does this sound strangely similar/

Frank Marshall Davis (December 31, 1905, Arkansas City, Kansas; July 26, 1987, Honolulu, Hawaii) was an American journalist, poet and political and labor movement activist. In 1950 he was investigated by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) for comments he made in columns written for the newspaper Honolulu Record, as well as other activities that the HUAC alleged were connected to the Communist Party USA.[1]
In Obama's first book he refers to "Frank" as a mentor, almost a father figure when he was growing up in Honolulu.
Obama admits in his autobiography entitled Dreams from My Father, that his grandfather on his mother's side, Stanley Dunham, was a close friend of father Frank.

Frank and Stanley played cards together and they would often drag young Obama with them to the red light district:

There was one exception, a poet named Frank who lived in a dilapidated house in a run-down section of Waikiki. He had enjoyed some modest notoriety once, was a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago—Gramps once showed me some of his work anthologized in a book of black poetry. But by the time I met Frank he must have been pushing eighty, with a big, dewlapped face and an ill-kempt gray Afro that made him look like an old, shaggy-maned lion. He would read us his poetry whenever we stopped by his house, sharing whiskey with Gramps out of an emptied jelly jar. As the night wore on, the two of them would solicit my help in composing dirty limericks. Eventually the conversation would turn to laments about women. (Obama, Dreams from My Father, pp. 76-77).

Just how much of Davis rubbed off on Obama's Psyche we will never know. But this story of the attitude Davis had for the free enterprise system, or should I call it animus, is strangely similar to the way Obama is going about dismantling the free enterprise system in the name of CHANGE!


First there was Davis's January 26, 1950 piece, "Free Enterprise or Socialism?" Davis hoped that America and its economy were at a turning point, as if a kind of perfect storm was brewing that could at last allow him and his comrades to realize their dreams of a socialist America. They would need to trash the current free-enterprise system and argue for a change to something else. Of course, they could not fully disclose themselves, their beliefs, and their intentions, although any thinking observer could easily read between the lines. The key was to gain the support of the people who didn't know any difference.


Davis began his article by asserting, "Before too long, our nation will have to decide whether we shall have free enterprise or socialism." He pointed to actions in Congress, where he quoted the then-chairman of the Congressional committee on small business, who, according to Davis, warned that "at the present rate, either the giant corporations will control all our markets, the greatest share of our wealth, and eventually, our government, or the government will be forced to intervene with some form of direct regulation of business."


Davis did not like "big business" and the rapacious, "tentacled" rich men who ran it. "For instance," wrote Davis, "Alfred Sloan of General Motors announced that his gigantic company made a profit last year of $600,000,000, more than any other corporation in history. Over the years, General Motors has swallowed up or knocked out car manufacturer after car manufacturer so that today less than a handful of competitors remain. Free enterprise, eh?"


"Monopolies" like GM had to be controlled by the government, said Davis. If not, the likes of GM would control the government. "Obviously, a business that can show a profit ... of $600,000,000 is in a position to control government," wrote Davis. "When we remember that the directors and major stockholders of one industry also shape the policies of banks and other huge corporations, it is easy to see that the tentacles of Big Business control just about everything they think they need to insure continued profits." Davis claimed that, "The control of our wealth and government by the giant corporations ... [was] accomplished fact."


Davis believed that it was such free enterprise run amok, allegedly un-regulated and un-checked by the federal government, that had caused the Great Depression: "For many years now we have been living under the virtual dictatorship of Big Business which all but drove us to ruin in 1929."


Davis was grateful for the grand intervention of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who he believed had saved the day: "By curbing the excesses of the giant corporations that had led to the economic crisis, Roosevelt was able to save the system from complete collapse."


Even then, FDR, in Davis's eyes, had not done enough: "And yet the moneyed men who were bailed out by the New Deal program were our late president's [FDR's] biggest enemies. They have refused to see that in order to preserve their hides, they had to hand out a few drops of gravy to the common man."


