Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Back In The USSR!

By Greg L | 25 January 2011 | National Politics | 31 Comments

With all the accomplishments of American ingenuity, enterprise and creativity, when the President needs to come up with a term invoking our ingenuitive past, there’s no shortage of material to draw from.

Instead, he offers us the opportunity to grasp “our sputnik moment.”

For the love of God.

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.


  1. R said on 25 Jan 2011 at 11:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    I remember that moment very well. I believe I was in second grade. It was incredibly shocking. We thought we were on top of the world in every way and then “wham,” there it was. You should have seen the headlines. Nobody spoke about anything else for days. We had become complacent, lazy even. We could not conceive of any other country being capable or even daring to compete with us. And then suddenly we were number two in space. We didn’t even see it coming. It was one heck of a wake-up call and it was real. We later responded well, at least back then.

  2. NoVA Scout said on 26 Jan 2011 at 5:33 am:
    Flag comment

    I’m not sure what a better reference would have been. As R says, it really was a great shock to which the Nation responded well. To go from being left in the dust on the first orbital vehicle to putting men on the moon within a decade is no small thing.

    The problems now are quite different and there is no one catalyzing event comparable to Sputnik. But, as a point on which to hang a speech to illustrate the need for America to get off its duff and start competing globally, it’s hard to fault the allusion unless one just reflexively dumps on anything this particular President has to say. But I don’t think anyone around here is that primitive.

  3. AmericaFirst said on 26 Jan 2011 at 6:50 am:
    Flag comment

    If it were not for Obama’s congenital affinity to all things marxist and socialist, I think we could give him a pass on this one.

    However, looking at his history and his past (and present) affiliations, one can only come to the conclusion that the boy is a socialist and this was a dog whistle to his fellow travelers.

  4. Anonymous said on 26 Jan 2011 at 7:14 am:
    Flag comment

    This from the guy who pulled the plug on space exploration and handed NASA the hopey changy job of Islamic “outreach”.

    Sputnik 1 went down in a flaming ball of fire… so to should the Obama era.

  5. Steve Thomas said on 26 Jan 2011 at 10:16 am:
    Flag comment


    I’m inclined to agree with “R” and Nova Scout. I think he was using imagery intended to communicate the urgency and shake us out of our complacency. I don’t have any issues with the example he (or his speechwriter) chose. That said, I got the impression that much of what he was saying, was done so grudgingly. His comments about the arguments and “messy nature” of our government were intended to tell the GOP and the Right “I’ll fight you on much of what you are proposing”, and to tell the the Democrats and the Left “I’m not going to win every fight, and on some things will not fight”.

  6. AmericaFirst said on 26 Jan 2011 at 4:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    I think he was using imagery intended to communicate the urgency and shake us out of our complacency

    Whose complacency? Borderline leftists? Olberman fans?

    It would appear there isn’t a whole lot of complacency on the right. At least the tea party right.

    This fight is far from over. The battle lines have been drawn and there will be no prisoners.

    The socialists know the cross hairs are on them.

    Did I miss any of the MSNBC dog whistle adjectives?

  7. AmericaFirst said on 26 Jan 2011 at 5:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Comments televised by Russian President Medvedev concerning the recent Moscow airport bombing:

    Wednesday, Medvedev fired top airport security officials. He accused transport police of “taking an absolutely passive position. At best, they are examining migrants, to check their registration and display their authority,” in comments carried on Russian state TV.

    Among the people he dismissed was Andrei Alexeyev, the head of the Interior Ministry’s transport administration for the Central Federal District, he announced in his televised remarks.

    “If people don’t understand how to work, we’ll find other people,” Medvedev said, according the RIA-Novosti news agency.

    If it seems we have to have a socialist as a president - can we at least have a real one?

    This guy seems to get it.

  8. Anonymous said on 26 Jan 2011 at 6:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    My SOTU summary:

    “We haven’t spent enough of your money. We need to spend some more.”

  9. Citizen12 said on 26 Jan 2011 at 11:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    It seems only natural that he would use an example such as this. It has been the plan for quite a long time.

    “Mr. Dodd, we operate here under directives which emanate from the White House. Would you like to know what the substance of these directives is?”

    I said, “Indeed, I would, Mr. Gaither”. Whereupon he then said the following:

    “We, here, operate and control our grant-making policies in harmony with the directives, the substance of which is as follows: We shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union”.


