Credit Obama & Crew for thumbing their nose at Israel, as has no other American presidential administration. This president has done everything but embrace Hamas openly (and that’s been close, since he’s funneled money to Palestinian organizations that are ultimately siphoned off and put to use by Hamas).

We’ve seen Iran’s growing tyranny against angry citizens who want a more democratic way of life. We’ve seen its antiquated administration rig elections that left in place toxic leaders who were in turn acknowledged by Obama, even though other major powers steered clear of such affirmations.

And how has President Ahmadinejad rewarded the world? By stalling the UN’s nuclear inspection tours; by finally letting them in and agreeing to ship its enriched nuclear material out of Iran, then reneging on that promise; by responding to UN sanctions not with a diminishment of its nuclear program but to expand it and build 10 more nuclear plants in the coming years; and according to British intelligence, by finally perfecting a nuclear trigger that will substantially advance its ability to fire its nuclear weaponry.

But perhaps Iran’s most flagrant mockery of the sanctions America and others have threatened them with is its firing of a new missile powered by solid fuel that will increase the country’s distance and precision ability to strike others (“Iran Test-Fires Its Longest Range Missile,” FOX News, December 16, 2009, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580341,00.html).

Where does this leave Israel? In increasingly dire straights. It’s clear that Ahmadinejad will continue to steer Iran as he and his religious backers see fit. It’s also clear that Iran’s ultimate goal, once it has the power to do it, is to destroy Israel with a nuclear blast.

And unfortunately, it’s also clear that Israel will not get much help from America under the current US president, who’s clueless about a lot of matters, including foreign policy. What has Obama really done for Israel except to send delegates like Defense Secretary Robert Gates over there to implore the country to practice patience? And what has such patience yielded? Months of increasingly truculent behavior by Iran.

Thanks to thousands of pages of “Warmergate” e-mails that were leaked last month from the Climatic Research Unit’s (CRU) computers in England, we understand why it’s 18 degrees as we sit in the northeast and hammer out another essay (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html). The wind is roaring and it feels like four degrees and it isn’t even officially winter. Global warming? Hardly.

Despite the mainstream media’s lack of coverage and the Obama administration’s denial, there’s strong evidence that we’ve been lied to for years about human-caused climate change. Rush Limbaugh asserts that the “left has already corrupted science,” and that “it’s one of the four corners of deceit in the world” (The Rush Limbaugh Show, December 11, 2009). He’s right.

Warmergate, Climategate, Junk Science – call it what you will – shows that there is no integrity to the scientists and individuals, especially Al Gore, who have promoted the idea that planet Earth’s temperatures are the highest they’ve been in 1,300 years with their “hockey stick” chart. There’s strong evidence that these so-called scientists have fudged data and that “recent warming may not be unnatural or predominately caused by man at all” (Steven F. Hayward. “What Climategate Really Tells Us,” New York Post, December 12, 2009). This concocted crisis is good in one respect: it’s exposing to many the harm that’s been done to our economy, energy production, businesses and farms, thanks to the left’s promotion of and cover-up of a pseudoscience.

What’s there left to say to the instigators of Climategate but THANK YOU?  Yet even before the scandal that’s giving Al Gorites horrible nightmares hit, you didn’t have to be a scientist to scoff at the notion that humans and cows are breathing and farting the world into everlasting hellfire.  Study the cool temps we’ve experienced throughout the nation all year and you know that the global warming alarmists are just that – alarmists.

But don’t take our words for it.  There are enough scientists who don’t buy the global warming mythos (or Gore's horror movie) and are seeking the truth.  At least 30 thousand of them are suing Gore for perpetrating the Big Bad Warming Lie.

The e-mails in question reveal duplicity and worse on the part of some corrupt scientists.  Science is about shredding all other possibilities until a hypothesis stands alone and must be accepted as fact.  That’s not what has happened in this case.  Climate models have been distorted by data and code manipulation, which is certainly unscientific.

And don’t believe Al Gore’s claim that the series of e-mails in question were exchanged 10 years ago.  The shenanigans were in full swing as recently as last month.

While you’re at it, you’re better off dismissing anything and everything Al Gore tells you.  Remember, this is the guy who told us that just two kilometers below its surface, the earth is hotter than the sun.  He’s the same Gore who while touring Thomas Jefferson’s home, Monticello, came upon statues of George Washington and Ben Franklin and asked, “Who are these people?”  (Don’t buy it?  See the C-SPAN video for yourself here: http://www.mediaresearch.org/videobias/gore/welcome.asp .) Gore also once claimed that he invented the Internet.

Even as Obama planned his appearance at the Copenhagen energy conference to pledge America’s drastic reduction of energy consumption and emissions within the next few years, a few honest folk are still fighting for us.  Credit Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) for standing up to Obama.  The senior Republican on the House Select Committee for Energy and Global Warming went to Copenhagen to counter any Obama pledges.  Sensenbrenner wants “scientific fascism” to end now (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/09/sensenbrenner-climate-fascism/).  Many of us do.

Senate Republicans are also rallying to counter the nonsense.  28 senators want the United Nations to conduct its own investigation of the e-mails and hire an independent sleuth to get to the truth (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/10/gop-senators-urge-appoint-independent-investigator-climate-gate/).

We can save everyone a lot of money by simply using our heads.  (We are, as the frigid wind continues its wail outside and we continue to write.)  The earth’s moods, like the seasons, are cyclical.  Our planet cools and warms. Some suggest “that the ‘medieval warm period’ was considerably warmer than even 1998. Of course, this is inconvenient to climate change believers because there were no cars or factories pumping out greenhouse gases in 1000AD - yet the Earth still warmed” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html).

Human beings may affect these cycles to some degree, but do we have the power to breathe and fart ourselves to death?  It makes for a wild science fiction story but let’s emphasize the second part of the term.

In the end, science fiction may also explain Al Gore:  besides being a closet poet dying for an open mic night, he may also be a frustrated scribe of the fantastic.  Give the man another book contract if you must, publishers, but strive for honesty next go-round and slap the word SCI-FI on the spine of Gore’s next tome.

