Saturday, December 26, 2009

"Overseas Contingency Operation" MUSLIM Terrorist Plot FAILED

We can thank God (and the man on the plane whose quick response put out the fire) for preventing hundreds of deaths in what the White House would call an "Overseas Contingency Operation extremist plan thwarted." Have you noticed that the religion of this "radicalized extremist" is being avoided by many in the press? When was the last time "radical Islam" has been mentioned during a terrorist attack? We shall see how many start using the term terrorist again. More accurately, the perpetrator should be called exactly what he is - a Muslim terrorist or Islamic terrorist!

Personally, I'm glad that I didn't find out about the latest terrorist attack attempt until this morning. My family and I were able to enjoy a wonderful Christmas Day celebration. We kept the news programs off for most of the day! Watched the Chargers win again (yay!).

There are plenty of blogs, (like Jammie Wearing Fool Blog) to read about the details of the attempted terrorist attack. Will list a few at the end of this post.

A news anchor at Fox News recently stated that he hoped that this would be a wake-up call for this administration. The guest he was interviewing said that we have had PLENTY of wake-up calls already!

I wonder. Will we still be labeling the War On Terror with such naive terminology as "Overseas Contingency Operation?" Will we still label people like this radicalized MUSLIM 23-year-old, Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, attempted murder suspect as just a "man made disaster?"

More blog post links:

Gateway Pundit: Nigerian & Former London Student Arrested in Foiled Terror Attack

Free Republic: Umaru Mutallab's Son Identified as Delta Airline Bomber

Big Government: Breaking: Attempted Christmas Terror Attack Tied to al-Qaida

Citizen Wells


spud tooley said...

expected a little more spin out of you on this one. i'm proud of your restraint, with only one real slap at obama.

however, let me remind you that the main criticism of our President that came from the right revolved around his 2011 re-analysis to see if troops should be withdrawn. the common reason given by the right was that al-qaeda and perhaps the taliban would WAIT until then and realize they had no opposition at that point. it seems to me that they had no problem sitting idle while bush and company played around in iraq, but are now going to ramp up again since a President decided to focus and escalate an effort where they truly felt threatened.

my opinion.

interesting book you might want to check out by mark steyn, 'america alone'. a bit more right-leaning and isolationist/nationalist than i usually recommend (or read, except as entertainment...) but it makes a strong argument for your call to label terrorists as 'Muslim' instead of something a little more polite.

so, you see - we CAN agree on things occasionally. :)

HOWEVER, America is and always has been a country whose modus operandi is to err on the side of tolerance, and a presumption of individual innocence. we are what we are. and, to remain America, we must continue to do what America does.

cold here today, but at least it's sunny. i know it never rains in southern california...

btw, where has gary been? i didn't get a chance to wish him a merry Christmas...

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa

madmath1 said...

Worse yet, will CAIR demand the prosecution of the man that jump over people to stop this evil SOB as a hate crime because he "attacked" him because he was a Muslim. I wouldn't be surprised and don't forget the flying Imams won their lawsuit (except against the John Doe's which were dropped). Given this evil Islamic Manchuarian candidate we have in the White House, I wouldn't bet that he wakes up to the threat (heck, he seems to be on their side) or would prevent such a prosecuation.

Kevin said...

Hi Christine,
Pretty awful stuff. And I am pretty horrified at the Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano saying "I think the important thing to recognize here is that once this incident occurred, everything happened that should have." What? The only thing that saved that plane was the Dutch citizen who jumped to the rescue. This time I have to side with a Republican, Peter King, who said that the system "failed in every respect." I am glad that plane didn't originate in the U.S.--so the problem is with security elsewhere. Now that needs to change. I hope it changed today!

And I am sure that madmath1 must be trying to be funny...

spud tooley said...

kevin - re madmath1: ditto. i certainly hope he was trying to be sarcastic...

re: napalitano saying everything worked as designed: having worked in software for twenty-five+ years, i can swear to this: EVERYTHING works as designed. the problem is usually that the design is the piece itself that's wrong, failed, or needs to be revisited.

however, listening to king on the drive in today, i came to the realization that things actually did work as planned.

one, a hole in the system was identified;

two, a politician stepped up and gave one party's line that everything is cool;

three, the opposing party's loudest, say-what-the-press-wants-to-hear, camera-seeking politician expressed his faux outrage;

four, the soundbyte-seeking press spread the comment like wildfire to make good drama; and,

five, a necessary reinvestigation of the process will occur in spite of all this childish theatre.

oh, and lest i be dishonest:

six, someone pointed the finger on a blog, and everyone with an opinion began weighing in like they know something.

in this instance, everything has actually worked as designed.


mike rucker

Christinewjc said...

Hello Gentlemen,

Sorry about my absence from this thread yesterday. Quite frankly, I just wasn't in the mood to respond. However, after a good night's rest and some blog reading this morning, I'm ready to enter the discussion.

I have had my own thoughts about this latest terrorist attack, but my thoughts absolutely pale in comparison to what I am about to share from the Citizen Well's blog comment thread.

First of all, I must say that Janet Napolitano's comment had to be the DUMBIST response that I have ever read regarding a terrorist attempt to kill people on an airplane! I agree with Nice Deb and several other bloggers who say she should be fired! She's too ignorant and clueless to be leader of the Homeland Security Department.

A Citizen Wells commenter has pieced together many of Obama's radical associates which, IMO, answers Glenn Beck's statement - "There is something very wrong here."