Toeing the Stalinist line, as he always did without deviation, Davis then blamed American capitalism for starting World War II. That had been the party line issued by Stalin in his February 1946 Bolshoi Theatre speech. It was a ridiculous, outrageous lie, one that infuriated Democrats and Republicans alike. Nonetheless, the lie became marching orders for Davis and other comrades at party organs around the world. It was their duty to follow that party line, and they happily saluted the red flag. In his column, Davis zeroed in on the true bad guys of World War II: "This bolstering of a sick economy ended at the outset of World War II. Multi-billion-dollar expenditures for the means of killing fellow humans brought added profits and Big Business emerged stronger than ever before in history after V-J Day."


And now, in January 1950, things were especially grim under President Harry Truman, who Davis particularly despised, given that the Democratic president was, at the time, publicly condemning, countering, and seeking to contain Stalin. Moscow had told the good comrades to take special aim at the "fascist," "Hitlerian" Harry Truman, and Davis did precisely that, unceasingly demonizing this icon of the Democratic Party. For the hard left, the current American president had to be bludgeoned beyond recognition; the left did so with great success, as Truman would eventually leave office the most unpopular president in the history of American polling -- until a man named George W. Bush.


There was a conspiracy, suggested Davis, between Truman and even larger monopolies "fattened" by recent mergers. Wrote Davis: "With this added weight to throw around, and a president [Truman] willing to do their bidding after the death of Roosevelt, our giant corporations have had things pretty much their own way. Government policy is fixed in Wall Street and transmitted through the corporation executives who have been appointed by Truman to high federal office. OPA was killed, the Marshall Plan launched and the nation placed on the brink of war economy -- so that such firms as General Motors could make $600,000,000 profit while unemployment skyrocketed."


Davis, for the record, hated the Marshall Plan as much as he hated Truman and Wall Street. That was because Moscow hated the Marshall Plan, which was intended first and foremost to keep Western Europe from falling to communism.


What's worse, said Davis, was that America was busy simultaneously giving a bad name to socialism. Many Americans, especially conservatives, recklessly tossed around the "S word." "At the same time we have manufactured a national horror of socialism," wrote Davis. "Meanwhile, the dictatorship of the monopolies is driving us down the road to ruin." Alas, we could expect "still rising unemployment and a mounting depression."


"[T]he time draws nearer," advised Davis, "when we will have to decide to oust the monopolies and restore a competing system of free enterprise, or let the government own and operate our major industries."


I will let you guess which solution Davis preferred.


Comrade Davis put it more bluntly a few weeks later in his March 2, 1950 column, approvingly quoting Woodrow Wilson: "The masters of the government of the United States are the combined capitalists and manufacturers of the United States." In that column, Davis was most concerned with the inability of poor Americans to purchase "a decent home."


For Davis, the only hope was a huge, emboldened federal government that could save Americans from the capitalists, that could rein in fat-cat corporations, that could slap down Wall Street and its excesses, that could spread the wealth, and that could ensure that the poor could buy a home.


To bolster his case, Davis went back to the height of the Great Depression, borrowing a 1935 quote (allegedly) from the governor of Pennsylvania: "I warn you that our civilization is in danger if we heed the deceptive cries of special privilege, if we permit our men of great wealth to send us on a wild goose chase after so-called radicals while they continue to plunder the people .... We are constantly told of the evils of Socialism and Communism. The label is applied to every man, woman and child who dares to say a word which does not have the approval of Wall Street."

Is this the way our current president is taking our Republic?
source:Yahoo.com

IS OBAMA GIVING AID AND COMFORT TO IRAN?

TODAY OBAMA ANNOUNCED THAT THE PLANS TO INSTALL ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEMS IN POLAND AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC HAVE BEEN CANCELED.

AT THE SAME TIME THE ISRAEL MEDIA IS REPORTING THAT THEIR PRIME MINISTER TOOK A SECRET TRIP TO RUSSIA TO STOP RUSSIA FROM SELLING ANTI-AIRCRAFT MISSILES TO IRAN.

Last Monday, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, perhaps the most closely guarded human being on the face of the Earth, went missing for almost an entire day.

His government did not confirm his whereabouts until nearly a week later. Bibi had been in Moscow, slipping off under a cloak of absolute secrecy for an emergency powwow with the Russian government.

