FlyingScot's blog

If anyone had previous doubt regarding Barak Obama's concepts and core beliefs regarding the establishment of a New World Order, they are now dissipated.

Barak Obama, the President of the United States,Comander in Chief of our military, who put his hand on the Bible just a few months ago and swore on that Bible to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" has now in so many words publically stated his belief in a New World Order. All you have to do is think "New World Order" and read his speech in Cairo and you'll see it.

Heaven help us all.

Fox News made a good point this morning: there is an inordinate amount of coverage of the murder of late term abortion Doctor George Tiller by Scott Roeder (politically motivated) in comparision to the news coverage of the murder of Army recruiter Pvt. William Long in front of an Army - Navy recruting station in Little Rock by the Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad (politically motived).

Both were politically motivated, although for differing reasons. One dealt with the murder of an doctor who had committed 60,000 late term abortions and the other was the murder of a military recruiting officer for what the alleged shooter Muhammad said was  "because of what they had done to Muslims in the past."

Could it be that media bias is showing it's ugly head once again, highlighting ( accompanied by various commentary from NOW and NARAL) of Dr. Tiller's murder and under covering Long's, especially in the light of the fact that the President is now in the Middle East and is making a major speech in an attempt to assuage Muslims?

For the record, I condemn both acts. Murder is murder, no matter how it is done or to whom.

As a post script,  I predict a movie coming out of Hollywood in the next few years of the "herioc" efforts and "martyrdom" of Dr. Tiller.

I would like to hear from my liberal friends just how they would deal with Kim Jong Il if he lobs one into Japan, or invades South Korea.

I'm serious. I want to hear from liberals how they would deal with another war, in the light of our treaties with S. Korea. What would you do?

the indignities, connivance and dirty tricks of Democrats (including VP Biden) toward another person of color, now Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. It was awful what they tried to do to him. Truly ( as Thomas himself described it) it was a new form of "lynching". Let us not forget how the press interpreted what happened back in 1991.

If Republicans even breathed in this manner toward Sotomayor, the press would be all over them in rebuke.

Media bias still lives.

If anything, she must be attacked on her liberal record, not the way Democrats tried to personally attack Clarence Thomas.

Be sure to study those speeches that she has made in the past in Spanish, especially to those made to hispanic groups, as well as those she has made in English.

President Obama has continuously stated that he wants someone who will best represent the people of the United States on the Supreme Court and bring balance to the Court. 

I agree.

Senators Barbara Boxer and Olympia Snow have sent a written petition the president that his pick be a woman, in the light of the imbalance of women on the court.The short list of potential candidates holds many women.

I agree again. The Supreme Court needs another woman.

In the light of the gender imbalance on the court, and in the spirit of equality and fairness, I agree.  If we are going to put another woman on the Supreme Court,  in the spirit of balance and equality, Obama's pick needs to be another female.

 A conservative . 

A conservative female justice on the court would bring great balance. A Constitutionally grounded conservative female judge would bring greater gender equality on the court and definitely bring  judicial interpretive balance, as a conservative female would counter the most liberal judge on the court(male or female), Clinton appointed Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Will this happen? Hmmm?

When pigs fly.

So much for Obama's equality and real balance.

It's what they bring in. It's what they do to others in converting them inside prison.

Read this.

I have discovered that The Next Right is a great place on the web to share ideas. 

 1) There are those that want to share ideas and expand and elaborate on them and discuss them. This is the reason why The Next Right was obviously designed and birthed. Most postings that I read on The Next Right adhere to the general idea of sharing various  ideas, thoughts and observations, and that's a good thing. This is why this web site was obviously designed- to share ideas. I commend the originators of The Next Right. You have done us all a great service- keep it up!  2) There is a second category of people that post on The Next Right. They are those that cannot validate their positions and cannot refute the truth of an opposing position with reason and logic and therefore, they resort to get personal with words such as "you're an idiot" or "your head is up your ass" or other juvenile forms of counter attack. When I read such, I discount much of what is said afterwards, because the writer has belittled himself by his choices, abandoning reason for the cheap contrivance of playground bullying. Now, having said all this, I encourage readers to go back and look at various posts on The New Right. You will find something fascinating: 1) Most (but not all) who write here from the Right (Conservative positions) are conducting reasoned debate and discussion.  2)Many on the Left (not all of course) contend from the juvenile "your head is up your ass" position. Could it be that the left cannot defend themselves from positions of reason and hold a rational discussion, as adults? Here's my challenge to all writers. First, I welcome all, from both the left and the right. I come here to see "what's up" and post my own thoughts and enter into the wonderful and ever changing national conversation in order discuss and debate the issues of the day calmly and rationally. I don't want to get into a "yea, but your momma is...." kind of backyard brawl online. It's stupid and a waste of my (and everyone else's) time. I want to share ideas! (what a concept). My challenge to all writers, from both the left and the right. Conservative and Liberal. Be honest. Use logic and reason in your arguments and defend from positions of the same. We’re all in this boat called “America” – this noble experiment that has continued to sail for over 200 years, and the wind in our sails is the wind of this wonderful national conversation. Don’t throw us off by the ill winds of name calling.  It stops the boat from advancing.If you can't refute what's being said on the other side, refrain from name calling, go back and do your homework, and come back here and writing something brilliant, backed by facts, quotes and logic. Name calling is stupid (in and of itself) and it shows you don't have a rational refutation. If you can't fight with adult weapons, stay out of the discussion.  Now, I'm ready for what comes next: Tell me that my head is up my ass. 

Congressman Peter Hoestra (R-Mi) is fast becoming the spokesperson for arguments against the transfer of Gitmo detainees to US soil.  I commend the Congressman for his forthright stance on this delicate issue.

It seems that we are seeing a groundswell of support against the Gitmo relocation and population of our prisons with detainees,beginning with the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act. in Congress.

It seems that the president has clearly heard from the people of the United States, as reflected in this weeks House vote in response to closing Gitmo and the word is this:

"NIMBY" (Not in my back yard)

Obama's response was to take his arguement to the American people (with the backdrop of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence as a back drop...smooth move, presidential handlers) in an 'end around'  attempt to drive Congress to submission to his way of thinking.

If this groundswell of support against the transfer builds, will Obama defiantly say in response to the will of the people," Yes we can"?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R- Ky) made an excellent point today in his response to the President's speech to the American people, attempting to convince us all that incarceration of Al-Queda terrorists in American prisons would be a good thing.

Obama said, in so many words, we'd all feel better about ourselves if we did this.

McConnell in his response stated that yes, we could bring the terrorists from Gitmo to our prisons, but... should we?

Integrating Gitmo detainees into the U.S. penal system would allow these terrorists to intermingle and fraternize with American convicts (many of which have hearts already full of hatred for America and its system of justice that culled them from society).

Also, it's a well known fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion in our federal prison system.

In a very subtle way (as only McConnell can do) he states, "should we do this Mr. President... really? Is this really the best thing in order to protect the country?"

President Obama's insistence upon such a move may make liberals feel a little better about themselves, but in truth it not only gives Al-Queda the opportunity to recruit prime candidates for future terrorist acts from within our country, but it also does so at the expense of the American taxpayer.

There is something to be said not only for the incarceration, but also for Gitmo's separation and isolation. Yesterday's attempt to bomb a synagogue in New York point to the fact that Al-Queda is growing ever closer to establishing a home grown terrorist system.

Why, for God's sake Mr. President, should we help them?