“Now, I’m addicted to hopium.
It’s America’s most powerful drug. Once on hopium, you won’t care if Iran has nukes or if taxes are raised during a recession or whether Obama keeps flipping and flopping on everything from foreign wiretaps to withdrawing troops from Iraq.”…John Kass, Chicago Tribune, July 30, 2008

The following comment was received on this blog and posted March 21, 2008.

“Obama has a dual citizenship with Kenya. His passport was breached today by inquiring minds because Obama is an anti-Israel pro-pan-arabism Islamic-socialist who has ties to marxist Libyan president Muammar al Gadaffi, Syrian tycoon Antoin Rezko, Saudi Arabian sheikhs, and Rezko’s “close friend” 3.5 million money pal Auchi, the one who gave Obama fundraiser money: Iraqi billionaire global arms dealer Nadhmi Auchi, was Baathist best friends with Saddam Hussein, and the main financial backer for Saddam’s Iraqi-Saudi oil pipeline, and who stood trial with Saddam in 1959 for conspiring to assassinate Iraqi President Qasim, (Saddam even killed Auchi’s brother, but they remained best friends), also marxist Nicaraguan President

con't next comment

Christinewjc said...

Daniel Ortega is on the frontline supporting Obama for the revolution of the change, and then there’s hardcore anti-Israel, pro-Palestine PLO enforcer Rashid Khalidi, (Obama was on Khalidi’s Woods Fund). Obama was a member of the Woods Fund with communist domestic terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground who bombed the Pentagon, the US Capital, among other things, and their organization raised money for anti-Israel programs, and also AAAN, for Arabs, and then there’s especially Kenya… where in August of 2007 Obama went to support his E. Germany communist educated cousin Raila Odinga for Kenyan presidential election who claims, coincidentally, to also be a Christian yet who signed NAMLEF and other pacts with radical Muslims who set churches filled with Christians on fire, and macheted them in the streets, causing a political and religious mini-civil war over the MuO.
Sorry folks, I studied all of Obama’s mentors, buddies, political affiliations, organizational memberships, and all of his *hard-core militant Muslim* family members, like his brother Abongo “Roy” Odinga who hates America, and their communist grandfather who ran with Russia and hated America, not to mention his socialist connection to his profound childhood mentor Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party, CPUSA, and…well, we know Pastor Wright, Jesse Jackson, Jesse Jackson JR, Al Sharpton, and Nation of Islam minister Louis Farrakhan….and they have a *few* issues with america, white people, and jews—> so simply reverse it, and you’ll see they care about: Africa, Blacks, and Muslims, which can be corroborated by things they have said along with their affiliations.
*Don’t forget that Obama’s 2004 U.S. Senate political opponent, Republican Alan Keyes, accused Obama of being a “hard-core academic Marxist.”
-Marxist Nicaraguan President’s endorsement is for Obama, and he says: “It’s not to say that there is already a revolution under way in the U.S.; but yes, they [supporters of Barack Obama] are laying the foundations for a revolutionary change”
*Obama’s endorsement by Black Panthers. Check out their politics, ahem. Well, they are Marxist, of course.
__Militant Islam is the new Communism.__
**Socialism must be accompsihed through proletariat exchange, a revolution, and if you really see it, easily, you will see that the west, america, white people–rich white people–are the enemy. Obama titled his book “Audacity of Hope” after Pastor Wright’s sermon about the need to destroy capitalism and the middle-class at the hands of rich white america and the west. Race OVERRULES religion. POLITICS overrule race and religion: it’s about the change.
Pan-Arabism and Islamic-Socialism spans globally, it embraces not just governments as such but also individuals. All-black-brown people who are against the bourgeoise…rich-white, capitalist, american, western power:”

The question for you today is which of the following components of Obama’s background has the most influence on Obama’s foreign policy and position on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, Middle East, etc.?
Muslim background and ties.
Corruption ties with links to Middle East.
Leftist, socialist friends and supporters.

I have never seen all of the radicals surrounding and influencing Obama articulated as well as it was by that commenter at Citizen Wells!

Remember how shocked most conservatives were about Rev. Wright's hating America rhetoric? Recall Michele Obama's "for the first time in my life, I am proud of our country" because her husband was elected president? All of that seems childish in comparison to what we have now read and learned in that blogger's comment!

Scary....VERY scary.

P.S. Spellcheck - make that "DUMBEST" in the previous comment. It's early here - 6:00 a.m. and haven't had my coffee yet.

spud tooley said...

see, christine, here's what i don't understand: there was literally a TON of information on the web this past decade - most of it ignored by what you call the 'mainstream media' - making strong connections between bush and the 9/11 attacks. why his delay in reacting during storytime (other than the likely explanation that he wanted to know how the story ended)? how did a plane just 'disappear' at the pentagon? why did halliburton get a prime feeding spot at the trough of iraqii contract and oil dollars? on and on and on and on. you can go see some pretty convincing videos on youtube, if you care to investigate the subject.

and that doesn't even begin to address the issues around the federal reserve, banking, inflation, moving off the gold standard, the funding of wars, etc., during the 20th century - topped off with an extremely generous-to-the-rich republican administration during the 2000s.

all of that is out there, but i don't believe i ever saw ONE link here about it. or maybe i missed it?...

and yet every link from every blog you can get to that attempts to tie our President to al-qaeda, Islam, kenya, the cholesterol level at local waffle houses, the shortage of tickle-me elmos during Christmas - ANYTHING that might cause one to cast a suspicious glance at our President is published here with all kinds of capital letters around it, not to mention derogatory name-calling and constant accusations against all who oppose your views.

why is one the gospel truth, and the other just the fancies of silly conspiracy theorists?

it's this kind of contradiction that makes it hard to ever take you seriously.

mike rucker

Christinewjc said...


