive Jihad]."
[6] This is the standard view adopted by, for instance, the Four Schools (madhahbs) of Sunni jurisprudence, and is attested by many standard works of Islamic law. For example, the Encyclopedia of Islam's entry on jihad simply states, "The duty of the djihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained."
[7] http://www.americanvalues.org/html/what_we_re_fighting_for.html.
[8] http://www.americanvalues.org/html/saudi_statement.html.
[9] Non-Muslims, Jews and Christians, who are "protected" in exchange for sociopolitical submission and the payment of special taxes.
[10] http://www.anusha.com/osamaint.htm
[11] In several public addresses, the American president has often referred to al-Qa'ida and its affiliates as "enemies of freedom" and "people who hate freedom." In his address to a joint session of Congress and the American people delivered nine days after the September 11 attacks, the president remarked, "Americans are asking, why do they [perpetrators of September 11] hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber--a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms--our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."
[12] Bin Ladin's position towards this verse is simply that, either it has been abrogated by the "sword verse" (Koran 9:5)--which, in fact, most ulama agree has abrogated some 120 Meccan (peaceful) verses--or else that it has nothing to do with Islam's command to rule the world, but rather deals with freedom of conscience.
[13] The "pact of Umar" is the treaty that was made between the People of the Book and the second Caliph, Umar. In order to continue practicing their faiths, Christians and Jews had to agree to several social conditions enumerated in the pact that, among other things, were meant to induce humiliation and debasement in accordance with the verse cited (Koran 9:29). For instance, they were to rise from their seats if a Muslim wanted it; they were forbidden from riding on saddles or bearing any arms; they were forbidden from publicly showing their crosses or worshipping too loudly, lest Muslim eyes or ears be offended; they were forbidden from building new churches, or even repairing old ones. Some apologists maintain that these conditions were not strictly enforced at all times. However, what is important here is that "dhimmitude," like bin Ladin asserts, is in fact a basic tenant of Islam and thus should be enforced under Shari'a law.
[14] In fact, Shaykh Abdallah Azzam (1941-1989), the highly influential Islamic scholar, mujahid, and bin Ladin's onetime mentor and hero, often boastfully referred to Muhammad as, not only a terrorist, but the first terrorist: "We are terrorists. Every Muslim must be a terrorist. Terrorism is an obligation as demonstrated in the Koran and Sunna. Allah Most High said: 'Muster against them [infidels] all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the heart of your enemy and Allah's enemy' [Koran 8:60]. Thus terrorism is a [religious] obligation. And the Messenger of Allah is the first terrorist and the first menace" (al-Hijra wa al-I'dad). Some have accused bin Ladin of falling out and assassinating Azzam in order to assume control of the then nascent base ("al-Qa'ida").
[15] Most jurists are agreed that, theoretically, ten years is the maximum amount of time for peace between Islam and infidels, based on Muhammad's treaty of Hudaybiyya. According to the Encyclopedia of Islam, "Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict."
[16] For more on the topic of taqiyya, see Raymond Ibrahim, "Islam's Doctrines of Deception," Jane's Islamic Affairs Analyst, September 26, 2008.
[17] That a bounty combined to amount nearly 100 million dollars placed on bin Ladin and Zawahiri's heads has not been collected in one of the most impoverished regions in the world is telling enough.
[18] All the original Islamic texts, from Hadiths to books on Islamic law, that discuss the term "jihad," explain it as war to simply spread Islamic authority. It was only after the Crusades and Mongol invasions that the ulama began delineating the concept of "defensive" jihad which, according to premiere jurists such as Ibn Taymiyya, is second only to faith, and obligatory on the entire Muslim umma, as opposed to offensive jihad, which is deemed a "communal duty," or fard kifiya.
[19] http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_aljazeera.htm.
[20] http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/top1.htm.Related Topics: Radical Islam, Terrorism | Raymond Ibrahim receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free mef mailing list This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.
Sean Hannity predicted on his radio show that the State of the Union Address would be narcissistic. The following table compares the pronoun concentration in Obama's first state of the union with Slick's & Shrub's.
| President | I | you | we | our | personal/collective |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G.W. Bush | 41 | 24 | 96 | 72 | .214 |
| W.J.Clinton | 94 | 43 | 145 | 100 | .326 |
| B.H. Obama | 71 | 19 | 141 | 110 | .263 |
It appears that President Clinton is considerably more narcissistic
than our current misleader while Shrub appears to be much less self
centered.
Next, as usual, I will tear into selected excerpts from the
address.
One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted - immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.
As anyone could predict, President Obama began by blaming Shrub for the state of the economy. How bad was it? We faced "a second depression". There were 14 panics and depressions prior to the Great Depression. Does the President have a clue? Now the "worst of the storm has passed" has the President no clue about the continuing decline in employment and the threatened bursting of the commercial real estate bubble?
This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have been dealing with for decades - the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.
How sweet it must be to be blissfully ignorant of the basics we learned in Econ. 101. It is difficult to accrue a surplus to save or invest because of inflation resulting from federal fiscal policy and the economic coercion of labor unions. Without true growth, its a zero sum game. With inflation, it becomes a rat race. Because of Obama's idiocy, we are destined to suffer stagflation that will make Carter's malaise a Christmas party by comparison.
So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. These struggles are what I've witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana; Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children - asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.
Artificial prosperity for a few, gained by economic coercion in the form of strikes against industry, created inflation which reduced everyone else's standard of living, eventually returning to the stricken industries in the form of foreign competition resulting in market loss, bankruptcy and permanent unemployment. They think that their prosperity will last forever, without retrenchment. They never learn from past experience. "Its a new economy." Of course, Obama is building the "new economy". Yeah, right.
For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now.
Bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded because the bad
actors have friends in high places who bail them out with our future
income in the form of taxes and inflation. Washington is a cause of
problems. President Reagan was right: big
government is the problem, not the solution. They've been tired of the
partisanship, shouting & pettiness for a long time;
does anyone remember Shrub's "new tone in Washington slogan".
Unfortunately, the Democrats were playing the same old bells, while he
stood alone ringing a single, small, new bell which was
drowned out by the old bell.
It seems so long ago that candidate Obama was pitching a new era of openness, transparency and bipartisanship. Somehow that era slipped away even before the echoes of cheering died away after his inauguration. Wasn't it his party that completely shut the minority party out of the legislative process and circumvented the Senate rules? What happened to the promise of CSPAN coverage of the health care destruction deliberations? Obama is at once complainant and culprit, but almost no one notices, blinded by his effulgent halo.
"Numbing weight of politics"? No, Mr. President, its the numbing weight of your Socialist agenda. Your party cut everyone's disposable income by blocking extension of Shrub's tax cuts. Your party turned a deaf ear to the voter's shouts of "NO!" and pressed on regardless toward a takeover of the health care system that will push up the cost of health care while reducing both quality and supply. Your press on regardless attitude cost your party two governorships and a senate seat.So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope - what they deserve - is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories, different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared: a job that pays the bills; a chance to get ahead; most of all, the ability to give their children a better life.
Jobs are not created by poor people, they are created by investors who perceive a chance to increase their wealth through enterprise. Those investors need predictability. They need stability. They want to know that their efforts will be rewarded with success, not hampered by new regulations and punished by new taxes. Your attempt to destroy the health care system and push up costs is preventing investment and job growth. Your threat to destroy the coal and oil industries is creating a barrier in the form of threatened inflation. Your cap and tax plan is making matters worse. Your massive increase in the federal deficit and debt has thrown a monkey wrench into the gears of finance.
You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids, starting businesses and going back to school. They're coaching Little League and helping their neighbors. One woman wrote to me and said, "We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged."
Those whose jobs have been terminated are struggling to juggle their bills, which an unemployement compensation check won't cover, and once their unemployment compensation runs out, they will be up the creek. This depression will outlast unemployment compensation, and any extension will be too little, too late. The suffering can only increase.
It's because of this spirit - this great decency and great strength - that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. (Applause.) Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength. (Applause.)
And tonight, tonight I'd like to talk about how together we can deliver on that promise.
A government that matches our decency and embodies our strength is long overdue. Unfortunately, our dumbed down electorate and agenda driven mass media combined to elect an idiot savant who persists on a course to certain destruction. Destroying industries and the jobs they support is not decency. Osculating the anuses of our enemies is not strength. Granting undeserved rights, privileges and immunities of citizens to unlawful enemy combatants is neither decency nor strength. Sending men and women into battle with both hands tied behind their backs in a war you do not intend to win is both weak and indecent.
The banking crisis is primarily a function of the real estate bubble. The real estate bubble is primarily a function of a vicious cycle of hyper inflation, speculation and false optimism. That cycle was fed by policies put in place by the Clinton administration, spurred on by ACORN and their allies. Banks and consumers participated in what they thought was a perpetual game of musical chairs. Then the music stopped. There is a similar bubble in commercial real estate which is stretching, ready to rupture because too many businesses are caught in a cash flow trap, unable to maintain their debt.It begins with our economy.
Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it -- (applause.) I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal. (Laughter.)
But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular - I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.
So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable. And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we've recovered most of the money we spent on the banks. (Applause.) Most but not all.
Where did the thirteen billion go?
To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks. (Applause.) Now, I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea. But if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need. (Applause.)
Paying back is not a function of taxes or fees, those are attacks, not repayments. Repayment is a function of return of principal plus interest on money that was loaned. By raiding the banks, you are delaying and impairing the recovery. Uncertainty and punishing policies reduce the flow of investment capital. Your policy is counter productive.
Now, as we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed.
You did not stabilize the financial system, you propped up a corpse which continues to rot. You destroyed jobs, you did not save them. The only way to help the unemployed is to replace their lost income.
Everyone's expense is someone else's income. Everyone's income is someone else's expense. When any segment of society cuts expenses, others lose income. With increasing losses, businesses and consumers cut back on consumption, further increasing losses, beginning a vicious cycle which can spiral into depression.
Inflation caused by government policies hurts everyone by reducing disposable income and creating artificial imbalance in markets. Increased taxation has the same effect.
That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.
Consumers who bought expensive real estate in a time of rapid inflation, fearing that prices would rise out of reach and hoping that prices would continue to escalate so that they could sell at a profit over extended their credit. Now that prices have sunk and their incomes have ceased, they can't meet the mortgage. Increased and extended unemployment compensation won't meet all their needs and it will come to an end. You kicked the can down the road, solving nothing.
Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. (Applause.) We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time home buyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. (Applause.)
I thought I'd get some applause on that one. (Laughter and applause.)
You raised taxes; by allowing Shrub's tax cuts to expire. At the same time, you increased inflation and government spending, boosting the deficit and debt, further weakening the economy. The best metaphor for what you have done is the firefighter who sets fires so that he can display his heroism in extinguishing them. Eventually he is trapped and burns in a collapsing building.
As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas and food and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime. (Applause.)
As a result of your idiotic policies, millions of Americans had to pay more for each gallon of gasoline, more for their groceries and every item transported by trucks, all of which resulted in decreased capital for growth and expansion. When paying more for motor fuel and home energy, consumers cut back on other items, throwing more production and sales staffers out of work. By preventing domestic oil exploration & production, you raised the cost of fuel. You increased the cost of transportation. You raised the cost of flour, beans, peanut butter and fruit. You raised the cost of home heating and electricity.