  10. Citizen12 said on 27 Jan 2011 at 12:18 am:
    Flag comment

    Someone should have reminded our president that we are already quite aware of what he thinks of American exceptionalism.

    “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

    Let’s look at how Harry Truman responded quickly to the soviets and launched the Berlin air lift, and how our current president brings in the president of mexico to our house of congress to scold us for defending our country, its citizens and its borders.

    So much for HIS version of American exceptionalism.

  11. Harry said on 27 Jan 2011 at 10:47 am:
    Flag comment

    Palin/Huckabee 2012

  12. yawning wolf said on 27 Jan 2011 at 1:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m 40 years old. What’s a “sputnik”?

  13. Red, White and Blue said on 27 Jan 2011 at 2:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    Here it is in a nut shell. He played the fiddle as Rome burned. He said what he believes will hold off the wolves and placate his base - playing the middle and act concerned. He did this when he was Senator. He voted against the “surge” claiming it would not accomplish anything then praised it after he was President.

    He plays the game when he is behind but will return to his true colors when it will suit him. He NEVER left his roots; he just talked but really said nothing and offered even less.

    And is this the same guy who apologized for all our “exceptionalism” to every head of state and camera around the globe? Is this from the guy who said America has made mistakes and we should be sorry for them?

    Complacency? 14 Trillion in debt with NO end and NO plan - just keep spending!!! Just last week we were told that if we failed to pass the new spending limits that it would bring on a second recession. Hmmm, NOW he said that we should not raise the debt limit. One week the republicans are loons and budget busters, this week they are OK.

    Besides, he FAILED to give a true assessment of the real State of the Union. He and his party are the MAIN reason for jobs going overseas. And still no drilling.

  14. Tillie said on 27 Jan 2011 at 4:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    yawning wolf - 40 years old and you haven’t heard about Sputnik!

    Ignorance is bliss, it has been said. You must be in 7th heaven
    or on cloud 9.

  15. citizenofmanassas said on 27 Jan 2011 at 4:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    Just remember in 2008 he said his focus was on jobs, in 2009, his focus was on jobs, in 2010, his focus was on jobs. Recall such statements as I’ll not sleep until the job market improves, etc. Well now of course in 2011, he says really, the focus is on jobs.

    He’s spent the last three years beating up on the business community to the point homes of executives were the focus of protests. He called them greedy, fat cats, made up stories that doctors engage in excessive surgeries, etc. Why did he do all of that? Because he was playing to his base, the far left kooks, which he is a part of.

    Now he has to appear to be serious about creating jobs. Really?

    As for using sputnik, it’s a rather poor choice imo. It can be taken as a nod to the old soviet union, or it can be taken as the response America made to it. But, why create a statement that can create confusion?

  16. Not Dick Cheney said on 27 Jan 2011 at 4:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Palin/Huckabee 2012″

    Harry, I seriously doubt Huckabee would do something as damaging to his credibility as run on the same ticket with Palin. He would gain nothing from it and he would never be taken seriously again.

    Fortunately there is little chance of Palin winning the nomination (and even less of her winning a general election) so I don’t think we need to spend too much time speculating on her choice of a running mate. I doubt she has any intention of running anyway. She has little self awareness but I think she has enough to know she doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell. Unless she is in such a tight bubble that contains only fawning sycophants telling her that she is brilliant and is of course a plausible president. Then I suppose it is possible.

    Don’t get me wrong. She would be a factor in the nominating process. She has a core of adoring fans who will love her no matter how many truly moronic things she says. And they will never abandon her so her numbers won’t drop. But she isn’t going to pick up support beyond that core so her numbers won’t go up either. She can’t win the nomination. Which is good because it would be an unmitigated disaster for the GOP at the polls. You’d probably give up what is a better than even chance to recapture the Senate and you could easily lose the 25 seats needed to give the House back to the Democrats.

  17. Red, White and Blue said on 27 Jan 2011 at 4:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    Amen, citizenofmanassas.

    Barry Soetoro offers nothing for America except entitlements, union protections and spend all the pennies, nickels and dimes. Before WWII, we were drifting similiar to then. FDR tried to rig the Supreme Court to get his way -more government controls and government programs. Unemployment was very high, revenues low and the first items they cut were defense but increased deficit spending by offering entitlement programs albeit many required actual work and low pay instead of staying home and collecting the checks.
    Barry just offers more programs, more controls, more regulations.