By Kelly L. Goodridge and Oscar De Los Santos

It’s official: If the massive government takeover of health care goes through, Medicare spending will shrink.  The Democrats are busy building a 60-vote consensus for government-run health care and on Thursday (Dec. 3), the Senate voted to pass its projected $400 billion-dollar cut to Medicare.

Yep.  Sarah Palin was right.  They’re planning “Death Panels” for senior citizens and those who plan to benefit from Medicare in the future.  Mark Levin calls the bill a “runaway train” and challenged Republicans to stop making amendments to the bill, especially when they don’t like “the guts” of it (Levin, WELI 960, 12/04/09).  If Democrats get their way, many of us will be left waiting at the station. Even worse, we may not even get a ticket for this shoddy train ride.  Instead, we will be at the mercy of bureaucrats who will decide our care and treatments. 

These are the same bureaucrats who have exempted themselves from the bill they’re proposing for us; the same group that plunged unemployment to double digits and tripled the national deficit in less than a year.  They’re part of the administration that sides with climate criminals, have little to no private sector job experience and use vulgar nicknames for those who protest their power grabs and spending.

Who wants the single-payer plan or any other plan we can sum up as Obamacare? No one but Obama & Co. and a few other deluded Liberals. According to the latest Rasmussen poll on the subject, 62% of Americans oppose the single-pay system “where the federal government provides coverage for everyone” (December 3, 2009, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/november_2009/62_oppose_single_payer_health_care_system).

If single pay is so great, why are Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid fighting tooth and nail to ramrod the plan through Congress as quickly as possible? Wouldn’t they want to get a reform as monumental as health care right before implementing a single part of it? Of course not. They care only about staying in power and they’re even willing to sacrifice some of their own to get the plan through.

This is kamikaze governance at its most blatant. Citizens throughout the nation – via E-mails, telephone calls, town hall meetings with their senators and representatives, visits to Congress and various other means – have done their best to voice their disapproval of Obamacare. Yet it doesn’t matter to the mad conductors.

No matter what kind of spin the charlatans put on it, the single-payer numbers always come out wrong. The latest alarming figures come from the Congressional Budget Office, which “predicts that 6.4 million people who now get insurance through their employer will lose that coverage and buy insurance on the non-group market: The [Harry Reid Senate health care] bill would push many employers who have older or sicker workers to simply end their existing insurance plan, forcing these workers into the non-group market.” Don’t count on younger and healthier insured in the same pool balancing the pool if they’re in with those older and in need of more care. In fact, “The biggest losers would be the younger, healthier people who get insurance in the non-group market: Their premiums would rise because Reid’s regulations would force them to subsidize that influx of older, sicker people that his ‘reform’ drives out of the group market” (Rea Hederman, “You Will Pay More,” New York Post, December 2, 2009).

Also, the bill will reduce health care procedures that aren’t life threatening (knee operations and hip replacements, for instance) – so roll out the wheelchairs and practice using crutches.

Factor in the cost of family insurance packages that the CBO predicts will spike by 16% and we’re forced once again to wonder if anyone seriously thinks that the cockeyed systems Congress is concocting are any better than what’s in existence right now.

We conclude this crazy-train analogy by pleading with those in government who oppose Obamacare to continue to take a stand against it – or to jump off this disaster in the making and join the sensible. That includes Liberal members of Congress. Regardless of the hell Pelosi and Reid have promised to level on defectors, the latter should recognize that their only prayer of getting re-elected is giving We the People what we want – and what we want is NOTHING to do with socialized medicine, i.e., single-payer insurance, i.e., Obamacare.

We waited three months for THIS? Gen. Stanley McChrystal recognized that the only way to make headway in the Afghan war – a war President Obama himself called “a war of necessity” before he stopped calling it a war at all and then returned to doing so tonight – was to bring 40,000 more troops to the front. So McChrystal put in the additional troops request.

Instead of responding, Obama mulled things over. And mulled things over some more. He held a National Security Council meeting. And then another.

Days passed. Obama attended more “man-made disaster” briefings (nine in total) as American soldiers were killed. He hemmed and hawed when anyone asked what was taking him so long to make a decision. The weeks trickled by and our soldiers – hampered by rules of engagement seemingly designed to give the enemy an edge – held their own and hoped for the requested reinforcements.

Meanwhile, Obama lost the Chicago Olympics bid. He won a Nobel Prize. He held a White House state dinner in a tent (the cost to taxpayers for that soiree is still unknown).

And McChrystal and the troops waited as Obama mused some more and asked the country not to rush to judgment on the Ft. Hood Massacre and played endless rounds of golf.

Finally, tonight, the president responded to McChrystal’s request. He did so first by announcing a pullout timeline before getting to the number of additional troops he would send over.

Gen. McChrystal requested at least 40,000 additional soldiers. That request was delivered to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on August 30^th. Tonight, Obama committed to 30,000 troops over the nest six to eight months.

But the president with his rhetoric sent the enemy a gift of hope instead of fear: by mentioning a timeline for withdrawal before getting to any talk of increasing the American presence in Afghanistan, he in effect told al Qaeda and the Taliban that if they bear with us until July 2011, we’ll be out of their turbans, whether we’ve finished the job there or not.

Setting aside any talk of a surge or timeline, perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Obama’s speech is that he used it to sell his own interests. It’s no stretch to call him our most media-exposed president. He knows how to work a crowd, the liberal press and a teleprompter. Unfortunately, put him in front of an audience – especially one with cameras in the house – and he can’t stop his endless campaigning.

So Obama used his speech to slam George W. Bush and D1ck Cheney again by bringing up Iraq and whether that war was handled well or not. He used his speech to tell us that Islam “is one of the world’s great religions.” He reminded us that he’s a pacifist. (To reiterate: he talked about withdrawal before he talked about a surge.) He reminded us that America is all about human rights and that Gitmo had to be closed. And just in case you didn’t get his Muslim word embrace the first time, he told us that by fighting in Afghanistan, our nation affirms its commitment to the Muslim world.

Obama should have dazzled tonight. Instead, for all his somber look and tone, he came off looking like a huckster trying to pitch a tired bag of tricks.