Inflation is a tax. You increased it. You let Shrub's tax cuts expire, effectively raising taxes.
Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. (Applause.) Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy; 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders. (Applause.) And we're on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.
In Michigan, more teachers and state police are being laid off. People who can't meet the mortgage are not paying their property taxes, putting local government and schools in jeopardy. Two million jobs: a drop in the ocean; insignificant to the big picture, no comfort to those who have lost their jobs permanently and whose unemployment benefits are exhausted.
The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. (Applause.) That's right - the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill. (Applause.) Economists on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster. But you don't have to take their word for it. Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act. Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created. Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn't be laid off after all.
The Recovery Act primarily benefited a few powerful unions, it exacerbated the problem instead of providing real relief. You wasted money, reducing the availability of capital for real recovery and expansion. You increased the federal debt, greatly increasing future liability for interest payments.
There are stories like this all across America. And after two years of recession, the economy is growing again. Retirement funds have started to gain back some of their value. Businesses are beginning to invest again, and slowly some are starting to hire again.
But I realize that for every success story, there are other stories, of men and women who wake up with the anguish of not knowing where their next paycheck will come from; who send out resumes week after week and hear nothing in response. That is why jobs must be our number-one focus in 2010, and that's why I'm calling for a new jobs bill tonight. (Applause.)
Legislation does not create jobs, it destroys them. Creating jobs requires capital & confidence, inflation and legislation which imposes increased taxes and costs reduces both. Both consumers and producers need stability, predictability & confidence, which you destroy by dithering like a decapitated chicken, flopping from one failed remedy to another.
Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses. (Applause.) But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.
But you are doing what government can do best: destroying risk capital and confidence. More laws, rules, regulations and taxes: fewer productive jobs, less confidence, less investment. You can not increase the number of jobs by increasing the cost of wages and benefits packages. Your proposal to destroy the health care system increases cost and insecurity, militating against job creation and increasing job destruction.
We should start where most new jobs do - in small businesses, companies that begin when -- (applause) -- companies that begin when an entrepreneur -- when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides it's time she became her own boss. Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession and they're ready to grow. But when you talk to small business owners in places like Allentown, Pennsylvania, or Elyria, Ohio, you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they're mostly lending to bigger companies. Financing remains difficult for small business owners across the country, even those that are making a profit.
Most startups end in failure within a few years. Investment bankers know this fact. When they are having trouble meeting current obligations, they are understandably risk averse.
So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. (Applause.) I'm also proposing a new small business tax credit
- one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. (Applause.) While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment, and provide a tax incentive for all large businesses and all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment. (Applause.)
Tax credits will not cover the cost of hiring. No small business will stay in business long if it hires staff beyond current production requirements. Temporary tax reductions will not be effective. Managers must be able to plan for the medium and long term, not just the next year.
Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. (Applause.) From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.
Common sense dictates a crucial reform which you will never contemplate enacting: repeal of the Prevailing Wage Act. Unless effective competitive bidding is allowed, you will increase the deficit and debt, fostering an inflation spiral without creating any real jobs. There is a limited supply of construction equipment, engineers and qualified operators. New projects will increase costs, a form of inflation.
Passenger rail is not viable. The service is too limited and too expensive. It loses money. The capital cost of improving rail beds is excessive. The capital cost of acquiring new rail beds is prohibitive. The technology for high speed rail is not in place and the cost of improving crossings is prohibitive.
"Clean energy products" is a vicious lie. No such entity exists nor
will it ever exist. There is no magic wand; Harry Potter is
fictional, not real. The volumes required to replace coal and
petroleum simply do not and will not exist. You are selling
fiction & fantasy.
Tomorrow, I'll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. (Applause.) There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help move our nation's goods, services, and information. (Applause.)
We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities -- (applause) -- and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. (Applause.) And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America. (Applause.)
The high capital cost of "energy-efficient" appliances is prohibitive to low income individuals. Attempts to compel their purchase through artificial inflation of utility rates combined with restrictions on sale of existing homes will eventually result in revolt.
Your party has long campaigned for "international economic development". You thought that, if Africa & Asia became prosperous, they would be immune to Communism. Now you assert that affluence will make them immune to "radical Islam". Both proposals are lies. China is using its new found prosperity to fund a larger army with new and improved weaponry. Various Arab oil satrapies are developing nuclear energy, which ultimately translates into the bomb.Develop means production & trade. That means competition for retail markets. You can't have it both ways Domestic consumption does not line the satrap's pockets with gold.
Consumers want cheap goods. They can not afford the artificially high prices they must pay for goods produced by domestic industries enslaved to the labor unions with ever increasing demands for increased compensation.Now, the House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps. (Applause.) As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same, and I know they will. (Applause.) They will. (Applause.) People are out of work. They're hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay. (Applause.)
But the truth is, these steps won't make up for the seven million jobs that we've lost over the last two years. The only way to move to full employment is to lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth, and finally address the problems that America's families have confronted for years.
You must first eliminate the artificial barriers erected by government. Restore the right to work, eliminating labor union coercion. Lower and eliminate burdensome taxes and regulations. Allow domestic energy exploration, production & refining. Allow exploration & production on federal lands, including the continental shelf and ANWAR. When you bring down the artificially inflated cost of energy, you will enable renewed prosperity and make our exports more competitive.
Cut the federal income tax, make the cut permanent. Eliminate the estate tax, permanently. Eliminate taxation on stock and bond investment income.
We can't afford another so-called economic "expansion" like the one from the last decade - what some call the "lost decade" - where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation.
Slick Willy set the stage for our current misery by declaring a "new economy" that was always going to progress and never regress. We were told that recessions and depressions could not happen any more. Only ignorant fools believed those promises. Slick Willy wanted to increase home ownership and eliminate "red lining". The rules were changed, and we are reaping the harvest of what he sowed.
From the day I took office, I've been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious; such an effort would be too contentious. I've been told that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for a while.
For those who make these claims, I have one simple question: How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold? (Applause.)
We need to flush your entire Socialist agenda down the crapper, permanently eliminating it. This includes your plan to destroy the health care system and your plan to destroy the energy industry and impose rationing and super inflation upon consumers. The whole load of crap must be flushed!
You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China is not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany is not waiting. India is not waiting. These nations -- they're not standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place. They're putting more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding their infrastructure. They're making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs. Well, I do not accept second place for the United States of America. (Applause.)
Europe is going to Hell because they installed Socialism, effectively making investment and productivity growth impossible. Fearing an overpopulated world with declining food production and seeking hedonistic pleasures of the moment, they reduced their reproduction rate, failing to replace a dieing generation. As more and more of their aging population went out of the factories and on the dole, they imported Muslims from Asia, Africa & Arabia and now the imported Muslims are taking over.
America is riding the same rail to destruction. Our Social Security and Medicare entitlements are unpaid liabilities, far beyond the capacity of the reduced work force to make up without impoverishing it with taxation. Every Congress promises to fix the problem, then kicks the can down the road. We baby boomers are the lit fuse which will bring the system down on our heads. Everyone will suffer as a result.
As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may become, it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.
Shrub tried to fix the problems; your party frustrated his efforts. Your policies are the problem. Your labor union buddies, trial lawyer & high finance associates who fill your campaign treasuries in expectation of legislation to enrich them and perpetuate their power and yours contribute greatly to the problems.
Now, one place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks. I'm interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy.
The stage for economic destruction was set in years following WW2 through the Clinton era, when the UAW, Steel Workers & AFL-CIO distorted the economy with annual demands for more for less. First the steel industry was destroyed, then the auto industry. The golden goose has been strangled, now there are no more eggs.
LBJ, with his grandiose schemes, expanded the federal government, and began the spiral of waste and inflation which have now come home to roost. Nixon & carter made matters worse with wage & price controls. Reagan had the right idea, but there were too many LibTards in the congress to really fix the system. Bush increased taxes, Slick Willy went hog wild, and Shrub failed to learn from history. Now we have Obama with his wrecking ball. I fear that the electorate will never learn.We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions. (Applause.) We can't allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy.
Our youth must abandon the time honored practice of sleeping through history and economics classes. If consumers were educated and rational, they would not have fallen for the siren song of home equity loans and house flipping. They should have revolted against the policies which produced artificial inflation of the housing market.
Now, the House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. (Applause.) And the lobbyists are trying to kill it. But we cannot let them win this fight. (Applause.) And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back until we get it right. We've got to get it right. (Applause.)
Nobody with their head on straight believes a word of that.
Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history - (applause) -- an investment that could lead to the world's cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched. And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see the results of last year's investments in clean energy - in the North Carolina company that will create 1,200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put a thousand people to work making solar panels.
Industrial scale solutions are impossible. There is no magic wand. The minerals required for some of those technologies are rare, and their sources are located in places where our interests are not high on the scale of local concern. Increasing the cost of fuel and electricity to make wind and solar systems competitive will be extremely destructive to the economy and our standard of living.
But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. (Applause.) It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. (Applause.) And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. (Applause.)
You already decided to prohibit exploration & production in ANWAR, the most promising fields in the west and the continental shelf. Slick Willy could have and should have increased domestic production, instead he vetoed it. You do one thing and say another; the damned fools lap it up like cream. What will happen to your party's prospects when they wise up?
Your cap & tax plan is exactly the wrong thing to do. It is 180° out of phase with reality and common sense. You will double and triple energy costs, destroying jobs and ruining the economy. Increased energy costs will be passed through in every product and service we consume. Our standard of living is going to be ruined if we allow you to continue promoting your damn fool policies.
Anthropogenic climate change is a massive fraud, recognized
by a
growing number of people. Eventually it is going to cost your party its
grip on power.
I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. (Applause.) And this year I'm eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. (Applause.)
I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future - because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation. (Applause.)
You are the one who disagrees with the overwhelming scientific evidence. The propaganda your side spews is based on fraud and deception. Your consensus is political, not scientific. You are contributing to a reduced trust of science and vast increase in public skepticism.
Third, we need to export more of our goods. (Applause.) Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. (Applause.) So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. (Applause.) To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security. (Applause.)
You can not increase exports by artificially inflating the cost of production. When you decrease the availability of medical goods and services and increase their cost, you make our exports more expensive and discourage exports. When you artificially increase the cost of labor through the union movement and strikes, you decrease exports. When you artificially inflate energy costs with cap & tax, you decrease exports. When you artificially inflate energy costs by reducing domestic exploration, production & refining, you decrease exports. Your policies are 180° out of phase with your spew of lies. Cognitive dissonance abounds in your party, sooner or later the voters will wise up to it.
We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. (Applause.) But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. (Applause.) And that's why we'll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia. (Applause.)
In the long term, trade must be balanced. While China and Arabia do all the exporting without importing to balance it, a balance of payments problem is created. Money and gold accumulate in their treasuries, depleting ours, artificially shifting economic power to them .
While all sides are determined to increase their exports and decrease their imports, conflict is inevitable. Domestic political pressures will lead to artificial market protection. Exporters will seek subsidies. Those who produce more than the market can absorb will engage in dumping. Protective tariffs will be reciprocated, leading to another world wide great depression.
There is no magic wand. There is no quick road to riches on a national scale. We need to begin discounting and rejecting the promises made by our lying politicians.