What was so urgent that the matter could only be handled in person by Israel’s ultimate leader? There is only one topic these days that is earth-shaking enough to justify such a visit. That matter is Iran, a nation engaged in a furious effort to obtain nuclear weapons it can use to achieve the extermination of the Jewish race and the obliteration of the state of Israel, to say nothing of gaining primacy in the Middle East and a chokehold on international oil supplies.

A week before Netanyahu disappeared, the international news wires began burning with speculation about the cargo of a ship called the Arctic Sea, which was crewed by Russians and suddenly disappeared en route to Algeria, supposedly carrying a load of timber from Finland.

Two days before Netanyahu disappeared, the Times of London solved that maritime mystery. There were no logs in the hold of the Arctic Sea. Instead, there were log-shaped S-300 Russian anti-missile missiles, and their destination was not Africa but Iran. Desperate to interrupt the Russian effort, Israeli security forces who had the ship under surveillance leaked the plot. Russian forces swooped in to cover up the outrage before the world could find the smoking gun, making a lame attempt to put the whole thing off as a hijacking.

Iran wants these weapons for just one reason: to shoot down Israeli cruise missiles fired at Iranian nuclear installations in an effort to interrupt the Islamic dictatorship’s feverish preparation of a nuclear bomb.
According to KT McFarland Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan, the S-300 “Is a game changer.”

The S-300 is Russia’s version of the Patriot or Arrow missile system. It is a state of the art surface to air defense system involving radars, which can track 100 targets at a time, and interceptors or missiles, which can be fired simultaneously at 12 different inbound targets. The S-300 would not put an impenetrable virtual dome over Iran but it would dramatically increase for Israel the complications and risk of a strike.

Although the weapon is designed to be defensive, there is no guarantee it will only used for that. Israeli Rocket Scientist Uzi Rubin, a designer of the Arrow system, fears that Iran could give missile batteries to its allies or proxies closer to Israel’s border. “They don’t hesitate to pass weapons along to Syria or Hizbollah,” Says Rubin. And Iran need not aim the S-300 only at Israeli targets. KT McFarland says, “If they deploy it on he Afghan or Iraq borders. It could even threaten US and allied aircraft.” In Iranian control, the weapons system would be nearly as effective as actual nuclear weapons in terms of increasing tension and stoking the embers of paranoia in the region. “The S-300 could destabilize the whole Middle East,” According to Rubin.

Just weeks ago, rumors began circulating that Vladimir Putin’s KGB had begun sharing intelligence directly with the Hezbollah terrorist organization. At the time, the obscurity of the sources reporting this information combined with the seeming insanity of such a policy made the reports appear questionable to many. But now, with a secret delivery of high-technology weapons to Iran, such reports become chilling to contemplate.

Russia achieves a great deal by sowing terror in the Middle East. First and foremost, such terror ripples through international oil markets and drives up the price of Russian crude — the only thing keeping the Putin regime afloat these days after the Russian stock market collapsed in the wake of the global economic crisis. In August, Russia’s budget deficit increased a horrifying 40 percent, and a jolting 15 percent currency devaluation is predicted before the end of the year.

When Obama visited Russia this summer he apparently agreed to Putin's demands to not install anti-missile sites in the two Countries that were previously part of the Soviet Empire before it collapsed and freedom came to these previous communist dominated countries.

For this concession we were told by the irrelevant main stream media that Obama had obtained three concessions from Putin in exchange for Obama's missile concessions.
And irregardless of what Putin promised the fact still remains that a secret report from the United Nations' nuclear watchdog warns that Iran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is developing a missile system to carry it — an assessment that could call into question the Obama administration's claim on Thursday that the biggest threat from Iran comes from its short- and medium-range missiles.
Iran launched a satellite into space in February, a move that suggests the nation is making progress on long-range technology. The country also fired a mid-range rocket in May. And officials have warned repeatedly that Iran is developing technology that will allow it to build a nuclear weapon.

The Associated Press reported Thursday that, according to a secret report, officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency found Iran has the capacity to make a nuclear bomb and is developing a missile system to carry one.