Even when he did talk about the goals of the war remaining the same – “to disrupt, dismantle and defend al Qaeda in Afghanistan” – he didn’t get into specifics. And he seemed more concerned about the monetary cost of the war than the human cost.

In the end, Obama’s pacifist and withdrawal talk made him come off sounding weak. Indeed, his speech only affirms that Vice President D1ck Cheney assesses Obama correctly in his latest Politico interview:

“Here’s a guy without much experience, who campaigned against much of what we put in place ... and who now travels around the world apologizing,” Cheney said. “I think our adversaries — especially when that’s preceded by a deep bow ... — see that as a sign of weakness.” (December 1, 2009, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/30024.html)

Obama’s preference for an Afghan exit strategy over a victory is evident. Certainly al Qaeda and the Taliban read the president as weak before tonight’s speech. Nothing Obama said tonight will change their opinion of him. All that was missing was a bow.

By Kelly L. Goodridge and Oscar De Los Santos

OK would like to send out a big thank you to our troops serving in Afghanistan, Iraq and throughout the world.  We’re thankful for these men and women who fight for our freedom.  We hoped that Obama would also express his gratitude, but he used his Thanksgiving Eve speech to send out a Haijj message to Muslims around the world.

In fact, in spite – and in some cases, because – of Barack Obama’s bad- and non-decision-making, there are at least eleven other reasons to be thankful on this holiday.  With that in mind, here’s our list of Top Reasons to Be Thankful on Thanksgiving 2009:

12. We still have private health insurance if we buy it – and aren’t yet thrown into jail if we elect not to buy it.

11. Illegal immigrants are still illegal and haven’t been given an umbrella pass into the fold without procedure.

10. As a result of the Ft. Hood massacre, we’re more aware of the extent to which political correctness has run amok and hamstrung our military and other law enforcement agencies.

9. The global warming hoax is being exposed for what it is: a hoax.

8. The liberal media continues to out itself as a hypocritical dying entity.  (The latest over-the-top examples: Chris Mathews stressing that it’s not a crime to E-mail al-Qaeda; The New York Times suddenly going sanctimonious and declaring it would not publish the hacked global warming E-mails because the newspaper doesn’t publish content that wasn’t meant for the public eye.  Is The Gray Lady suffering sudden memory loss?  What about the E-mails in Sarah Palin’s hacked mailbox, posts to which they provided a link?  What about The Pentagon Papers?)

7. We still have the freedom of speech.

6. We still have the right to bear arms.

5. We still have the right to practice the religion of our choice.

4. We’re Natural Born Citizens of this great country – and can prove it if called upon to do so.

3. We have a great circle of friends and fellow conservatives with whom we touch base at OK, We’re Right and Free Republic.

2. Our law enforcement officers and firefighters, who work hard to keep us safe each day.

1. Our troops, fighting for America’s freedom, short in number, thanks to Obama's ongoing procrastinations, but long in resolve, love of country and spiritual strength.

All right, so both Richard Nixon and Barack Hussein Obama went to China. But when it comes to comparing the presidents’ visits – and their leadership and foreign policy skills in general – Nixon trumps Obama hands down.

Let’s begin with what is perhaps the least important but symbolic: Nixon and Obama’s trips to The Great Wall. Nixon’s political finesse was sharply refined, even if the liberal press often refused to give him his due. What did he say upon visiting The Wall in 1972? Something that doesn’t sound so sharp – “I think you would have to conclude this is a great wall . . .” – unless the entire quote is heard – “. . .and it must have been built by a great people.” Of course most of the press ran with the first half of his statement and conveniently left off the second half.

What did Obama say when he saw the wall? “Spectacular.” And? How about a little more, please, Mr. President? “It’s a reminder of the ancient history of the Chinese people.” Anything else? “It gives you a good perspective on a lot of the day-to-day things. They don’t amount to much in the scope of history.”

Huh? (See Edward Luce, “Obama in Nixon’s Footsteps at Great Wall,” Financial Times, November 18, 2009, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2d77dde8-d430-11de-990c-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1)

We can turn to the Frost/Nixon interviews for greater illumination of each president’s foreign policy smarts. Nixon is far and away the greater statesman. At one point in his China reflections, he talks about the way the Chinese gauge any leader. In essence, he says the minute you start talking about wanting peace and harmony, the Chinese will regard you as a fool.  For them, it's all about the struggle to achieve and attain.  They don't want to hear platitudes. What has Obama done since he got in office but spout his pacifist ideologies and apologize to America’s enemies? Obama is bowing to other world leaders even when he’s not physically bowing to them (which is rare these days).

Nixon also touched on the excessive power of the media and the danger of media conglomerates. (What would the man think of our current media monopolies?) Obama, on the other hand, loves the small media gene pool. In fact, he’s incensed by the few dissenting voices (FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity).

Nixon was also shrewd about the extent to which a president should utilize television. He tells Frost that a president can over-expose himself and diminish the power of his message by going on television more than once or twice a month, tops. Here’s another lesson that the self-over-exposed Obama has yet to learn.

But perhaps the most valuable difference between Nixon and Obama comes when we consider Nixon’s reflections on ideology vs. survival. In the Frost interviews, he says that regardless of its belief system, when a nation must choose between ideology and survival, the latter always wins out.  Obama may be the first American president in history to defy that edict as he does all he can to advance his socialist ideology – at America’s expense.

We keep hearing that Obama is “the first Pacific president.” He’s even called himself that. Many other presidents were either born near the Pacific or made significant splashes there. They too can be regarded as Pacific presidents. As Michael Scherer asks, “what should we say about two of our recent presidents--Ronald Reagan (born in Illinois, but came of age in Hollywood, becoming Governor of the Pacific state of California) or Richard Nixon (born in Yorba Linda, California, just a few miles from Newport Beach, served in the Pacific theater in World War II, represented California in the House and Senate.)” (“Barack Obama: First Pacific President? Not Exactly,” TIME/Swampland, November 14, 2009, http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/11/14/barack-obama-first-pacific-president-not-exactly/).

And for those who object to the Republican examples, let’s not forget John F. Kennedy aboard PT-109. If he doesn’t qualify as a Pacific president, who does?

