Pages

Pages

Saturday, November 07, 2009

Muslim KILLER

 

What part of Ralph Peters comments on the Fort Hood Muslim Killer does Hussein Obama and his cabal of US taxpayer funded Muslim apologists not understand?

Whilst the Wives,Husbands,Mothers and Fathers,Brothers and Sisters and Children of the victims, of the latest Islamic Terrorist attack upon civilization,wrestle with their indescribable pain and suffering, make plans to bury their loved ones all the MSM and the Islamic Terrorist apologists on the left can do is rush to be the first with the best excuse for this piece of SHITS murderous behaviour.

As Ralph Peters says in the above interview, where is the coverage of VICTIMS of this Islamist savage’s MASS MURDER Spree?

Hussein Obama has previously decreed that there is no war on terror nor are there any Islamic Terrorists.

Saying it so don’t make it so Hussein, just ask the victims and their families.

 Islam IS what Islam DOES

Call this horror by its name: Islamist terror

By RALPH PETERS
NYPost
November 7, 2009

On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting, "Allahu akbar!" ("God is great!") committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.

What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Fort Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of nondenominational shoplifting.

This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it's an act of terror.

Period.

When the terrorist posts anti-American hate speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit -- well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an "Islamist terrorist."

But the president won't. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there's no such thing as "Islamist terrorism" in ObamaWorld.

And the Army won't. Because its senior leaders are so sick with political correctness that pandering to America haters is safer than calling terrorism "terrorism."

And the media won't. Because they have more interest in the shooter than in our troops -- despite their crocodile tears.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan planned this terrorist attack and executed it in cold blood. The resulting massacre was the first tragedy. The second was that he wasn't killed on the spot.

Hasan survived. Now the rest of us will have to foot his massive medical bills. Activist lawyers will get involved, claiming "harassment" drove him temporarily insane. There'll be no end of trial delays. At best, taxpayer dollars will fund his prison lifestyle for decades to come, since our politically correct Army leadership wouldn't dare pursue or carry out the death penalty.

Maj. Hasan will be a hero to Islamist terrorists abroad and their sympathizers here. While US Muslim organizations decry his acts publicly, Hasan will be praised privately. And he'll have the last laugh.

But Hasan isn't the sole guilty party. The US Army's unforgivable political correctness is also to blame for the casualties at Fort Hood.

Given the myriad warning signs, it's appalling that no action was taken against a man apparently known to praise suicide bombers and openly damn US policy. But no officer in his

chain of command, either at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or at Fort Hood, had the guts to take meaningful action against a dysfunctional soldier and an incompetent doctor.

Had Hasan been a Lutheran or a Methodist, he would've been gone with the simoom. But officers fear charges of discrimination when faced with misconduct among protected minorities.

Now 12 soldiers and a security guard lie dead. At least 38 people were wounded, 28 of them seriously. If heads don't roll in this maggot's chain of command, the Army will have shamed itself beyond moral redemption.

There's another important issue, too. How could the Army allow an obviously incompetent and dysfunctional psychiatrist to treat our troubled soldiers returning from war? An Islamist wacko is counseled for arguing with veterans who've been assigned to his care? And he's not removed

from duty? What planet does the Army live on?

For the first time since I joined the Army in 1976, I'm ashamed of its dereliction of duty. The chain of command protected a budding terrorist who was waving one red flag after another.

Because it was safer for careers than doing something about him.

Get ready for the apologias. We've already heard from the terrorist's family that "he's a good American." In their world, maybe he is.

But when do we, the American public, knock off the PC nonsense?

A disgruntled Muslim soldier murdered his officers way back in 2003, in Kuwait, on the eve of

Operation Iraqi Freedom. Recently? An American mullah shoots it out with the feds in Detroit.

A Muslim fanatic attacks an Arkansas recruiting station. A Muslim media owner, after playing the peace card, beheads his wife. A Muslim father runs over his daughter because she's becoming too Westernized.

Muslim terrorist wannabes are busted again and again. And we're assured that "Islam's a religion of peace."

I guarantee you that the Obama administration's nonresponse to the Fort Hood attack will mock the memory of our dead.

Ralph Peters' latest novel is "The War After Armageddon."

Australia’s Rupert Murdoch gives Comrade Kevin 07 a reality check “Rudd delusional”

 

Rupert Murdoch speaks out on recovery and opportunity missed

By Terry McCrann
The Daily Telegraph
November 07, 2009

A YEAR ago I spoke to Rupert Murdoch at the very darkest point of the global financial meltdown. What a difference a year makes. Then, the News Corporation chairman and chief executive was gobsmacked at the wealth destruction. Now he apologises for being "bearish" - I'd call it instead cautious and realistic.

He's not taking the US recovery for granted; he recognises only too well the deep structural problems America faces and has added to over the past year; he has some fundamental question marks over President (Barack) Obama and, even more, the US Congress.

While he emphasises the fundamental entrepreneurial strengths of America, and the driving spirit of the people, he thinks all the negative factors will ensure a very, very slow recovery in the world's biggest economy.

"I think the danger of a double dip (back into recession) is unlikely; and there's a case that can be made that it has turned the corner and will recover strongly," he said.