The 9/11 truthers conspiracy theories were debunked by a Popular Mechanics scientist and author. Go look it up.

Why is it that when FACTS about Obama's radical associations are shared, you choose to ignore them? Instead, you go back to the past and spew the same DEBUNKED rhetoric that the left has trained you to share. Very disappointing...

BTW, if you will take notice, the comment was ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED BACK IN March 21, 2008! It served as a warning back then - and now the fears surrounding radical Obama and his current cohorts are being shown coming to fruition.

Mike, what is it going to take for you to take your blinders off??

Plus, are you hinting that there have been complaints about Obama not making a public statement about the incident by sharing Bush's reaction in the school room?I haven't even mentioned (yet) the lack of a response to the American people from Obama. You must be watching Fox Obama's comments are supposed to be given some time today - FOUR DAYS AFTER THE EVENT HAPPENED. What's wrong with this picture? Plenty!!

A few minutes ago I read about why Obama didn't respond on Friday. He was golfing at the time. Here's a copy of the comment I just read:
d2i // December 27, 2009 at 12:43 pm

I wrote a couple of threads down that 0 was not informed of Flight 253 for three hours after it occurred. I asked then – where was he? why wasn’t he told immediately? why couldn’t he be disturbed? Well, I think I got the answer today from Marc Ambinder’s column over at the Atlantic –

This is just too much. Apparently, the reason the Prez wasn’t told about Flight 253 is b/c…wait for it…he was golfing!

Dec 26 2009, 6:30 pm by Marc Ambinder

Why The President Went Golfing Today
In his Farenheit 9/11, filmmaker Michael Moore juxtaposes images and words of a terrorist attack in Israel with President Bush’s first words about the incident, spoken to a press pool on a golf course, with him leaning casually against a tree. Today, as the nation’s law enforcement agencies respond to an attempted terrorist attack on U.S. soil, as the cable news channels and news websites pull in reinforcements to cover the incident from all angles, President Obama has been silent.

In fact, he’s been golfing. He received a counterterrorism briefing early this morning, Hawaii time, and moments later, left for the gym. The president’s vacation activities might have become the subject of a fierce partisan fight — but really, the only carping is coming from the usual suspects on the right.

There is a reason why Obama hasn’t given a public statement. It’s strategy.


Christinewjc said...

Madmath 1,

You may be on to something! CAIR has a habit of using "political correctness" against us here in the U.S.A. to sidestep the terrorist angle and make it appear to be "profiling." Unbelievable!!

Recently read the following comment at Citizen Wells blog. The part about "The FBI disassociated itself from CAIR and sent warnings to Obama of their incestuous plans to embed in our Govt, to which Obama, turned on the FBI, with the exception of those that can be bought and sold."

Entire comment:

Joy // December 27, 2009 at 1:21 pm

Obama continually removes any policy(put in place by the former administration to protect the US Homeland) and fails to replace them. This again is another warning signal, which pinpoints that he is a Muslim and will standby as America is being taken over by the Muslims. The FBI disassociated itself from CAIR and sent warnings to Obama of their incestuous plans to embed in our Govt, to which Obama, turned on the FBI, with the exception of those that can be bought and sold. Again, I say the only way to save America is for the factions that are divided by different methods to remove Obama, need to unite in a strong common cause, remove everyone in Congress and the White House for Treason!! As sure as Obama has committed TREASON by falsifying his bid for President, Congress has committed TREASON by using Bribes to pass legislation, which (if Passed) will give Government control over our lives as well as our Country. They have subverted the Constitution and that is Treason. I truly believe we will see a Muslim attack on our soil large enough to give Obama cause to install Martial Law. Now is the time for true Americans to come together.

Many Patriots have been saying that using a crisis for the purpose of installating Martial Law might be a goal of this administration. I pray that it never happens...but nothing surprises me anymore about this gangster government.

Christinewjc said...


Apparently Napolitano is changing her tune. Kinda late...don't ya think? Geez.... How can any American feel safe with such a dolt in charge of Homeland Security? Michael Chertoff - COME BACK...WE NEED YOU!

In other news, the blogs are filled with reports that the MSM isn't reporting yet. Here's one eye witness report that is both stunning and scary!

Read about it here (additional important links in text) or below:
Flight 253 passenger: Sharp-dressed man aided terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab onto plane without passport ( exclusive)

Update: Dutch police investigating report of accomplice in Northwest Flight 235 terror plot

A Michigan man who was aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 says he witnessed Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab trying to board the plane in Amsterdam without a passport.

Kurt Haskell of Newport, Mich., who posted an earlier comment about his experience, talked exclusively with and confirmed he was on the flight by sending a picture of his boarding pass. He and his wife, Lori, were returning from a safari in Uganda when they boarded the NWA flight on Friday.
Kurt HaskellLori and Kurt HaskellHaskell said he and his wife were sitting on the ground near their boarding gate in Amsterdam, which is when they saw Mutallab approach the gate with an unidentified man.

Kurt and Lori Haskell are attorneys with Haskell Law Firm in Taylor. Their expertise includes bankruptcy, family law and estate planning.