So I ask you! Is what Obama did today going to be a help in defending US and our only friend in the Middle East,Israel? Or by trying to make allies of the Russians has he betrayed the Israelis and jeopardized our fleet when it passes through the straights of Hormuz?
Source:The Heritage Foundation.com

TALK ABOUT SPENDING OUR TAX DOLLARS!!

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

There is a lot of talk from Democrats and the president that we spend too much on medical care, but little is said about how to reign in the spending on MEANS TESTED WELFARE!
One seventh(1/7) of our tax dollars go to this program that was started in 1964 by president Lyndon Johnson.

Means-tested welfare spending or aid to the poor consists of government programs that provide assistance deliberately and exclusively to poor and lower-income people. By contrast, non-welfare programs provide benefits and services for the general population. For example, food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families are means-tested aid programs that provide benefits only to poor and lower-income persons. On the other hand, Social Security, Medicare, police protection, and public education are not means-tested; they provide services and benefits to persons at all income levels.

In fiscal year (FY) 2008, total government spending on means-tested welfare or aid to the poor amounted to $714 billion. This high level of welfare spending was the result of steady permanent growth in welfare spending over several decades rather than a short-term response to temporary economic conditions.

Of the $714 billion in welfare spending, $522 billion (73 percent) was federal expenditures, and $192 billion (27 percent) was state government funds. Nearly all state government welfare expenditures are required matching contributions to federal welfare programs. These contributions could be considered a "welfare tax" that the federal government imposes on the states. Ignoring these matching state payments into the federal welfare system results in a serious underestimation of spending on behalf of the poor.

Of total means-tested spending in FY 2008, 52 percent was spent on medical care for poor and lower-income persons,( so let us stop talking about the poor lacking medical care as a reason for dumping Free enterprise medical care and replacing it with government controlled care) and 37 percent was spent on cash, food, and housing aid. The remaining 11 percent was spent on social services, training, child development, targeted federal education aid, and community development for lower-income persons and communities. Roughly half of means-tested spending goes to disabled or elderly persons. The other half goes to lower-income families with children, most of which are headed by single parents.

Total means-tested welfare spending in FY 2008 amounted to around $16,800 for each poor person in the U.S.; however, some welfare spending goes to individuals who have low incomes but are not below the official poverty line (about $22,200 per year for a family of four). Typically, welfare benefits are received not just by the poor, but also by persons who have incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level ($44,400 per year for a family of four). Around one-third of the U.S. population falls within this lower income range. On average, welfare spending amounts to around $7,000 per year for each individual who is poor or who has an income below 200 percent of the poverty level. This comes to $28,000 per year for each lower-income family of four.

Welfare spending has grown enormously since President Lyndon B. Johnson launched the War on Poverty. Welfare spending was 13 times greater in FY 2008, after adjusting for inflation, than it was when the War on Poverty started in 1964. Means-tested welfare spending was 1.2 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) when President Johnson began the War on Poverty. In 2008, it reached 5 percent of GDP.

Annual means-tested welfare spending is more than sufficient to eliminate poverty in the United States. The U.S. Census Bureau, which is in charge of measuring poverty and inequality in the nation, defines a family as poor if its annual income falls below official poverty income thresholds. If total means-tested welfare spending were simply converted into cash benefits, the sum would be nearly four times the amount needed to raise the income of all poor families above the official poverty line.

One may reasonably ask how government can spend so much on welfare and still have great inequality and so many people living in apparent poverty. The answer is that the Census ignores nearly the entire welfare system in its measurements. In its conventional reports, the Census counts only 4 percent of total welfare spending as income. Most government discussions of poverty and inequality do not account for the massive transfers of the welfare state.

And now with spending trillions on government health care an almost certainty and Cap and Trade that will cost billions to follow. It appears that Congress and the president are trying to bankrupt the USA! What other way is there for replacing the free enterprise Republic we presently have with socialism? Source: American Heritage

DISTORTING OUR CONSTITUTION FOR REASONS Of POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY

"No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society. Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, galloping inflation, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite. Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people." --Ronald Reagan

It appears that the White House is ignoring the law and the Constitution as is reported in today's Washington Times, that the Obama people are spying on Americans that use the Internet!
And Democrats and the ACLU thought the Patriot Act was bad!!
The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama's promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet

Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the White House signaled that it would insist on open dealings with Internet users and, in fact, should feel obliged to disclose that it is collecting such information.