Fourth, we need to invest in the skills and education of our people. (Applause.)
Inflation has pushed the cost of a university degree beyond the reach of many people. Students are burdened with a great debt load which they can not maintain if there are no jobs for them after graduation. When you raise the cost of utilities, taxes and construction, you push room and board out of reach. When you increase fees and tuition, you push eduction out of reach. When students spend their time partying instead of studying, you waste the precious resources invested in education.
Now, this year, we've broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. And the idea here is simple: Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform -- reform that raises student achievement; inspires students to excel in math and science; and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to the inner city. In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education. (Applause.) And in this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than on their potential.
There is no magic wand. Throwing dollars at schools can't solve the problems of our system of education. Increasing teacher salaries will not solve the problems. First and foremost. you must stop inflation. The high cost of constructing, maintaining and operating schools must be reduced because the tax payers can not bear any more. Cap & tax will make the problem worse, not better.
The prevailing wage law must go! The high cost of employee benefits is another problem. Destroying the health care system will make matters much worse. Unfunded pension liabilities are a double edged sword. This problem is already insoluble.In urban areas, broken homes, drug & alcohol addiction and single mothers are contributing to the problem. Children need intact, loving families. They must arrive at the school able, ready and willing to learn. Education requires active participation, it is not a passive process. Teachers must be well prepared, dedicated and enthusiastic. If they are burned out and frustrated by discipline problems and moronic administrations, they are unlikely to succeed.
When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all 50 states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. That's why I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families. (Applause.)
Our community colleges are burdened by inflated utility expenses and other overhead. They can't keep paying more for less forever more any more than consumers can. By artificially inflating energy and labor benefit expenses, you will be part of their problems, making them worse, not solving them.
To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. (Applause.) Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. (Applause.) And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years - and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. (Applause.)
And by the way, it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs - (applause) -- because they, too, have a responsibility to help solve this problem.
Post secondary education is not affordable. You can not make it more of what it ain't. You must first stop and roll back inflation. Your Socialist agenda will increase inflation, not reduce it.
How do you propose to finance that student debt and forgive large portions of it? How do you propose to fund those Pell grants? You have too many priorities and too few resources. Harry Potter's magic wand is fictional, not real.
Now, the price of college tuition is just one of the burdens facing the middle class. That's why last year I asked Vice President Biden to chair a task force on middle-class families. That's why we're nearly doubling the child care tax credit, and making it easier to save for retirement by giving access to every worker a retirement account and expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg. That's why we're working to lift the value of a family's single largest investment - their home. The steps we took last year to shore up the housing market have allowed millions of Americans to take out new loans and save an average of $1,500 on mortgage payments.
It is not possible to save unless current income exceeds current expenses. When you generate spiraling inflation, you push the dream of saving and investing further out of reach.
Lifting the value of homes? No, you mean price, not value. Prices need to be set by the market, not artificially by laws and regulations such as those that produced the real estate bubble. When you increase the price of existing homes, you push the dream of home ownership further out of reach.
This year, we will step up refinancing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages. (Applause.) And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform. (Applause.) Yes, we do. (Applause.)
Affordability has several components: income, principal, value, rate, fees and time. A mortgage is not affordable if the payments exceed the difference between income and other necessary living expenses. An affordable mortgage can easily lose its status due to increased interest rates, property taxes or inflated consumer costs as well as lost income. A balloon mortgage is not likely to remain affordable.
Inflated medical care and insurance costs are an important factor. Your scam will increase costs and reduce quality and availability. The voters of Massachusetts recently sent a vital message about that, but you are not receptive to their message.
Now, let's clear a few things up. (Laughter.) I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics. (Laughter.) I took on health care because of the stories I've heard from Americans with preexisting conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who've been denied coverage; families - even those with insurance - who are just one illness away from financial ruin.
Once again, inflation resulting from bad fiscal policies and labor union extortion have greatly increased prices. The high cost of new technology and litigation also contributed. But second party payers, the government programs as well as insurance plans have been major contributors to rising medical care prices.
You can't increase supply or decrease costs by forcing hospitals to close or doctors to quit the profession. You can't solve the nursing shortage by cutting their wages. Increasing their wages will reduce the shortage at the expense of increased cost.
Screwing doctors and hospitals will result in reduced supply. Increasing coverage will result in increased demand, which will mean increased costs, waiting times and rationing. It is necessary to eliminate fraud & litigation expenses. Tort reform is not going to happen because trial lawyers contribute to Democrat's campaign coffers.
The bottom line: promises of reform, decreased cost & increased coverage are fraudulent. There is no possibility of delivering on those promises.
After nearly a century of trying -- Democratic administrations, Republican administrations -- we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care.
That statement is malignant malarkey. It is 180° out of phase with objective factual reality.
Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office - the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress - our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. (Applause.)
The content of the initial legislation passed by the House and posted on the web, disproves those egregious lies.
Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"
Extended debate brings new facts to light, which is what Obama,. Reid & Pelosi seek to avoid. Like sausage makers, they seek to perform their ministrations in dark back rooms, out of our sight. It is not possible to increase coverage and reduce costs at the same time. A growing number of voters are wising up to this reality. In a special election January 20, '10, some of those voters sent a message, which Washington is ignoring.
But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I'm finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber. (Applause.)
People are losing coverage because they are losing their jobs. Many lose coverage because employers can no longer afford it. Nothing Obama can do will solve those problems. He can only make matters worse. He will continue to push his scam through congress until it is enacted, causing reduced supply, increased demand, increased costs & deficits and rationing of care. His scam will cause the loss of more jobs and destroy the economy. We must rise up as one screaming HELL NO!!!
So, as temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. (Applause.) Let me know. Let me know. (Applause.) I'm eager to see it.
"As temperatures cool"? You expect to wear us down, to keep coming back with this damn scam until we finally accept it. We are outraged by your arrogance as well as your attempt to strip us of our liberty, prosperity, health and lives. Your persistence is going to pay off by making you the first one term President since G.H.W. Bush.
There is a reason why many doctors are quitting the AMA: it endorsed your damn scam. There is a reason why some doctors are beginning to plan for an early retirement: you are going to push them out of the profession.To bring down premiums, you must first bring down costs and increase competition. Do away with the state laws which narrow the market, let insurance providers compete across state lines. Do away with laws and regulations that force policies to cover abortion and cosmetic procedures.
Give people a real choice. Allow them to create and fund Health Savings Accounts with before tax dollars, at least equal to the current cost of insurance premiums. Allow them to deduct the entire cost of catastrophic care coverage as well as their HSAs..
Here's what I ask Congress, though: Don't walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. (Applause.) Let's get it done. Let's get it done. (Applause.)
What you propose is destruction, not reform. We are disrespectfully demanding that Congress drop the proposal and quit trying to scam us. We are preparing to turn them out of office next November. One state has shown the way with a special election, and we are going to follow their lead.
Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it's not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves. It's a challenge that makes all others that much harder to solve, and one that's been subject to a lot of political posturing. So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight.
It is not possible to reduce the deficit by spending more. Your health care destruction plan will increase, not reduce spending and inflation. It will increase, not decrease the deficit and debt.
At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. (Laughter and applause.)
Our only recourse is to remove the drunken sailors from Congress. We need to clean house completely, replacing all of the incumbents with genuine fiscal conservatives.
Common sense dictates not having prolonged wars, instead, we should have nuked Afghanistan & Pakistan and told the world "You can have one, too, if you don't approve.". Shrub lacked common sense.
You don't pay for tax cuts, you reduce spending. Instead, Congress increased wasteful spending. You bitch about an expensive prescription drug program, while proposing a much more expensive and destructive program. Your hypocrisy is as unbounded as your arrogance!
Now -- just stating the facts. Now, if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis. And our efforts to prevent a second depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt. That, too, is a fact.
I'm absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. (Applause.) So tonight, I'm proposing specific steps to pay for the trillion dollars that it took to rescue the economy last year.
When tight times come and people cut back on their expenditures, others lose business and lay off employees. It is a vicious cycle, to which your idiotic fiscal policies contribute greatly. You can't pay for a damn thing, the government is bankrupt. When interest rates rise again, you won't be able to make the payment Increasing taxes will cause further economic contraction, resulting in a double dip recession and a prolonged depression.
Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will. (Applause.)
Better yet, start immediately with a no new programs pledge. Forswear your entire Socialist agenda, including health care destruction and Cap & Tax. You must make choices, you chose the bailout and the stimulus, so the rest of your agenda must be dropped.
At the same time, roll back the recent increases in Congressional salaries and benefit packages. Of course, that should include Pelosi's luxury aircraft. Apply the savings to extending unemployment compensation for the long term unemployed. The same should apply to your own expensive travel schedule. Is this trip necessary?We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it. (Applause.)
The class warfare is unbecoming to a democrat. The appeal is to the baser instincts such as envy, greed & schadenfreud.
Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That's why I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. (Applause.) This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline.
You are not going to pay for the trillions you threw away. Your children won't be able to pay for it, nor will your grandchildren. The time for fixing the entitlement programs was decades ago. Your party's denial and dithering have pushed the problem beyond any possibility of correction. You kicked the can down the road several times too many.
Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. (Applause.) And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s. (Applause.)
Pay as you go never happened and never will.
Politicians can not resist the impulse to buy votes.
Now, I know that some in my own party will argue that we can't address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. And I agree -- which is why this freeze won't take effect until next year -- (laughter) -- when the economy is stronger. That's how budgeting works. (Laughter and applause.) But understand - understand if we don't take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery - all of which would have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.
What if the economy is weaker next year? What if unemployment increases and the GDP takes a steep decline, what then? There are no meaningful steps to rein in our debt. We owe it, we are obligated to pay it, and when interest rates rise again, we won't be able to make the payments.
From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument - that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is that's what we did for eight years. (Applause.) That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again.
We got into this crisis because of politicians kicking the can down the road. You reached the end of the road, now you need to deal with the can and no solutions exist. So you blame Shrub, and he is due for his share, but most of it is from Johnson, Carter & Clinton, not from Shrub. Your appeal to class envy is transparent, and irritating. We look forward with great anticipation to the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 2012.
Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new. Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense. (Laughter.) A novel concept.
Decreased respect and increased contempt for politicians is largely traceable to their abuse of the language. Not all spending is investment. If you want to invest in people, go to Arabia or Pakistan and buy some on the slave market.
To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust - deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the out sized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve. (Applause.)
Neither you nor the Congress has earned our trust. You lied, misrepresenting yourself and your policies in order to get elected. Nothing could be more corrosive to trust. Your record of broken promises is too extensive to allow any trust.
Lobbyists are not the problem. Politicians who have no reverence for their oath of office are the problem. Forsworn,corrupt politicians who lie to get elected and sell their power to finance their next campaign; those are the problem.
That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why - for the first time in history - my administration posts on our White House visitors online. That's why we've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs, or seats on federal boards and commissions.
How many lobbyists are in your administration, and what positions do they hold? How many of them are advising you and your top appointees?
But we can't stop there. It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or with Congress. It's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.
Its time to require Congressmen to disclose each contact with lobbyists and what they offer and give to the Congressmen. Each Congressional web site should have a lobbyist contact page with full disclosure we can compare to the lobbyist's disclosures.