But the Fed has poured money into the banking system - the $US700 billion bailout was wrong in principle, in practice a necessity - and the banks were sitting tight on credit. Cutting it back even to their best customers. Officially the jobless rate was 10 per cent, in reality it was probably more than 15 per cent. There was as yet no sign of a jobs pick-up and the key driver of recovery - capital formation by small business - was not happening, he added.

A critical issue was political leadership.

OBAMA OF THE three choices for President in last year's election, did the US get the right one, I ask? He pauses, then says: "No. I think Hillary (Clinton) would have been a lot tougher.

"I wouldn't have liked everything she did. (John) McCain (the Republican candidate who stood against Obama) would have had policies more to my approval.

"Albeit he would also have been unpredictable," he adds.

Obama has very, very enormous charm and a great way with words. But there's his total inexperience of the real world, the commercial world. And the same goes for the whole White House, Murdoch says.

Further he doesn't listen. And like Rudd he wants to micro-manage everything.

He faces huge geo-political challenges. Take Afghanistan: he doesn't know what he should do. I do, Murdoch adds with emphasis. He should send the extra troops.

The core problem was indecisive leadership. Last month he came out with a speech on education, with which I agreed 100 per cent. And then he concluded with: "I look to Congress to send me a bill. They'll never send him a bill!" Murdoch thunders.

The question still to be answered is whether he was an ideologue.

How many times had you been to the Obama White House, I asked?

Never, he responds. Followed by "I only went once when Bush was there."

RUDD HE'S very intelligent, he's very interesting, Murdoch starts. But then moves quickly to "but he's kidding himself with the G20", the grouping of the top 20 countries which includes Australia and which Rudd has been pushing to replace the G8 - of only the top eight countries which does not include Australia - as the main global negotiating forum.

Obama had no interest in the G20. He even wanted to cut the G8 to the G4 and really to a G2 - just the US and China - to agree to all the big decisions.

Rudd was kidding himself that we could use the G20 to lead the world. Or that we could strike out alone with a cap- and-trade system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions - our ETS or Emissions Trading Scheme.

That we'd lead and the rest would follow. All it would do would be to push up the cost of living in Australia, and the rest of the world would laugh at us.

His efforts to "lead the world" were delusional. But was it hurting Australia? Not yet, Murdoch asks and answers his own question.

THE NATIONAL BROADBAND NETWORK THE Government had to decide whether the national broadband network should be built as a great national asset. To go to every school, to every hospital, to every business, to every home, Murdoch says striking his hand for emphasis at each destination.

But then it had to decide whether to hold it as a public utility or whether to sell it to private enterprise.

If the latter, it could only happen if the Government was prepared to write off half the cost openly upfront.

To spend $40 billion to build it; to be prepared to sell it for $20 billion, so that the investors buying it could have a chance of a return.

In all this would Telstra be the major shareholder in such an NBN? Its biggest shareholder, the Future Fund, would not want it to go there unless it could see an acceptable return.

MURDOCH AND THE MEDIA COULD he be tempted back into free-to-air television in Australia?

He pauses before responding with a yes. But then immediately adds "If I had my choice of buying Telstra out of Foxtel or FTA, I would take the former".

So the future is Foxtel rather than FTA, I respond?

"Absolutely," he comes back, and then immediately details the continual, slow but inexorable drop in the network audience in the US. And he digresses into musing about the future of NBC - one of the major networks, put up for sale by its parent GE.

"In its present condition , it's unsaleable," he says.

And while we couldn't buy a second network, we would be interested in NBC's Universal movie studio. We'd be allowed to own two studios, he says.

Interestingly while he would like to buy Telstra out of its 50 per cent stake in Foxtel, he has no interest in the 25 per cent owned by James Packer's CMH group.

Asked to comment on Packer, he says he has no comment. Then adds, he had made his bed with his decision to became a major global player in gaming. But he'd kept the two media assets - the 25 per cent of Foxtel and the half share of Fox Sports (NewsCorp has the other 50 per cent).

"I'd certainly be interested in Fox Sports, but not another 25 per cent of Foxtel. There'd be no point unless you were going to get the whole thing."

THE LOST CHANCE ASKED about the challenges and opportunities in media going forward, Murdoch comes up with a surprising nomination: the great opportunity missed. The Food Network.

No, it wasn't a simple "MasterChef moment", but a textbook example of building hugely profitable media business, which in classic Murdoch style, he thinks he should have done.

It takes years for a new station/network to get on the cable channels in the US, Murdoch says with the knowledge of exactly his own struggles over two decades. New channels generally ask for 15-20c per customer per month.

"The Food Network went in at 2c and achieved total distribution." That delivered all the food advertisers. With very cheap programming, it's now a $US350 million revenue business that throws off an incredible $US250 million profit! It's a business that's gone from nothing to a value of at least $US3 billion. And all that's still only charging the 2c! Murdoch adds with emphatic undisguised admiration. But they are about to renegotiate that.

Hussein Obama’s Socialist agenda IS WORKING!!!

 

US unemployment highest for 26 years

Alexandra Frean AMERICA'S unemployment rate pushed through the 10 per cent mark in October for the first time in 26 years.