While Mutallab was poorly dressed, his friend was dressed in an expensive suit, Haskell said. He says the suited man asked ticket agents whether Mutallab could board without a passport. “The guy said, 'He's from Sudan and we do this all the time.'”

Mutallab is Nigerian. Haskell believes the man may have been trying to garner sympathy for Mutallab's lack of documents by portraying him as a Sudanese refugee.

The ticket agent referred Mutallab and his companion to her manager down the hall, and Haskell didn't see Mutallab again until after he allegedly tried to detonate an explosive on the plane.

Haskell said the flight was mostly unremarkable. That was until he heard a flight attendant say she smelled smoke, just after the pilot announced the plane would land in Detroit in 10 minutes. Haskell got out of his seat to view the brewing commotion.

“I stood up and walked a couple feet ahead to get a closer look, and that's when I saw the flames,” said Haskell, who sat about seven rows behind Mutallab. “It started to spread pretty quickly. It went up the wall, all the way to ceiling.”

Haskell, who described Mutallab as a diminutive man who looks like a teenager, said about 30 seconds passed between the first mention of smoke and when Mutallab was subdued by fellow passengers.

“He didn't fight back at all. This wasn't a big skirmish,” Haskell said. “A couple guys jumped on him and hauled him away.”

The ordeal has Haskell and his wife a little shaken. Flight attendants were screaming during the fire and the pilot sounded notably nervous when bringing the plane in for a landing, he said.

“Immediately, the pilot came on and said two words: emergency landing,” Haskell said. “And that was it. The plane sped up instead of slowing down. You could tell he floored it.”

As Mutallab was being led out of the plane in handcuffs, Haskell said he realized that was the same man he saw trying to board the plane in Amsterdam.

Passengers had to wait about 20 minutes before they were allowed to exit the plane. Haskell said he and other passengers waited about six hours to be interviewed by the FBI.

About an hour after landing, Haskell said he saw another man being taken into custody. But a spokeswoman from the FBI in Detroit said Mutallab was the only person taken into custody.

Christinewjc said...

Madmath 1,

Have you read American Thinker's post titled, Terror Test-Runs on Airlines?

Keep in mind that this was written before the Christmas Day terror attack attempt.

The author concludes:

Two possibilities that come immediately to mind are either that these incidents are orchestrated as a ploy to create a scenario to litigate for profit like the imams from US Airways Flight 300 -- or something more sinister is in the works. In the aftermath of Fort Hood, can we afford to ignore warning signs of abnormal or pattern behavior any longer?

So....Mike and Kevin. Still think that Madmath1 was out of line for expressing his opinion about CAIR going for a lawsuit?

spud tooley said...

thank you, ma'am, for essentially proving my point in your long-winde... uh, your extensive analysis.

so, christine, answer me this: what is your response to those who have debunked the debunking printed by popular mechanics? and what about the video 'zeitgeist' - have you seen that? and what about the debunking that has been done for that analysis? and the debunking of the debunking? and the debunking of the debunking of the debunking?

or, closer to home, what would you say to all the bloggers who have debunked the birth certificate issue? i can almost hear you now: 'well, mike, what did you expect from (insert left-leaning, muslim-funded, anti-Christian, anti-israel, anti-american, socialist, marxist organization name here)? they're probably funded by george soros!'.

c'mon, christine - you either climb down in your own bombshelter and refuse to believe ANYTHING, or admit your own duplicity and fess up to the ultimate arrogance of being convinced you are the only arbiter of truth around.

whew... where are my meds?...

please tell me you see the obvious conclusion...?

mike rucker

Christinewjc said...


Several of the points that I have included here are NOT JUST MY OPINIONS. Didn't you see that I have quoted other people? Therefore, your accusation against me for being "the only arbiter of truth" is a bold-faced lie.

The birth certificate issue has not been settled. It won't be settled until Obama releases all of the info about himself (including the COLB - not that fraudulent computer generated image that convinces only the ObamaBORG Bots) and/or, is forced to do so in a court of law. Heck, since Obama refuses to show his COLB to the American people (and has spend close to 2 million to keep it hidden) people like this guy have the free speech right to speculate. And, if he's correct, then Obama could be a NBC! But I doubt that Obama would spend so much money to prevent the public from knowing that he was born a bastard. There is something much more damning (IMO)that keeps him from revealing the truth about his birth.

The people with whom Obama surrounds himself with give us a good hint as to his dangerous, radical ideology. None of it is good for America.

Christinewjc said...

Oh Gary? Paging Mr. Baker! Where are you when I need you?


Mike wants to wish you a Merry Christmas.

I would love to hear your responses to this thread!

Gary Baker said...

Hi Christine,

I was out of internet range for a few days and just got caught up on this thread. With regards to Mike's comments on the thread, there was a certain quote in a Star Trek
(original series) episode titled "Friday's Child." To wit: "As for the Klingon, his words are unimportant and we do not hear them." Substitute "Rucker" in for "Klingon" and that pretty much makes the quote.

Seriously, he did bring up some fine ideals in his earliest remarks on the thread. I love the ideal of America being a land of tolerance, with a desire to maintain presumption of innocence. These were ideals, and as such, we never did obtain them, but at least we were trying. Then the leftist thugs came along and turned these ideals into horrible things with their intolerant version of tolerance, racial politics, and the idea that guilt and innocence should be assigned based on racial and political lines. They traded reason and logic for the idea that someone claiming victimhood is infallible.
It makes me sad enough to cry. Unfortunately, crying won't solve anything. Neither will blaming others for your own failures, but from what I've read, Mike has made a pretty big mess of a lot of his life, and if he doesn't blame others, he would have to accept responsibility. He's never said or done anything to indicate he has that kind of courage or integrity. So, it's just another bitter liberal.