With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.
Elections are not decided by political speech, they are decided by voters, jointly and severally casting their ballots in the privacy of the polling booth. Voters obtain information from multiple sources, including advertising. Political speech, including advertising, is critical to the process. When the government seeks to stifle political speech or to censor its content, the First Amendment is stretched to the breaking point.
Political speakers should be required to identify themselves and their interests, but should not be silenced. The voters must be given an opportunity to listen to and compare the multifarious messages sent in a campaign and make their decisions based on the best information they can find.
I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. Applause.) Democrats and Republicans. (Applause.) Democrats and Republicans. You've trimmed some of this spending, you've embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. (Applause.) Tonight, I'm calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single Web site before there's a vote, so that the American people can see how their money is being spent. (Applause.)
Disclosure of earmarks is important, but entirely eliminating them would be far better. Even more important, grafting non germane issues into unrelated bills should be stopped, particularly the sneaky tactic of inserting poison pills into defense appropriations bills.
The legislative process should be made truly transparent. Proposed legislation should be published on the web well in advance of the final vote. External references to existing legislation should be fully documented with direct links. Bills which amend existing legislation should display both the existing and proposed language for side by side comparison.
Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don't also reform how we work with one another. Now, I'm not naïve. I never thought that the mere fact of my election would usher in peace and harmony -- (laughter) -- and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, they've been taking place for over 200 years. They're the very essence of our democracy.
The present controversy results from your Hellbent determination to impose injurious policies on the nation, press on regardless. Like Shrub's determination to enact amnesty for illegal aliens, your health care destruction plan can not be accepted. Some issues of principle must not be subjected to compromise. The first rule should be do no harm. The second should be adherence to the Constitution. Actions destructive of our prosperity, security and liberty simply should not be supported. I, for one will not vote for anyone who compromises on the vital issues. That is why I wrote in Alan Keyes; I could not lower my standards to vote for John McCain after the gang of 14 incident.
When absolute evil is proposed, less evil is not an acceptable compromise. Conservatives should never accept false premises. The Socialist agenda should be resisted with extreme persistence, never accepted.But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We can't wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side - a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of -- (applause) -- I'm speaking to both parties now. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants shouldn't be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators. (Applause.)
Bills should be supported, opposed or amended based on their merits, not their political consequences. Your legislative proposals lack merit. If enacted into law they will be extremely harmful to our liberty and prosperity and nearly impossible to repeal.
The confirmation issue sticks out like a sore toe. Some of us are old enough to remember the origin of "Borking" and "high tech lynching". There are no appointments more important than appointments to the appeals bench. The Democrat's outstanding record of obstruction can not be ignored.
Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game. But it's precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it's sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government.
"Helping people" is not part of the Federal government's charter. Perhaps a Constitutional lawyer should be expected to know that. I recall a certain radio interview in which a Chicago politician complained about our "negative charter of rights", which tell the government what it can't do to citizens rather than what it must "do for them".
So, no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics. I know it's an election year. And after last week, it's clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern.
The "politics of personal destruction" was invented by your own party, who maintain it with great care. Shrub tried and failed to change the tone, what makes you think you can change it?
To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills. (Applause.) And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town -- a super majority -- then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. (Applause.) Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. (Applause.) So let's show the American people that we can do it together. (Applause.)
Arrogance and hubris are the hallmarks of this administration. The Senate was created to temper the popular fervor of the House. The Senate is intended to be a deliberative body, where issues are carefully considered. There is no good reason why the Senate should not prevent the enactment of damaging legislation such as health care system destruction and Cap & Tax. No compromise can make those proposals acceptable.
Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I'm not interested in re-litigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who's tough. Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future -- for America and for the world. (Applause.)
With one Communist regime and one Islamist regime developing nuclear warheads and missiles to deliver them with, the Obama administration has stopped progress on anti-missile defense. So much for national security.
There is no conflict between "protecting our people" and "upholding our values". Our civil liberties are designed for citizens, to maximize protection from arbitrary authority gone wild with malicious prosecution. Those rights, privileges & immunities belong to citizens, not to unlawful enemy combatants captured on foreign battle fields. Neither do they belong to invaders who sneak onto our soil with malicious intent. The latter issue was resolved during WW2 by the Supreme Court.
The so called underwear bomber should have been interrogated and tried by a military tribunal. He is not a common criminal in a minor case entitled to Miranda notification, counsel and trial by jury. Attempting to detonate a bomb on a passenger aircraft was an act of war, called Jihad, which fact was admitted by the perpetrator before the Miranda notice was read to him.
That's the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we've renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We've made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence. We've prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed -- far more than in 2008.
Terrorists are the low level foot soldiers who execute attacks. They are recruited, trained and dispatched by others who remain out of our reach. Those others, in turn, are recruited, motivated and financed by wealthy regimes and individuals. Terrorists are the tip of the iceberg. The main body of the iceberg is unseen below the water line.
And in Afghanistan, we're increasing our troops and training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. (Applause.) We will reward good governance, work to reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans -- men and women alike. (Applause.) We're joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitments, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am absolutely confident we will succeed.
Are there any armed forces better trained than ours? In the last eight years have they defeated the Taliban & al-Qaeda? So, what makes you dream that training Afghan security forces will enable them to defeat the terrorists? We trained PLO forces in Gaza and the West Bank so that they could control terrorists attacking Israel, how did that work out? How do the numbers of indigenous security forces compare to our troop level in theater? How is that situation going to be improved in two years?
As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. (Applause.) We will support the Iraqi government -- we will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home. (Applause.)
The war is ending in defeat for us, and will continue after our forces withdraw. Sunni & Shiia will continue to blow each other up. Iraq will revert to status quo ante, as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Now, even as we prosecute two wars, we're also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people - the threat of nuclear weapons. I've embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. (Applause.) And at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring 44 nations together here in Washington, D.C. behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists. (Applause.)
Pandora's box is open, the demons are out, and they can not be recaptured. How can you hope to verify and enforce nuclear disarmament? If everyone disarms but one rogue regime, there will be Hell to pay. Yours is a damn fool's enterprise, for which you should be subjected to impeachment.
Now, these diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons. That's why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions - sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That's why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise. (Applause.)
China and Russia have veto power in the Security Council. Given that fact, there is no possibility of effective international sanctions against Iran. Iran's development of atomic weapons can only be stopped by military force.
That's the leadership that we are providing - engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We're working through the G20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We're working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science and education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We're helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious disease - a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health abroad.
Promotion of science, education and innovation in Muslim communities is a fool's errand of the worst sort. It is the equivalent of promoting science & innovation in Germany between the two world wars. The inability to recognize, identify name and shame the enemy leads to a multitude of suicidally stupid policies.
As we have for over 60 years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. That's why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. (Applause.) That's why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; why we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; why we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity. (Applause.) Always. (Applause.)
What are you doing to support human rights in Iran? How did you deal with their election fraud? What did you do to support the demonstrators who were tortured, raped and murdered?
The only hope for girls in Afghanistan is the elimination of Islam from that benighted land. While Allah's writ runs, those girls are the property of their fathers & husbands, who can sell or kill them at will.
Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we're all created equal; that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.
We must continually renew this promise. My administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. (Applause.) We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. (Applause.) This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. (Applause.) It's the right thing to do. (Applause.)
"If you adhere to our common values", an interesting clause for inclusion in that paragraph. Do Muslims adhere to our values? They "love death more than you love life". I guess they don't adhere to our values. It is obvious that Nidal Malik Hasan did not adhere to them. Do Queers adhere to our values? Isn't heterosexual marriage one of our values?
We're going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws - so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work. (Applause.) And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system - to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation. (Applause.)
How do you hope to secure our borders without building the
fence at the Mexican border?
It is not just illegal migrants who cross that open
border,
Muslim terrorists can also cross it besides smugglers. Your
proposal for alien amnesty does nothing to enforce our laws
or
secure our borders, instead, it will act as an incentive to increased
illegal
immigration.
Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions - our corporations, our media, and, yes, our government - still reflect these same values. Each of these institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people's doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.
No wonder there's so much cynicism out there. No wonder there's so much disappointment.
Corporations are looking out for the stock holders, at least in theory. But some of them are led by avaricious men driven to dominance at all costs. There have been histories of harmful practices, including building monopolies and exporting jobs. Big unions have made their own contribution to our problems.
While those bankers were engaged in risky practices, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, with the support of Congressional leaders in your party, were engaged in in similar shenanigans and collecting huge bonuses.Certain influential newspapers have published national security secrets, interfering with our efforts to prevent and punish terrorism. Worse yet, the media giants acted with bias and prejudice in the presidential campaign, supporting your candidacy instead of investigating your background, associations & policies and reporting the facts.
I campaigned on the promise of change - change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change - or that I can deliver it.
"Change" is an ambiguous abstraction, signifying nothing. Birth and death are changes, only one of them is desirable. Not all change is improvement. After eight years of Slick Willy, we needed change. Shrub did not deliver it. After eight years of Shrub, we needed change. You did not deliver it. I hope that Tom Tancredo will deliver it in '13.
But remember this - I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That's just how it is.
When you propose legislation that would destroy the world's best health care delivery system, increase costs, reduce supply and impair quality, and you lie about the details, that is not the change we want. Your lies generate cynicism.
When you lie about "climate change" and propose legislation that will destroy the energy industry, double our cost of living and throw many out of work, that is change we don't want.
Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation.
Yes, you can, and you are doing just that. You prefer lies to the hard truths. You project blame onto others. Your policies will do severe harm to the next generation.
But I also know this: If people had made that decision 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, we wouldn't be here tonight. The only reason we are here is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and their grandchildren.
Washington and his army persevered in the face of overwhelming odds and great privation. Their lives, honor and fortunes were on the line, along with our future. Lincoln and his army persevered through a terrible civil war to end slavery and preserve the union. Later great generations slogged through terrible wars to preserve liberty and restore peace.
So you can persevere in an ill guided attempt to destroy the best system ever known to man, the last best hope of liberty and prosperity. Instead of passing it on to future generations, you insist on enslaving us to a Socialist state, making us totally dependent on government whim for our sustenance and preservation.Lovers of life, liberty & prosperity recognize what you are doing, and we will persevere in resistance. We realize that the next two years will be a great struggle, difficult to endure, but we are determined to preserve liberty and the hope of prosperity. We will not yield!
Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going - what keeps me fighting - is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism, that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people, that lives on.
It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me of his company, "None of us," he said, "…are willing to consider, even slightly, that we might fail."
It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her neighbors have felt the pain of recession, "We are strong. We are resilient. We are American."
It lives on in the 8-year-old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti.
And it lives on in all the Americans who've dropped everything to go someplace they've never been and pull people they've never known from the rubble, prompting chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A!" when another life was saved.
The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people. We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit. (Applause.) Let's seize this moment -- to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more. (Applause.)
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
At least I can agree with the last sentence. God bless the United States of America.
Sean Hannity predicted on his radio show that the State of the Union Address would be narcissistic. The following table compares the pronoun concentration in Obama's first state of the union with Slick's & Shrub's.
| President | I | you | we | our | personal/collective |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G.W. Bush | 41 | 24 | 96 | 72 | .214 |
| W.J.Clinton | 94 | 43 | 145 | 100 | .326 |
| B.H. Obama | 71 | 19 | 141 | 110 | .263 |
It appears that President Clinton is considerably more narcissistic
than our current misleader while Shrub appears to be much less self
centered.