    Looking at the apple from the core instead of the skin, let’s say all these energy programs actually work. We reduce fossil fuel dependence. Cars become fuel efficient 75 miles a gallon or no fuel at all. Do we still need roads? Say they ban cigarettes. All the new light bulbs save the planet and the polar bears are thriving.

    Ohoh. There goes the tax revenues! The roads are still there. The cars are still there. The planet is still here but the tax revenues are tanking. Now what does the government do now, save us on our taxes too? HAHAHAHA. As we “save” whatever, they must raise the revenue - up go the taxes. We save the planet but still are taxed to death - or after it. They really don’t care if it works, they just love hearing themselves talk like Pelosi, Schumer and their peers.

    There programs cost more, save little and they gamble with our economic and financial future. This is what happens when we elect “chic”, “cool”, the “first”. Barney Frank single-handedly pumped up Fanny and Freddie and blantantly LIED to us. Oh yes, he got reelected - got looney liberal, union, hollywood and Soros cash/support. (Yes, I said looney liberal. Anyone who voted for Frank after the mess he helped create and then openly lie about is a loon. He directly helped the collapse of the housing market along with financial loans his committee encouraged to people who could not afford a house. That is not a mistake or small problem. He knew what he did and then lied about it.)

    We have “leaders” who only think of us as: A. Votes B. Cash C. Morons who found the road to hell, or D. Tea Bagging idiots (or whatever they want to call people who don’t vote for them). These leaders have no business sense, yet call Wall Streeters “crooks”. HA!

    Barry Soetoro or whatever name is on that birth certificate that the Hawaiian governor never found, doesn’t have a clue how to run this country except into the toilet. He could care less about taxpayers. He is too busy spending the wealth as the jobs continue going overseas and tooting his 31 million new folks on health care and it isn’t going to cost one single penny - he promised the rates will go down; just that warm, fuzzy feeling - mmm,mmm, good.

    And always remember - it is all George Bush’s fault. He “inherited” this “mess” from Bush and those nasty republicans who never work with the democrats. At least Nancy doesn’t have the keys anymore and can’t lock the doors while she “cooperates” or Reid who is “cooperating” by not allowing to bring legislation to the floor or allow votes on amendments. Does King or Queen come to mind?

    NEWS FLASH!! Obama says his State of the Union was one of his best looking moments ever. Michelle will be proud one more time now.

  18. Tillie said on 27 Jan 2011 at 4:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    Furthermore, Huckabee’s aw-shucks personality wouldn’t get him any further this time than it did the last time around.

    As for women in the race for the White House, the rabble rousing Michele Bachmann has a lot more on the ball than Palin will ever have. Aside from being as cute to look at as Sarah, she has a ruthlessness about her that makes me shudder.

    Of course, thinking of Palin as president of the United States of America
    “shudders” me even more.

  19. citizenofmanassas said on 27 Jan 2011 at 8:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Fortunately there is little chance of Palin winning the nomination (and even less of her winning a general election) so I don’t think we need to spend too much time speculating on her choice of a running mate. I doubt she has any intention of running anyway. She has little self awareness but I think she has enough to know she doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell. Unless she is in such a tight bubble that contains only fawning sycophants telling her that she is brilliant and is of course a plausible president. Then I suppose it is possible.

    Don’t get me wrong. She would be a factor in the nominating process. She has a core of adoring fans who will love her no matter how many truly moronic things she says. And they will never abandon her so her numbers won’t drop. But she isn’t going to pick up support beyond that core so her numbers won’t go up either. She can’t win the nomination. Which is good because it would be an unmitigated disaster for the GOP at the polls. You’d probably give up what is a better than even chance to recapture the Senate and you could easily lose the 25 seats needed to give the House back to the Democrats.

    You could have said the same about obama. However, because the media protected him, and did not hard hitting he was able to fool enough people to vote for him.

    Red White and Blue,

    All very true.

  20. Cynic said on 27 Jan 2011 at 10:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Of course, thinking of Palin as president of the United States of America
    “shudders” me even more.”

    But, think of all the liberals that would leave the Country if she were elected President.

    And, at the present time many voters indicate that they are shuddering over the current President.

    Given the present conditions, just remember that no republican or non-democrat will have the press carrying their water in any Presidential election.

