Israel: Iran Heading Toward Nuclear 'Breakthrough'
Friday, August 1, 2008 9:25 PM
Iran is heading towards a major breakthrough in its nuclear weapons capability, Israel's deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz warned Friday.
"Iran is continuing to advance toward a military nuclear capability and is heading towards a major breakthrough," the Iranian-born Mofaz told a think tank after talks in Washington with US officials.
"For us such a situation that Iran will have a nuclear power is an existential threat and from the state of Israel point of view, it is unacceptable," Mofaz told the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
"Our estimation is that already by (2009) Iran will reach enrichment capability and as soon as 2010 will have option to reach (uranium production) at military levels," he said in broken English.
He charged that Iran was playing for time in talks aimed at halting uranium enrichment with the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain -- the permanent UN Security Council members -- and Germany, the so-called P5-plus-1.
"One thing is clear is Iranians are continuing their policy of buying time and so far they are succeeding," he said.
"We all know time is a decisive element in our ability to change the picture and remove the Iranian threat," Mofaz said.
"And the window of influence is becoming smaller and I believe about to close," he said. "It's a race against time and time is winning."
He said he favored a diplomatic solution to the showdown with Iran over its nuclear program but refused to rule out all options, including the military option, to stop Iran.
Copyright 2008 AFP
E-mail Us
August 5, 2008
Young Obama's Red Mentor
Young Obama's Red Mentor
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, August 05, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: The mainstream media have finally gotten around to revealing Barack Obama's early mentor. But they've downplayed the mystery man's communist background.
As noted in the July 29 curtain-raiser to this series, the seeds of Obama's far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager growing up in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or media profile has portrayed.
Poet-journalist Davis speaks in Hawaii in this undated photo.
A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to the age of 18 — a man he refers to only as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities."
In a belated story on the relationship, the Associated Press describes Davis as "left-leaning."
In fact, Davis was a member of the Moscow-controlled Communist Party USA, according to the 1953 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities of the Territory of Hawaii, which labeled him "a bitter opponent of capitalism." The report was introduced as evidence in the U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee hearings probing the "Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States."
"Davis scholars dismiss the idea that he was anti-American," the AP reports. But one of them, ex-University of Hawaii professor Kathryn Takara, acknowledges in a Ph.D. paper on Davis (not quoted by AP) that he'd been fingered as "a Communist."
Davis wrote militant poems as a black writer in Chicago, including one in which he hails the Soviet revolution: "Smash on, victory-eating Red Army." He also attacked traditional Christianity, titling one inflammatory screed, "Christ is a Dixie N*****."
As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for bitter nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal shots of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.
"They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."
In the eyes of white America, Davis warned Obama: "You may be a well-trained, well-paid n*****, but you're a n***** just the same." He also nurtured anti-white hatred in his young mulatto subject, telling him, "Black people have a reason to hate."
AP conveniently glossed over these quotes.
How much influence did Comrade Davis have on Obama? The Democrat White House hopeful refuses to talk about the relationship now. In the book, he only shares that he was "intrigued by old Frank, with his books and whiskey breath and the hint of hard-earned knowledge."
However, Obama followed in Davis' footsteps after college, working as a "community organizer" for the same socialist network in Chicago. He even considered a career in journalism like Davis.
Obama attended socialist conferences, and took a shine to other black Marxist revolutionists. Not long after Davis died in 1987, Obama came under the spell of another black nationalist-socialist, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who, like Davis, wore a dashiki and became a father figure.
If the relationship with Davis was as blase as the Associated Press makes it sound, why is Obama mum about it? And why did he try to hide Davis' identity in his first memoir, published in 1995?
"With the exception of my family and a handful of public figures," he wrote in the preface, "the names of most characters have been changed for the sake of privacy." But there was no need to protect Davis' privacy. He had long been dead.
More likely, the cryptic references to his communist mentor were — and still are — designed to protect Obama's background from the scrutiny it deserves.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, August 05, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: The mainstream media have finally gotten around to revealing Barack Obama's early mentor. But they've downplayed the mystery man's communist background.
As noted in the July 29 curtain-raiser to this series, the seeds of Obama's far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager growing up in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or media profile has portrayed.
Poet-journalist Davis speaks in Hawaii in this undated photo.
A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to the age of 18 — a man he refers to only as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities."
In a belated story on the relationship, the Associated Press describes Davis as "left-leaning."
In fact, Davis was a member of the Moscow-controlled Communist Party USA, according to the 1953 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities of the Territory of Hawaii, which labeled him "a bitter opponent of capitalism." The report was introduced as evidence in the U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee hearings probing the "Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States."
"Davis scholars dismiss the idea that he was anti-American," the AP reports. But one of them, ex-University of Hawaii professor Kathryn Takara, acknowledges in a Ph.D. paper on Davis (not quoted by AP) that he'd been fingered as "a Communist."
Davis wrote militant poems as a black writer in Chicago, including one in which he hails the Soviet revolution: "Smash on, victory-eating Red Army." He also attacked traditional Christianity, titling one inflammatory screed, "Christ is a Dixie N*****."
As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for bitter nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal shots of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.
"They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."
In the eyes of white America, Davis warned Obama: "You may be a well-trained, well-paid n*****, but you're a n***** just the same." He also nurtured anti-white hatred in his young mulatto subject, telling him, "Black people have a reason to hate."
AP conveniently glossed over these quotes.
How much influence did Comrade Davis have on Obama? The Democrat White House hopeful refuses to talk about the relationship now. In the book, he only shares that he was "intrigued by old Frank, with his books and whiskey breath and the hint of hard-earned knowledge."
However, Obama followed in Davis' footsteps after college, working as a "community organizer" for the same socialist network in Chicago. He even considered a career in journalism like Davis.
Obama attended socialist conferences, and took a shine to other black Marxist revolutionists. Not long after Davis died in 1987, Obama came under the spell of another black nationalist-socialist, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who, like Davis, wore a dashiki and became a father figure.
If the relationship with Davis was as blase as the Associated Press makes it sound, why is Obama mum about it? And why did he try to hide Davis' identity in his first memoir, published in 1995?
"With the exception of my family and a handful of public figures," he wrote in the preface, "the names of most characters have been changed for the sake of privacy." But there was no need to protect Davis' privacy. He had long been dead.
More likely, the cryptic references to his communist mentor were — and still are — designed to protect Obama's background from the scrutiny it deserves.
Email To Friend |
People Vs. Pelosi
PLEASE REGISTER IN YOUR MEMORY BANK HOW MS BELOSI SIDE STEPS THE QUESTIONS ABOUT LETTING THE HOUSE VOTE ON THE DIRLLING MESURES. THIS IS ANOTHER OBSTRUCTION BY
D E M O C R A T S
People Vs. Pelosi
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, August 05, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Congress: In telling House Democrats it's OK to vote for drilling, Nancy Pelosi has conceded that on the biggest election issue she's out of step with the American people. Will Republicans seize this opportunity?
Washington's Politico.com reports that House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, has pounced after hearing that House Speaker Pelosi is privately giving permission to House Democrats with iffy re-election prospects to support drilling for more domestic oil and gas.
"My message to Democratic lawmakers is this: If you're really for increased American energy production, then prove it by putting it in writing," Boehner said as he called on his colleagues across the aisle to sign a discharge petition to force drilling legislation onto the floor. Democratic Reps. Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania and Don Cazayoux of Louisiana have both asked Pelosi to allow a vote.
But when George Stephanopoulos over and over again asked Pelosi on ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday why she would not allow a straight up-or-down vote, the speaker bobbed and weaved.
"But if you feel you have the better arguments, why not give a straight up-or-down vote for drilling?" the former Clinton White House operative asked.
Her answer: "Because the misrepresentation is being made that this is going to reduce the price at the pump."
What Pelosi is afraid of is that a majority of the U.S. Congress believes what most Americans know — that drilling will indeed reduce pump prices.
Stephanopoulos pointed out that when Pelosi came in as speaker, she promised in writing "a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives" — which she now refuses to provide.
Reminded of this, Speaker Pelosi became flustered, making a couple of false starts with her answer before remarking: "They'll have to use their imagination as to how they can get a vote . . . ."
If Congress removed the ban on drilling offshore, gave access to the massive deposits of oil in the Alaskan Arctic and allowed the oil shale of the Western states to be tapped, the global petroleum market would immediately react positively, bringing pump prices down. Crude futures prices would plunge — as they already have over mere talk of a possible softening by Congress on drilling.
That's the last thing House Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and likely Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama want. (Obama now claims he'll "consider" drilling as part of an environmentalist package.)
More drilling and lower prices would mean that Big Oil is no longer the boogeyman, but rather the key to the solution. And it would mean that all the windmills, solar panels and geeky plug-in cars the Pelosi Democrats want to force down the throats of the American people would have to wait until they're economically viable.
That could spell disaster for Democrats in November.
House Republicans, led by Reps. Mike Pence of Indiana and Tom Price of Georgia, are continuing their historic protest on the House floor demanding a drilling vote, in spite of Congress being in its August recess. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is even set to appear Wednesday.
In an election year that was supposed to be a blowout in favor of the Democratic Party, Republicans have found a powerful populist issue that terrifies vulnerable House Democrats.
With gas consumers hurting and hostile regimes exploiting our dependence on foreign oil, John McCain and the GOP have three months to make the most of it.
Email To Friend |
D E M O C R A T S
People Vs. Pelosi
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, August 05, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Congress: In telling House Democrats it's OK to vote for drilling, Nancy Pelosi has conceded that on the biggest election issue she's out of step with the American people. Will Republicans seize this opportunity?
Washington's Politico.com reports that House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, has pounced after hearing that House Speaker Pelosi is privately giving permission to House Democrats with iffy re-election prospects to support drilling for more domestic oil and gas.
"My message to Democratic lawmakers is this: If you're really for increased American energy production, then prove it by putting it in writing," Boehner said as he called on his colleagues across the aisle to sign a discharge petition to force drilling legislation onto the floor. Democratic Reps. Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania and Don Cazayoux of Louisiana have both asked Pelosi to allow a vote.
But when George Stephanopoulos over and over again asked Pelosi on ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday why she would not allow a straight up-or-down vote, the speaker bobbed and weaved.
"But if you feel you have the better arguments, why not give a straight up-or-down vote for drilling?" the former Clinton White House operative asked.
Her answer: "Because the misrepresentation is being made that this is going to reduce the price at the pump."
What Pelosi is afraid of is that a majority of the U.S. Congress believes what most Americans know — that drilling will indeed reduce pump prices.
Stephanopoulos pointed out that when Pelosi came in as speaker, she promised in writing "a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives" — which she now refuses to provide.
Reminded of this, Speaker Pelosi became flustered, making a couple of false starts with her answer before remarking: "They'll have to use their imagination as to how they can get a vote . . . ."
If Congress removed the ban on drilling offshore, gave access to the massive deposits of oil in the Alaskan Arctic and allowed the oil shale of the Western states to be tapped, the global petroleum market would immediately react positively, bringing pump prices down. Crude futures prices would plunge — as they already have over mere talk of a possible softening by Congress on drilling.
That's the last thing House Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and likely Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama want. (Obama now claims he'll "consider" drilling as part of an environmentalist package.)
More drilling and lower prices would mean that Big Oil is no longer the boogeyman, but rather the key to the solution. And it would mean that all the windmills, solar panels and geeky plug-in cars the Pelosi Democrats want to force down the throats of the American people would have to wait until they're economically viable.
That could spell disaster for Democrats in November.
House Republicans, led by Reps. Mike Pence of Indiana and Tom Price of Georgia, are continuing their historic protest on the House floor demanding a drilling vote, in spite of Congress being in its August recess. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is even set to appear Wednesday.
In an election year that was supposed to be a blowout in favor of the Democratic Party, Republicans have found a powerful populist issue that terrifies vulnerable House Democrats.
With gas consumers hurting and hostile regimes exploiting our dependence on foreign oil, John McCain and the GOP have three months to make the most of it.
Email To Friend |
GOP Calls on Dems to Return from ‘Recess’
GOP Calls on Dems to Return from ‘Recess’ for Vote on Offshore Drilling
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.)Washington (CNSNews.com) - Congress recessed for the summer on Friday, but that didn’t keep Republicans from returning to the House floor on Monday to demand that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reconvene lawmakers to pass energy legislation, including lifting the ban on offshore drilling.
“It was simply wrong for Congress to take a five-week paid vacation without ever taking a vote on giving the American people more access to American oil,” Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said of the unprecedented gathering.
Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.)Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) called for the action on the floor, which saw representatives shouting comments from the floor because microphones had been turned off by the Democrats.
People touring the Capitol took part in the activity Monday, some sitting in seats on the House floor and cheering for speakers who denounced their Democratic counterparts for leaving the Capitol in the midst of a national energy crisis.
Lawmakers told CNSNews.com that if Pelosi does not bring Congress back for a special session, they would ask President Bush to do so.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.)Washington (CNSNews.com) - Congress recessed for the summer on Friday, but that didn’t keep Republicans from returning to the House floor on Monday to demand that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reconvene lawmakers to pass energy legislation, including lifting the ban on offshore drilling.
“It was simply wrong for Congress to take a five-week paid vacation without ever taking a vote on giving the American people more access to American oil,” Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said of the unprecedented gathering.
Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.)Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) called for the action on the floor, which saw representatives shouting comments from the floor because microphones had been turned off by the Democrats.