Next, as usual, I will tear into selected excerpts from the
address.
One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted - immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.
As anyone could predict, President Obama began by blaming Shrub for the state of the economy. How bad was it? We faced "a second depression". There were 14 panics and depressions prior to the Great Depression. Does the President have a clue? Now the "worst of the storm has passed" has the President no clue about the continuing decline in employment and the threatened bursting of the commercial real estate bubble?
This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have been dealing with for decades - the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.
How sweet it must be to be blissfully ignorant of the basics we learned in Econ. 101. It is difficult to accrue a surplus to save or invest because of inflation resulting from federal fiscal policy and the economic coercion of labor unions. Without true growth, its a zero sum game. With inflation, it becomes a rat race. Because of Obama's idiocy, we are destined to suffer stagflation that will make Carter's malaise a Christmas party by comparison.
So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. These struggles are what I've witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana; Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children - asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.
Artificial prosperity for a few, gained by economic coercion in the form of strikes against industry, created inflation which reduced everyone else's standard of living, eventually returning to the stricken industries in the form of foreign competition resulting in market loss, bankruptcy and permanent unemployment. They think that their prosperity will last forever, without retrenchment. They never learn from past experience. "Its a new economy." Of course, Obama is building the "new economy". Yeah, right.
For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now.
Bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded because the bad
actors have friends in high places who bail them out with our future
income in the form of taxes and inflation. Washington is a cause of
problems. President Reagan was right: big
government is the problem, not the solution. They've been tired of the
partisanship, shouting & pettiness for a long time;
does anyone remember Shrub's "new tone in Washington slogan".
Unfortunately, the Democrats were playing the same old bells, while he
stood alone ringing a single, small, new bell which was
drowned out by the old bell.
It seems so long ago that candidate Obama was pitching a new era of openness, transparency and bipartisanship. Somehow that era slipped away even before the echoes of cheering died away after his inauguration. Wasn't it his party that completely shut the minority party out of the legislative process and circumvented the Senate rules? What happened to the promise of CSPAN coverage of the health care destruction deliberations? Obama is at once complainant and culprit, but almost no one notices, blinded by his effulgent halo.
"Numbing weight of politics"? No, Mr. President, its the numbing weight of your Socialist agenda. Your party cut everyone's disposable income by blocking extension of Shrub's tax cuts. Your party turned a deaf ear to the voter's shouts of "NO!" and pressed on regardless toward a takeover of the health care system that will push up the cost of health care while reducing both quality and supply. Your press on regardless attitude cost your party two governorships and a senate seat.So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope - what they deserve - is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories, different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared: a job that pays the bills; a chance to get ahead; most of all, the ability to give their children a better life.
Jobs are not created by poor people, they are created by investors who perceive a chance to increase their wealth through enterprise. Those investors need predictability. They need stability. They want to know that their efforts will be rewarded with success, not hampered by new regulations and punished by new taxes. Your attempt to destroy the health care system and push up costs is preventing investment and job growth. Your threat to destroy the coal and oil industries is creating a barrier in the form of threatened inflation. Your cap and tax plan is making matters worse. Your massive increase in the federal deficit and debt has thrown a monkey wrench into the gears of finance.
You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids, starting businesses and going back to school. They're coaching Little League and helping their neighbors. One woman wrote to me and said, "We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged."
Those whose jobs have been terminated are struggling to juggle their bills, which an unemployement compensation check won't cover, and once their unemployment compensation runs out, they will be up the creek. This depression will outlast unemployment compensation, and any extension will be too little, too late. The suffering can only increase.
It's because of this spirit - this great decency and great strength - that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. (Applause.) Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength. (Applause.)
And tonight, tonight I'd like to talk about how together we can deliver on that promise.
A government that matches our decency and embodies our strength is long overdue. Unfortunately, our dumbed down electorate and agenda driven mass media combined to elect an idiot savant who persists on a course to certain destruction. Destroying industries and the jobs they support is not decency. Osculating the anuses of our enemies is not strength. Granting undeserved rights, privileges and immunities of citizens to unlawful enemy combatants is neither decency nor strength. Sending men and women into battle with both hands tied behind their backs in a war you do not intend to win is both weak and indecent.
The banking crisis is primarily a function of the real estate bubble. The real estate bubble is primarily a function of a vicious cycle of hyper inflation, speculation and false optimism. That cycle was fed by policies put in place by the Clinton administration, spurred on by ACORN and their allies. Banks and consumers participated in what they thought was a perpetual game of musical chairs. Then the music stopped. There is a similar bubble in commercial real estate which is stretching, ready to rupture because too many businesses are caught in a cash flow trap, unable to maintain their debt.It begins with our economy.
Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it -- (applause.) I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal. (Laughter.)
But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular - I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.
So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable. And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we've recovered most of the money we spent on the banks. (Applause.) Most but not all.
Where did the thirteen billion go?
To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks. (Applause.) Now, I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea. But if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need. (Applause.)
Paying back is not a function of taxes or fees, those are attacks, not repayments. Repayment is a function of return of principal plus interest on money that was loaned. By raiding the banks, you are delaying and impairing the recovery. Uncertainty and punishing policies reduce the flow of investment capital. Your policy is counter productive.
Now, as we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed.
You did not stabilize the financial system, you propped up a corpse which continues to rot. You destroyed jobs, you did not save them. The only way to help the unemployed is to replace their lost income.
Everyone's expense is someone else's income. Everyone's income is someone else's expense. When any segment of society cuts expenses, others lose income. With increasing losses, businesses and consumers cut back on consumption, further increasing losses, beginning a vicious cycle which can spiral into depression.
Inflation caused by government policies hurts everyone by reducing disposable income and creating artificial imbalance in markets. Increased taxation has the same effect.
That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.
Consumers who bought expensive real estate in a time of rapid inflation, fearing that prices would rise out of reach and hoping that prices would continue to escalate so that they could sell at a profit over extended their credit. Now that prices have sunk and their incomes have ceased, they can't meet the mortgage. Increased and extended unemployment compensation won't meet all their needs and it will come to an end. You kicked the can down the road, solving nothing.
Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. (Applause.) We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time home buyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. (Applause.)
I thought I'd get some applause on that one. (Laughter and applause.)
You raised taxes; by allowing Shrub's tax cuts to expire. At the same time, you increased inflation and government spending, boosting the deficit and debt, further weakening the economy. The best metaphor for what you have done is the firefighter who sets fires so that he can display his heroism in extinguishing them. Eventually he is trapped and burns in a collapsing building.
As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas and food and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime. (Applause.)
As a result of your idiotic policies, millions of Americans had to pay more for each gallon of gasoline, more for their groceries and every item transported by trucks, all of which resulted in decreased capital for growth and expansion. When paying more for motor fuel and home energy, consumers cut back on other items, throwing more production and sales staffers out of work. By preventing domestic oil exploration & production, you raised the cost of fuel. You increased the cost of transportation. You raised the cost of flour, beans, peanut butter and fruit. You raised the cost of home heating and electricity.
Inflation is a tax. You increased it. You let Shrub's tax cuts expire, effectively raising taxes.
Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. (Applause.) Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy; 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders. (Applause.) And we're on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.
In Michigan, more teachers and state police are being laid off. People who can't meet the mortgage are not paying their property taxes, putting local government and schools in jeopardy. Two million jobs: a drop in the ocean; insignificant to the big picture, no comfort to those who have lost their jobs permanently and whose unemployment benefits are exhausted.
The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. (Applause.) That's right - the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill. (Applause.) Economists on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster. But you don't have to take their word for it. Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act. Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created. Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn't be laid off after all.
The Recovery Act primarily benefited a few powerful unions, it exacerbated the problem instead of providing real relief. You wasted money, reducing the availability of capital for real recovery and expansion. You increased the federal debt, greatly increasing future liability for interest payments.
There are stories like this all across America. And after two years of recession, the economy is growing again. Retirement funds have started to gain back some of their value. Businesses are beginning to invest again, and slowly some are starting to hire again.
But I realize that for every success story, there are other stories, of men and women who wake up with the anguish of not knowing where their next paycheck will come from; who send out resumes week after week and hear nothing in response. That is why jobs must be our number-one focus in 2010, and that's why I'm calling for a new jobs bill tonight. (Applause.)
Legislation does not create jobs, it destroys them. Creating jobs requires capital & confidence, inflation and legislation which imposes increased taxes and costs reduces both. Both consumers and producers need stability, predictability & confidence, which you destroy by dithering like a decapitated chicken, flopping from one failed remedy to another.
Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses. (Applause.) But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.
But you are doing what government can do best: destroying risk capital and confidence. More laws, rules, regulations and taxes: fewer productive jobs, less confidence, less investment. You can not increase the number of jobs by increasing the cost of wages and benefits packages. Your proposal to destroy the health care system increases cost and insecurity, militating against job creation and increasing job destruction.
We should start where most new jobs do - in small businesses, companies that begin when -- (applause) -- companies that begin when an entrepreneur -- when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides it's time she became her own boss. Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession and they're ready to grow. But when you talk to small business owners in places like Allentown, Pennsylvania, or Elyria, Ohio, you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they're mostly lending to bigger companies. Financing remains difficult for small business owners across the country, even those that are making a profit.
Most startups end in failure within a few years. Investment bankers know this fact. When they are having trouble meeting current obligations, they are understandably risk averse.
So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. (Applause.) I'm also proposing a new small business tax credit
- one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. (Applause.) While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment, and provide a tax incentive for all large businesses and all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment. (Applause.)
Tax credits will not cover the cost of hiring. No small business will stay in business long if it hires staff beyond current production requirements. Temporary tax reductions will not be effective. Managers must be able to plan for the medium and long term, not just the next year.
Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. (Applause.) From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.
Common sense dictates a crucial reform which you will never contemplate enacting: repeal of the Prevailing Wage Act. Unless effective competitive bidding is allowed, you will increase the deficit and debt, fostering an inflation spiral without creating any real jobs. There is a limited supply of construction equipment, engineers and qualified operators. New projects will increase costs, a form of inflation.
Passenger rail is not viable. The service is too limited and too expensive. It loses money. The capital cost of improving rail beds is excessive. The capital cost of acquiring new rail beds is prohibitive. The technology for high speed rail is not in place and the cost of improving crossings is prohibitive.
"Clean energy products" is a vicious lie. No such entity exists nor
will it ever exist. There is no magic wand; Harry Potter is
fictional, not real. The volumes required to replace coal and
petroleum simply do not and will not exist. You are selling
fiction & fantasy.
Tomorrow, I'll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. (Applause.) There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help move our nation's goods, services, and information. (Applause.)
We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities -- (applause) -- and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. (Applause.) And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America. (Applause.)
The high capital cost of "energy-efficient" appliances is prohibitive to low income individuals. Attempts to compel their purchase through artificial inflation of utility rates combined with restrictions on sale of existing homes will eventually result in revolt.