  21. Riley said on 27 Jan 2011 at 10:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    Never mind Sputnik.

    Current U.S. corporate tax rate: 35 percent

    Current Russian corporate tax rate: 24 percent

  22. NoVA Scout said on 28 Jan 2011 at 6:33 am:
    Flag comment

    Riley: the current US effective corporate tax rate (calculating the impact of deductions, allowances etc) is about 25%. It is close to the industrialized global average. One can make a case that corporate taxes could/should be lowered, but to start the discussion, one has to be accurate about what the effective rate is. I personally question the concept of corporate taxes, given that the revenue taxed is taxed again when it moves to shareholders and employees. However, to go down that route, one would also have to be willing to discuss increasing collections from the personal taxes, or at least eliminating a lot of the Swiss cheese deductions in the Code. Virtually no politician has the guts to do that.

  23. NoVA Scout said on 28 Jan 2011 at 6:38 am:
    Flag comment

    Cynic - a lot of conservatives would ship out too if Palin were elected. The woman is a media celebrity, much more attractive than the usual politician, but her references to conservatism are pure schtick. They’re props for her act.

  24. Anonymous said on 28 Jan 2011 at 11:12 am:
    Flag comment

    “The Washington Post, which never passes up an opportunity to attack Sarah Palin, has gone after her for criticizing President Barack Obama’s “Sputnik” reference in the State of the Union Address. Palin noted accurately that what Obama was calling for was “big government” as the solution to our problems. She further pointed out big government socialistic solutions are what in part did the Soviet empire in. Those comments sent Steve Stromberg at the Washington Post into a hyperbolic fit, declaring that her analysis is “weird.” But his response indicates that he knows as little about the Soviet Union and Sputnik as President Obama’s speech writers.

    Stromberg says that Palin misconstrues Obama’s main point that “the Americans who responded to early Soviet success in space exploration by educating themselves and out-innovating the Soviets.” But Stromberg misses Palin’s larger and more important point about history: Sputnik was really meaningless in the larger scheme of things. It was all hype, and it was basically used by people in Washington to advance their own political agenda. Perhaps Stromberg should have consulted the Post’s own archives before he went after her. As Newsweek (which the Post used to own) wrote on the fiftieth anniversary of Sputnik:

    Less than a week after Sputnik began orbiting Earth once every 96 minutes, politicians and the press had spun it into a shocking symbol of Soviet superiority that could soon lead to nukes falling on American cities. But far from being alarmed by Sputnik, newly released archives show, Eisenhower and his military and intelligence advisers welcomed it. The terror triggered by the uninstrumented, 184-pound silvery satellite, roughly the size and shape of a blue-ribbon watermelon and emitting an A-flat beep from its rudimentary radio transmitter, had little basis in reality.

    Newsweek goes on: “With Sputnik’s 50th anniversary this week, we’re in danger of getting it wrong yet again, for the supposed lessons of Sputnik are ones we should actually unlearn.” Ouch. Memo to Stromberg: Read some history next time. Memo to President Obama: quit the myth-making.

    Palin is right: Sputnik was the typical government solution; symbolism over substance. The Soviets did not really create a satellite, and Washington really wasn’t threatened by it. They “welcomed it.”

    Palin’s other point is that Sputnik was the sort of government bureaucratic program that got the Soviet Union in trouble; it’s an example of what eventually did them in. Citing Wikipedia (what journalistic ingenuity!), Stromberg argues that actually the Soviet Union didn’t have a debt problem until some “thirty years after” Sputnik. Perhaps instead of relying on Wikipedia, Stromberg might have consulted Robert Gates’ book From the Shadows which chronicles, in part, his career as a Soviet analyst at the CIA. (Just in case they are unaware at the Post, this is the same Robert Gates who is now the Secretary of Defense.) On page 173, he accurately points out that the CIA knew early on of the “Soviet economic crisis. From the late 1950s, CIA had clearly described the chronic weaknesses as well as the formidable military power of the Soviet Union.” Hmmm. Do you think this “chronic weaknesses might have had something to do with excessive bureaucracies and the size of government? Note to Stromberg: you will have to close Wikipedia and actually crack a book for this one.

    Intellectual debate is well and good, but if you’re going to condescend, you better have something to condescend about. In this case Steve Stromberg of the Washington Post just got schooled by Sarah Palin.


    “President Obama has chosen former journalist Jay Carney to replace press secretary Robert Gibbs, a longtime loyalist, when he leaves the post in mid-February, according to a senior administration official.

    The White House will also name two new deputy chiefs of staff: Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the Office of Health Reform, and Alyssa Mastromonaco, White House director of scheduling and advance.