People touring the Capitol took part in the activity Monday, some sitting in seats on the House floor and cheering for speakers who denounced their Democratic counterparts for leaving the Capitol in the midst of a national energy crisis.
Lawmakers told CNSNews.com that if Pelosi does not bring Congress back for a special session, they would ask President Bush to do so.
Obama's Plans Spell Economic Doom
Obama's Plans Spell Economic Doom
Tuesday, August 5, 2008 2:42 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Barack Obama had it half right when he said that the McCain campaign would focus on raising voters' fears about him.
He was wrong in saying that the chief point of attack would be that he "doesn't look like all those other presidents on dollar bills." He wishes that were it.
But McCain does need to raise fears about Obama; that is, play on voters' worries about electing a man they don't know who has only a few years of experience in federal office. (Indeed, Obama's only been in the Senate since 2005, and he spent most of 2007 and 2008 running for president, paying almost no attention to his duties in the Senate, as witness his absentee record.)
These fears will focus on two key areas: the economy and national security.
McCain needs voters to hear repeatedly, from top economists and office-holders, that Obama's tax-hike plans spell economic doom. The campaign must explain that Obama is not simply raising taxes on the rich, he's crippling their ability to generate jobs, make investments and produce wealth. (For example: "When Obama says he'll only tax the rich, he's saying he will only tax the engine room, not the rest of the ship.")
The public must learn what the impact of doubling the tax on capital gains would be — how it would drive investment out of the country and cost us one to two points a year in economic growth for the rest of the decade.
Voters must hear how Obama can't possibly finance his programs — particularly his health-insurance schemes — with the tax hikes he's advocating. They need to ponder the impact of these tax hikes on an already slowing economy, it's legitimate to fear a new depression, not just a recession.
Economics is a field voters don't know much about and, consequently, fear greatly. Obama can capitalize on the current hard times, but he can lose big time if the impact of his tax policies is explained.
On national security, events could take over and put the issue center stage. But McCain must lay the groundwork to take advantage of whatever situation develops. He needs to hammer home the accusation that Obama is "naive" and "inexperienced" — both of which are obviously true.
He should run ads mocking Obama's claim that Iran is a "tiny nation" that could pose no real threat to the United States. He needs to hit hard at Obama's plans for Iraq and Afghanistan, hammer at Obama's opposition to the surge and refusal to vote to pay for the troops.
The offshore-drilling issue helps McCain, but it doesn't conjure the kind of fear that national security and the economy do. McCain has a long task ahead of him of burying Obama's credibility on these issues, and he needs to begin right away.
For better or worse, this election is about Obama. It is a referendum on the Democratic candidate and his agenda of change. McCain is a well-known commodity: Voter opinions of him are not likely to change much in the next three months. But their view of Obama is subject to wild fluctuation.
That's why the undecided vote right now is running at twice its 2004 percentage at this time in the race. That's why older women are withholding their approval of Obama.
McCain can and must use August to tilt these doubts into negatives.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
E-mail Us
Tuesday, August 5, 2008 2:42 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Barack Obama had it half right when he said that the McCain campaign would focus on raising voters' fears about him.
He was wrong in saying that the chief point of attack would be that he "doesn't look like all those other presidents on dollar bills." He wishes that were it.
But McCain does need to raise fears about Obama; that is, play on voters' worries about electing a man they don't know who has only a few years of experience in federal office. (Indeed, Obama's only been in the Senate since 2005, and he spent most of 2007 and 2008 running for president, paying almost no attention to his duties in the Senate, as witness his absentee record.)
These fears will focus on two key areas: the economy and national security.
McCain needs voters to hear repeatedly, from top economists and office-holders, that Obama's tax-hike plans spell economic doom. The campaign must explain that Obama is not simply raising taxes on the rich, he's crippling their ability to generate jobs, make investments and produce wealth. (For example: "When Obama says he'll only tax the rich, he's saying he will only tax the engine room, not the rest of the ship.")
The public must learn what the impact of doubling the tax on capital gains would be — how it would drive investment out of the country and cost us one to two points a year in economic growth for the rest of the decade.
Voters must hear how Obama can't possibly finance his programs — particularly his health-insurance schemes — with the tax hikes he's advocating. They need to ponder the impact of these tax hikes on an already slowing economy, it's legitimate to fear a new depression, not just a recession.
Economics is a field voters don't know much about and, consequently, fear greatly. Obama can capitalize on the current hard times, but he can lose big time if the impact of his tax policies is explained.
On national security, events could take over and put the issue center stage. But McCain must lay the groundwork to take advantage of whatever situation develops. He needs to hammer home the accusation that Obama is "naive" and "inexperienced" — both of which are obviously true.
He should run ads mocking Obama's claim that Iran is a "tiny nation" that could pose no real threat to the United States. He needs to hit hard at Obama's plans for Iraq and Afghanistan, hammer at Obama's opposition to the surge and refusal to vote to pay for the troops.
The offshore-drilling issue helps McCain, but it doesn't conjure the kind of fear that national security and the economy do. McCain has a long task ahead of him of burying Obama's credibility on these issues, and he needs to begin right away.
For better or worse, this election is about Obama. It is a referendum on the Democratic candidate and his agenda of change. McCain is a well-known commodity: Voter opinions of him are not likely to change much in the next three months. But their view of Obama is subject to wild fluctuation.
That's why the undecided vote right now is running at twice its 2004 percentage at this time in the race. That's why older women are withholding their approval of Obama.
McCain can and must use August to tilt these doubts into negatives.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
E-mail Us
Independent Groups Hold Key to Election
DeLay: Independent Groups Hold Key to Election
Monday, August 4, 2008 10:16 AM
By: Ronald Kessler
Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay says both John McCain and the Republican National Committee need to do more to encourage independent groups to help their cause.
“They need to encourage donors to coordinate their giving to the groups that are trying to make a difference, whether they be grass-roots groups or media groups or a combination of both,” DeLay says.
“They’re not doing the blocking and tackling that needs to be done through these groups — the grass-roots on-the-ground game, as well as an air game,” DeLay says. “They need to be doing voter registration, voter identification, canvassing neighborhoods, keeping possible voters energized, and turning them out through independent groups.”
DeLay knows how to win elections. He can lay out exactly how to deliver a precinct or a state to the right candidate. His attention to detail makes him a success.
Since leaving Congress in 2006, DeLay has formed First Principles, a political consulting firm, and founded the Coalition for a Conservative Majority.
“I don’t check in with McCain, so I don’t know what they’re doing, but what I see is they don’t have much of an emphasis on organization,” DeLay says. “I don’t see them getting local party organizations to raise money in order to run on-the-ground efforts for John McCain.”
In contrast, DeLay says, “The Left over the past seven or eight years has put together an incredibly impressive political coalition. That includes donor coordination, media operations, communications operations, grass-roots operations, opposition research, they’ve got it all. And they work together. The unions alone are putting $300 million in this race. They’re doing independent expenditures. The trial lawyers are doing independent expenditures.”
As founder and fundraiser for Coalition for a Conservative Majority, DeLay is helping to build an organization whose purpose is to carry out a long-term political strategy. For example, in Pittsburgh, members of the coalition, headed by former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, meet on a regular basis and work on projects.
“Their goal is to create a working relationship either for or against the elected officials in their media market,” DeLay says. “So the congressmen that represent Pittsburgh, the state reps, the state senators, even county officials, get to know them. The coalition members support those that are conservative, and they make life miserable for those that are not. We can drive policy, and that may have an impact on the campaign.”
Currently, the only other major independent GOP group running ads is Let Freedom Ring. The group produced the “Both Ways Barack” ad, which attacks Barack Obama as just not a flip-flopper but as someone who “holds two positions at the same time.”
The group has spent several hundred thousand dollars to air the ad on major broadcast and cable networks, according to Carl Hanna, president of the group.
McCain has a chance, DeLay says. “The biggest sign is how close they are right now. I just in my gut think that Obama’s hit a ceiling that I’m not sure he can get through.”
DeLay says he likes McCain’s latest approach of trying to define Obama.
“I think that’s going to help with his base,” DeLay says. “The more he goes after Obama, the more the base is going to like it.”
Yet, DeLay says, “It hasn’t sunk in yet about how radical Obama’s world view is because you can’t tie him down to a world view. And I don’t know if anybody who works for McCain understands the whole notion of world view. And that’s what they ought to be going after is his world view. Not how he feels about health care, or how he feels about energy — what is this man’s world view?”
DeLay says, “Obama is a socialist who wants a redistribution of wealth. Obama is a way-out radical, the most radical presidential nominee in the history of this country.”
In the end, he says, “I just cannot believe the American people are going to elect him.”
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-mail. Go here now.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
E-mail Us
Monday, August 4, 2008 10:16 AM
By: Ronald Kessler
Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay says both John McCain and the Republican National Committee need to do more to encourage independent groups to help their cause.
“They need to encourage donors to coordinate their giving to the groups that are trying to make a difference, whether they be grass-roots groups or media groups or a combination of both,” DeLay says.
“They’re not doing the blocking and tackling that needs to be done through these groups — the grass-roots on-the-ground game, as well as an air game,” DeLay says. “They need to be doing voter registration, voter identification, canvassing neighborhoods, keeping possible voters energized, and turning them out through independent groups.”
DeLay knows how to win elections. He can lay out exactly how to deliver a precinct or a state to the right candidate. His attention to detail makes him a success.
Since leaving Congress in 2006, DeLay has formed First Principles, a political consulting firm, and founded the Coalition for a Conservative Majority.
“I don’t check in with McCain, so I don’t know what they’re doing, but what I see is they don’t have much of an emphasis on organization,” DeLay says. “I don’t see them getting local party organizations to raise money in order to run on-the-ground efforts for John McCain.”
In contrast, DeLay says, “The Left over the past seven or eight years has put together an incredibly impressive political coalition. That includes donor coordination, media operations, communications operations, grass-roots operations, opposition research, they’ve got it all. And they work together. The unions alone are putting $300 million in this race. They’re doing independent expenditures. The trial lawyers are doing independent expenditures.”
As founder and fundraiser for Coalition for a Conservative Majority, DeLay is helping to build an organization whose purpose is to carry out a long-term political strategy. For example, in Pittsburgh, members of the coalition, headed by former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, meet on a regular basis and work on projects.
“Their goal is to create a working relationship either for or against the elected officials in their media market,” DeLay says. “So the congressmen that represent Pittsburgh, the state reps, the state senators, even county officials, get to know them. The coalition members support those that are conservative, and they make life miserable for those that are not. We can drive policy, and that may have an impact on the campaign.”
Currently, the only other major independent GOP group running ads is Let Freedom Ring. The group produced the “Both Ways Barack” ad, which attacks Barack Obama as just not a flip-flopper but as someone who “holds two positions at the same time.”
The group has spent several hundred thousand dollars to air the ad on major broadcast and cable networks, according to Carl Hanna, president of the group.
McCain has a chance, DeLay says. “The biggest sign is how close they are right now. I just in my gut think that Obama’s hit a ceiling that I’m not sure he can get through.”
DeLay says he likes McCain’s latest approach of trying to define Obama.
“I think that’s going to help with his base,” DeLay says. “The more he goes after Obama, the more the base is going to like it.”
Yet, DeLay says, “It hasn’t sunk in yet about how radical Obama’s world view is because you can’t tie him down to a world view. And I don’t know if anybody who works for McCain understands the whole notion of world view. And that’s what they ought to be going after is his world view. Not how he feels about health care, or how he feels about energy — what is this man’s world view?”
DeLay says, “Obama is a socialist who wants a redistribution of wealth. Obama is a way-out radical, the most radical presidential nominee in the history of this country.”
In the end, he says, “I just cannot believe the American people are going to elect him.”
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-mail. Go here now.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
E-mail Us
August 4, 2008
545 PEOPLE OR NONE OF THE ABOVE
THANKS TO TWO OF OUR READERS WE APPRECIATE THIS TYPE OF HEADS UP. AHCD/TH
545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ.
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation,' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses
provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it is up to you, though you appear to have several choices.
1. You can send this to everyone in your address book, and hope' they' do something about it.
2. You can agree to 'vote against' everyone that is currently in office, knowing that the process will take several years.
3. You can decide to 'run for office' yourself and agree to do the job properly.
4. Lastly, you can sit back and do nothing, or re-elect the current bunch.
YOU DECIDE, BUT AT LEAST SEND IT TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK, MAYBE SOMEONE IN THERE WILL DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ.
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation,' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses
provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it is up to you, though you appear to have several choices.
1. You can send this to everyone in your address book, and hope' they' do something about it.
2. You can agree to 'vote against' everyone that is currently in office, knowing that the process will take several years.
3. You can decide to 'run for office' yourself and agree to do the job properly.
4. Lastly, you can sit back and do nothing, or re-elect the current bunch.
YOU DECIDE, BUT AT LEAST SEND IT TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK, MAYBE SOMEONE IN THERE WILL DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
Tyson replaces Labor Day (READ FOR EXPLANATION)
Dear Dave,
In a stunning illustration of how long-held, cherished American traditions are being eroded by efforts to accommodate the increasingly vocal demands of some Muslims, Tyson Foods has agreed to replace Labor Day as one of its paid holidays with the Muslim holiday Eid al-Fitr.