Back to Obama and Nixon. Watching the Frost/Nixon interviews provides you with keen insight into Nixon’s expansive foreign policy experience and wisdom, qualities Barack Obama will never master as long as he keeps bowing to other leaders and saying I’m sorry for the United States’ past actions.

Richard M. Nixon worked hard to move beyond Watergate and rehabilitate his reputation. He succeeded to some great extent. No one denied Nixon’s keen foreign policy intelligence by the end of life. Obama should buy the Frost/Nixon DVD’s and a collection of Nixon’s many penned books. He would learn much from them.

By Kelly L. Goodridge and Oscar De Los Santos

In Obamanopoly, players start out with money, a house, health insurance, a retirement plan and savings accounts.  Some have small businesses; others have farms and work for themselves.  Many are working at their career of choice.  Unfortunately, instead of watching their wealth grow, players watch it disappear.

Obamanopoly is a game of luck.  It’s also a game of war as players from the private sector fight to hold onto their assets while racing to reach the vault that contains Obama’s long-form birth certificate.  During play, Obama, Congress and the Department of Justice – a government of endless dishonesty and lacking fiscal responsibility – blankets the board with communism by taking one’s freedom and wealth and redistributing it about the board.

Players try to reach the birth certificate and hold-off the communist takeover.  They are taxed with each roll of the dice.  They can only hope that they don’t land on any community organization or union spaces.  If so, they have to draw a Community (Organizer) Chest card that forces more income redistribution.  Players pay their fines and taxes in “Obama Money.”

By the way, in Obamanopoly, as in the original game, we're dealing with phony money.  It's no effort to keep spending and printing it.  Why should the administration be nervous about asking Congress to raise the national debt ceiling?  It's just a game, right?

Tax increase spaces are liberally spread throughout the board.  There’s also a mandatory health care space and if players don’t or can’t pay, they go directly to jail.  The Cap and Trade, carbon footprint, and greenhouse gas spaces all take 40% of one’s wealth.  The Constitution is written in invisible ink and players soon learn that their money and property belong to the government.

Speaking of property, green and red houses and businesses (what other colors would these be in a game obsessed with green energy and communist takeover?) are ultimately stripped from the original owners and returned to Fannie and Freddie, who in turn deeds them back to the government.  Of course, a lucky few may draw an ACORN card from the Chance or Community (Organizer) Chest piles and keep their property for a few trips around the board.  Then non-fixed interest rates spike and it’s goodbye sweet home, goodbye.

So much for home.  What about work?  Whom do you work for?  Do you happen to own a business, large or small?  It doesn’t matter.  Sooner or later, like those business ownership cards one acquires upon purchase of a property in the original Monopoly, someone else will own them.  In this case, it's the government as Obama & Co. swallow the little guy and takeover big business, moving all players ever closer to socialism.

Of course, if you’re anxious to get there and put yourself out of the misery, hop a ride aboard one of the vehicles slapped together by the bailed out government car dealers that have replaced the original Monopoly’s railroads.

Naturally, the rules of Obamanopoly include amnesty for illegal aliens and rights for all terrorists.  In fact, at all times during the game, one is under threat of a nuclear or terrorist attack.  Because the game is set in a nation governed by a utopian dreamer, there is no recourse for one of these hits except to close the board and accept defeat for all.

Oh, and the game instructions are transparent.  Are you ready to Advance to Go?

Then how about a stay in jail?  As in the original game, there's a detainment center – but no one deserving stays there.  Terrorists, traitors and chiselers are let loose in Bermuda and other exotic locales.

Who gets stuck in the clink?  Who doesn't get to pass go and collect 200 dollars?  You know whom because you’re trapped in the game with the rest of us.

We've seen headlines that describe the Ft. Hood terrorist attack as “typical workplace violence” and “pre- post traumatic disorder.”  We've seen it called a tragedy.  So far, few have covered the Ft. Hood killings more accurately or honestly than Col. Ralph Peters.  In article after article printed in the New York Post Peters hasn’t shirked away from calling last Thursday’s slaughter an act of terrorism. (See “Call this horror by its name: Islamist terror,” Nov. 7; “Obama Can’t Be bothered by Islamic terrorism,” Nov. 8; “Deadly Denial,” Nov. 10). Even as The New York Times, MSNBC, CNN and other media sources try to rally around murderer Nidal Malik Hasan and paint him as a picked on soldier who cracked, Peters has slammed Hasan’s behavior and President Barack Hussein Obama for failing to label Hasan a Muslim terrorist – a moniker he has earned.

Paul Sperry also wrote a strong article on the subject for the New York Post (“The Military’s Blinders,” November 7).  That’s no surprise.  Sperry has written two powerful books that expose radical Muslim infiltration into every facet of American culture:  Infiltration and Muslim Mafia (the latter co-written with David Gaubatz).

Not everyone on radio and television has danced around the truth when covering Ft. Hood.  It’s probably no surprise that Sean Hannity has covered the Army killings extensively and so honestly that he’s probably made fellow FOX anchor Geraldo Rivera squirm.  And Bill O’Reilly has been “fair and balanced” – and accurate – in exposing the media whitewash.

Not surprisingly, Rush Limbaugh has been a sharp critic of the media and its coverage of the Hasan killings.  Never one to pull punches, Rush understands that Hasan isn’t a victim of the “pre-post traumatic stress disorder” the lamestream media conveniently conjured up to explain Hasan’s behavior.

These examples of truth telling fly in the face of those who are too blind or too afraid to confront Muslim hatred for America head-on.

Unfortunately, it’s not just the press that’s sprinting away from reality toward fantasy when it comes to bowing to Islamic extremism and terrorism.  Consider what’s happening at the movies:  Ron “The Da Vinci Code” Howard had no problem lensing a film about a married Jesus and Mary Magdalene but he re-wrote “Angels and Demons” and cut all Muslim speculation, for fear of Islamic repercussions.  And writer/director Roland Emmerich decided it was all right to blow away famous Christian iconography in his forthcoming “2012” film but he steered away from including any images depicting the destruction of Muslim imagery.  How’s that for all-inclusive cinematic representation?