    Carney, now the communications director for Vice President Biden, came to the White House in 2009 after a long career in journalism that included serving as Washington bureau chief of Time magazine.

    The White House had made clear it was interested in tapping an outsider for the post…”


    An outsider? Oh please. Jay Carney has been a good little liberal apparatchik for years.

    He’s the guy that covered McCain/Palin, writing daily hit pieces for TIME during the campaign. Now awarded by Obama for his great work. Apparently.

    “ABC News’s Deputy Political Director Jumps to Left-Wing Union, the 15th Obama Activist Through the Media’s Revolving Door ”


    “Sarah Palin: Barack Obama’s Nemesis”

    “The press alternately calls Sarah Palin stupid or irrelevant. However, both in political instinct and policy substance, it’s clear that she is neither.

    Today, her Op-Ed appears in the Wall Street Journal. It’s good. Cogent, clear, and well-written. She’s got a ghost-writer, say lib operatives. Let’s hope! Does Barack Obama write all his own stuff? Surely, libs jest. His college thesis can’t even be found. Why would anyone quibble that Sarah Palin would have a ghost writer? Probably because she makes sense:

    Instead of poll-driven “solutions,” let’s talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let’s give Americans control over their own health care.

    Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don’t need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats’ proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not “provide more stability and security to every American.”

    Liberals also object to the timing of the piece. Geoffery Dunn in Huffington Post says today, “Yes, the latter continues her unyielding obsession with Barack Obama by trying to upstage his healthcare address to the nation today…”

    In politics, timing is everything. Sarah Palin knows good timing. The President gives his big address today. And the press is not likely to pay attention to the Republican rebuttal. And Republicans still seem loath to take the fight to the president en masse lest they appear to be “obstructionist”. Even trying to work across the aisle, Republican are labeled such, anyway. And it’s no matter, their votes won’t affect the outcome one way or another–super majorities and all that. But Sarah Palin can help fight rhetorically and the best time to fight is when the opposition is on the battlefield. Today, everyone is paying attention. Today is a good time to fight. Liberals just hate being out-maneuvered.

    And then, there’s the actual substance of Palin’s opinion piece. She makes sense. She continues to give voice to the “sick and elderly” and their very real concerns with government run health care. She is not backing down. She continues to point out the obvious: it will increase the debt.

    The real problem Democrats have with Sarah Palin is that she accepts the President’s challenges where others cower. She isn’t going away. And when she does argue the points, she times her arguments for impact.

    Sarah Palin is Barack Obama’s nemesis. He needs one.”


    With all three major networks calling the most recent Obama SOTU “Reaganesque”, he sure as hell needs someone to call out the propaganda….


    If Sarah Palin never runs for public office, she still gets my vote for having served her country well.

  25. Cynic said on 28 Jan 2011 at 11:29 am:
    Flag comment

    NoVA Scout,

    The liberals say that they are going to leave; they never do leave.

    I would bet that the Conservatives will say that they will leave, but when they have to walk the walk, they will not walk.

    S. Palin - anyone who perturbs liberals as much as she does, can’t be all bad!

  26. Anonymous said on 28 Jan 2011 at 12:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    “…and as extremists try to inspire acts of violence within our borders, we are responding with the strength of our communities, with respect for the rule of law, and with the conviction that American Muslims are a part of our American family.”

    So, on the SOTU topic of national defense, Obama was quick to tack on a defending shout-out to Muslims…to single them out as the only ” family members” who are distinct from extremists.

    Here is the problem, Obama, in the eyes of a Muslim, I, a non-Muslim American, am not , nor would I ever be, considered worthy of Muslim tolerance.

    Convert, depart or die. Those are the only options ever offered up by Muslims to infidels. And as for Muslims who WANT to convert or depart, death is their sentence.

    Are Ethiopian Christians part of the Ethiopian family?

    Pakistani Christians part of the Pakistani Family?

    Sudanese Christians part of the Sudanese Family?

    Indonesian Christians part of the Indonesian Family?

    Egyptian Christians part of the Egyptian Family?

    Iraqi Christians part of the Iraqi Family?

    Obama can damn well lecture his precious Muslims…with or without American travel documents…over their utter intolerance of non-Muslims.


    Al-Qaeda to American Muslims: Kill the Infidel, Make a Living!

    Al-Qaeda is undertaking a new strategy: encouraging American Muslims to become a self-sustaining arm of the international jihad.