The details are spelled out in the WorldNetDaily story below. We encourage our members to contact Tyson Foods and express their outrage over this decision. The Tyson Foods customer service phone number is 800-643-3410.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldNetDaily
Tyson replaces Labor Day
with Muslim Eid al-Fitr
Chicken company: Workers wanted
Islamic religious event recognized
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71218
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 02, 2008
12:10 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldNetDaily
Food workers at the Shelbyville, Tenn., plant for Tyson Foods, which boasts on its corporate website that it strives "to honor God," will have time off for Eid al-Fitr, the Muslim holiday closing the month of Ramadan, instead of the American tradition Labor Day.
Officials with the company told WND the labor union representing the 1,200 plant workers, including about 700 immigrants from Somalia who largely are Muslim, sought the holiday change in the new five-year contract, and the company agreed.
Officials with the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union issue a press statement about the new "contract [that] creates an additional paid holiday, [Eid al-Fitr,] a Muslim holiday that occurs toward the end of Ramadan."
A spokeswoman at the union's office told WND no one was in the office today who could comment on the request.
To the Shelbyville Times-Gazette, Gary Mickelson, Tyson's media chief, said there is no new holiday, but at the union's request the company agreed to discontinue the Labor Day holiday and implement Eid al-Fitr.
"Union leadership did request and receive Eid al-Fitr (which is apparently spelled various ways including Id al-Fitr and Eid ul-Fitr) as a paid holiday in place of Labor Day," Mickelson told the newspaper.
"Since all Team Members will still have eight paid holidays, the change will not affect production," Mickelson said.
On the paper's forum page, readers were outraged.
"If this holiday is that important to them, make them take it off instead of Christmas Day and allow ALL workers to be off Labor Day. Most AMERICAN families have some type of function on Labor Day," wrote one anonymous participant.
"It says union leadership made this request, makes you wonder who runs the union. I guess they are already working on a plan to replace Memorial Day, that means nothing to the Muslims so why should we have the right to celebrate it. Labor Day commemorates the plight of workers and the struggle of labor unions to improve working conditions for American workers. The Muslims will not stop until all of our rights and laws are changed to accommodate their beliefs. This will be a new America but it will be their America," said another.
The union boasts on its website, "Diversity is one of the strengths of our union. … We may come from different countries and speak different languages. But what unites us is the belief that by standing together we can better advance our interests."
The holiday comes at the conclusion of the month-long Ramadan for Muslims, but it not on the same day each year. Officials with Tyson said they were working out how best to address what apparently now will be a floating holiday for the company.
Mickelson said other holidays for the company workers include birthday, New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.
Union spokesman Randy Hadley told the newspaper, "The negotiating committee felt this was extremely crucial, since this holiday is as important to Muslims as Christmas is to Christians."
The union also reported "two prayer rooms have been created to allow Muslim workers to pray twice a day and return to work without leaving the plant."
Ironically, the company on its website also promotes a variety of traditional and customary Christian and secular blessings for food – its primary product.
"This is America, founded by the blood of our forefathers and should not be challenged by Somalians, Hispanics, or any other immigrants. If they come to America, they need to learn our language and our ways. They can practice their culture in private if they so please, but not shove it down our throats. Would they let us go there and change there country? I have banned Tyson's products from my home for years because of the illegals they were hiring. I am sorry for the producers that are supplying them, but Tyson's has once again crossed the line with the American people. Labor Day was here long before Tyson's. What holiday will be next to be taken away and replaced to accommodate an immigrant. This stinks worse than the plant," said another anonymous forum participant.
"Disgusting ... appalling ... horrifying ... there just aren't enough words to describe this situation. There will never be another Tyson product in my home EVER!! Bedford County and the rest of the nation needs to take notice. Is this what we are coming to?" said another.
A Muslim website says the holiday is a "joyous three-day celebration" that concludes Ramadan, during which Muslims fast during the day.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the national holiday dates from Sept. 5, 1882, and is "dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
Do not respond to this e-mail for any reason. To discontinue your membership automatically please, follow the link below. You are registered to receive email as Dave Anderson at the following e-mail address: OAD@ALASKA.NET. You must use the correct e-mail address to discontinue your membership.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Send a personalized version of this message to your friends.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Click here to give an online donation.
In a stunning illustration of how long-held, cherished American traditions are being eroded by efforts to accommodate the increasingly vocal demands of some Muslims, Tyson Foods has agreed to replace Labor Day as one of its paid holidays with the Muslim holiday Eid al-Fitr.
The details are spelled out in the WorldNetDaily story below. We encourage our members to contact Tyson Foods and express their outrage over this decision. The Tyson Foods customer service phone number is 800-643-3410.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldNetDaily
Tyson replaces Labor Day
with Muslim Eid al-Fitr
Chicken company: Workers wanted
Islamic religious event recognized
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71218
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 02, 2008
12:10 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldNetDaily
Food workers at the Shelbyville, Tenn., plant for Tyson Foods, which boasts on its corporate website that it strives "to honor God," will have time off for Eid al-Fitr, the Muslim holiday closing the month of Ramadan, instead of the American tradition Labor Day.
Officials with the company told WND the labor union representing the 1,200 plant workers, including about 700 immigrants from Somalia who largely are Muslim, sought the holiday change in the new five-year contract, and the company agreed.
Officials with the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union issue a press statement about the new "contract [that] creates an additional paid holiday, [Eid al-Fitr,] a Muslim holiday that occurs toward the end of Ramadan."
A spokeswoman at the union's office told WND no one was in the office today who could comment on the request.
To the Shelbyville Times-Gazette, Gary Mickelson, Tyson's media chief, said there is no new holiday, but at the union's request the company agreed to discontinue the Labor Day holiday and implement Eid al-Fitr.
"Union leadership did request and receive Eid al-Fitr (which is apparently spelled various ways including Id al-Fitr and Eid ul-Fitr) as a paid holiday in place of Labor Day," Mickelson told the newspaper.
"Since all Team Members will still have eight paid holidays, the change will not affect production," Mickelson said.
On the paper's forum page, readers were outraged.
"If this holiday is that important to them, make them take it off instead of Christmas Day and allow ALL workers to be off Labor Day. Most AMERICAN families have some type of function on Labor Day," wrote one anonymous participant.
"It says union leadership made this request, makes you wonder who runs the union. I guess they are already working on a plan to replace Memorial Day, that means nothing to the Muslims so why should we have the right to celebrate it. Labor Day commemorates the plight of workers and the struggle of labor unions to improve working conditions for American workers. The Muslims will not stop until all of our rights and laws are changed to accommodate their beliefs. This will be a new America but it will be their America," said another.
The union boasts on its website, "Diversity is one of the strengths of our union. … We may come from different countries and speak different languages. But what unites us is the belief that by standing together we can better advance our interests."
The holiday comes at the conclusion of the month-long Ramadan for Muslims, but it not on the same day each year. Officials with Tyson said they were working out how best to address what apparently now will be a floating holiday for the company.
Mickelson said other holidays for the company workers include birthday, New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.
Union spokesman Randy Hadley told the newspaper, "The negotiating committee felt this was extremely crucial, since this holiday is as important to Muslims as Christmas is to Christians."
The union also reported "two prayer rooms have been created to allow Muslim workers to pray twice a day and return to work without leaving the plant."
Ironically, the company on its website also promotes a variety of traditional and customary Christian and secular blessings for food – its primary product.
"This is America, founded by the blood of our forefathers and should not be challenged by Somalians, Hispanics, or any other immigrants. If they come to America, they need to learn our language and our ways. They can practice their culture in private if they so please, but not shove it down our throats. Would they let us go there and change there country? I have banned Tyson's products from my home for years because of the illegals they were hiring. I am sorry for the producers that are supplying them, but Tyson's has once again crossed the line with the American people. Labor Day was here long before Tyson's. What holiday will be next to be taken away and replaced to accommodate an immigrant. This stinks worse than the plant," said another anonymous forum participant.
"Disgusting ... appalling ... horrifying ... there just aren't enough words to describe this situation. There will never be another Tyson product in my home EVER!! Bedford County and the rest of the nation needs to take notice. Is this what we are coming to?" said another.
A Muslim website says the holiday is a "joyous three-day celebration" that concludes Ramadan, during which Muslims fast during the day.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the national holiday dates from Sept. 5, 1882, and is "dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
Do not respond to this e-mail for any reason. To discontinue your membership automatically please, follow the link below. You are registered to receive email as Dave Anderson at the following e-mail address: OAD@ALASKA.NET. You must use the correct e-mail address to discontinue your membership.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Send a personalized version of this message to your friends.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Click here to give an online donation.
August 3, 2008
Winning Isn't News
NEWS SOMETIMES LATE IS OFTEN NEWS IN ITSELF HERE WE ARE.
Winning Isn't News
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Iraq: What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public? Apparently, we have to rely on a British newspaper for the news that we've defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq.
London's Sunday Times called it "the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror." A terrorist force that once numbered more than 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of Iraq, has over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200 fighters, backed against the wall in the northern city of Mosul.
The destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is one of the most unlikely and unforeseen events in the long history of American warfare. We can thank President Bush's surge strategy, in which he bucked both Republican and Democratic leaders in Washington by increasing our forces there instead of surrendering.
We can also thank the leadership of the new general he placed in charge there, David Petraeus, who may be the foremost expert in the world on counter-insurgency warfare. And we can thank those serving in our military in Iraq who engaged local Iraqi tribal leaders and convinced them America was their friend and AQI their enemy.
Al-Qaida's loss of the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis began in Anbar Province, which had been written off as a basket case, and spread out from there.
Now, in Operation Lion's Roar the Iraqi army and the U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is destroying the fraction of terrorists who are left. More than 1,000 AQI operatives have already been apprehended.
Sunday Times reporter Marie Colvin, traveling with Iraqi forces in Mosul, found little AQI presence even in bullet-ridden residential areas that were once insurgency strongholds, and reported that the terrorists have lost control of its Mosul urban base, with what is left of the organization having fled south into the countryside.
Meanwhile, the State Department reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has achieved "satisfactory" progress on 15 of the 18 political benchmarks - a big change for the better from a year ago.
Things are going so well that Maliki has even for the first time floated the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. He did so while visiting the United Arab Emirates, which over the weekend announced that it was forgiving almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad - an impressive vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state in the future of a free Iraq.
But where are the headlines and the front-page stories about all this good news? As the Media Research Center pointed out last week, "the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 were silent Tuesday night about the benchmarks" that signaled political progress.
The war in Iraq has been turned around 180 degrees both militarily and politically because the president stuck to his guns. Yet apart from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don't seem to consider this historic event a big story.
Winning Isn't News
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Iraq: What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public? Apparently, we have to rely on a British newspaper for the news that we've defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq.
London's Sunday Times called it "the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror." A terrorist force that once numbered more than 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of Iraq, has over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200 fighters, backed against the wall in the northern city of Mosul.
The destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is one of the most unlikely and unforeseen events in the long history of American warfare. We can thank President Bush's surge strategy, in which he bucked both Republican and Democratic leaders in Washington by increasing our forces there instead of surrendering.
We can also thank the leadership of the new general he placed in charge there, David Petraeus, who may be the foremost expert in the world on counter-insurgency warfare. And we can thank those serving in our military in Iraq who engaged local Iraqi tribal leaders and convinced them America was their friend and AQI their enemy.
Al-Qaida's loss of the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis began in Anbar Province, which had been written off as a basket case, and spread out from there.
Now, in Operation Lion's Roar the Iraqi army and the U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is destroying the fraction of terrorists who are left. More than 1,000 AQI operatives have already been apprehended.
Sunday Times reporter Marie Colvin, traveling with Iraqi forces in Mosul, found little AQI presence even in bullet-ridden residential areas that were once insurgency strongholds, and reported that the terrorists have lost control of its Mosul urban base, with what is left of the organization having fled south into the countryside.
Meanwhile, the State Department reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has achieved "satisfactory" progress on 15 of the 18 political benchmarks - a big change for the better from a year ago.
Things are going so well that Maliki has even for the first time floated the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. He did so while visiting the United Arab Emirates, which over the weekend announced that it was forgiving almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad - an impressive vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state in the future of a free Iraq.
But where are the headlines and the front-page stories about all this good news? As the Media Research Center pointed out last week, "the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 were silent Tuesday night about the benchmarks" that signaled political progress.
The war in Iraq has been turned around 180 degrees both militarily and politically because the president stuck to his guns. Yet apart from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don't seem to consider this historic event a big story.
Hillary Plots, Eyes 2012 Bid
SHE JUST DOESN'T GET THE MESSAGE WE D O N ' T W A N T HER OR HER HORSE.
Hillary Plots, Eyes 2012 Bid
Friday, August 1, 2008 11:40 AM
By: Rick Pedraza
With hopes of being chosen as Barack Obama’s vice-presidential running mate dashed, Hillary Clinton has begun the process of carving out her political future.
The New York Post reports Clinton met earlier this week at a secret ladies-only dinner in Washington to discuss where she can go from here.
After learning she would address the Democratic National Convention on its second night – traditionally not the night the vice presidential nominee would speak – Clinton reportedly gathered her female posse together to discuss a possible White House run in 2012.
The get-together included some of the top women in Democratic politics, like California Sen. Dianne Feinstein; founder of Emily's List Ellen Malcolm; California Rep. and chair of the New Democrat Coalition Ellen Tauscher; and former Recording Industry Association of America CEO Hilary Rosen, who's now political director of the Huffington Post.