Your party has long campaigned for "international economic development". You thought that, if Africa & Asia became prosperous, they would be immune to Communism. Now you assert that affluence will make them immune to "radical Islam". Both proposals are lies. China is using its new found prosperity to fund a larger army with new and improved weaponry. Various Arab oil satrapies are developing nuclear energy, which ultimately translates into the bomb.Develop means production & trade. That means competition for retail markets. You can't have it both ways Domestic consumption does not line the satrap's pockets with gold.
Consumers want cheap goods. They can not afford the artificially high prices they must pay for goods produced by domestic industries enslaved to the labor unions with ever increasing demands for increased compensation.Now, the House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps. (Applause.) As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same, and I know they will. (Applause.) They will. (Applause.) People are out of work. They're hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay. (Applause.)
But the truth is, these steps won't make up for the seven million jobs that we've lost over the last two years. The only way to move to full employment is to lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth, and finally address the problems that America's families have confronted for years.
You must first eliminate the artificial barriers erected by government. Restore the right to work, eliminating labor union coercion. Lower and eliminate burdensome taxes and regulations. Allow domestic energy exploration, production & refining. Allow exploration & production on federal lands, including the continental shelf and ANWAR. When you bring down the artificially inflated cost of energy, you will enable renewed prosperity and make our exports more competitive.
Cut the federal income tax, make the cut permanent. Eliminate the estate tax, permanently. Eliminate taxation on stock and bond investment income.
We can't afford another so-called economic "expansion" like the one from the last decade - what some call the "lost decade" - where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation.
Slick Willy set the stage for our current misery by declaring a "new economy" that was always going to progress and never regress. We were told that recessions and depressions could not happen any more. Only ignorant fools believed those promises. Slick Willy wanted to increase home ownership and eliminate "red lining". The rules were changed, and we are reaping the harvest of what he sowed.
From the day I took office, I've been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious; such an effort would be too contentious. I've been told that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for a while.
For those who make these claims, I have one simple question: How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold? (Applause.)
We need to flush your entire Socialist agenda down the crapper, permanently eliminating it. This includes your plan to destroy the health care system and your plan to destroy the energy industry and impose rationing and super inflation upon consumers. The whole load of crap must be flushed!
You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China is not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany is not waiting. India is not waiting. These nations -- they're not standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place. They're putting more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding their infrastructure. They're making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs. Well, I do not accept second place for the United States of America. (Applause.)
Europe is going to Hell because they installed Socialism, effectively making investment and productivity growth impossible. Fearing an overpopulated world with declining food production and seeking hedonistic pleasures of the moment, they reduced their reproduction rate, failing to replace a dieing generation. As more and more of their aging population went out of the factories and on the dole, they imported Muslims from Asia, Africa & Arabia and now the imported Muslims are taking over.
America is riding the same rail to destruction. Our Social Security and Medicare entitlements are unpaid liabilities, far beyond the capacity of the reduced work force to make up without impoverishing it with taxation. Every Congress promises to fix the problem, then kicks the can down the road. We baby boomers are the lit fuse which will bring the system down on our heads. Everyone will suffer as a result.
As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may become, it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.
Shrub tried to fix the problems; your party frustrated his efforts. Your policies are the problem. Your labor union buddies, trial lawyer & high finance associates who fill your campaign treasuries in expectation of legislation to enrich them and perpetuate their power and yours contribute greatly to the problems.
Now, one place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks. I'm interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy.
The stage for economic destruction was set in years following WW2 through the Clinton era, when the UAW, Steel Workers & AFL-CIO distorted the economy with annual demands for more for less. First the steel industry was destroyed, then the auto industry. The golden goose has been strangled, now there are no more eggs.
LBJ, with his grandiose schemes, expanded the federal government, and began the spiral of waste and inflation which have now come home to roost. Nixon & carter made matters worse with wage & price controls. Reagan had the right idea, but there were too many LibTards in the congress to really fix the system. Bush increased taxes, Slick Willy went hog wild, and Shrub failed to learn from history. Now we have Obama with his wrecking ball. I fear that the electorate will never learn.We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions. (Applause.) We can't allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy.
Our youth must abandon the time honored practice of sleeping through history and economics classes. If consumers were educated and rational, they would not have fallen for the siren song of home equity loans and house flipping. They should have revolted against the policies which produced artificial inflation of the housing market.
Now, the House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. (Applause.) And the lobbyists are trying to kill it. But we cannot let them win this fight. (Applause.) And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back until we get it right. We've got to get it right. (Applause.)
Nobody with their head on straight believes a word of that.
Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history - (applause) -- an investment that could lead to the world's cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched. And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see the results of last year's investments in clean energy - in the North Carolina company that will create 1,200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put a thousand people to work making solar panels.
Industrial scale solutions are impossible. There is no magic wand. The minerals required for some of those technologies are rare, and their sources are located in places where our interests are not high on the scale of local concern. Increasing the cost of fuel and electricity to make wind and solar systems competitive will be extremely destructive to the economy and our standard of living.
But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. (Applause.) It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. (Applause.) And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. (Applause.)
You already decided to prohibit exploration & production in ANWAR, the most promising fields in the west and the continental shelf. Slick Willy could have and should have increased domestic production, instead he vetoed it. You do one thing and say another; the damned fools lap it up like cream. What will happen to your party's prospects when they wise up?
Your cap & tax plan is exactly the wrong thing to do. It is 180° out of phase with reality and common sense. You will double and triple energy costs, destroying jobs and ruining the economy. Increased energy costs will be passed through in every product and service we consume. Our standard of living is going to be ruined if we allow you to continue promoting your damn fool policies.
Anthropogenic climate change is a massive fraud, recognized
by a
growing number of people. Eventually it is going to cost your party its
grip on power.
I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. (Applause.) And this year I'm eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. (Applause.)
I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future - because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation. (Applause.)
You are the one who disagrees with the overwhelming scientific evidence. The propaganda your side spews is based on fraud and deception. Your consensus is political, not scientific. You are contributing to a reduced trust of science and vast increase in public skepticism.
Third, we need to export more of our goods. (Applause.) Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. (Applause.) So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. (Applause.) To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security. (Applause.)
You can not increase exports by artificially inflating the cost of production. When you decrease the availability of medical goods and services and increase their cost, you make our exports more expensive and discourage exports. When you artificially increase the cost of labor through the union movement and strikes, you decrease exports. When you artificially inflate energy costs with cap & tax, you decrease exports. When you artificially inflate energy costs by reducing domestic exploration, production & refining, you decrease exports. Your policies are 180° out of phase with your spew of lies. Cognitive dissonance abounds in your party, sooner or later the voters will wise up to it.
We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. (Applause.) But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. (Applause.) And that's why we'll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia. (Applause.)
In the long term, trade must be balanced. While China and Arabia do all the exporting without importing to balance it, a balance of payments problem is created. Money and gold accumulate in their treasuries, depleting ours, artificially shifting economic power to them .
While all sides are determined to increase their exports and decrease their imports, conflict is inevitable. Domestic political pressures will lead to artificial market protection. Exporters will seek subsidies. Those who produce more than the market can absorb will engage in dumping. Protective tariffs will be reciprocated, leading to another world wide great depression.
There is no magic wand. There is no quick road to riches on a national scale. We need to begin discounting and rejecting the promises made by our lying politicians.
Fourth, we need to invest in the skills and education of our people. (Applause.)
Inflation has pushed the cost of a university degree beyond the reach of many people. Students are burdened with a great debt load which they can not maintain if there are no jobs for them after graduation. When you raise the cost of utilities, taxes and construction, you push room and board out of reach. When you increase fees and tuition, you push eduction out of reach. When students spend their time partying instead of studying, you waste the precious resources invested in education.
Now, this year, we've broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. And the idea here is simple: Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform -- reform that raises student achievement; inspires students to excel in math and science; and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to the inner city. In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education. (Applause.) And in this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than on their potential.
There is no magic wand. Throwing dollars at schools can't solve the problems of our system of education. Increasing teacher salaries will not solve the problems. First and foremost. you must stop inflation. The high cost of constructing, maintaining and operating schools must be reduced because the tax payers can not bear any more. Cap & tax will make the problem worse, not better.
The prevailing wage law must go! The high cost of employee benefits is another problem. Destroying the health care system will make matters much worse. Unfunded pension liabilities are a double edged sword. This problem is already insoluble.In urban areas, broken homes, drug & alcohol addiction and single mothers are contributing to the problem. Children need intact, loving families. They must arrive at the school able, ready and willing to learn. Education requires active participation, it is not a passive process. Teachers must be well prepared, dedicated and enthusiastic. If they are burned out and frustrated by discipline problems and moronic administrations, they are unlikely to succeed.
When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all 50 states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. That's why I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families. (Applause.)
Our community colleges are burdened by inflated utility expenses and other overhead. They can't keep paying more for less forever more any more than consumers can. By artificially inflating energy and labor benefit expenses, you will be part of their problems, making them worse, not solving them.
To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. (Applause.) Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. (Applause.) And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years - and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. (Applause.)
And by the way, it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs - (applause) -- because they, too, have a responsibility to help solve this problem.
Post secondary education is not affordable. You can not make it more of what it ain't. You must first stop and roll back inflation. Your Socialist agenda will increase inflation, not reduce it.
How do you propose to finance that student debt and forgive large portions of it? How do you propose to fund those Pell grants? You have too many priorities and too few resources. Harry Potter's magic wand is fictional, not real.
Now, the price of college tuition is just one of the burdens facing the middle class. That's why last year I asked Vice President Biden to chair a task force on middle-class families. That's why we're nearly doubling the child care tax credit, and making it easier to save for retirement by giving access to every worker a retirement account and expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg. That's why we're working to lift the value of a family's single largest investment - their home. The steps we took last year to shore up the housing market have allowed millions of Americans to take out new loans and save an average of $1,500 on mortgage payments.
It is not possible to save unless current income exceeds current expenses. When you generate spiraling inflation, you push the dream of saving and investing further out of reach.
Lifting the value of homes? No, you mean price, not value. Prices need to be set by the market, not artificially by laws and regulations such as those that produced the real estate bubble. When you increase the price of existing homes, you push the dream of home ownership further out of reach.
This year, we will step up refinancing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages. (Applause.) And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform. (Applause.) Yes, we do. (Applause.)
Affordability has several components: income, principal, value, rate, fees and time. A mortgage is not affordable if the payments exceed the difference between income and other necessary living expenses. An affordable mortgage can easily lose its status due to increased interest rates, property taxes or inflated consumer costs as well as lost income. A balloon mortgage is not likely to remain affordable.
Inflated medical care and insurance costs are an important factor. Your scam will increase costs and reduce quality and availability. The voters of Massachusetts recently sent a vital message about that, but you are not receptive to their message.
Now, let's clear a few things up. (Laughter.) I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics. (Laughter.) I took on health care because of the stories I've heard from Americans with preexisting conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who've been denied coverage; families - even those with insurance - who are just one illness away from financial ruin.
Once again, inflation resulting from bad fiscal policies and labor union extortion have greatly increased prices. The high cost of new technology and litigation also contributed. But second party payers, the government programs as well as insurance plans have been major contributors to rising medical care prices.
You can't increase supply or decrease costs by forcing hospitals to close or doctors to quit the profession. You can't solve the nursing shortage by cutting their wages. Increasing their wages will reduce the shortage at the expense of increased cost.