"The White House has not been adequately transparent, particularly on how it makes use of new social media techniques, such as this example," he said.

The proposal issued Aug. 21 calls for a contractor to "crawl and archive" social-networking Web sites where the White House maintains an official presence on seven networks: Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Flickr, YouTube, Vimeo and Slideshare.

The collection will include the comments, tags, graphics, audio and video posted by users who don't work for the White House. Big Brother looms ever larger now that Obama controls the reigns of power!!

The collection will include the comments, tags, graphics, audio and video posted by users who don't work for the White House.
"It includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the president or members of his staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President," the law says.

This despite the fact that Mr. Obama signed a memo in January stating that his efforts to maintain an open government would be "unprecedented" and "ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration."

Shahid Buttar, executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, called for congressional oversight of the practice of collecting data.

"Given the administration's disappointing secrecy in other contexts, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee encourages Congress to conduct oversight to ensure compliance with the law, maximize transparency and protect individual privacy," Mr. Buttar said.

According to the law, the term "presidential records" means documentary materials "created or received by the president, his immediate staff or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the president, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President."

OBAMA ACTS TO PLEASE UNIONS NOT CONSUMERS

The Cato institute has reported that President Obama has imposed a tariff on Chinese made tires of 35%. This after he encouraged the G-20 members at their last meeting to not do anything to inhibit free trade!
One of the more interesting spectacles in all of this,would be watching President Obama explain his decision to impose tire duties on China at the G-20 meeting he is hosting in Pittsburgh in 12 days. Recall the president’s pledge (along with the other G-20 leaders) at the last G-20 meeting in London to avoid new protectionist measures.Source:Cato Institute

President Obama’s decision to impose a 35 percent tariff on imported tires from China was not an act of statesmanship. The White House admitted as much by announcing its decision at 10 p.m. on Friday evening in order to minimize news coverage.

A few union leaders are cheering, but in just about every other way our country is worse off. Among the biggest losers will be low-income American families. The tariffs apply to lower-end tires that sell for $50 or $60 each, compared to $200 for higher-end tires. As The Wall Street Journal reported this morning:

The low end of the market will feel the impact of the tariff most, as U.S. manufacturers, who joined the Chinese in opposing the tariffs, have said it isn’t profitable to produce inexpensive tires in domestic plants.Because Union wages and contributions to Union benefits make tire producers unable to produce cheap tires and still make a profit.

“I think within the next 60 days you’ll see some pretty significant price increases,” said Jim Mayfield, president of Del-Nat Tire Corp. of Memphis, Tenn., a large importer and distributor of Chinese tires. He estimates prices for “entry-level” tires could increase 20% to 30%.This will impact the lower middle class worker and the entry level wage earner whom Obama pledged to defend against big Business when he campaigned for the Presidency.

With his decision Friday, President Obama has revealed himself to be a friend of the status quo.He has already signaled that he would be a partner with the Unions before he was elected and with the Chrysler and General Motors debacle.

While he is doing the bidding of Unions, Obama is planning to stick it to the middle class. Those whom he promised during his campaign not to increase their taxes to pay for his welfare state programs.
Obama is raising taxes on households at the top while providing refundable giveaways to households at the bottom, such as the Making Work Pay tax credit and expansions in the child and earned income tax credits. But the top fifth of households already pay an effective federal tax rate of 26 percent, while the bottom fifth pay just 4 percent, on average. The tax code is already far too graduated, and Obama is exacerbating this inequity.
And remember he promised not to raise taxes on families with incomes of less than $250,000. But the president already broke that promise with a cigarette tax increase in February, and his cap-and-trade energy plan is effectively a large tax increase on all families. Health care reform might also include a significant tax increase on average families. Thus, it wouldn't be surprising if the Obama tax task force also decided to raise taxes on the middle class.