    In the latest issue of Inspire magazine, published by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, American al-Qaeda commander Anwar al-Awlaki declares that Sharia law requires American Muslims to commit robbery, embezzlement, and theft, for the purpose of funding jihad attacks, financially supporting groups committed to Salafi-jihadi causes, and covering their living expenses.

    Al-Awlaki admits that Islamic law allows legitimate Muslim rulers to enter into binding treaties and covenants with non-Muslim nations, but he quickly dismisses this possibility by stating that there are no legitimate Muslim rulers in the world today because they are all apostates. He adds that — even if there were legitimate Muslim rulers — treaties and covenants could not be made with the U.S. because it is at war with Islam.

    After a lengthy analysis of how the four schools of Sunni Islam view this topic, he concludes that:

    In the case of the United States, both the government and private citizens should be targeted. America and Americans are the Imams of kufr in this day and age. The American people who vote for war mongering governments are intent on no good. Anyone who inflicts harm on them in any form is doing a favor to the ummah. … Since jihad around the world is in dire need of financial support, we urge our brothers in the West to take it upon themselves to give this issue a priority in their plans. Rather than the Muslims financing their jihad from their own pockets, they should finance it from the pockets of their enemies.

    Many commentators have mistakenly focused on this new statement as a sign of al-Qaeda’s financial weakness, but they widely miss the point.

    Al-Qaeda has never hidden the fact that it needs money. For years, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and other al-Qaeda leaders have repeatedly cajoled and pleaded for more money from the faithful.

    The actual point is that — as of about a year ago — al-Qaeda launched a dynamic new strategic campaign designed to turn American Muslims against their government and transform them into an active and self-sustaining arm of the global jihad. Al-Awlaki’s new declaration simply tells them how they can finance their attacks and make a living at the same time.

    Most Americans do not fully comprehend or appreciate the degree to which the al-Qaeda organization has focused its attention on American Muslims. This new focus is a huge departure from al-Qaeda’s past approach, and the fact that its message is tailored for American Muslims in colloquial English written by influential American jihadists such as al-Awlaki, Adam Gadahn, and Samir Khan, delivered via an online magazine with cool graphics and punchy headlines, enables it to engage, influence, and recruit young American Muslims.

    Using this tailored mass media approach, al-Qaeda takes American Muslims by the hand and patiently explains to them exactly where they fit into the grand jihad and how, as insiders, they are uniquely positioned to strike a blow against Islam’s fiercest enemy.

    It painstakingly explains how Sharia law requires and justifies their attacks on America, it advises them to take six months to a year to plan secure operations, it teaches them how to build bombs and use a variety of weapons to kill Americans, it provides role models for them to emulate, and now it is telling them how to finance their operations.

    Unfortunately, al-Qaeda’s creative and sustained campaign is already reaping benefits by winning over American traitors. In Inspire’s letters-to-the-editor section, an American Muslim calling himself Hamza announces:

    The release of your majestic magazine brought tears to my eyes, brothers. I cannot convey how excited I am to see such wonderful words pour from the page like the blood from a kafr. The words are blessed by Allah, and will give much strength to the brothers here among the Americans.

    Given the fact that al-Awlaki is the rising star of the international jihad movement who has personally motivated dozens of terrorists — including the would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, Nidal Hasan (the Ft. Hood massacre), and underwear bomber Umar Farouk — there is every reason to fear that more American Muslims like Hamza will respond to his new ruling by launching criminal campaigns to finance their jihad against America.


  27. Anonymous said on 28 Jan 2011 at 2:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jay Carney, newly chosen Obama press secretary, was Washington Bureau Chief for Time Magazine from September 2005 until December 2008.

    Obama was featured on the cover of Time in 2008 more than anyone else.

    This would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sickening. Cult of personality re-branding fraud on the latest cover of Time:


  28. Anonymous said on 28 Jan 2011 at 2:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    “If TIME Magazine had a shred of integrity or credibility, they might have featured the keynote speaker of Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration on the cover. Can you guess who it is? I assure you it’s not Obama. ”



  29. Anonymous said on 28 Jan 2011 at 4:18 pm:
    Flag comment


  30. AmericaFirst said on 28 Jan 2011 at 5:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    Nova, Head west for a short distance. Turn right. Don’t stop until you are over the border.


  31. Disgusted said on 28 Jan 2011 at 6:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    Didn’t Gov. McDonnell run on a “jobs are number one” platform? Mind you, he threw in the standard reduce taxes/government, and F-U Washington stuff.

Leave a Reply

Views: 1897