Screwing doctors and hospitals will result in reduced supply. Increasing coverage will result in increased demand, which will mean increased costs, waiting times and rationing. It is necessary to eliminate fraud & litigation expenses. Tort reform is not going to happen because trial lawyers contribute to Democrat's campaign coffers.
The bottom line: promises of reform, decreased cost & increased coverage are fraudulent. There is no possibility of delivering on those promises.
After nearly a century of trying -- Democratic administrations, Republican administrations -- we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care.
That statement is malignant malarkey. It is 180° out of phase with objective factual reality.
Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office - the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress - our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. (Applause.)
The content of the initial legislation passed by the House and posted on the web, disproves those egregious lies.
Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"
Extended debate brings new facts to light, which is what Obama,. Reid & Pelosi seek to avoid. Like sausage makers, they seek to perform their ministrations in dark back rooms, out of our sight. It is not possible to increase coverage and reduce costs at the same time. A growing number of voters are wising up to this reality. In a special election January 20, '10, some of those voters sent a message, which Washington is ignoring.
But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I'm finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber. (Applause.)
People are losing coverage because they are losing their jobs. Many lose coverage because employers can no longer afford it. Nothing Obama can do will solve those problems. He can only make matters worse. He will continue to push his scam through congress until it is enacted, causing reduced supply, increased demand, increased costs & deficits and rationing of care. His scam will cause the loss of more jobs and destroy the economy. We must rise up as one screaming HELL NO!!!
So, as temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. (Applause.) Let me know. Let me know. (Applause.) I'm eager to see it.
"As temperatures cool"? You expect to wear us down, to keep coming back with this damn scam until we finally accept it. We are outraged by your arrogance as well as your attempt to strip us of our liberty, prosperity, health and lives. Your persistence is going to pay off by making you the first one term President since G.H.W. Bush.
There is a reason why many doctors are quitting the AMA: it endorsed your damn scam. There is a reason why some doctors are beginning to plan for an early retirement: you are going to push them out of the profession.To bring down premiums, you must first bring down costs and increase competition. Do away with the state laws which narrow the market, let insurance providers compete across state lines. Do away with laws and regulations that force policies to cover abortion and cosmetic procedures.
Give people a real choice. Allow them to create and fund Health Savings Accounts with before tax dollars, at least equal to the current cost of insurance premiums. Allow them to deduct the entire cost of catastrophic care coverage as well as their HSAs..
Here's what I ask Congress, though: Don't walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. (Applause.) Let's get it done. Let's get it done. (Applause.)
What you propose is destruction, not reform. We are disrespectfully demanding that Congress drop the proposal and quit trying to scam us. We are preparing to turn them out of office next November. One state has shown the way with a special election, and we are going to follow their lead.
Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it's not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves. It's a challenge that makes all others that much harder to solve, and one that's been subject to a lot of political posturing. So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight.
It is not possible to reduce the deficit by spending more. Your health care destruction plan will increase, not reduce spending and inflation. It will increase, not decrease the deficit and debt.
At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. (Laughter and applause.)
Our only recourse is to remove the drunken sailors from Congress. We need to clean house completely, replacing all of the incumbents with genuine fiscal conservatives.
Common sense dictates not having prolonged wars, instead, we should have nuked Afghanistan & Pakistan and told the world "You can have one, too, if you don't approve.". Shrub lacked common sense.
You don't pay for tax cuts, you reduce spending. Instead, Congress increased wasteful spending. You bitch about an expensive prescription drug program, while proposing a much more expensive and destructive program. Your hypocrisy is as unbounded as your arrogance!
Now -- just stating the facts. Now, if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis. And our efforts to prevent a second depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt. That, too, is a fact.
I'm absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. (Applause.) So tonight, I'm proposing specific steps to pay for the trillion dollars that it took to rescue the economy last year.
When tight times come and people cut back on their expenditures, others lose business and lay off employees. It is a vicious cycle, to which your idiotic fiscal policies contribute greatly. You can't pay for a damn thing, the government is bankrupt. When interest rates rise again, you won't be able to make the payment Increasing taxes will cause further economic contraction, resulting in a double dip recession and a prolonged depression.
Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will. (Applause.)
Better yet, start immediately with a no new programs pledge. Forswear your entire Socialist agenda, including health care destruction and Cap & Tax. You must make choices, you chose the bailout and the stimulus, so the rest of your agenda must be dropped.
At the same time, roll back the recent increases in Congressional salaries and benefit packages. Of course, that should include Pelosi's luxury aircraft. Apply the savings to extending unemployment compensation for the long term unemployed. The same should apply to your own expensive travel schedule. Is this trip necessary?We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it. (Applause.)
The class warfare is unbecoming to a democrat. The appeal is to the baser instincts such as envy, greed & schadenfreud.
Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That's why I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. (Applause.) This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline.
You are not going to pay for the trillions you threw away. Your children won't be able to pay for it, nor will your grandchildren. The time for fixing the entitlement programs was decades ago. Your party's denial and dithering have pushed the problem beyond any possibility of correction. You kicked the can down the road several times too many.
Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. (Applause.) And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s. (Applause.)
Pay as you go never happened and never will.
Politicians can not resist the impulse to buy votes.
Now, I know that some in my own party will argue that we can't address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. And I agree -- which is why this freeze won't take effect until next year -- (laughter) -- when the economy is stronger. That's how budgeting works. (Laughter and applause.) But understand - understand if we don't take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery - all of which would have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.
What if the economy is weaker next year? What if unemployment increases and the GDP takes a steep decline, what then? There are no meaningful steps to rein in our debt. We owe it, we are obligated to pay it, and when interest rates rise again, we won't be able to make the payments.
From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument - that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is that's what we did for eight years. (Applause.) That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again.
We got into this crisis because of politicians kicking the can down the road. You reached the end of the road, now you need to deal with the can and no solutions exist. So you blame Shrub, and he is due for his share, but most of it is from Johnson, Carter & Clinton, not from Shrub. Your appeal to class envy is transparent, and irritating. We look forward with great anticipation to the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 2012.
Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new. Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense. (Laughter.) A novel concept.
Decreased respect and increased contempt for politicians is largely traceable to their abuse of the language. Not all spending is investment. If you want to invest in people, go to Arabia or Pakistan and buy some on the slave market.
To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust - deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the out sized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve. (Applause.)
Neither you nor the Congress has earned our trust. You lied, misrepresenting yourself and your policies in order to get elected. Nothing could be more corrosive to trust. Your record of broken promises is too extensive to allow any trust.
Lobbyists are not the problem. Politicians who have no reverence for their oath of office are the problem. Forsworn,corrupt politicians who lie to get elected and sell their power to finance their next campaign; those are the problem.
That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why - for the first time in history - my administration posts on our White House visitors online. That's why we've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs, or seats on federal boards and commissions.
How many lobbyists are in your administration, and what positions do they hold? How many of them are advising you and your top appointees?
But we can't stop there. It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or with Congress. It's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.
Its time to require Congressmen to disclose each contact with lobbyists and what they offer and give to the Congressmen. Each Congressional web site should have a lobbyist contact page with full disclosure we can compare to the lobbyist's disclosures.
With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.
Elections are not decided by political speech, they are decided by voters, jointly and severally casting their ballots in the privacy of the polling booth. Voters obtain information from multiple sources, including advertising. Political speech, including advertising, is critical to the process. When the government seeks to stifle political speech or to censor its content, the First Amendment is stretched to the breaking point.
Political speakers should be required to identify themselves and their interests, but should not be silenced. The voters must be given an opportunity to listen to and compare the multifarious messages sent in a campaign and make their decisions based on the best information they can find.
I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. Applause.) Democrats and Republicans. (Applause.) Democrats and Republicans. You've trimmed some of this spending, you've embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. (Applause.) Tonight, I'm calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single Web site before there's a vote, so that the American people can see how their money is being spent. (Applause.)
Disclosure of earmarks is important, but entirely eliminating them would be far better. Even more important, grafting non germane issues into unrelated bills should be stopped, particularly the sneaky tactic of inserting poison pills into defense appropriations bills.
The legislative process should be made truly transparent. Proposed legislation should be published on the web well in advance of the final vote. External references to existing legislation should be fully documented with direct links. Bills which amend existing legislation should display both the existing and proposed language for side by side comparison.
Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don't also reform how we work with one another. Now, I'm not naïve. I never thought that the mere fact of my election would usher in peace and harmony -- (laughter) -- and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, they've been taking place for over 200 years. They're the very essence of our democracy.
The present controversy results from your Hellbent determination to impose injurious policies on the nation, press on regardless. Like Shrub's determination to enact amnesty for illegal aliens, your health care destruction plan can not be accepted. Some issues of principle must not be subjected to compromise. The first rule should be do no harm. The second should be adherence to the Constitution. Actions destructive of our prosperity, security and liberty simply should not be supported. I, for one will not vote for anyone who compromises on the vital issues. That is why I wrote in Alan Keyes; I could not lower my standards to vote for John McCain after the gang of 14 incident.
When absolute evil is proposed, less evil is not an acceptable compromise. Conservatives should never accept false premises. The Socialist agenda should be resisted with extreme persistence, never accepted.But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We can't wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side - a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of -- (applause) -- I'm speaking to both parties now. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants shouldn't be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators. (Applause.)
Bills should be supported, opposed or amended based on their merits, not their political consequences. Your legislative proposals lack merit. If enacted into law they will be extremely harmful to our liberty and prosperity and nearly impossible to repeal.
The confirmation issue sticks out like a sore toe. Some of us are old enough to remember the origin of "Borking" and "high tech lynching". There are no appointments more important than appointments to the appeals bench. The Democrat's outstanding record of obstruction can not be ignored.
Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game. But it's precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it's sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government.
"Helping people" is not part of the Federal government's charter. Perhaps a Constitutional lawyer should be expected to know that. I recall a certain radio interview in which a Chicago politician complained about our "negative charter of rights", which tell the government what it can't do to citizens rather than what it must "do for them".
So, no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics. I know it's an election year. And after last week, it's clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern.
The "politics of personal destruction" was invented by your own party, who maintain it with great care. Shrub tried and failed to change the tone, what makes you think you can change it?
To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills. (Applause.) And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town -- a super majority -- then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. (Applause.) Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. (Applause.) So let's show the American people that we can do it together. (Applause.)
Arrogance and hubris are the hallmarks of this administration. The Senate was created to temper the popular fervor of the House. The Senate is intended to be a deliberative body, where issues are carefully considered. There is no good reason why the Senate should not prevent the enactment of damaging legislation such as health care system destruction and Cap & Tax. No compromise can make those proposals acceptable.
Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I'm not interested in re-litigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who's tough. Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future -- for America and for the world. (Applause.)
With one Communist regime and one Islamist regime developing nuclear warheads and missiles to deliver them with, the Obama administration has stopped progress on anti-missile defense. So much for national security.
There is no conflict between "protecting our people" and "upholding our values". Our civil liberties are designed for citizens, to maximize protection from arbitrary authority gone wild with malicious prosecution. Those rights, privileges & immunities belong to citizens, not to unlawful enemy combatants captured on foreign battle fields. Neither do they belong to invaders who sneak onto our soil with malicious intent. The latter issue was resolved during WW2 by the Supreme Court.