Thankfully, not everyone’s a sellout.  Some conservative journalists refuse to contribute to the cover-up. (Let’s add Michele Malkin, Bernard Goldberg, Mark Levin, Michael Savage and Dlck Morris to those mentioned earlier.) Sadly, however, the lion’s share of our liberal press is playing the whitewash game. So are our president and many military commanders and law enforcement agency heads.

Shortly after Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan yelled “Aluhu Akbar!” (God is Great!), massacred 13 soldiers and wounded dozens of others at Ft. Hood last Thursday (Nov. 5), President Barack Hussein Obama warned Americans not to jump to any conclusions about the killer. A couple of days ago (Nov. 8), Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) announced his Homeland Security committee would conduct an investigation to see whether the Ft. Hood massacre is an Islamic terrorist incident. In Dubai as she lectured to United Arab Emirates members on Sunday, Janet Napolitano promised not to let any Ft. Hood massacre backlash fall on Muslims across America. And in America, the liberal press hammers home victimology and stresses that Hasan may have cracked because of the ridicule he suffered over his Muslim faith.

These proclamations insult the intelligence of informed Americans.   By the end of the day of the shootings, so many telltale signals about Maj. Hasan’s skewed ideology had leaked that the only thing left for the non-duped to figure out was whether he acted alone or was part of a larger terrorist plot.

Let’s be very clear about why Hasan could get away with perpetrating the Ft. Hood massacre: we’re living in a country that’s drowning in political correctness. It’s run amok and this is the starkest example of what it gets you: dead and wounded soldiers who were willing to risk their lives for their country, but who never expected to be shot in their own homes (and if a military base isn’t a soldier’s home away from home, what is).

This is what PC gets you: a military psychiatrist who tried to get his patients to be sympathetic to Islam; who was happy when he heard about the Arkansas military recruitment massacre and essentially wrote that America might be better off it saw extremists strap bombs on themselves and blow themselves up in Times Square; who walked around in Muslim garb and attended the same Mosque where some of the 9/11 airline hijackers worshipped; who championed Muslim extremist beliefs in front of other soldiers.

PC makes you untouchable in America. In spite of all the signs that Hasan was a radical working within the military system, he was left alone. Complaints about Hasan from soldiers were ignored. Why? No commander wanted to be accused of being unsympathetic to the Muslim major.

Here’s something else PC gets you: bad behavior from our president. Even before he cautioned us not to come to conclusions about Hasan, President Obama was diffident in his treatment of the Ft. Hood massacre. Naturally, the lamestream media covered up Obama’s shout out and carefree behavior at the Tribal Nations Conference before he finally announced the Ft. Hood attacks. In fact, it took Obama two minutes before he addressed the Jihad at Fort Hood (freedomeden.blogspot.com, November 6, 2009). As Michael Savage points out, it is the largest attack on a military base in American history and Obama couldn’t “even fake sincerity about the slaughter” (WELI, The Michael Savage Show, November 6, 2009). 

Even now, only a brave few in the media dare bring up Hasan’s radical Muslim ideology. Most papers and TV networks would rather talk about the terrible torture Hasan endured over being chided for his Muslim beliefs; how we should be sympathetic to his plight over getting deployment orders and so on. Mark Stein observes that Hasan’s may be the first case of pre-traumatic stress syndrome ever recorded (WELI, The Rush Limbaugh Show, November 6, 2009).

How depressing and infuriating that not even the toppling of the Twin Towers taught us anything about foregoing political correctness in favor of keeping America secure. As Paul Sperry notes, “The FBI takes a lot of heat for missing the 9/11 plot, especially from Congress. But Congress did not exactly help the bureau catch terrorists before 9/11. In fact, just a year before the attacks, some members effectively blocked reforms that would have made it easier for agents to monitor terrorist suspects. Why? They did not want them ‘spying’ on the Muslim community.” Even after a bipartisan panel warned Congress “that religious motivated groups, namely al-Qaida, were hell-bent on inflicting ‘mass casualties on American soil,’ Congress ignored the committee’s 40 recommendations” (Sperry, Infiltration, 135).

Not that the FBI is blameless – not then and not now. “Just weeks before 9/11, supervisors at FBI headquarters fought Minneapolis agents seeking a warrant to search alleged twentieth hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui’s apartment and computer, claiming they did not have enough cause, even though agents cited two criminal violations in their request. And they frowned on a proposal by an agent in Phoenix to question Middle Eastern men enrolled at flight schools across the country, because it might look racist” (Sperry, Infiltration, 138-139).

Now we hear that the FBI knew – for almost a year – that Hasan was trying to contact al-Qaida. Yet the agency ignored the information (John Doyle and Chuck Bennett, “FBI blew off killer e-mail to al-Qaida,” New York Post, November 10, 2009, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/fbi_blew_off_killer_mail_to_al_qaeda_Bqi6bMwstWFXefjamp9CdJ).

Let’s save Joe Lieberman’s committee a lot of work and taxpayer dollars: Even if Hasan acted alone and wasn’t part of a larger terrorist plot, his motive and behavior make the Ft. Hood killings a terrorist act. Hasan falsely swore to uphold the Constitution as an enlisted member of the U.S. Army and instead favored a faith that promotes killing American citizens.

Let’s also dispense with political correctness and be frank about Hasan’s religion: Islam is a religion of hate. Muslims are taught to love Allah and damn those who don’t. Non-believers in the Muslim faith – especially Christians and Jews – are the enemy and should be exterminated. Period. Forget pluralism and religious bi-partisanship. Muslims don’t want to hear it and certainly don’t believe in it, even those who profess otherwise.

Unfortunately, many others don’t want to face these truths. They continue to embrace PC. And they sit in top positions at agencies originally designed to keep America safe but now seemingly more concerned with protecting the rights of prospective terrorists.

By Kelly L. Goodridge and Oscar De Los Santos

OK finds it hard not to feel that we’re in survival mode.  Each day spent under President Barack Hussein Obama’s rule makes it clearer that our right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and property are no longer safe.   We’ve attended TEA Parties, local conservative events, called and written our senators, congressmen and Supreme Court justices.  We’ve supported conservative authors, written dozens of essays – and yet, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives still passed its unconstitutional health care legislation Saturday night (October 7, 2009).