"You could say Hillary met with her homegirls,” one insider tells The Post. “They're all very powerful and important women. It's highly unlikely they were plotting anything around the VP spot because Hillary knows Barack Obama isn't going to pick her. They were probably planning her future."
Jay Carson, a spokesman for Clinton, did no respond to calls or e-mails from the media, however a representative for Feinstein said, "It was a personal dinner. They had a couple of glasses of California wine, but the content of the meeting is going to remain between them."
Hillary Plots, Eyes 2012 Bid
Friday, August 1, 2008 11:40 AM
By: Rick Pedraza
With hopes of being chosen as Barack Obama’s vice-presidential running mate dashed, Hillary Clinton has begun the process of carving out her political future.
The New York Post reports Clinton met earlier this week at a secret ladies-only dinner in Washington to discuss where she can go from here.
After learning she would address the Democratic National Convention on its second night – traditionally not the night the vice presidential nominee would speak – Clinton reportedly gathered her female posse together to discuss a possible White House run in 2012.
The get-together included some of the top women in Democratic politics, like California Sen. Dianne Feinstein; founder of Emily's List Ellen Malcolm; California Rep. and chair of the New Democrat Coalition Ellen Tauscher; and former Recording Industry Association of America CEO Hilary Rosen, who's now political director of the Huffington Post.
"You could say Hillary met with her homegirls,” one insider tells The Post. “They're all very powerful and important women. It's highly unlikely they were plotting anything around the VP spot because Hillary knows Barack Obama isn't going to pick her. They were probably planning her future."
Jay Carson, a spokesman for Clinton, did no respond to calls or e-mails from the media, however a representative for Feinstein said, "It was a personal dinner. They had a couple of glasses of California wine, but the content of the meeting is going to remain between them."
Phony 'Emergency'
WHEN HE CAN'T CONVINCE YOU WITH RHETORIC HE WILL DAZZLE YOU WITH BS. WE AS A NATION MUST BE AWARE OF ALL OF THE BS THIS CANDIDATE WILL BRING TO THE PLATE DURING THE COMING CAMPAIGN TIME, AND I WILL VOTE.
Phony 'Emergency'
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, August 01, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Stimulus: Barack Obama's newly unveiled "Emergency Economic Plan" is quite a document, sounding more like the rantings of an extremist fringe candidate than a serious contender for the presidency.
The six-page package is a doozy, replete with populist ideas that will wreck the economy and leave us poorer. The only real emergency we should worry about is the debacle that would follow its passage.
It's shocking that a mainstream candidate, with so many supposedly well-regarded economists advising him, would produce such a shoddy, poorly thought-out plan.
Take his proposal to send every family a check for $1,000. Don't worry, he assures us, we won't have to pay for it. "Windfall profits from Big Oil" will pick up the tab — in this case.
Sen. Obama seems to be trying to take advantage of reports that Exxon Mobil reported record second-quarter income — indeed, the highest quarterly profit for any corporation ever.
But the reality is that as Obama and his equally unknowing friends push windfall taxes, Exxon Mobil has already given the U.S. a massive windfall. As economist Mark Perry has noted, Exxon Mobil will pay more taxes this year to the U.S. Treasury than the bottom 50% of all taxpayers — combined.
In the first half, Exxon Mobil's after-tax income rose 15% to $22.6 billion. A lot of money, to be sure, until you consider that Exxon Mobil paid $61.7 billion in taxes — also a record.
People shouldn't fall for such cheap, recycled class-warfare argument. Yet many will. Sadly, it will saddle big energy companies with higher taxes and crimp their exploration and drilling budgets. That means less oil on the market and higher prices.
We know this because it has been tried before. Jimmy Carter's windfall profits tax led to a 6% drop in domestic oil output and as much as a 15% surge in oil imports, according to the Congressional Research Service. Now, Obama wants to play it again.
The rest of Obama's plan is just as nonsensical. It would spend $50 billion on various kinds of stimulus, including $25 billion to help erase state government budget deficits. In other words, he'll reward profligate states and punish thrifty ones. This is "stimulus" only if you think stimulus is saving government jobs.
Another $25 billion would go towards "replenishing" the Highway Trust Fund to rebuild the nation's roads and bridges. The problem with this idea is that we're already paying for it, with a 18.3- cents-a-gallon tax on gasoline and even more on diesel.
Unfortunately, under the last transportation bill, Congress chose to spend more than it had coming in — the result of runaway pork-barrel politics, not need.
As the Transportation Department's inspector general wrote in a scathing 2007 report, "Many earmarked projects considered by the agencies as low priority are being funded over higher-priority, non-earmarked projects."
The real problem is not that we pay too little in taxes, or that "Big Oil" is enjoying "windfall profits." It's a big-spending, big-taxing Congress that "emergency" plans such as Obama's will only embolden. This lame plan will hurt the economy, not stimulate it.
Email To Friend |
Phony 'Emergency'
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, August 01, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Stimulus: Barack Obama's newly unveiled "Emergency Economic Plan" is quite a document, sounding more like the rantings of an extremist fringe candidate than a serious contender for the presidency.
The six-page package is a doozy, replete with populist ideas that will wreck the economy and leave us poorer. The only real emergency we should worry about is the debacle that would follow its passage.
It's shocking that a mainstream candidate, with so many supposedly well-regarded economists advising him, would produce such a shoddy, poorly thought-out plan.
Take his proposal to send every family a check for $1,000. Don't worry, he assures us, we won't have to pay for it. "Windfall profits from Big Oil" will pick up the tab — in this case.
Sen. Obama seems to be trying to take advantage of reports that Exxon Mobil reported record second-quarter income — indeed, the highest quarterly profit for any corporation ever.
But the reality is that as Obama and his equally unknowing friends push windfall taxes, Exxon Mobil has already given the U.S. a massive windfall. As economist Mark Perry has noted, Exxon Mobil will pay more taxes this year to the U.S. Treasury than the bottom 50% of all taxpayers — combined.
In the first half, Exxon Mobil's after-tax income rose 15% to $22.6 billion. A lot of money, to be sure, until you consider that Exxon Mobil paid $61.7 billion in taxes — also a record.
People shouldn't fall for such cheap, recycled class-warfare argument. Yet many will. Sadly, it will saddle big energy companies with higher taxes and crimp their exploration and drilling budgets. That means less oil on the market and higher prices.
We know this because it has been tried before. Jimmy Carter's windfall profits tax led to a 6% drop in domestic oil output and as much as a 15% surge in oil imports, according to the Congressional Research Service. Now, Obama wants to play it again.
The rest of Obama's plan is just as nonsensical. It would spend $50 billion on various kinds of stimulus, including $25 billion to help erase state government budget deficits. In other words, he'll reward profligate states and punish thrifty ones. This is "stimulus" only if you think stimulus is saving government jobs.
Another $25 billion would go towards "replenishing" the Highway Trust Fund to rebuild the nation's roads and bridges. The problem with this idea is that we're already paying for it, with a 18.3- cents-a-gallon tax on gasoline and even more on diesel.
Unfortunately, under the last transportation bill, Congress chose to spend more than it had coming in — the result of runaway pork-barrel politics, not need.
As the Transportation Department's inspector general wrote in a scathing 2007 report, "Many earmarked projects considered by the agencies as low priority are being funded over higher-priority, non-earmarked projects."
The real problem is not that we pay too little in taxes, or that "Big Oil" is enjoying "windfall profits." It's a big-spending, big-taxing Congress that "emergency" plans such as Obama's will only embolden. This lame plan will hurt the economy, not stimulate it.
Email To Friend |
Obamanomics Flunks The Test
Obamanomics Flunks The Test
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, August 01, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama the lawyer-organizer could use a crash course in economics. His economic plan's assumptions, based on long-discredited Marxist theories, are wildly wrongheaded.
In arguing for a heavier mix of government, he assumes that capitalism unfairly favors the rich, almost exclusively so, and fails to spread prosperity.
"The rich in America have little to complain about," he carps. "The distribution of wealth is skewed, and levels of inequality are now higher than at any time since the Gilded Age."
Obama cites data showing a yawning gap between the income of the average worker and the wealthiest 1%. He thinks it's government's job to step in and close it — "for purposes of fairness" — by soaking the rich, among other leftist nostrums.
"Between 1971 and 2001," he complains, "while the median wage and salary income of the average worker showed literally no gain, the income of the top hundredth of a percent went up almost 500%."
But such a snapshot comparison would be meaningful only if America were a caste society, in which the people making up one income group remained static over time.
Of course that's not the case. The composition of the rich and poor in this country is in constant flux, as the income distribution changes dramatically over relatively short periods. Few are "stuck" in poverty, or have a "lock" on wealth.
Obama would discover this if only he'd put down his class-warfare manuals and look closely at the IRS' own data.
Take those megarich he vilifies — the top hundredth of a percent. According to a recent Treasury study, three-fourths of them in 1996 fell out of the group by 2005.
Meanwhile, more than half of those in the bottom income group in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005, with more than 5% leapfrogging to the richest quintile.
(It's no fluke: The same high degree of income mobility is seen in prior comparable periods, as well.)
Some poor moved up through personal effort, while many rode an expanding economy. Real median incomes of all taxpayers rose 24%, but the poor registered the biggest gains of all.
President Kennedy understood that a growing economy is like a rising tide that "lifts all boats." Obama, on the other hand, thinks some are lifted and others lowered, as if the economy were a system of locks operated by a cabal of evil capitalists.
He also fails to understand how taxes change behavior. He thinks raising taxes on the most productive members of society won't "curb incentives to work or invest." Even TV news anchor Charlie Gibson knows better.
During a primary debate, the ABC host took Obama to task for proposing a doubling in the capital gains tax. History shows, he pointed out, that raising the cap gains rate actually ends up costing the government revenues.
Obama just didn't get it. "Well, Charlie," he argued, "what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."
Forget growth and revenues. Let's just punish those "greedy" investors. It's the same Marxist reasoning behind his plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts: The rich must be made to pay their "fair" share, Obama asserts.
Never mind that the top 1% of taxpayers already pay 38% of the total tax burden, according to recent IRS data, while the bottom 50% bear just 3% of the load.
Obama's economic plan also calls for mandating a "living wage." He plans to saddle retailers with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation, along with a mandate to provide seven days of paid sick leave to workers.
Obama assumes business owners will just eat the added costs.
But restaurants, the nation's second-largest private-sector employer, already operate on razor-thin profit margins. Faced with such mandatory paid benefits, they'll have no choice but to cut staff.
In fact, the last major minimum-wage increase cost the restaurant industry more than 146,000 jobs, the National Restaurant Association says, while restaurant owners put off plans to hire an additional 106,000 employees.
So Obama would get his wage-and-benefits mandate, but lose jobs in an industry that employs the very minorities Obama claims he's trying to help.
"If restaurateurs had their way, every lawmaker would run a small business before starting to legislate," the industry opined in a recent press release.
Lawmakers aren't the only ones. Leftist presidential candidates also could benefit from such a mandate.
Email To Friend
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, August 01, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama the lawyer-organizer could use a crash course in economics. His economic plan's assumptions, based on long-discredited Marxist theories, are wildly wrongheaded.
In arguing for a heavier mix of government, he assumes that capitalism unfairly favors the rich, almost exclusively so, and fails to spread prosperity.
"The rich in America have little to complain about," he carps. "The distribution of wealth is skewed, and levels of inequality are now higher than at any time since the Gilded Age."
Obama cites data showing a yawning gap between the income of the average worker and the wealthiest 1%. He thinks it's government's job to step in and close it — "for purposes of fairness" — by soaking the rich, among other leftist nostrums.
"Between 1971 and 2001," he complains, "while the median wage and salary income of the average worker showed literally no gain, the income of the top hundredth of a percent went up almost 500%."
But such a snapshot comparison would be meaningful only if America were a caste society, in which the people making up one income group remained static over time.
Of course that's not the case. The composition of the rich and poor in this country is in constant flux, as the income distribution changes dramatically over relatively short periods. Few are "stuck" in poverty, or have a "lock" on wealth.
Obama would discover this if only he'd put down his class-warfare manuals and look closely at the IRS' own data.
Take those megarich he vilifies — the top hundredth of a percent. According to a recent Treasury study, three-fourths of them in 1996 fell out of the group by 2005.
Meanwhile, more than half of those in the bottom income group in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005, with more than 5% leapfrogging to the richest quintile.
(It's no fluke: The same high degree of income mobility is seen in prior comparable periods, as well.)
Some poor moved up through personal effort, while many rode an expanding economy. Real median incomes of all taxpayers rose 24%, but the poor registered the biggest gains of all.
President Kennedy understood that a growing economy is like a rising tide that "lifts all boats." Obama, on the other hand, thinks some are lifted and others lowered, as if the economy were a system of locks operated by a cabal of evil capitalists.
He also fails to understand how taxes change behavior. He thinks raising taxes on the most productive members of society won't "curb incentives to work or invest." Even TV news anchor Charlie Gibson knows better.
During a primary debate, the ABC host took Obama to task for proposing a doubling in the capital gains tax. History shows, he pointed out, that raising the cap gains rate actually ends up costing the government revenues.
Obama just didn't get it. "Well, Charlie," he argued, "what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."
Forget growth and revenues. Let's just punish those "greedy" investors. It's the same Marxist reasoning behind his plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts: The rich must be made to pay their "fair" share, Obama asserts.