Gary Baker said...

"there was literally a TON of information on the web this past decade - most of it ignored by what you call the 'mainstream media' - making strong connections between bush and the 9/11 attacks"

The statement you wrote pretty much contains the answer why it was ignored. This is the same mainstream media that was continually trumpeting the false information that Bush "stole" the election" even though every independent recount in Florida showed that he won. This is the media that shafted Bush and Palin and every other conservative they came across, the media comprised roughly 80/20 libs to conservatives, the media that ignored every story about Planned Parenthood advising underage girls on how to skirt laws and ACORN's advising pimps and hookers on how to avoid tax laws for as long as possible. Meanwhile, they were busily diving Palin's dumpster and running specials about Bush guard service memo's that they knew were impossible to verify. I find it difficult to impossible to believe that if there were any possible way that Bush could have been involved in a conspiracy on the 9/11 attack, if there was any way to present it with a shred of believability, that the mainstream media would have held back. I scan the web for a lot of info, and I like to analyze what is presented as "the facts." Point me to a website that has some that make a good case and can be reasonably verified, and we'll talk.

Gary Baker said...

"why his delay in reacting during storytime"

One President waits a few minutes to not panic small children while the situation is steady. Another president waits months to make a decision in Afghanistan as things get steadily worse and lets the enemy become stronger. I know which President says "leadership" to me.

"why did halliburton get a prime feeding spot at the trough of iraqii contract and oil dollars?"

Here's a guess: There might be two contractors capable of providing the required services in a timely fashion. Or there might just have been one. Setting up logistics for overseas operations is a good deal more complicated than setting up a soup kitchen. It would have taken years for a significant number of companies to gear up for a competitive bid. Somehow, I don't think we had the time.

"and that doesn't even begin to address the issues around the federal reserve, banking, inflation, moving off the gold standard, the funding of wars, etc., during the 20th century - topped off with an extremely generous-to-the-rich republican administration during the 2000s."

Again, if you spent half the time taking care of your own affairs as you do worrying about who else may or may not be benefiting, you would no doubt be happier and better off. I don't know what you mean exactly by "generous to the rich" policies. I do know that if you follow the graph of economic growth and general business, as soon as the Dems took control of congress, the price of gas started to skyrocket, clear warnings about the condition of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were ignored. As soon as Obama took office, the Dow went on a rollercoaster, inflation increased and is still rising, unemployment is the highest in years and will likely go higher, stimulus money called "critical" was never even touched, the government oversaw the destruction of millions of dollars in serviceable automobiles, our respect from our enemies (Iran, Korea, China) tanked. All of these things were perfectly predictable given the administration's policies, and yet the only thing Obama can do is continually claim that he was dealt a raw hand. I wouldn't accept that excuse from a three-year old child. Coming from the leader of the free world, it is pitiful.

Gary Baker said...

"well, mike, what did you expect from (insert left-leaning, muslim-funded, anti-Christian, anti-israel, anti-american, socialist, marxist organization name here)? they're probably funded by george soros"

I really don't know what you expect here, Mike? Credibility? Well, let's see. Obama did receive a lot of money from George Soros, and he makes no secret of his views on business and the free market. If you look at Obama's advisers, you definitely see a trend, and the trend is anti-capitalist and anti-Israel. This goes from Reverend Wright to the people he has appointed as Czars to most anyone he keeps close to him. Now, he's the President, and he can keep anyone's counsel that he wants, but it's not like we can realistically ignore the attitudes that are prevalent. And if climate gate has shown us anything, it's that prominent leftists are very willing to ignore, remove, or change data to suit their own purposes. I can think of very few substantive promises that Obama made during the campaign or even after election that he has kept. He spends most of his time trying to promise things that are impossible to verify, as in jobs created or saved, but if there is an easy way to tell, he either failed or lied. Not much credibility there. In the same way, you provide little data to back up any assertions you make. Birds of a feather, and all.

spud tooley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christinewjc said...

Hi Gary! (Christine breathes a sigh of relief...)

Thanks for getting involved with the conversation here. As always, your insight and comments are welcomed and greatly appreciated.

Unfortunately, Mike has decided to attack you, rather than the message that you have presented.

Mike, is it not a fact that you will support Obama no matter what he does and how much damage he and his cohorts inflict upon America? It would (as Gary stated) serve you quite well to finally admit that you can be wrong about Obama and admit that you always seem to find ways to blame others. That is called "accepting responsibility" and Gary was correct to say that you haven't done so. Oftentimes, you do, quite frankly, come off as an angry and bitter liberal.

It's very unfortunate, because there are times when you can (and do) engage in tolerant dialogue. But not when it comes to Obama. You defend his actions - even when they are horribly wrong - and use the old Alinsky method against those who point out the obvious to you.

Recall that Gary did compliment you on your first comment. When respect for someone's views is earned, it is given.

I have endured a lot of your negative rhetoric against me here at this blog. I realize that not everyone is going to have the same opinions, knowledge, insight, education, wisdom, etc. as the next person. When I have been incorrect about something, I admit it, apologize, and move on. No one is perfect, however your demands here seem to indicate that just because Christians and/or Conservatives aren't perfect, their views don't matter.