Call it anything you like – the House Health Care Bill, ObamaCare, Pelosi’s Health Plan or Communist Health Care – the bill is another government power grab that will further shrink our freedom and yield more debts and dead.

Pelosi’s 1900-page boondoggle insures that we lose our ability to decide whom we choose for our doctors and the care and treatments we’d like to receive.  With its massive baggage – 111 new government bureaucracies, steep cost, taxes, stiff penalties for those who don’t buy it, death panels, and coverage of illegal aliens – the bill promises more government control over our lives.  It also proves that Joe “You Lie” Wilson and Sarah Palin were right about everything they feared would be included in the bill.

Incredibly, some health care articles report that the bill also offers paybacks to unions and AARP and tax breaks for homosexuals.  And we know that small business owners will be slammed with penalties for not covering their employees.

The Democrats’ plan treads all over the Constitution, which does not give Congress the right to implement such legislation.  The bill also promises an unsustainable federal government.  Yet, it appears this is Obama’s plan – to turn our great country toward socialism.

Obama on Saturday called TEA party and town hall meeting attendees “teabag anti-government people” and “extremists" (The New York Times, November 7, 2009).  His using a slang sexual term for concerned American citizens underscores his penchant for crude Chicago-style bully tactics.  He’s right about being anti-government, though.  We’re anti- the form of government that Obama, his communist-loving czars and greedy Democrat socialist politicians are dishing out.

Obama took an oath to honor the Constitution of the United States of America, but he continues to demonstrate a lack of love for this country and its citizens.  His behavior after being informed of the Ft. Hood massacre – giving a "shout out” to someone in the Tribal Nations Conference audience and speaking in a light-hearted manner before discussing the attack – is as wrong-headed as his stubborn insistence that our nation is clamoring for socialized health care.

The health care bill’s clearing the House moves us ever closer to Communism.  Let’s hope that Senate conservatives stay their course and kill the bill. Otherwise, the most radical health care revision since Medicare will go into effect and clamp a tighter chokehold on our already suffocating American freedoms.

Should we believe White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs when he claimed that President Barack Hussein Obama wouldn’t be watching last night’s election returns? Of course not. Why? Because unless Obama was intrigued by the Bowling Green at Buffalo nail biter, it was a slow TV night – except of course, for the election returns.

OK thinks that like everything else about this administration, what we were told wasn’t what was going on behind the scenes. We think Obama & Co. anticipated last night’s results. In fact, we think several TVs were on inside the White House last night and that Obama checked out election returns with the rest of us. Moreover, we believe what he saw frightened him as much as any scary movie on the tube on Halloween night.

Yesterday’s election returns hammered home what many of us have sensed was brewing the past few months. Last night was the exclamation point of the statement carved by the TEA parties, angry citizens protesting the senseless healthcare bills, the September 12^th D.C. conservative invasion and those who believe the last stimulus bill did about as much good as a fully wired house when the electric company shuts off the juice.

It’s more than a feeling now. It’s a certainty – and it can be summed up in a few words: CONSERVATISM IS ON THE RISE.

More than that, the GOP victories are “a warning shot” as Eric Cantor (R-VA) summed up the Virginia takeover, “and it says to the moderate Democrats in the House that they ought to think twice about continuing to pursue the policies of this White House and (White House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi” (“GOP Gains Could Hurt Obama Political Capital, If Not Agenda,” November 4, 2009, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/03/gop-gains-hurt-obama-capital-agenda/).

Virginia voters gave conservatives throughout the land a triple gift: a new conservative governor (Bob McDonnell), a re-elected conservative lieutenant governor (Bill Bolling) and a conservative attorney general (Ken Cuccinelli). So much for Obama’s star power. The ads he cut for Dem loser Creigh Deeds sounded more like bombastic leftover Obama for Prez sound bytes and didn’t help Deeds at all.

But it may be New Jersey voters who rattled Dems the most. Governor Corzine is out, in spite of slamming challenger Chris Christie for everything from sidestepping ethics laws to being overweight. Christie will be the Garden State’s new helmsman, leaving Corzine to mull over his campaign failure and Obama’s three Corzine campaign visits to Jersey, which did little to help the governor’s cause.

Let’s not forget that even before conservatives stormed the polls, they had already made it clear they’re tired of centrists and those who go the wishy-washy route. Case in point: RINO Dede Scozzafava withdrew from New York’s 23^rd Congressional District race after feeling conservative heat. She then fully exposed her liberal colors by backing Democrat Bill Owens. Although Owens defeated conservative Doug Hoffman, it was good to see Scozzafava buckle under pressure and fully out herself.

We need much more of the true conservatism we witnessed last night – and it’s coming. This is one show to be a part of, a show not to be missed. We predict its ratings will soar in the 2010 season. (Don’t miss any more episodes, Mr. President.)

It’s been over two months since General McChrystal, our top commander in Afghanistan, put out the call for more troops.  President Barack Hussein Obama continues to hem and haw and hold endless meetings to discuss the issue.  Maybe he’s too busy having parties with J-Lo and friends, compiling his enemies list, pushing healthcare, playing B ball and campaigning for fellow Dems to worry about such trivialities as warfare.  Meanwhile, things get worse abroad and more of our soldiers are paying the highest of price for an indecisive commander-in-chief.

Obama’s stalling is a perfect example of his methodology: vacillate and ignore a problem or fixate on discussion rather than action.  It’s inertia vs. movement.

President George W. Bush was all about action and movement.  People denigrated his cowboy diplomacy but he acted in the best interests of his country and those at risk.

Obama is standing still. He’s acting as if he were posing for an oil painting while America suffers.  He seems more interested in his celebrity status than the people he was elected to govern and protect.

When we do see Obama move, it’s to advance his personal legacy.  Consider that he still claims to have put an end to torture in the context of military interrogations when we never advocated it.  Consider that he continues to work to close Gitmo and bring terrorists to American soil.  (The Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens are under attack on a daily basis with Obama and his Marxist and Mao-loving camp, even as known terrorists will be given constitutional rights and tried in American courts.  OK imagines that so much of the information that could convict the terrorists will need to be omitted during their trials due to national security.  In other words, it's hard to feel confident that justice will be served.)