Never mind that the top 1% of taxpayers already pay 38% of the total tax burden, according to recent IRS data, while the bottom 50% bear just 3% of the load.
Obama's economic plan also calls for mandating a "living wage." He plans to saddle retailers with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation, along with a mandate to provide seven days of paid sick leave to workers.
Obama assumes business owners will just eat the added costs.
But restaurants, the nation's second-largest private-sector employer, already operate on razor-thin profit margins. Faced with such mandatory paid benefits, they'll have no choice but to cut staff.
In fact, the last major minimum-wage increase cost the restaurant industry more than 146,000 jobs, the National Restaurant Association says, while restaurant owners put off plans to hire an additional 106,000 employees.
So Obama would get his wage-and-benefits mandate, but lose jobs in an industry that employs the very minorities Obama claims he's trying to help.
"If restaurateurs had their way, every lawmaker would run a small business before starting to legislate," the industry opined in a recent press release.
Lawmakers aren't the only ones. Leftist presidential candidates also could benefit from such a mandate.
Email To Friend
ACT for America
"Islam Does Not Distinguish Between the American People and the American Government"
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD200008
On July 21, 2008, Pakistan's independent television network Geo News aired an exclusive interview with Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid, Al-Qaeda's No. 3 man and top commander in Afghanistan. The interview, conducted in Arabic, was broadcast on Geo News with a voiceover in Urdu. It was later posted on Islamist websites, and its content was published in Pakistani newspapers.
Abu Al-Yazid, also known as Sheikh Sa'id, is a 52-year-old Egyptian with two wives and 14 children. In 1981 he was arrested in Egypt for involvement in the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Al-Sadat, but was released a year later. In 1988, after heading various militant groups, he joined Al-Qaeda and shifted his base of operations to Afghanistan. In 1991 he worked for Osama bin Laden in Sudan as an accountant, and later became director of Al-Qaeda's financial affairs. He has also been a member of Al-Qaeda's Shura Council, in charge of financial planning, organizational affairs, and public relations.
The following are excerpts from the Geo News interview:
Pakistan Caused Great Damage to Al-Qaeda by Supporting U.S.
In the interview, Abu Al-Yazid stated that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the Danish Embassy in Islamabad last June. He said that the bomber was a Saudi, and added: "We are proud to have carried out [this operation], and we congratulated our brothers for completing this task. We timed the attack in such a way that no Muslims were in the vicinity." Abu Al-Yazid also stated that Al-Qaeda had been responsible for the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. On a previous occasion, he claimed that the organization had carried out the December 27, 2007 assassination of former Pakistani prime-minister Benazir Bhutto.
Referring to the permissibility of suicide bombings, Abu Al-Yazid said that eminent Islamic scholars around the world had issued fatwas sanctioning them. He added: "Suicide attacks are justified by Islamic shari'a. [However, Islamic] scholars [who are affiliated with] governments issue whatever fatwas they are told to issue... However, suicide attacks inside mosques are forbidden."
About the role of the Pakistani government in the U.S.-led war on terror, the Al-Qaeda commander remarked: "The Pakistani government is the government that has caused the greatest damage to the mujahideen. It was [Pakistani President] Pervez Musharraf...who caused the most damage to his neighbors, the mujahideen [of the Taliban], though it was [only] thanks to their sacrifice that the USSR did not invade Pakistan [in the 1980s]."
Abu Al-Yazid praised Khaled Sheikh Muhammad, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, who is currently on trial in the U.S., saying: "Khaled is a fearless man of whom the entire Muslim nation can be proud."
"The Allegation that Al-Qaeda Is Promoting U.S. Interests Is a Lie"
Asked about a conspiracy theory that has gained currency in Pakistan, namely that Al-Qaeda was created by the U.S. in the 1980s with the purpose of fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, Abu Al-Yazid said: "This is a lie and falsehood, and was exposed as such years ago... when Sheikh Osama bin Laden declared jihad against the U.S. Since then, [Al-Qaeda has carried out] a series of operations against the U.S... first the attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, then the attacks on U.S. targets in Yemen and Somalia, and culminating in the pious action of 9/11. This series of attacks on the U.S. is clear proof that this allegation - [namely] that Al-Qaeda is promoting U.S. interests - is [nothing but] a lie and falsehood."
Abu Al-Yazid added: "Al-Qaeda is waging jihad against the U.S. because it is the head of the infidels and the pharaoh of our times. The U.S. is the flag-bearer of the new modern crusade... against the Muslim nation. We are [also] fighting the U.S. because it is standing by Israel and providing it with all sorts of assistance and power..."
"Islam Does Not Distinguish Between the American People and the American Government"
Abu Al-Yazid stressed: "Islam does not distinguish between the American people and the American government, since both are in a state of war with Islam. After all, these are the people who elect the [American] governments, and who even elected [President George] Bush for a second term in office, despite their awareness of his agenda against Islam. Despite witnessing Bush's many brutal [actions] against the Muslims, these people re-elected him. They are the ones who pay the taxes that enable the American government and army to wage war and spill the blood of Muslims..."
Abu Al-Yazid added that Al-Qaeda's attacks on the U.S. forces in Afghanistan were becoming more frequent, and that the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai would not last. He also emphasized that Al-Qaeda receives no support from any Muslim government.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD200008
On July 21, 2008, Pakistan's independent television network Geo News aired an exclusive interview with Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid, Al-Qaeda's No. 3 man and top commander in Afghanistan. The interview, conducted in Arabic, was broadcast on Geo News with a voiceover in Urdu. It was later posted on Islamist websites, and its content was published in Pakistani newspapers.
Abu Al-Yazid, also known as Sheikh Sa'id, is a 52-year-old Egyptian with two wives and 14 children. In 1981 he was arrested in Egypt for involvement in the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Al-Sadat, but was released a year later. In 1988, after heading various militant groups, he joined Al-Qaeda and shifted his base of operations to Afghanistan. In 1991 he worked for Osama bin Laden in Sudan as an accountant, and later became director of Al-Qaeda's financial affairs. He has also been a member of Al-Qaeda's Shura Council, in charge of financial planning, organizational affairs, and public relations.
The following are excerpts from the Geo News interview:
Pakistan Caused Great Damage to Al-Qaeda by Supporting U.S.
In the interview, Abu Al-Yazid stated that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the Danish Embassy in Islamabad last June. He said that the bomber was a Saudi, and added: "We are proud to have carried out [this operation], and we congratulated our brothers for completing this task. We timed the attack in such a way that no Muslims were in the vicinity." Abu Al-Yazid also stated that Al-Qaeda had been responsible for the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. On a previous occasion, he claimed that the organization had carried out the December 27, 2007 assassination of former Pakistani prime-minister Benazir Bhutto.
Referring to the permissibility of suicide bombings, Abu Al-Yazid said that eminent Islamic scholars around the world had issued fatwas sanctioning them. He added: "Suicide attacks are justified by Islamic shari'a. [However, Islamic] scholars [who are affiliated with] governments issue whatever fatwas they are told to issue... However, suicide attacks inside mosques are forbidden."
About the role of the Pakistani government in the U.S.-led war on terror, the Al-Qaeda commander remarked: "The Pakistani government is the government that has caused the greatest damage to the mujahideen. It was [Pakistani President] Pervez Musharraf...who caused the most damage to his neighbors, the mujahideen [of the Taliban], though it was [only] thanks to their sacrifice that the USSR did not invade Pakistan [in the 1980s]."
Abu Al-Yazid praised Khaled Sheikh Muhammad, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, who is currently on trial in the U.S., saying: "Khaled is a fearless man of whom the entire Muslim nation can be proud."
"The Allegation that Al-Qaeda Is Promoting U.S. Interests Is a Lie"
Asked about a conspiracy theory that has gained currency in Pakistan, namely that Al-Qaeda was created by the U.S. in the 1980s with the purpose of fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, Abu Al-Yazid said: "This is a lie and falsehood, and was exposed as such years ago... when Sheikh Osama bin Laden declared jihad against the U.S. Since then, [Al-Qaeda has carried out] a series of operations against the U.S... first the attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, then the attacks on U.S. targets in Yemen and Somalia, and culminating in the pious action of 9/11. This series of attacks on the U.S. is clear proof that this allegation - [namely] that Al-Qaeda is promoting U.S. interests - is [nothing but] a lie and falsehood."
Abu Al-Yazid added: "Al-Qaeda is waging jihad against the U.S. because it is the head of the infidels and the pharaoh of our times. The U.S. is the flag-bearer of the new modern crusade... against the Muslim nation. We are [also] fighting the U.S. because it is standing by Israel and providing it with all sorts of assistance and power..."
"Islam Does Not Distinguish Between the American People and the American Government"
Abu Al-Yazid stressed: "Islam does not distinguish between the American people and the American government, since both are in a state of war with Islam. After all, these are the people who elect the [American] governments, and who even elected [President George] Bush for a second term in office, despite their awareness of his agenda against Islam. Despite witnessing Bush's many brutal [actions] against the Muslims, these people re-elected him. They are the ones who pay the taxes that enable the American government and army to wage war and spill the blood of Muslims..."
Abu Al-Yazid added that Al-Qaeda's attacks on the U.S. forces in Afghanistan were becoming more frequent, and that the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai would not last. He also emphasized that Al-Qaeda receives no support from any Muslim government.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
August 2, 2008
THIS ** IS NO PATRIOT
The Patriot Room
Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:11:07 AM by Bill Dupray
WHAT A DISGRACE!!! AND HE IS ALL AMERICAN????
Obama The Patriot - Removes American Flag From His Plane
Barack Obama recently finished a $500,000 total overhaul of his 757. And as part of the new design, he decided to remove the American flag from the tail...
What American running for President of the United States would remove the symbol of his country? And worse, he replaced the flag with it with a symbol of himself... Obama is such a despicable human being.
Please forward this if you're not ashamed of our country and our flag & if you think this is a disgrace.
If you do not forward this to everyone you know nothing will happen. If Obama is elected president of the United States we are in trouble. If you think the Liberals can lead our country just look what Pelosi and Reid have accomplished for us. Nothing!!
PLEASE SEND THIS EXAMPLE OF WHAT HE THINKS TO REMIND FOLKS WHEN YOU TRUST A LYING
EMPTY SUIT
Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:11:07 AM by Bill Dupray
WHAT A DISGRACE!!! AND HE IS ALL AMERICAN????
Obama The Patriot - Removes American Flag From His Plane
Barack Obama recently finished a $500,000 total overhaul of his 757. And as part of the new design, he decided to remove the American flag from the tail...
What American running for President of the United States would remove the symbol of his country? And worse, he replaced the flag with it with a symbol of himself... Obama is such a despicable human being.
Please forward this if you're not ashamed of our country and our flag & if you think this is a disgrace.
If you do not forward this to everyone you know nothing will happen. If Obama is elected president of the United States we are in trouble. If you think the Liberals can lead our country just look what Pelosi and Reid have accomplished for us. Nothing!!
PLEASE SEND THIS EXAMPLE OF WHAT HE THINKS TO REMIND FOLKS WHEN YOU TRUST A LYING
EMPTY SUIT
Oops, He Did It Again
Oops, He Did It Again
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, July 31, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Politics: John McCain dares to suggest Barack Obama is all style and no substance, a celebrity like Britney Spears. Meanwhile, the post-racial candidate hits the GOP with the race card, baby, one more time.
When a candidate says things like "we are the ones we have been waiting for," stages a campaign rally before 200,000 Germans ineligible to vote but hoping to touch his garment, and proclaiming himself a "citizen of the world," his critics may be forgiven for suggesting, as some have said of Paris Hilton, that he is famous for being famous.
McCain's camp has blasphemed against The One by noting his celebrity status in a campaign commercial that includes Mademoiselles Spears and Hilton. McCain's ad asks the obvious question: Is the man who sends tingles up and down the legs of MSNBC's Chris Matthews ready to lead? We think not.
The Obama camp has gone bonkers at the suggestion that he's an elitist in an empty Armani suit who can take time to shoot three-pointers but is too busy to visit vets in a German hospital.
They object to the statement of McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, that "only celebrities like Obama go to the gym three times a day, demand 'Met-Rx chocolate roasted-peanut protein bars and bottles of a hard-to-find organic brew — Black Forest Berry Honest Tea' and worry about the price of arugula."
Campaigning in Adel, Iowa, last year, Obama complained to America's farmers: "Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula? I mean, they're charging a lot of money for this stuff." They're charging a whole lot of money for gas, too, but Obama opposes domestic drilling to increase supply and put downward pressure on that price.
During a book tour stop on NBC's "Today" show promoting the senator's book "Audacity of Hope," host Meredith Vieira hailed Obama, Oprah Winfrey's choice for president, as a "rock star" and "electrifying." Commenting on his 2004 convention speech, Vieira said: "Many people, afterwards, they weren't sure how to pronounce your name, but they were moved by you. People were crying."
Despite his rock star status, Obama's 2008 world tour did not produce the expected bounce in polls that are tightening, with one having McCain in the lead. Perhaps with a hint of panic, Obama, the post-racial candidate, has decided to play the race card again.
As McCain's commercial was being released, Obama was in Springfield, Mo., telling voters that Republicans will try to "make you scared of me — you know, 'he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name,' you know, 'he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.' "
If this sounds familiar, it echoes remarks Obama made in Jacksonville, Fla., earlier this year. "We know what campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid," Obama said at a fundraiser. "They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced, and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"
Obama is young and inexperienced. There will be no adoring crowds chanting his name at 3 a.m. in the White House. The real issue is not the color of Barack Obama's skin, but the thickness of it. If you can't stand the heat, put down the arugula and get out of the kitchen.