I have seen your rants against me at your blog. Sometimes I comment and sometimes I just don't. Lost causes don't interest me. It appears IMO, that you are a lost cause on the Obama issue(s). You will defend him and his policies no matter what! I didn't do that with Bush. I disagreed on the immigration issue, his Roadmap for Peace initiative and his reluctance to condemn the religion of Islam as being responsible for terrorism. There are no "moderate" Muslims because the moderate ones are considered apostate in the Koran!

Yes. The apostate non-radicalized Muslims give the appearance of getting along with people of different faiths. However, what really goes on in the mosques? Either they fear their Imams or they stay quiet out of complacency. Of course, this is just my opinion, but I have not seen any Muslim (except those who have converted to Christianity) speak out against jihad.

The war between Muslims against the Jews and Christians of today actually started way back in biblical times - even before the religion of Muhammed began. I could do an entire post on the subject. I think I did in the past. I will find it and post it.

Now take some advice and address the points that Gary made in his comments. Even if you most likely disagree with them, at least you will come off as someone who answers a point of view rather than just verbally attacking the messenger.

Christinewjc said...

Found a thread at my discussion forum that mentions Muslim religion being derived from Ishmael and Esau. However, the main point is that "allah" is not the One True God of the universe.

Question: Is Allah God? Answer: NO!

Although this may appear to be a bit off topic, I think that it is important to point out that the current War on Terror against radical Islam is not only a physical, earthly battle. It is, even more importantly, also an intense spiritual battle.

Christinewjc said...

Found a post about Ishmael.

Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?

It is probably best to read the entire post at the link, but here's the relevant part to the point I was making:

What Muslims believe:

"Christ, the son of Mary [note: not as the "son of God"], Was no more than A Messenger; many were Messengers that passed away Before him [here, equating Jesus with mere Messengers, or perhaps prophets, but certainly not the Son of God]. Sura 5:75, Abdullah Yusef Ali, 10th ed. reprint, 2001.

"The similitude of Jesus Before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust . . . ". Sura 3:59. A subsequent "created" man, like Adam. Not God.

What Christians believe:

However, "And the angel [being Gabriel, the same angel that allegedly dictated the "Holy Koran" to Muhammed] answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35, KJV).

The Scriptures refer to Christ as "the seed of the WOMAN," knowing that no woman has any seed. The seed has to come from the male; Christ, as the Word incarnate (John 1:14), in an INCORRUPTIBLE SEED (1 Pet. 1:23) not like unto "corruptible MAN" (Rom. 1:23). Not like Adam, a created man who was not the son of God.

Thus, it comes down to a choice between these two disparate positions.

Either God showed up in the flesh, or he did not.

At this point in history, that makes you either believe God's inspired Scriptures testifying of himself in the flesh, or Allah's declaration that he did not visit in the flesh nor will he return once again.

The Quran indicates there WAS AND IS NO SON OF GOD in the flesh at any time. Muhammed thus cuts off the Isaac line through David to Jesus by God acting through Mary, and substitutes the illegitimate Ishmael to substitute himself for Jesus Christ as the New Testament "Comforter".

Jesus would then have be the son of Joseph (a corruptible man, dead and buried without resurrection), and therefore could not be the son of God.

What does that make Muhammed?

I realize that some readers will regard this as harsh. I am just sharing the truth of the matter.

We are warned about such non-scripture by Paul when God cursed Muhammed (and any angel with whom he was consorting) for preaching "another gospel" (Gal. 1:8-9).

Christinewjc said...

The following portion is important to read, too:

With that said, I will share a few points regarding his dismay when I called Ishmael illegitimate.

I am currently in the middle of a Bible study on the book of Genesis. Here is a partial recap of chapter 16:

Here we find Sarai and Abram frustrated by the passing years without a son. So they devise their own strategy for "fulfilling" God's promise--and reap the consequences. Read Genesis 16:1.

It has been ten years since Abram and Sarai entered Canaan. What action does Sarai how suggest (16:1-2)?

Suggested Abram sleep with her maidservant to build a family through her.

2. What do you think this indicates about their trust in God?

They doubted that His promise would be fulfilled without them stepping in and "helping it along" the way. Sarai influenced Abram to commit adultery.(Another point to recognize is the name changes of both Sarai and Abram to Sarah and Abraham before Isaac was born but even more significantly this occurred after Ishmael was born. A name change in Scripture is quite significant in that it indicates a great change in the path of the person. We see this in the New Testament when Saul was renamed Paul after his encounter with Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus and thus his conversion from not only just Judaism, but from being a persecutor of Christians to becoming one of the greatest apostles for Christ!)

3. How can our impatience with God's timetable lead us into unbelief and even disobedience?

It led to the sin of adultery in order to get the child they so desperately wanted. In fact, God did come through later with the conception and birth of Isaac.

7. Ishmael means "the God who hears." What does that reveal about the outcome in 16:15-16?

The Lord heard the child and Hagar's misery. Even though He told her the good news that He would increase her descendants so that they would be too numerous to count, He also told her the bad news; that Ishmael would be Gen 16:12- "And he will be a wild man; his hand [will be] against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren."

This is indicative of the hostility we have seen between Arabs and Jews throughout the centuries. We also see it in the radical fringe of Arab/Muslim terrorism going on around the world. (This is not to say that ALL Arabs/Muslims are terrorists because of course they all are not, but to point out that the hostility predicted in this Biblical account has come to fruition down through the generations and can be seen today as a result of this prophetic description of Ishmael in Genesis 16:12.