And Obama promises to make Cap and Trade a reality.  This on the heels of growing evidence that Al Gore's global warming is a hoax (and a profitable one that’s made the ex-vice president rich in spite of thousands of scientists who counter the issue and want to debate Gore on the issue; he refuses. He even had a reporter’s microphone cut when the questions concerning discrepancies in An Inconvenient Truth grew too warm and inconvenient).

Moreover, Obama promises to make national healthcare come to pass.  This is yet another power grab designed to dismantle the greatest healthcare system in the world.

In other words, when it comes to radically changing our country – for the worse – Obama hops to the task with a lilt in his step.  But when it comes to directing necessary attention to foreign policy and winning a war, he checks out.

How’s this for cowboy diplomacy:  “the strategic nuclear power of the United States has been so greatly modernized and expanded in the last 1,000 days, by the rapid production and deployment of the most modern missile systems, that any and all potential aggressors are clearly confronted now with the impossibility of strategic victory – and the certainty of total destruction – if by reckless attack they should ever force upon us the necessity of a strategic reply.”

Who spoke those words?  No one, actually – but President John Fitzgerald Kennedy would have, if he had lived long enough to make it to the Dallas Trade Mart the afternoon he was assassinated.  The differences between John Kennedy and Barack Obama – between being a Democrat in the Kennedy era and being a Democrat in the 21^st century – are profound.  JFK spoke often of peace in the world, but he understood the price that had to be paid in order to attain it.  His administration engaged in numerous clandestine activities designed to ensure America’s freedom and safety.  Obama’s vision of a pacifist world, on the other hand, is pure fantasy - a utopian dream.  Ultimately, it’s about ignoring a problem and hoping it goes away, rather than acting to fix it.

Obama’s M.O. also involves using the lamestream media to set up smokescreens and divert attention from a lack of decision on Afghanistan and our country’s most pressing issues.  We hear more about balloon boy hoaxes than about energy bills that will kill our already depleted bank accounts. We hear about Obama’s vow to end “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military while our soldiers are imperiled abroad.  We hear about how baaaaaaaad FOX News is, how Obama will not grant it any interviews until at least 2010 and how it isn’t a true news facility.  The latter from Obama advisor David Axelrod, who also told ABC that FOX is undeserving of being treated as a true news organization: “the bigger thing is that other news organizations, like yours, ought not to treat them that way, and we're not going to treat them that way” (Ann Sanner, “White House Continues Attack on Fox News,” October 19, 2009, http://www.gopusa.com/news/2009/october/1019_wh_fox.shtml).

Here’s another line from John Kennedy’s undelivered speech:  “If we are strong, our strength will speak for itself. If we are weak, words will be of no help.”

Thankfully, more and more Americans – including many Obama supporters – are getting tired of the endless wordplay. They’re growing exasperated with the stalling and smoke and mirrors.  They comprehend that Obama is more about inaction than action.  The president’s approval rating has hit a new low. Obama's loyalties or lack thereof are drawing attention. Fewer are laughing when the birthers cry out that being a Natural Born Citizen is an important issue for U.S. presidents.  More Americans are questioning why Obama didn't embrace his Muslim root system until after he was elected.

By Kelly L. Goodridge and Oscar De Los Santos

Are the Democrats the Racism Party?

Just when OK thought the race(ism) card was too worn out for liberals to do anything more than retire it from the life deck, Obama-media has once again resurrected it.  It’s a strategy designed to keep Conservatives and the Right on the defensive.  The Left’s current target is talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently lectured us on the importance of civility and accountability for one’s words.  She suggested that a lack of civility could lead to violence.  However, the Left loves to sermonize while isolating and smearing any dissent.  An avid football fan, Rush announced last week that he and others were bidding on the NFL’s St. Louis Rams franchise.  His news brought about an all out assault, and hateful speech from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who fantasized about Rush’s death on air.

Now the usual suspects are playing the tattered card again – Leftist liars like Al “The Harlem P1mp” Sharpton.  Sharpton has never had a problem smearing political opponents with information based on rumor and innuendo.  Recall that he earned fame for the Tawana Brawley fake-rape hoax 20 years ago.

Then there’s that ol’ race baiter, Jesse Jackson, who joined the latest controversy and offered hateful slander to the AP yesterday (October 13, 2009), an organization Rush calls “AP-Obama” and part of “the state-run media.”  Jackson maintains that Rush, “should not have the privilege of owning an NFL franchise . . .” (“Jesse Jackson on Rush Limbaugh's possible NFL ownership: ‘He should not have the privilege of owning . . .’ Ancestors rolling over in graves at 5000 RPMs,” www.theblogprof.blogspot.com, October 13, 2009).

Of course, this isn’t the first time that Limbaugh has been targeted as the Left’s punching bag.  Recall that President Obama laughed at Wanda Sykes’ joke about Rush dying of kidney failure at the White House Correspondents’ dinner in May.

Screams of “Racism!”

In part, the latest tempest involves a statement falsely attributed to Limbaugh.  Rush has publicly denied ever saying that “slavery has merits,” yet slipshod journalists at CNN, MSNBC, The Huffington Post, The Washington Post and others have taken the Wikipedia posting and reported it as fact, when it’s slander.  There is no source listed for the posting, but that’s good enough for the “state-run media” and its agenda.  The Huffington Post put out a cartoon video yesterday that shows Rush changing the Rams uniforms into Klan uniforms (www.hotairpundit.blogspot.com, 10/14/09). 

Limbaugh guest host Mark Steyn is among those who have come to Rush’s defense.  Steyn challenges, “So where are these racist soundbites? Where’s the audio? Where’s the transcript? Name the year. Heigh-ho, say CNN’s Rick Sanchez and the rest of the basement-ratings crowd. Not our problem: It’s for Limbaugh to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he’s never said it. We’re too busy fact-checking anti-Obama jokes to fact-check our own reporting . . .” (Mark Steyn, “The Corner,” The National Review, www.corner.nationalreview.com, October 13, 2009).  Brent Bozwell, president of Media Research Center, has demanded that CNN and MSNBC prove that radio talk show king Rush uttered racist comments they have attributed to him as fact (www.myfreedompost.com, October 14, 2009).