Obama reminds us of the role Robert Redford played in the 1972 film "The Candidate." A charismatic novice manages to eke out a narrow win over an aging veteran senator. Up in his hotel room, the victorious candidate looks up at his campaign managers and asks, "What do we do now?"
That is what should make voters afraid.
Email To Friend
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, July 31, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Politics: John McCain dares to suggest Barack Obama is all style and no substance, a celebrity like Britney Spears. Meanwhile, the post-racial candidate hits the GOP with the race card, baby, one more time.
When a candidate says things like "we are the ones we have been waiting for," stages a campaign rally before 200,000 Germans ineligible to vote but hoping to touch his garment, and proclaiming himself a "citizen of the world," his critics may be forgiven for suggesting, as some have said of Paris Hilton, that he is famous for being famous.
McCain's camp has blasphemed against The One by noting his celebrity status in a campaign commercial that includes Mademoiselles Spears and Hilton. McCain's ad asks the obvious question: Is the man who sends tingles up and down the legs of MSNBC's Chris Matthews ready to lead? We think not.
The Obama camp has gone bonkers at the suggestion that he's an elitist in an empty Armani suit who can take time to shoot three-pointers but is too busy to visit vets in a German hospital.
They object to the statement of McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, that "only celebrities like Obama go to the gym three times a day, demand 'Met-Rx chocolate roasted-peanut protein bars and bottles of a hard-to-find organic brew — Black Forest Berry Honest Tea' and worry about the price of arugula."
Campaigning in Adel, Iowa, last year, Obama complained to America's farmers: "Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula? I mean, they're charging a lot of money for this stuff." They're charging a whole lot of money for gas, too, but Obama opposes domestic drilling to increase supply and put downward pressure on that price.
During a book tour stop on NBC's "Today" show promoting the senator's book "Audacity of Hope," host Meredith Vieira hailed Obama, Oprah Winfrey's choice for president, as a "rock star" and "electrifying." Commenting on his 2004 convention speech, Vieira said: "Many people, afterwards, they weren't sure how to pronounce your name, but they were moved by you. People were crying."
Despite his rock star status, Obama's 2008 world tour did not produce the expected bounce in polls that are tightening, with one having McCain in the lead. Perhaps with a hint of panic, Obama, the post-racial candidate, has decided to play the race card again.
As McCain's commercial was being released, Obama was in Springfield, Mo., telling voters that Republicans will try to "make you scared of me — you know, 'he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name,' you know, 'he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.' "
If this sounds familiar, it echoes remarks Obama made in Jacksonville, Fla., earlier this year. "We know what campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid," Obama said at a fundraiser. "They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced, and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"
Obama is young and inexperienced. There will be no adoring crowds chanting his name at 3 a.m. in the White House. The real issue is not the color of Barack Obama's skin, but the thickness of it. If you can't stand the heat, put down the arugula and get out of the kitchen.
Obama reminds us of the role Robert Redford played in the 1972 film "The Candidate." A charismatic novice manages to eke out a narrow win over an aging veteran senator. Up in his hotel room, the victorious candidate looks up at his campaign managers and asks, "What do we do now?"
That is what should make voters afraid.
Email To Friend
Obama Wants You
Obama Wants You
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, July 31, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama calls it "Universal Voluntary Public Service." We call it a plan for national involuntary servitude. Kennedy asked us what we could do for our country. Obama has ways to make us volunteer.
Sen. Obama's call to public service is quite different from JFK's. JFK knew America was already a nation of givers and volunteers, perhaps the most charitable and altruistic nation on Earth. Entities such as the Peace Corps would give Americans an outlet for their kindness and generosity, an opportunity to share what the freest nation on Earth had given them. Obama will force you to share.
Obama's Orwellian use of the words "universal" and "voluntary" together is an indicator of an antithesis to capitalist society deeply rooted in his socialist associations, education and training. Indeed, in 1996, when he ran for an Illinois state Senate seat, one of his first endorsements was from the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America.
On the surface, his plan looks just like typical bureaucratic program growth. He wants to expand Americorps to 250,000 slots and double the size of the Peace Corps. He'll create a Clean Energy Corps to plant trees and otherwise save the Earth. It's how Obama plans to fill those slots that's worrisome.
Announcing his plan July 2 at the University of Colorado, he said: "We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges." He will make us an offer we can't refuse.
Obama says that as president he will "set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year." What he doesn't say is that he'll make such voluntarism compulsory by attaching strings to federal education dollars. The schools will make the kids volunteer. It's called plausible deniability.
In a commencement speech at Wesleyan University, Obama advised graduates not to pursue the American dream of success, but to serve others.
"You can take your diploma, walk off this stage and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should," he told the graduates. "But I hope you don't."
Don't be another Bill Gates and amass a fortune making people more productive and successful in their daily lives and giving your countrymen a standard of living the world will envy. Exchange your cap and gown for sackcloth and ashes. Leave your possessions behind and come and follow Obama.
"Fulfilling your immediate wants and needs betrays a poverty of ambition," he opined. Shame on us for being selfish and buying that SUV built by an autoworker trying to fulfill his family's immediate wants and needs.
"Our collective service can shape the destiny of this generation," Obama said. "Individual salvation depends on collective salvation."
We already have a Salvation Army that is truly a volunteer organization. Collective service and salvation is not a classic definition of voluntarism. What Obama has in mind is to turn America into a socialist version of the old Soviet collectives.
And if your idea of service is to join the military and keep others alive and free, forget about it. And never mind about ROTC on campus.
Obama has no place for those who are willing to abandon fame and fortune to lay down their lives for their friends and ours. "At a time of war," Obama says, "we need you to work for peace."
"We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we're asking young people to do," Obama's wife, Michelle, told a group of women in Zanesville, Ohio, during the primaries. "Don't go into corporate America. . . . Become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers we need, and we're encouraging people to do just that."
Don't be the engineers who will figure out better ways to extract shale oil from the porous rock that holds it. Figure out how to extract more money from taxpayers' wallets.
But the Obamas are doing more than "encouraging" or "asking." In a speech in California, Michelle, who has made a small fortune in the "helping industry," said: "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone. . . . Barack Obama will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual — uninvolved, uninformed."
But America is not a nation of selfish, self-serving people. Social demographer Arthur Brooks once calculated that Americans volunteered 32% more than Obama's beloved Germans. We also donate seven times more money to charities and causes than the Germans who gathered in Berlin.
In talking about his national service, Obama, the man who seems to be running for "community organizer in chief," also made this startling statement:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
This is an idea worthy of Hugo Chavez.
Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren has estimated that this civilian national security force alone would cost somewhere between $100 billion and $500 billion, or between 10% and 50% of all federal tax receipts. And that doesn't include the cost of the brown shirts.
Adults are not exempt from all this, even adults who've already served in the U.S. military. "People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve," Obama says. Will they be asked, or drafted?
"The future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson," he concedes. "But it (also) depends on the teacher in East L.A., the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans . . ." So drop down and give Sgt. Obama 50 hours.
Require. Demand. Never allow. Obama's version of "voluntary" service is more appropriate for Havana than middle America. He wants to turn America's students, and even adults, into clones of Elian Gonzalez, compelled to serve the state in ways Obama "will direct."
Correction: In the first installment of this series on Tuesday, the Luo ethnic group in Kenya was identified as "communist." The father of the Luo leader cited, Oginga Odinga, did espouse the post-colonial African version of communism in the 1970s and '80s, and his son, Raila Odinga, calls himself a social democrat. But communism as an ideology did not characterize the entire tribe.
Email To Friend
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, July 31, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama calls it "Universal Voluntary Public Service." We call it a plan for national involuntary servitude. Kennedy asked us what we could do for our country. Obama has ways to make us volunteer.
Sen. Obama's call to public service is quite different from JFK's. JFK knew America was already a nation of givers and volunteers, perhaps the most charitable and altruistic nation on Earth. Entities such as the Peace Corps would give Americans an outlet for their kindness and generosity, an opportunity to share what the freest nation on Earth had given them. Obama will force you to share.
Obama's Orwellian use of the words "universal" and "voluntary" together is an indicator of an antithesis to capitalist society deeply rooted in his socialist associations, education and training. Indeed, in 1996, when he ran for an Illinois state Senate seat, one of his first endorsements was from the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America.
On the surface, his plan looks just like typical bureaucratic program growth. He wants to expand Americorps to 250,000 slots and double the size of the Peace Corps. He'll create a Clean Energy Corps to plant trees and otherwise save the Earth. It's how Obama plans to fill those slots that's worrisome.
Announcing his plan July 2 at the University of Colorado, he said: "We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges." He will make us an offer we can't refuse.
Obama says that as president he will "set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year." What he doesn't say is that he'll make such voluntarism compulsory by attaching strings to federal education dollars. The schools will make the kids volunteer. It's called plausible deniability.
In a commencement speech at Wesleyan University, Obama advised graduates not to pursue the American dream of success, but to serve others.
"You can take your diploma, walk off this stage and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should," he told the graduates. "But I hope you don't."
Don't be another Bill Gates and amass a fortune making people more productive and successful in their daily lives and giving your countrymen a standard of living the world will envy. Exchange your cap and gown for sackcloth and ashes. Leave your possessions behind and come and follow Obama.
"Fulfilling your immediate wants and needs betrays a poverty of ambition," he opined. Shame on us for being selfish and buying that SUV built by an autoworker trying to fulfill his family's immediate wants and needs.
"Our collective service can shape the destiny of this generation," Obama said. "Individual salvation depends on collective salvation."
We already have a Salvation Army that is truly a volunteer organization. Collective service and salvation is not a classic definition of voluntarism. What Obama has in mind is to turn America into a socialist version of the old Soviet collectives.
And if your idea of service is to join the military and keep others alive and free, forget about it. And never mind about ROTC on campus.
Obama has no place for those who are willing to abandon fame and fortune to lay down their lives for their friends and ours. "At a time of war," Obama says, "we need you to work for peace."
"We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we're asking young people to do," Obama's wife, Michelle, told a group of women in Zanesville, Ohio, during the primaries. "Don't go into corporate America. . . . Become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers we need, and we're encouraging people to do just that."
Don't be the engineers who will figure out better ways to extract shale oil from the porous rock that holds it. Figure out how to extract more money from taxpayers' wallets.
But the Obamas are doing more than "encouraging" or "asking." In a speech in California, Michelle, who has made a small fortune in the "helping industry," said: "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone. . . . Barack Obama will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual — uninvolved, uninformed."
But America is not a nation of selfish, self-serving people. Social demographer Arthur Brooks once calculated that Americans volunteered 32% more than Obama's beloved Germans. We also donate seven times more money to charities and causes than the Germans who gathered in Berlin.
In talking about his national service, Obama, the man who seems to be running for "community organizer in chief," also made this startling statement:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
This is an idea worthy of Hugo Chavez.
Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren has estimated that this civilian national security force alone would cost somewhere between $100 billion and $500 billion, or between 10% and 50% of all federal tax receipts. And that doesn't include the cost of the brown shirts.
Adults are not exempt from all this, even adults who've already served in the U.S. military. "People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve," Obama says. Will they be asked, or drafted?
"The future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson," he concedes. "But it (also) depends on the teacher in East L.A., the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans . . ." So drop down and give Sgt. Obama 50 hours.
Require. Demand. Never allow. Obama's version of "voluntary" service is more appropriate for Havana than middle America. He wants to turn America's students, and even adults, into clones of Elian Gonzalez, compelled to serve the state in ways Obama "will direct."
Correction: In the first installment of this series on Tuesday, the Luo ethnic group in Kenya was identified as "communist." The father of the Luo leader cited, Oginga Odinga, did espouse the post-colonial African version of communism in the 1970s and '80s, and his son, Raila Odinga, calls himself a social democrat. But communism as an ideology did not characterize the entire tribe.
Email To Friend
Limbaugh's favorite cartoonist
THIS IS ONE GREAT CARTOONIST, Pulitzer Prize Winner, Michael Ramirez
RUSH BELIEVES IT ALSO
Pulitzer Prize Winner, Michael Ramirez
RUSH BELIEVES IT ALSO
Pulitzer Prize Winner, Michael Ramirez
Limbaugh Remains On Top
Limbaugh Remains On Top Because Of Courage
By PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY | Posted Thursday, July 31, 2008 4:30 PM PT
Rush Limbaugh's 20-year domination of talk radio is a remarkable testament to the durability of conservative ideas as well as to Limbaugh's skill and courage in explaining controversial conservative principles in an entertaining style.
Limbaugh has been the top-rated radio talk show since rankings started 17 years ago, and nobody else is even close. Listeners realize his extraordinary talent for timing and relevance anytime he uses a substitute host.
One secret to Limbaugh's success is that he is not intimidated into appeasing the organized pressure groups that frighten so many others into platitudinous mush. He takes them all on: the radical feminists, the wacky environmentalists, the open-borders crowd, and even President George W. Bush's deviation from conservatism.
From the get-go, even in the feminists' glory days of the 1980s when they were fawned over by the national media, Rush was not scared off. He is one of a handful of men in public life willing to stand up to the feminists.
