Another Day that May Live in Infamy Part One

Another Day that May Live in Infamy Part One

Almost 70 years ago, on December 7th, 1941, America sustained a total of 2,896 mostly military casualties at a little known naval base at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese navy staged a massive sneak attack. It took years but we eventually recovered from what FDR termed “a day which will live in infamy.”

More than nine years ago, on September 11th, 2001, America sustained a total of 2,977 mostly civilian deaths when 19 Islamic reprobates attacked the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Again, it has taken years but we have substantially recovered, physically if not psychologically.

On Election Day, November 6, 2012 we may or may not be attacked again by Muslim terrorists in our seemingly endless war with Islam. Should that attack come to pass, barring the unimaginable, it still won’t pack the equivalent and immediate emotional shot to America’s gut that Japan’s unprovoked sneak attack on Pearl Harbor or even the devastating attacks of 9/11 accomplished.

Today, according to Obama, in cock-sure concurrence with Muslim-American political commentator, Fareed Zakaria, we are allegedly ready for anything including nuclear terrorism from which we are well able to “bounce back:” http://tiny.cc/p1jmm

Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto’s nightmare of a “sleeping giant” awoke in 1941 and defeated the Axis powers less than four years later; America has yet to fully awaken to the deadly nature of the threat posed by Islam and we are still at war with the Muslim world, fighting their war instead of fighting to win.

However, whatever happens in that endless war, we will assuredly ”bounce back” because, well, because Obama has told us so, which is damned good to hear . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2832)

All the President's Wars

All the President's Wars

Dysfunctional, defeatist, depressing. Those adjectives are just three that describe the Obama administration’s first 20 months, according to a new book by Bob Woodward, Obama’s Wars.

In an article entitled, “Bob Woodward’s Book Details Obama Battles with Advisors over Exit Plans for Afghan War,” Steve Luxenberg of the Washington Post reveals that the book goes far beyond tactics and strategies in Afghanistan.

All in all, it doesn’t present a pretty picture of the Obama administration nor is it a flattering insight into Obama’s handling of that war.

In addition to the president’s incessant disputes with his advisors and generals. what comes across most glaringly in Obama’s Wars is Obama’s fixation, not with winning the war, but with getting out, with extricating our forces in order to fulfill his campaign pledges to the Democrat Party faithful.

To the surprise of very few people, his obsession with that “exit plan” at all costs makes the Afghan War clearly a domestic political war with concern for politics the governing force over any strategies. Our troops over there getting shot at and dying will find no comfort in that fact.

A curious facet of Woodward’s book and Luxenberg’s review is the amazing similarity between Barack Obama’s attitude toward a future terrorist attack or attacks and that expressed by Newsweek editor and CNN commentator, Fareed Zakaria.

In a 2007 Newsweek article, Zakaria proposed a policy of “resilience” in the event of terrorist nuclear attacks. He believed we should be prepared to take such attacks on our soil after which we can simply “bounce back from a disruption:” http://tiny.cc/mllpi

Resilience? Bounce back? A disruption?

Now note President Obama’s words . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1937)

Fareed Zakaria: America's Resident Muslim Quisling

Fareed Zakaria: America's Resident Muslim Quisling

(The first part of this article is an excerpt from "An Immodest Proposal for Ending and Winning the War on Terror." It directly relates to recent comments and actions by Fareed Zakaria.)

“An immigrant from Mumbai, India, Fareed Zakaria is well-credentialed: editor of Newsweek International, bestselling author, television commentator, regular contributor to The New Republic and to the webzine Slate, and host of a weekly PBS program. A truly impressive resume’ indeed.

Zakaria is also a Muslim although that doesn’t seem to cast any doubt on his objectivity involving a war between the West and Islam even if he has repeatedly exhibited pro-Muslim sentiments.

Zakaria outlined his beliefs in an article, ‘Beyond Bush, What the World Needs Is an Open Confident America,’ He believes that wiretapping mosques in the United States would jeopardize the assimilation of Muslims. He derided Rep. Tom Tancredo’s idea that in the event Islamic terrorists strike the United States we ‘take out’ Mecca. He lauded then-Senator Obama’s approach that if we suffer nuclear attacks we should consult an emergency response manual and try to assemble a coalition to respond. Most astoundingly, he supported a policy of ‘resilience’ which presupposes nuclear attacks on our soil after which we can ‘bounce back from a disruption’ : http://tiny.cc/yw5yz

He also believes America “over-reacted” to 9/11: http://tiny.cc/iv0h2

Fareed Zakaria should be sat down and tutored in a few basic truths, however mean-spirited they may seem. First, Americans value human life, unlike Calcuttans, and Mumbains, and Muslims. Second, response delayed is no response at all and pausing to assemble a coalition following nuclear strikes on our soil would be an open invitation to repeated attacks. Third, a nuclear attack is not simply a ‘disruption’ such as a work stoppage by New York City or Mumbain taxi drivers.


Mr. Zakaria may be an excellent journalist but, if he truly believes all he writes, he hasn’t learned much about his adoptive country.

Barbarians can be very nasty people. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1887)