The so called underwear bomber should have been interrogated and tried by a military tribunal. He is not a common criminal in a minor case entitled to Miranda notification, counsel and trial by jury. Attempting to detonate a bomb on a passenger aircraft was an act of war, called Jihad, which fact was admitted by the perpetrator before the Miranda notice was read to him.
That's the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we've renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We've made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence. We've prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed -- far more than in 2008.
Terrorists are the low level foot soldiers who execute attacks. They are recruited, trained and dispatched by others who remain out of our reach. Those others, in turn, are recruited, motivated and financed by wealthy regimes and individuals. Terrorists are the tip of the iceberg. The main body of the iceberg is unseen below the water line.
And in Afghanistan, we're increasing our troops and training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. (Applause.) We will reward good governance, work to reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans -- men and women alike. (Applause.) We're joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitments, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am absolutely confident we will succeed.
Are there any armed forces better trained than ours? In the last eight years have they defeated the Taliban & al-Qaeda? So, what makes you dream that training Afghan security forces will enable them to defeat the terrorists? We trained PLO forces in Gaza and the West Bank so that they could control terrorists attacking Israel, how did that work out? How do the numbers of indigenous security forces compare to our troop level in theater? How is that situation going to be improved in two years?
As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. (Applause.) We will support the Iraqi government -- we will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home. (Applause.)
The war is ending in defeat for us, and will continue after our forces withdraw. Sunni & Shiia will continue to blow each other up. Iraq will revert to status quo ante, as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Now, even as we prosecute two wars, we're also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people - the threat of nuclear weapons. I've embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. (Applause.) And at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring 44 nations together here in Washington, D.C. behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists. (Applause.)
Pandora's box is open, the demons are out, and they can not be recaptured. How can you hope to verify and enforce nuclear disarmament? If everyone disarms but one rogue regime, there will be Hell to pay. Yours is a damn fool's enterprise, for which you should be subjected to impeachment.
Now, these diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons. That's why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions - sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That's why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise. (Applause.)
China and Russia have veto power in the Security Council. Given that fact, there is no possibility of effective international sanctions against Iran. Iran's development of atomic weapons can only be stopped by military force.
That's the leadership that we are providing - engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We're working through the G20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We're working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science and education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We're helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious disease - a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health abroad.
Promotion of science, education and innovation in Muslim communities is a fool's errand of the worst sort. It is the equivalent of promoting science & innovation in Germany between the two world wars. The inability to recognize, identify name and shame the enemy leads to a multitude of suicidally stupid policies.
As we have for over 60 years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. That's why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. (Applause.) That's why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; why we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; why we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity. (Applause.) Always. (Applause.)
What are you doing to support human rights in Iran? How did you deal with their election fraud? What did you do to support the demonstrators who were tortured, raped and murdered?
The only hope for girls in Afghanistan is the elimination of Islam from that benighted land. While Allah's writ runs, those girls are the property of their fathers & husbands, who can sell or kill them at will.
Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we're all created equal; that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.
We must continually renew this promise. My administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. (Applause.) We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. (Applause.) This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. (Applause.) It's the right thing to do. (Applause.)
"If you adhere to our common values", an interesting clause for inclusion in that paragraph. Do Muslims adhere to our values? They "love death more than you love life". I guess they don't adhere to our values. It is obvious that Nidal Malik Hasan did not adhere to them. Do Queers adhere to our values? Isn't heterosexual marriage one of our values?
We're going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws - so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work. (Applause.) And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system - to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation. (Applause.)
How do you hope to secure our borders without building the
fence at the Mexican border?
It is not just illegal migrants who cross that open
border,
Muslim terrorists can also cross it besides smugglers. Your
proposal for alien amnesty does nothing to enforce our laws
or
secure our borders, instead, it will act as an incentive to increased
illegal
immigration.
Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions - our corporations, our media, and, yes, our government - still reflect these same values. Each of these institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people's doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.
No wonder there's so much cynicism out there. No wonder there's so much disappointment.
Corporations are looking out for the stock holders, at least in theory. But some of them are led by avaricious men driven to dominance at all costs. There have been histories of harmful practices, including building monopolies and exporting jobs. Big unions have made their own contribution to our problems.
While those bankers were engaged in risky practices, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, with the support of Congressional leaders in your party, were engaged in in similar shenanigans and collecting huge bonuses.Certain influential newspapers have published national security secrets, interfering with our efforts to prevent and punish terrorism. Worse yet, the media giants acted with bias and prejudice in the presidential campaign, supporting your candidacy instead of investigating your background, associations & policies and reporting the facts.
I campaigned on the promise of change - change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change - or that I can deliver it.
"Change" is an ambiguous abstraction, signifying nothing. Birth and death are changes, only one of them is desirable. Not all change is improvement. After eight years of Slick Willy, we needed change. Shrub did not deliver it. After eight years of Shrub, we needed change. You did not deliver it. I hope that Tom Tancredo will deliver it in '13.
But remember this - I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That's just how it is.
When you propose legislation that would destroy the world's best health care delivery system, increase costs, reduce supply and impair quality, and you lie about the details, that is not the change we want. Your lies generate cynicism.
When you lie about "climate change" and propose legislation that will destroy the energy industry, double our cost of living and throw many out of work, that is change we don't want.
Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation.
Yes, you can, and you are doing just that. You prefer lies to the hard truths. You project blame onto others. Your policies will do severe harm to the next generation.
But I also know this: If people had made that decision 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, we wouldn't be here tonight. The only reason we are here is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and their grandchildren.
Washington and his army persevered in the face of overwhelming odds and great privation. Their lives, honor and fortunes were on the line, along with our future. Lincoln and his army persevered through a terrible civil war to end slavery and preserve the union. Later great generations slogged through terrible wars to preserve liberty and restore peace.
So you can persevere in an ill guided attempt to destroy the best system ever known to man, the last best hope of liberty and prosperity. Instead of passing it on to future generations, you insist on enslaving us to a Socialist state, making us totally dependent on government whim for our sustenance and preservation.Lovers of life, liberty & prosperity recognize what you are doing, and we will persevere in resistance. We realize that the next two years will be a great struggle, difficult to endure, but we are determined to preserve liberty and the hope of prosperity. We will not yield!
Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going - what keeps me fighting - is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism, that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people, that lives on.
It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me of his company, "None of us," he said, "…are willing to consider, even slightly, that we might fail."
It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her neighbors have felt the pain of recession, "We are strong. We are resilient. We are American."
It lives on in the 8-year-old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti.
And it lives on in all the Americans who've dropped everything to go someplace they've never been and pull people they've never known from the rubble, prompting chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A!" when another life was saved.
The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people. We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit. (Applause.) Let's seize this moment -- to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more. (Applause.)
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
At least I can agree with the last sentence. God bless the United States of America.
Tea Party Express is promoting a petition effort insisting
that Scott
Brown be immediately seated in the U.S.
Senate. Their petition has accumulated 27,000 signatures, it
needs more.
Please add your signature to mine, copy this blog post and email it to everyone you can influence. The Democrats are desperate for a way to delay and nullify Brown's vote in the Senate. We must be more insistent on the immediate certification of the vote and swearing in ceremony so that Brown can begin executing the voter's will.
Two exit polls were conducted, the results from one of them
have been published. This is how Fabrizio,
McLaughlin and Associates summarized their analysis of the results.
- Plurality of Brown voters said their vote was meant to send a message to Washington - not a vote for Brown's candidacy
- Voters desire to send a message was so strong, Brown is elected despite President's higher than average image and job approval ratings and dismal job ratings for Congressional Republicans
- Brown scored big with Independents and even edged Coakley with Union Households
- Tea Party Movement gets mixed reviews, but Brown got overwhelming majority among its supporters
- Despite Brown's victory, GOP shouldn't start dancing yet as their Congressional job approval is still dismal among Independents
poll results reveal the fact that one single message was being sent above all others.
"What SINGLE issue ABOVE ALL OTHERS helped decide your vote in this Senate Race today?"
|
Total |
Republicans |
Democrats |
Independents |
|
|
Health care reform |
48 |
55 |
50 |
45 |
|
Economy |
5 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
|
Time for a change//Wanted someone new |
5 |
4 |
2 |
7 |
|
Democrats//Want a Democrat//Supports Obama |
4 |
- |
8 |
3 |
|
Abortion |
3 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
|
Republican//Want a Republican//Opposes Obama |
3 |
6 |
2 |
4 |
|
Like Coakley//Dislike Brown//Agree with Coakley's policies |
3 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
|
Taxes |
3 |
7 |
1 |
3 |
Opposition to Obama Don't Care was at the top of the list, overshadows the other issues.
"What was the MOST important reason why you voted FOR Scott Brown today?"
|
Total |
GOP |
DEM |
IND |
|
|
Healthcare Stance/ Against Healthcare Reform |
39 |
40 |
40 |
38 |
|
Republican/ Dislike Democrats/ Oppose Obama |
17 |
21 |
17 |
16 |
|
Dislike Other Candidate/Coakley |
17 |
9 |
24 |
19 |
|
Agree With Policies |
12 |
12 |
15 |
11 |
The electorate of Massachusetts sent a clear political message. The Democrats are seeking a way to ignore that message. It is up to us to backup those voters and reinforce their clear message. We can do that by signing and promoting the Tea Party Express petition demanding the immediate certification and swearing in of Senator elect Scott Brown.
That senate seat has been monopolized by the Democrats for nearly fifty years. Democrats outnumber Republicans among registered voters in Mass. That fact adds great emphasis to the electoral message. We have one way to make that message more emphatic, lets do it now!
DNA reports that the
Bombay High Court upheld a state ban on the publication of
Islam — A concept of Political World Invasion
by RV Bhasin.
Freedom of expression granted by the Constitution, the bench said, should not be used to trigger “senseless destruction of lives and property and breach of public order”.
If a book describing Islamic doctrines and practices is judged to trigger violence, then what about the Qur'an, which sanctifies and mandates genocidal terrorism? The Calcutta Qur'an Petition was arbitrarily dismissed,. yet this case upholds this book banning. Which is worse, a book which perpetuates an order to engage in aggressive warfare or a book which describes its effects? It is obvious that the wrong book was banned.
My Groups
-
Education or Indoctrination In Socialism Updated: 22 minutes ago
-
The United States Founding Fathers and Their Original Documents Updated: 22 minutes ago
-
Socialism: The Thief of Americans Rights and Freedoms Updated: 22 minutes ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Recent Comments
-
theway2k said:
President BHO's entire political career has the appearance of deception and duplicity. The prayer breakfast was no different. read more
on National Prayer Breakfast Desecrated -
Ben said:
To the best of my knowledge, the government of the USA is not yet selling or contemplating Sukuk. Gt. Britain... read more
on Britain: Considering Shari'ah Compliant Bonds -
a12iggymom said:
It isn't just the Brits, the USA is shariah compliant also, AIG, Well Fargo, HSBC, all of them have shariah... read more
on Britain: Considering Shari'ah Compliant Bonds -
Ben said:
Web based polls tend to be self selected, destroying any claim of scientific survey methodology. They ain't worth the paper... read more
on Obamination: State Of The Union
Absolutely right, John! read more
on National Prayer Breakfast Desecrated