When feminists make outrageous demands, Rush calls them feminazis. When feminists insist that he apologize for a remark contrary to their agenda, he makes a joke about it but does not apologize.
Former Harvard President Larry Summers is the poster boy for the futility of apologizing to feminists and trying to appease their outrageous demands. Despite weeks of self-flagellation after some feminist professors took offense at his perfectly accurate academic speech about gender differences, they continued to humiliate him from Massachusetts to California.
It's too bad that Summers didn't understand that apologizing to feminists is not only useless; it's a mistake. They never forgive and just use an apology as a sign of weakness that accelerates their demands for preferential treatment.
In the pre-Rush years, one clever writer published a newsletter featuring humorous current commentary molded into one-liners that could be inserted into speeches by politicians and businessmen. He didn't use old-fashioned jokes that ended with a punch line only after setting up an elaborate story.
I noted that every issue had at least one — often biting — joke at the expense of wives or mothers-in-law. I wrote the author that I'll accept wives and mothers-in-law as fair game, but we need some jokes about feminists.
But the writer was a coward. He never included a single joke ridiculing the feminists in the 10 years I subscribed.
Then came fearless Rush Limbaugh who dared to poke fun at the feminazis and point out their silliness, intolerance, pompous self-importance, inconsistencies and obnoxious whining about sexism. Rush even dared to say "feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society."
When I lecture on college campuses, it's easy to identify the feminists. They don't laugh; they have no sense of humor.
Rush is the most important and influential conservative since President Ronald Reagan. It's astounding that after 20 years on the air, Limbaugh continues to draw an audience of 20 million people per week.
Without a script, Limbaugh can hold an audience for three hours a day, five days a week. He entertains, informs and teaches with plenty of solid, fact-based arguments that, for many Americans, is the only conservative message they ever hear.
A college dropout, Limbaugh is a completely self-educated and self-made man. He got his engaging personality from his mother Millie, whom I was lucky enough to have known as a friend.
Liberals can do well reading a speech from a teleprompter — look closely at presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's televised coverage and note the teleprompter placed inconspicuously in the corner of the screen. But few liberals are sufficiently well informed and internally confident to talk for three hours on a live microphone without goofing, and even take random questions from callers.
Many others are afraid to criticize the media darling, Obama, but Limbaugh says, "I'm not going to bow to political correctness, I'm going to do it with humor. I'm going to focus on the issues, I'm going to react to what he says, Simple."
But it isn't simple. Before Limbaugh, there wasn't interesting talk radio. There were only sour liberals who pontificated to a shrinking audience.
Limbaugh turned AM radio into a lively genre where liberals are completely outclassed because they are boring, just regurgitating tired notions that are a proven failure and can't be intelligently defended.
Al Sharpton says that Limbaugh is "the most dangerous guy we have to deal with on the right." Indeed, he is.
Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc
Email To Friend |
By PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY | Posted Thursday, July 31, 2008 4:30 PM PT
Rush Limbaugh's 20-year domination of talk radio is a remarkable testament to the durability of conservative ideas as well as to Limbaugh's skill and courage in explaining controversial conservative principles in an entertaining style.
Limbaugh has been the top-rated radio talk show since rankings started 17 years ago, and nobody else is even close. Listeners realize his extraordinary talent for timing and relevance anytime he uses a substitute host.
One secret to Limbaugh's success is that he is not intimidated into appeasing the organized pressure groups that frighten so many others into platitudinous mush. He takes them all on: the radical feminists, the wacky environmentalists, the open-borders crowd, and even President George W. Bush's deviation from conservatism.
From the get-go, even in the feminists' glory days of the 1980s when they were fawned over by the national media, Rush was not scared off. He is one of a handful of men in public life willing to stand up to the feminists.
When feminists make outrageous demands, Rush calls them feminazis. When feminists insist that he apologize for a remark contrary to their agenda, he makes a joke about it but does not apologize.
Former Harvard President Larry Summers is the poster boy for the futility of apologizing to feminists and trying to appease their outrageous demands. Despite weeks of self-flagellation after some feminist professors took offense at his perfectly accurate academic speech about gender differences, they continued to humiliate him from Massachusetts to California.
It's too bad that Summers didn't understand that apologizing to feminists is not only useless; it's a mistake. They never forgive and just use an apology as a sign of weakness that accelerates their demands for preferential treatment.
In the pre-Rush years, one clever writer published a newsletter featuring humorous current commentary molded into one-liners that could be inserted into speeches by politicians and businessmen. He didn't use old-fashioned jokes that ended with a punch line only after setting up an elaborate story.
I noted that every issue had at least one — often biting — joke at the expense of wives or mothers-in-law. I wrote the author that I'll accept wives and mothers-in-law as fair game, but we need some jokes about feminists.
But the writer was a coward. He never included a single joke ridiculing the feminists in the 10 years I subscribed.
Then came fearless Rush Limbaugh who dared to poke fun at the feminazis and point out their silliness, intolerance, pompous self-importance, inconsistencies and obnoxious whining about sexism. Rush even dared to say "feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society."
When I lecture on college campuses, it's easy to identify the feminists. They don't laugh; they have no sense of humor.
Rush is the most important and influential conservative since President Ronald Reagan. It's astounding that after 20 years on the air, Limbaugh continues to draw an audience of 20 million people per week.
Without a script, Limbaugh can hold an audience for three hours a day, five days a week. He entertains, informs and teaches with plenty of solid, fact-based arguments that, for many Americans, is the only conservative message they ever hear.
A college dropout, Limbaugh is a completely self-educated and self-made man. He got his engaging personality from his mother Millie, whom I was lucky enough to have known as a friend.
Liberals can do well reading a speech from a teleprompter — look closely at presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's televised coverage and note the teleprompter placed inconspicuously in the corner of the screen. But few liberals are sufficiently well informed and internally confident to talk for three hours on a live microphone without goofing, and even take random questions from callers.
Many others are afraid to criticize the media darling, Obama, but Limbaugh says, "I'm not going to bow to political correctness, I'm going to do it with humor. I'm going to focus on the issues, I'm going to react to what he says, Simple."
But it isn't simple. Before Limbaugh, there wasn't interesting talk radio. There were only sour liberals who pontificated to a shrinking audience.
Limbaugh turned AM radio into a lively genre where liberals are completely outclassed because they are boring, just regurgitating tired notions that are a proven failure and can't be intelligently defended.
Al Sharpton says that Limbaugh is "the most dangerous guy we have to deal with on the right." Indeed, he is.
Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc
Email To Friend |
"Islam Does Not Distinguish "
"Islam Does Not Distinguish Between the American People and the American Government"
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD200008
On July 21, 2008, Pakistan's independent television network Geo News aired an exclusive interview with Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid, Al-Qaeda's No. 3 man and top commander in Afghanistan. The interview, conducted in Arabic, was broadcast on Geo News with a voiceover in Urdu. It was later posted on Islamist websites, and its content was published in Pakistani newspapers.
Abu Al-Yazid, also known as Sheikh Sa'id, is a 52-year-old Egyptian with two wives and 14 children. In 1981 he was arrested in Egypt for involvement in the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Al-Sadat, but was released a year later. In 1988, after heading various militant groups, he joined Al-Qaeda and shifted his base of operations to Afghanistan. In 1991 he worked for Osama bin Laden in Sudan as an accountant, and later became director of Al-Qaeda's financial affairs. He has also been a member of Al-Qaeda's Shura Council, in charge of financial planning, organizational affairs, and public relations.
The following are excerpts from the Geo News interview:
Pakistan Caused Great Damage to Al-Qaeda by Supporting U.S.
In the interview, Abu Al-Yazid stated that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the Danish Embassy in Islamabad last June. He said that the bomber was a Saudi, and added: "We are proud to have carried out [this operation], and we congratulated our brothers for completing this task. We timed the attack in such a way that no Muslims were in the vicinity." Abu Al-Yazid also stated that Al-Qaeda had been responsible for the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. On a previous occasion, he claimed that the organization had carried out the December 27, 2007 assassination of former Pakistani prime-minister Benazir Bhutto.
Referring to the permissibility of suicide bombings, Abu Al-Yazid said that eminent Islamic scholars around the world had issued fatwas sanctioning them. He added: "Suicide attacks are justified by Islamic shari'a. [However, Islamic] scholars [who are affiliated with] governments issue whatever fatwas they are told to issue... However, suicide attacks inside mosques are forbidden."
About the role of the Pakistani government in the U.S.-led war on terror, the Al-Qaeda commander remarked: "The Pakistani government is the government that has caused the greatest damage to the mujahideen. It was [Pakistani President] Pervez Musharraf...who caused the most damage to his neighbors, the mujahideen [of the Taliban], though it was [only] thanks to their sacrifice that the USSR did not invade Pakistan [in the 1980s]."
Abu Al-Yazid praised Khaled Sheikh Muhammad, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, who is currently on trial in the U.S., saying: "Khaled is a fearless man of whom the entire Muslim nation can be proud."
"The Allegation that Al-Qaeda Is Promoting U.S. Interests Is a Lie"
Asked about a conspiracy theory that has gained currency in Pakistan, namely that Al-Qaeda was created by the U.S. in the 1980s with the purpose of fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, Abu Al-Yazid said: "This is a lie and falsehood, and was exposed as such years ago... when Sheikh Osama bin Laden declared jihad against the U.S. Since then, [Al-Qaeda has carried out] a series of operations against the U.S... first the attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, then the attacks on U.S. targets in Yemen and Somalia, and culminating in the pious action of 9/11. This series of attacks on the U.S. is clear proof that this allegation - [namely] that Al-Qaeda is promoting U.S. interests - is [nothing but] a lie and falsehood."
Abu Al-Yazid added: "Al-Qaeda is waging jihad against the U.S. because it is the head of the infidels and the pharaoh of our times. The U.S. is the flag-bearer of the new modern crusade... against the Muslim nation. We are [also] fighting the U.S. because it is standing by Israel and providing it with all sorts of assistance and power..."
"Islam Does Not Distinguish Between the American People and the American Government"
Abu Al-Yazid stressed: "Islam does not distinguish between the American people and the American government, since both are in a state of war with Islam. After all, these are the people who elect the [American] governments, and who even elected [President George] Bush for a second term in office, despite their awareness of his agenda against Islam. Despite witnessing Bush's many brutal [actions] against the Muslims, these people re-elected him. They are the ones who pay the taxes that enable the American government and army to wage war and spill the blood of Muslims..."
Abu Al-Yazid added that Al-Qaeda's attacks on the U.S. forces in Afghanistan were becoming more frequent, and that the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai would not last. He also emphasized that Al-Qaeda receives no support from any Muslim government.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD200008
On July 21, 2008, Pakistan's independent television network Geo News aired an exclusive interview with Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid, Al-Qaeda's No. 3 man and top commander in Afghanistan. The interview, conducted in Arabic, was broadcast on Geo News with a voiceover in Urdu. It was later posted on Islamist websites, and its content was published in Pakistani newspapers.
Abu Al-Yazid, also known as Sheikh Sa'id, is a 52-year-old Egyptian with two wives and 14 children. In 1981 he was arrested in Egypt for involvement in the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Al-Sadat, but was released a year later. In 1988, after heading various militant groups, he joined Al-Qaeda and shifted his base of operations to Afghanistan. In 1991 he worked for Osama bin Laden in Sudan as an accountant, and later became director of Al-Qaeda's financial affairs. He has also been a member of Al-Qaeda's Shura Council, in charge of financial planning, organizational affairs, and public relations.
The following are excerpts from the Geo News interview:
Pakistan Caused Great Damage to Al-Qaeda by Supporting U.S.
In the interview, Abu Al-Yazid stated that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the Danish Embassy in Islamabad last June. He said that the bomber was a Saudi, and added: "We are proud to have carried out [this operation], and we congratulated our brothers for completing this task. We timed the attack in such a way that no Muslims were in the vicinity." Abu Al-Yazid also stated that Al-Qaeda had been responsible for the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. On a previous occasion, he claimed that the organization had carried out the December 27, 2007 assassination of former Pakistani prime-minister Benazir Bhutto.
Referring to the permissibility of suicide bombings, Abu Al-Yazid said that eminent Islamic scholars around the world had issued fatwas sanctioning them. He added: "Suicide attacks are justified by Islamic shari'a. [However, Islamic] scholars [who are affiliated with] governments issue whatever fatwas they are told to issue... However, suicide attacks inside mosques are forbidden."
About the role of the Pakistani government in the U.S.-led war on terror, the Al-Qaeda commander remarked: "The Pakistani government is the government that has caused the greatest damage to the mujahideen. It was [Pakistani President] Pervez Musharraf...who caused the most damage to his neighbors, the mujahideen [of the Taliban], though it was [only] thanks to their sacrifice that the USSR did not invade Pakistan [in the 1980s]."
Abu Al-Yazid praised Khaled Sheikh Muhammad, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, who is currently on trial in the U.S., saying: "Khaled is a fearless man of whom the entire Muslim nation can be proud."
"The Allegation that Al-Qaeda Is Promoting U.S. Interests Is a Lie"
Asked about a conspiracy theory that has gained currency in Pakistan, namely that Al-Qaeda was created by the U.S. in the 1980s with the purpose of fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, Abu Al-Yazid said: "This is a lie and falsehood, and was exposed as such years ago... when Sheikh Osama bin Laden declared jihad against the U.S. Since then, [Al-Qaeda has carried out] a series of operations against the U.S... first the attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, then the attacks on U.S. targets in Yemen and Somalia, and culminating in the pious action of 9/11. This series of attacks on the U.S. is clear proof that this allegation - [namely] that Al-Qaeda is promoting U.S. interests - is [nothing but] a lie and falsehood."