Lastly, in Chapter 17 we see that God's one and only covenant is revealed through Isaac. I have already included the Bible verses in previous posts.

Lastly, at my Bible study this past Tuesday, we ran across the following verse that reveals an astonishing truth about which son God Himself recognized as Abraham's "only son."

In Genesis Chapter 22 verse 2 we read:

"Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

Of course, we know that God provided a substitute for Isaac at the last moment by providing a ram caught in in a thicket by its horns (verse 13). This was a foreshadowing of the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the sins of mankind at the cross.

But notice also that God said that Isaac was Abraham's only son. Thus, we recognize Isaac's line in succession to Jesus Christ, not Ishmael's line of descendants.

spud tooley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
spud tooley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christinewjc said...

Mike -

I think that you can remove them yourself. Just click on the little trash can under the date of the post. If you don't see one under your post, I can remove it for you. I am just curious whether or not commenters can delete their own comments.

Mike - we all get angry and upset when we don't see eye to eye in this world. It is an unfortunate thing. I'm just as guilty as anyone else. I will try to avoid anything that appears to personally attack you in the future. However, your views are still eligible for disagreement...aren't they?

Christinewjc said...

Did I hear this right? Just now on Fox News, Senator DeMint and the guest host were discussing that Obama wants to unionize airport security???

How’s this for speculation (and a possible conspiracy theory):

Was this crotch bomber set up to “fail” and is now just being used as a ruse to have an excuse to unionize airport security as the “cure” for the failed detection of the crotch bomb?

Anyone else reporting on this? If so, please send me the links via this comment thread!

Kevin said...

Hi Christine,
I saw that Napolitano changed her tune. I was waiting for it to happen. She can't say something like that without people wondering what is going on...
About calling this an isolated incident: I am trying to recall any attempted plane attacks in the past couple of years. I imagine this is what President Obama is referring to (that there haven't been any). I may be wrong, but the last time I remember an attempted attack was the shoe bomber guy and then the liquid bomb attempt.
And I seriously doubt he was set up to fail just so the airport workers could unionize! I hope you don't believe any of that. Do you think the administration would pay a Nigerian to get on a plane and attempt a fake bomb, just to get a union going??? I hope not. That is like saying the 9/11 bombers were set up and organized by Bush to create Homeland Security to place us all under closer watch by the U.S. government...

Kevin said...

Hi Christine,
i also think you misunderstood the 'golfing' article you quoted. Here is a bit more of what that author had stated:
"Let the authorities do their work. Don't presume; don't panic the country; don't chest-thump, prejudge, interfere, politicize (in an international sense), don't give Al Qaeda (or whomever) a symbolic victory; resist the urge to open the old playbook and run a familiar play.

In a sense, he is projecting his calm on the American people, just as his advisers are convinced that the Bush administration projected their panic and anger on the self-same public eight years ago."

Also, Michelle Obama stated that she was proud of her country for the first time before her husband became president (she didn't say it because he was elected). She said this in Feb. 2008.

Christinewjc said...


Do you think that Napolitano is qualified for the Homeland Security job? She has made several errors and missteps (this one tops all) since getting that position.

I heard a sub for Sean Hannity's radio show say that she may have been a good governor, but she's not experienced for this particular job.

As far as the "isolated incident" goes, it seems that Obama ALWAYS says something similar - like when he told the American people not to "jump to any conclusions" about Islamic terrorist Nidal Hassan.

No...I don't really think that it was an elaborate hoax to unionize the airport security people. I wondered whether or not Mike might make the connection that you did between that kind of conspiracy theory and the 9/11 truthers conspiracy about the Bush Administration being "responsible" or "complicite" for 9/11. I personally think that the blame should go to Clinton and Jaime Gorelick.

However, I would like to know more about the unionization idea that DeMint was talking about. Is it true?

Kevin, do you really think that Obama handled the situation correctly? He took 3 DAYS to come to a microphone to "calm the people!" That's not leadership. That's absolutely pathetic!

Thanks for the correction about when Michele Obama made her statement. Tried to recall from memory (which isn't always good in my middle-aged mind!) because I was too lazy to do a search to confirm the correct date!

Gary Baker said...


I don't believe that there was any conspiracy to have a failed detonation. Period. I think it was a mixture of passenger courage, Godly intervention, and fortunate happenstance that allowed the plot to be foiled. Having said that, I can see zero possibility that any union organization would improve the efficiency or effectiveness of any organization. Even when they actually were working in the public interest, they could improve safety, not efficiency. The only way that unionizing airport checkers might possibly allow more terrorists to be caught is by slowing the entire process down in the airport that everyone is stuck so long that the terrorists have a higher likelihood of being noticed. On the other hand, if unions were involved in engineering such a conspiracy, that would go a long way to understanding why the detonation failed.

Gary Baker said...


"In a sense, he is projecting his calm on the American people, just as his advisers are convinced that the Bush administration projected their panic and anger on the self-same public eight years ago."

That interpretation would have at least some credibility if Obama had any reputation for handling things in a calm, thoughtful manner. His entire legislative push was based on nothing but blame shifting and fear. Everything was Bush's fault, and if we didn't pass the stimulus, things would be much worse. If we didn't pass cash for clunkers, things would be worse. If we don't pass health care reform, the country will go bankrupt. The man has all the calm demeanor of a spoiled child. Here's a challenge: Find some archive footage of Bush speeches and see how many times he blamed the previous administration for anything. Then try to find some Obama footage where he discusses some trouble and does not blame the previous administration, even though his own fingerprints and those of the rest of the Dems are all over the mortgage crisis.