What has this to do with tariffs on Chinese tire imports. Well, if we do not want to get into a trade war because as surely as night follows day there will be more union requests for tariffs on other products that are made in Country's that do not have punitive regulations or high union wages to make products that are exported to the USA.
The Obama administration should rethink its devotion to tax increases as the solution to seemingly every policy issue. Tax increases make no sense in the competitive global economy, and they imply that there are no savings left to be made on the spending side of the federal budget.This is the thinking of the tax and spend Liberals to control the Congress and the White House for now, and that is why over one half million protesters gathered in Washington to send a message to Congress to stop the spending!!

FOOLS AND EMPOWERERS OF ISLAMIC TERRORISM!!

Fox News is reporting a continuing disturbing pattern of the Obama administration treating Terrorists as criminals not as what they really are, terrorists!
I believe as do most Americans that terrorists do not deserve any Constitutional civil or judicial rights that are granted to our citizens.
The ACLU and too many leftist ruling Federal judges have the opinion that the rights granted to all USA citizens are applicable to people who advocate death and destruction to Americans. I think they are dead wrong! But unfortunately Law schools like Yale and City University of New York have some professors and too many students who are willing to step up to the Bar of Justice to defend these terrorists!

Human rights campaigners have argued that the prisoners in Afghanistan should be given the same rights as those at Guantanamo, but the U.S. military argues that Bagram detainees should be treated differently because they are being held in an active theater of war.

Their status is the subject of lawsuits in the United States. A federal judge ruled in April that several Bagram detainees have the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.

Ramzi Kassem, a law professor at City University of New York and some of his Law students are presently representing one of the Bagram detainees, and are anxious to participate in the defense of those Taliban terrorists who will now challenge their detention as outlined by the Obama administration. Talk about giving aid and comfort to the enemy!

What tools and fools these jihadi-enablers be. Civil liberties opportunism is literally a part of the al-Qaida handbook. A terrorist manual seized in a Manchester, England, raid in 2005 advised operatives: “At the beginning of the trial,the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security before the judge. Complain of mistreatment while in prison.” Jihadi commanders rehearsed the lines with their foot soldiers “to ensure that they have assimilated it.”

Since 9/11, the selective champions of privacy have recklessly blabbed about counterterrorism operations, endangered the lives of military and intelligence officials at Gitmo, and undermined national security through endless litigation. They accused Bush immigration officials of xenophobia for pursuing visa overstayers from jihadi-friendly countries. They accused local law enforcement, FBI and other homeland security officials of “racial profiling” for placing heightened scrutiny on mosques and jihadi-linked charities.

Now, caught red-handed blowing the cover of CIA operatives, they shrug their shoulders and dismiss it as “normal” research on behalf of “our clients.”

But don’t you dare question their love of country. Spying to stop the next 9/11 is treason, you see. Spying to stop enhanced interrogation of Gitmo detainees is patriotic. And endangering America on behalf of international human rights is the ultimate form of leftist dissent.Source:Michelle Malkin

I do not understand the reasoning of those who think they can bargain with the Devil.For do not confuse these prisoners as similar to those who occupy our prisons. The terrorists have been capture on the field of battle without uniform or flag. Their main objective is to kill and maim American troops and any of their fellow citizens who get in the way.

You cannot dance with the Devil and make everything safe for Americans in the field of battle or here at home!

And we must always remember that Lying and cheating in the Arab world is not really a moral matter but a method of safeguarding honor and status, avoiding shame, and at all times exploiting possibilities, for those with the wits for it, deftly and expeditiously to convert shame into honor on their own account and vice versa for their opponents. If honor so demands, lies and cheating may become absolute imperatives.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle” An interpretation of the Arabs, p4]

“No dishonor attaches to such primary transactions as selling short weight, deceiving anyone about quality, quantity or kind of goods, cheating at gambling, and bearing false witness. The doer of these things is merely quicker off the mark than the next fellow; owing him nothing, he is not to be blamed for taking what he can.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle”, p38] So how can anyone allow these people the right to lie to facilitate there release from military prison to return to killing our brave troops, and still be called an American?