Sorry Leftists, with 20 Million+ Listeners, He’s Not Rushing into Obscurity

Rush is not a racist.  His ratings and millions of loyal fans prove it.  Sources claim his recently renewed contract is valued at $400 million.  That’ll keep him on the air through 2016.  The New York Times claims that Limbaugh’s annual salary is around $38 million (Matt Drudge, “LIMBAUGH SIGNS THROUGH 2016;  $400 MILLION DEAL SHATTERS BROADCAST RECORDS,” www.drudgereport.com/flashrl.htm, July 1, 2008). The Left disagrees with his political views but then again, the KKK was a Democrat creation, a fact Rush readily points out.

Limbaugh spoke on air yesterday about suing the individuals and news organizations that are attempting to smear him in this libelous fashion.  Let’s hope he wins.  There’s too much anger, hate and lying being tossed about.

Sadly, this abuse of power begins at home: namely, The White House.  Recently, President Obama said he would not grant FOX News any interviews until at earliest 2010.  We’ve heard Obama admonish people for listening to Rush Limbaugh and then expecting to get things done.  Who’s playing low-blow partisan politics more these days, the Left or Right?

Rush understands the true face of racism and socialism and speaks out against Obama’s plans for our country.  OK suspects the liberal press was given its marching orders to engage in a new Rush attack.  The schemers knew most people wouldn’t fact check the slandering news sources and simply rush to judgment on the latest “Rush is a racist” smears.

We’re also sure the Smear Rush edict came with a convenient copy of the tired old race card, to be used liberally, as always.

Hemingway kiddingly called the Nobel Prize “the Ignoble,” even when he won it.  Too bad Papa’s nickname has become reality, given recent recipients of the Peace Prize: Yasser Arafat (a terrorist), Jimmy Carter (an anti-Semite and hater of America), Al Gore (an environmentalist poser and peddler of junk science) and now Barack Hussein Obama (a community organizer and America’s premiere apologist). The latest awarding is the biggest joke of all.

In the past the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for accomplishment.  The 1895 will of Alfred Nobel states that the prize should go to those who “shall have done the most and best work” (The Savage Nation, WELI, October 9, 2009).  Obama even recognized his lack of accomplishment doesn't match the requirement of the original charter.  In his speech today, the president offered a revisionist spin, claiming that prizes are also awarded to “give momentum to a set of causes.”

Admittedly the Nobel Committee is hyper-liberal, but the idea that it bestowed its Peace Prize on our sitting president seemed initially too surreal to process.  OK laughed aloud, thinking we’d stumbled upon a cleverly written satire.  Then we found another article declaring the news.  And another and another.

The notion that Obama is this year’s top prize recipient of international accolades is funny because he seems to have clinched the Nobel simply for his propensity to spout socialist and utopian rhetoric.  Former UN Ambassador, John Bolton asserts that the trend of the Nobel Committee in recent years is to “cheerlead political philosophies” (www.atlasshugs2000.typepad.com, October 9, 2009). Michael Savage agrees with Bolton and maintains that the Committee is “a radical leftist front group that has hijacked Alfred Nobel's prize” (The Savage Nation, October 9, 2009). 

Obama’s winning the Nobel is the biggest farce since the last WWE world title bout. This was obviously in the works before he had a chance to do anything more than take the Oath of Office (twice).  Consider that Obama would have had only 11 days of presidential experience before Nobel nominations closed (“Surprise!” ABC News, October 9, 2009, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize/story?id=8788973).  What's more, Rice University Presidential Historian Douglas Brinkley says that the Nomination Committee records "will be sealed for 50 years" (Greta, FOX News, October 09, 2009).  OK guesses that a lot of us won’t live through the wait, which is exactly their plan to keep our inquisitive eyes off The One’s birth certificate, college transcripts and other sealed records.

On a related note: BastardObama notes that the Nobel prize money – $1.4 million – will be enough to cover Obama's legal fees "to continue to bring injunctions to seal information and documents that the Obamas want buried."  The website also points out that Obama has paid “more than 1.35 million dollars to lawyers Perkins and Coie since the election” (www.bastardobama.com, October 09, 2009). Obama stated that he will donate the prize money to a charity, but didn't mention any specific organization or cause. (What’s the old line about charity beginning at home? Or at the lawyers’ offices?)

We used to think that any talk of a New World Order reeked of absurdist conspiracy theory.  Now we’re not so sure.  Dlck Morris makes an excellent observation:  “The Nobel Prize is really Obama's payback for disciplining the unruly United States and taming it to be a member of the European family of nations.  Europe wants to reverse the American Revolution and re-colonize us and it sees in Obama a kindred spirit willing to do its bidding” (w ww.dlckmorris.com, October 9, 2009).  Perhaps this is the work of worldwide socialist conspirators.  Perhaps the Nobel Prize being awarded to Obama is another attempt to further water down America's rank as the most powerful global nation.

But here’s the truly insidious part of Obama’s receiving the Nobel: It’s now all too clear why the president has been dragging his heels instead of dealing with the Afghan crisis.  Obviously, Obama knew he was going to get the Nobel and he decided it would look terrible for the recipient of the Peace Prize to accept it the same week he sent 40 thousand troops to Afghanistan to continue a war there.

By vacillating, Obama once again affirms that he doesn’t embrace the tenets that have long kept us a free – and yes, a peaceful – nation.  Peace comes through sacrifice and strength.

Instead, Obama is letting our soldiers die and fight a war with cockeyed rules of engagement that are eroding morale and killing spirits and lives.

But hey, our prez will soon have another award for his mantle.  Maybe he can stick it next to his community organizer certificates.

No matter.  Consider that even after Obama’s non-booster shot, fewer than half of U.S. citizens want the healthcare fixit the president is proposing.  We have the best heath care in the world and many who can afford it come to America to get treated for ailments and illnesses when they are denied or put on waiting lists for treatment in countries like Canada and England.  Logic says leave our healthcare alone, or offer real reform in the way of capping the dollar amount of medical lawsuit claims against doctors or allowing patients to shop for insurance across the country.