What was Bush's message after the attack: Go about your lives. Don't be afraid to plan. Return to normalcy. It was a message he was soundly criticized by the libs for. Yes, he said that he would defend the nation, and from the standpoint of preventing further attacks on US soil, he did. He also gets great blame for his overseas operations, even though there were very few libs in congress that opposed him at the beginning. It was only after they knew they could criticize him and shun responsibility for their own votes. Not much liberal integrity or leadership to be found.

Gary Baker said...


"i have always enjoyed the back-and-forth with gary - whether he was foe or foil depended on which side of the argument you were on.

but his comments this time were sickeningly low - even for him."

So you have enjoyed the back and forth, and then follow up immediately by the insult that low comments are the norm for me. Not with everyone, Mike.

As usual, you talk out of both sides of your mouth. The one thing I sort of believe from you is that you have enjoyed the back and forth. I believe that because I think your major interest is to stir up things. No insights to add, no good points to make. Simply try to cause discontent.

Now pardon me for being indelicate here, but I seem to recall you writing on your blog once upon a time that you were trying to mend some family fences. Has it possibly occurred to you that your tendency to stir things up with people might not be the best way to develop and maintain relationships? You wrote of me as a liar and a loser. In some people's eyes, that is doubtless the assessment, but I have worked hard to protect that which is most important. I may fail someday, but with God's help I have succeeded so far.

I've also gone through my share of setbacks in the financial realm, though middle age career changes and depression and everything common these days. And instead of blaming bankers or businesses or even the government for how bad my life is, I've done my best to stay in the place where I'm thankful for all I have. Someday I may fail at that too, but for now God is keeping my life going and my family strong. Your comments are filled with how you've been screwed over and how eager you are for others to pay. It takes away so much from anything of value you might have to say.

Get past it or stay bitter. That choice is up to you, but don't expect me to cheerfully swallow your garbage.

Christinewjc said...

O.K. - a blogger over at Citizen Wells pointed me towards the right article to understand where the idea to unionize the airport security came from.

Guess who?

Janet "the incompetent" Napolitano!


Here's the link: The Fox Nation: Napolitano Wants to Unionize TSA Employees

Kevin said...

Hi Christine,
I have to admit I don't know too much about Napolitano. Many times government jobs are given to people who aren't qualified--but then again, who is really qualified to protect a country as big as ours?
About the timelag for Obama: my first thought when I heard about that flight was anger. I was mad that someone was trying this again. I was mad at the Dutch authorities who let this guy through. Then I was pretty happy to hear that a Dutch citizen stopped this madman. I didn't think about Obama. I didn't think that he should make a statement to the nation. Now if something had happened, then I would expect something. I wasn't living in the U.S. when 9/11 happened. I had just gotten off a plane from Rome and it happened about 2 hours after that (I was already in bed), so I don't have the same experiences as Americans here. Even then I wasn't thinking about the president. Sure, after the shock set in I expected to hear that the government was doing something. But I normally don't think about the president when things like that happen.

Hi Gary! I have no clue about unionizing security people in airports. You already know that I think unionizing is a good thing--if the goals are worthwhile. If people are being underpaid and used, then I think they should unionize. But I don't know what is happening with the security workers. One of my friends works security at an airport--he totally believes that the union is a good thing. That is the extent of my knowledge on unionizing airport security workers.
I also think there is a giant difference between comparing Clinton/Bush and Bush/Obama. Our economy was going down the tubes when Obama came to office. We were in a multi-year war with no end when Obama came to office. I don't recall such a mess being given over to Bush. So it doesn't help me to use that as a comparison. However, I do believe that at a certain point the economy belongs to the Obama administration. If it gets worse, then it is their fault for not doing something different. If it gets better, it is because they did something that made it better. Only time will tell which it will be.
About 'liberal integrity or leadership': I don't believe that any political party has integrity or leadership. Not the Democrats and certainly not the Republicans. I think it is a mistake to look at our political leaders as heroes/demons. They are politicians--they do what needs to be done to get themselves ahead. That is how I see it. Luckily our form of government seems to work, despite this.

Gary Baker said...

Hi Kevin,

"One of my friends works security at an airport--he totally believes that the union is a good thing."

Which demonstrates nothing except that he seems to believe that he can get more by associating with a union.

"If people are being underpaid and used, then I think they should unionize."

The problem with that criteria is that it's practically impossible to determine whether it's actually met, and unions don't try. They make no effort to determine whether people are actually underpaid or used. Their sole objective is to gain members. That's why they work very hard to prevent linking pay to performance, instead working to keep everyone at roughly the same level. That maximizes their power and amount of dues collected.

As for the point about integrity, I don't believe a party can have integrity either. I believe people can, however. Even politicians. If you accept a politician who will say or do anything to get elected, that is a reflection on your integrity, not theirs. And it also seems to match my observations about liberals in general. They will readily lie, falsify data, mislead, etc., to advance what they consider a "greater good." This is in evidence with climate gate. This is evidence with their support of the policies that caused the mortgage crisis. This is in keeping with their policies to unionize people with or without their consent. This is in keeping with their misrepresenting major aspects of the healthcare bill and demonizing everyone or group who opposes them. Most liberals these days seem willing to accept that. For my part, I'll take a clean loss. I may end up living in a fascist state, but I least I won't have to face my kids and tell them that I was part of what made it so.