Abu Al-Yazid added: "Al-Qaeda is waging jihad against the U.S. because it is the head of the infidels and the pharaoh of our times. The U.S. is the flag-bearer of the new modern crusade... against the Muslim nation. We are [also] fighting the U.S. because it is standing by Israel and providing it with all sorts of assistance and power..."
"Islam Does Not Distinguish Between the American People and the American Government"
Abu Al-Yazid stressed: "Islam does not distinguish between the American people and the American government, since both are in a state of war with Islam. After all, these are the people who elect the [American] governments, and who even elected [President George] Bush for a second term in office, despite their awareness of his agenda against Islam. Despite witnessing Bush's many brutal [actions] against the Muslims, these people re-elected him. They are the ones who pay the taxes that enable the American government and army to wage war and spill the blood of Muslims..."
Abu Al-Yazid added that Al-Qaeda's attacks on the U.S. forces in Afghanistan were becoming more frequent, and that the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai would not last. He also emphasized that Al-Qaeda receives no support from any Muslim government.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
August 1, 2008
EDITORS MEMO
FIRST I WISH TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT, WE ARE CLOSE TO 7O,OOO READERS PER WEEK, WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR PASSING US ON TO YOUR FRIENDS, DO THANK THEM FOR US AND URGE THEM TO WRITE THEIR OPINIONS.
NEXT IS ACTIVATION OF ARCHIVE. WITH THIS EDITION YOU WILL NOTICE A LOT OF DATES IN ARCHIVE EVERY THING IS NOW SAVED IN THE ARCHIVES. TO LOOK AT ITEMS OF A DATE CLICK ON THE DATE DESIRED AND THEN SCROLL PASSED CURRENT ITEMS AND YOU WILL THEN HAVE THE ARTICLES FOR THE WEEK DESIRED. HOPE YOU LIKE THE ADDITION AND DO LET ME KNOW.
BE SURE AND HAVE YOUR FRIENDS LET ME KNOW IF THEY WANT TO BE NOTIFIED OF NEW EDITIONS.
THANKS A BUNCH AND BLESS
DAVE
NEXT IS ACTIVATION OF ARCHIVE. WITH THIS EDITION YOU WILL NOTICE A LOT OF DATES IN ARCHIVE EVERY THING IS NOW SAVED IN THE ARCHIVES. TO LOOK AT ITEMS OF A DATE CLICK ON THE DATE DESIRED AND THEN SCROLL PASSED CURRENT ITEMS AND YOU WILL THEN HAVE THE ARTICLES FOR THE WEEK DESIRED. HOPE YOU LIKE THE ADDITION AND DO LET ME KNOW.
BE SURE AND HAVE YOUR FRIENDS LET ME KNOW IF THEY WANT TO BE NOTIFIED OF NEW EDITIONS.
THANKS A BUNCH AND BLESS
DAVE
Democrats Apologizing to Get Votes
Democrats Apologizing to Get Votes
Friday, August 1, 2008 9:34 AM
By: Michael Reagan their breasts and mutter “mea culpa” (“through my fault”) during the beginning of the Latin mass while confessing that they had sinned, Democrats are in full confessional mode, apologizing for every real or imagined sin against a particular group they believe their country once offended.
In the latest example of sheer looniness that has marked the current Democrat-controlled Congress, surely the worst if not the craziest Congress in all U.S. history, the House officially sought forgiveness from Native-Americans and the victims of Jim Crow-ism.
They did that in our name, laying upon our shoulders the alleged sins of long-dead Americans and having us cringe at the feet of today’s casino-rich Native-Americans, and our black brothers and sisters whose votes they lust after.
Just a minute here. Neither I nor any of my immediate ancestors ever lifted a finger against a single American Indian or black American. I have no apologies to make to people I have not offended. If offenses were committed, they weren’t my fault, or for that matter yours or that of any living Americans.
How dare these congressional demagogues associate us with alleged sins of the distant past committed by people who have long been gone from this world.
Then there are the people who think that we should pay reparations to the descendants of slaves, or bow and scrape before the offspring of long-dead Native-Americans for having maltreated their ancestors who themselves were not lax in maltreating paleface settlers who they tended to scalp when the opportunity arose.
They say we owe black folks for slavery and Jim Crow laws, forgetting that the debt was fully paid by the 360,000 Union soldiers who died in the Civil War to free the ancestors of today’s black Americas. The debt was marked “paid in full,” written in their blood.
I’m sure that one of my ancestors offended somebody or other at one time. Am I expected to reimburse their present-day offspring if any happen to show up for a handout?
And, by the way, if we are going to pay reparations to the descendants of any group who was grievously mistreated, sign me up. I’m Irish, and no group of immigrants was more badly treated.
Poor, hungry and impoverished, they arrived on these shores where they were welcomed by help-wanted signs proclaiming, “No Irish need apply.” The New York Times of the day was full of ads reading “Wanted, coachmen. Must be sober, industrious and reliable. No Irish need apply.”
Not that there were many Irishmen available to be coachmen because vast numbers of them, many brand-new arrivals here, were elsewhere, fighting and dying at places like Gettysburg and Antietam so that the native born dandies in New York who wouldn’t fight for their country would be safe at home and able to hire coachmen or mistreat their Irish chambermaids.
It took years for the wave of Irish emigrants fleeing from harsh British rule and a famine that killed an estimated million and-a-half of them before it was over to lift themselves out of grinding poverty. And they did it on their own, without any help.
Where are my reparations?
As for making reparations to Native-Americans, millions of our fellow citizens are doing that already, filling the swollen coffers of the host of gambling casinos thriving on Indian reservations. Long-gone Americans drove them off their ancestral lands. Today’s Americans are paying for it at their roulette tables or playing slot machines.
If there is any apologizing to be done, the Democrats in Congress should be doing it, atoning for $4-a-gallon gas that’s the direct result of their refusal to allow us to tap the billions if not trillions of gallons of oil lying untapped here, in Alaska and in the Gulf, because they won’t let us go after them and free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil.
If they want to chant “mea culpa,” let the guilt-ridden Democrats pay us reparations out of their campaign war-chest for getting us into this mess.
© 2008 Mike Reagan
Friday, August 1, 2008 9:34 AM
By: Michael Reagan their breasts and mutter “mea culpa” (“through my fault”) during the beginning of the Latin mass while confessing that they had sinned, Democrats are in full confessional mode, apologizing for every real or imagined sin against a particular group they believe their country once offended.
In the latest example of sheer looniness that has marked the current Democrat-controlled Congress, surely the worst if not the craziest Congress in all U.S. history, the House officially sought forgiveness from Native-Americans and the victims of Jim Crow-ism.
They did that in our name, laying upon our shoulders the alleged sins of long-dead Americans and having us cringe at the feet of today’s casino-rich Native-Americans, and our black brothers and sisters whose votes they lust after.
Just a minute here. Neither I nor any of my immediate ancestors ever lifted a finger against a single American Indian or black American. I have no apologies to make to people I have not offended. If offenses were committed, they weren’t my fault, or for that matter yours or that of any living Americans.
How dare these congressional demagogues associate us with alleged sins of the distant past committed by people who have long been gone from this world.
Then there are the people who think that we should pay reparations to the descendants of slaves, or bow and scrape before the offspring of long-dead Native-Americans for having maltreated their ancestors who themselves were not lax in maltreating paleface settlers who they tended to scalp when the opportunity arose.
They say we owe black folks for slavery and Jim Crow laws, forgetting that the debt was fully paid by the 360,000 Union soldiers who died in the Civil War to free the ancestors of today’s black Americas. The debt was marked “paid in full,” written in their blood.
I’m sure that one of my ancestors offended somebody or other at one time. Am I expected to reimburse their present-day offspring if any happen to show up for a handout?
And, by the way, if we are going to pay reparations to the descendants of any group who was grievously mistreated, sign me up. I’m Irish, and no group of immigrants was more badly treated.
Poor, hungry and impoverished, they arrived on these shores where they were welcomed by help-wanted signs proclaiming, “No Irish need apply.” The New York Times of the day was full of ads reading “Wanted, coachmen. Must be sober, industrious and reliable. No Irish need apply.”
Not that there were many Irishmen available to be coachmen because vast numbers of them, many brand-new arrivals here, were elsewhere, fighting and dying at places like Gettysburg and Antietam so that the native born dandies in New York who wouldn’t fight for their country would be safe at home and able to hire coachmen or mistreat their Irish chambermaids.
It took years for the wave of Irish emigrants fleeing from harsh British rule and a famine that killed an estimated million and-a-half of them before it was over to lift themselves out of grinding poverty. And they did it on their own, without any help.
Where are my reparations?
As for making reparations to Native-Americans, millions of our fellow citizens are doing that already, filling the swollen coffers of the host of gambling casinos thriving on Indian reservations. Long-gone Americans drove them off their ancestral lands. Today’s Americans are paying for it at their roulette tables or playing slot machines.
If there is any apologizing to be done, the Democrats in Congress should be doing it, atoning for $4-a-gallon gas that’s the direct result of their refusal to allow us to tap the billions if not trillions of gallons of oil lying untapped here, in Alaska and in the Gulf, because they won’t let us go after them and free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil.
If they want to chant “mea culpa,” let the guilt-ridden Democrats pay us reparations out of their campaign war-chest for getting us into this mess.
© 2008 Mike Reagan
July 31, 2008
The Jihad Candidate
A challenge for the Fort Worth Star Telegram
The Jihad Candidate - by Rich Carroll
Conspiracy theories make for interesting novels when the story-line is
not so absurd that it can grasp our attention. 'The Manchurian
Candidate' and 'Seven Days in May' are examples of plausible chains of
events that captures the reader's imagination at best-seller level.
'What if' has always been the solid grist of fiction.
Get yourself something cool to drink, find a relaxing position, but
before you continue, visualize the television photos of two jet
airliners smashing into the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan and remind
yourself this cowardly act of Muslim terror was planned for eight
years.
How long did it take Islam and their oil money to find a candidate for
President of the United States ? As long as it took them to place a
Senator from Illinois and Minnesota ? The same amount of time to create
a large Muslim enclave in Detroit ? The time it took them to build over
2,000 mosques in America ? The same amount of time required to place
radical wahabbist clerics in our military and prisons as 'chaplains'?
Find a candidate who can get away with lying about their father being
a 'freedom fighter' when he was actually part of the most corrupt and
violent government in Kenya 's history. Find a candidate with close
ties to The Nation of Islam and the violent Muslim overthrow in
Africa , a candidate who is educated among white infidel Americans but
hides his bitterness and anger behind a superficial toothy smile.
Find a candidate who changes his American name of Barry to the Muslim
name of Barak Hussein Obama, and dares anyone to question his true
ties under the banner of 'racism'. Nurture this candidate in an
atmosphere of anti-white American teaching and surround him with
Islamic teachers. Provide him with a bitter, racist, anti-white,
anti-American wife, and supply him with Muslim middle east connections
and Islamic monies. Allow him to be clever enough to get away with his
anti-white rhetoric and proclaim he will give $834 billion taxpayer
dollars to the Muslim controlled United Nations for use in Africa .
Install your candidate in an atmosphere of deception because
questioning him on any issue involving Africa or Islam would be seen
as 'bigoted racism'; two words too powerful to allow the citizenry to
be informed of facts. Allow your candidate to employ several black
racist Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan followers as members of his
Illinois Senatorial and campaign staffs.
Where is the bloodhound American 'free press' who doggedly overturned
every stone in the Watergate case? Where are our nation's reporters
that have placed every Presidential candidate under the microscope of
detailed scrutiny; the same press who pursue Bush's 'Skull and Bones'
club or ran other candidates off with persistent detective and
research work? Why haven't 'newsmen' pursued the 65 blatant lies
told by this candidate during the Presidential primaries? Where
are the stories about this candidate's cousin and the Muslim butchery
in Africa ? Since when did our national press corps become weak, timid,
and silent? Why haven't they regaled us with the long list of
socialists and communists who have surrounded this 'out of nowhere'
Democrat candidate or that his church re-printed the Hamas Manifesto
in their bulletin, and that his 'close pastor friend and mentor' met
with Middle East terrorist Moammar Gaddafi, (Guide of the First of
September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya) Why isn't the American press telling us this candidate is
supported by every Muslim organization in the world?
As an ultimate slap in the face, be blatant in the fact your candidate
has ZERO interest in traditional American values and has the most
liberal voting record in U.S. Senate history. Why has the American
main stream media clammed-up on any negative reporting on Barak
Hussein Obama? Why will they print Hillary Rodham Clinton's name but
never write his middle name? Is it not his name? Why, suddenly, is ANY
information about this candidate not coming from main stream media,
but from the blogosphere by citizens seeking facts and the truth? Why
isn't our media connecting the dots with Islam? Why do they focus on
'those bad American soldiers' while Islam slaughters non Muslims daily
in 44 countries around the globe? Why does our media refer to Darfur as
'ethnic cleansing' instead of what it really is; Muslims killing non
Muslims! There is enough strange, anti-American activity surrounding
Barak Hussein Obama to pique the curiosity of any reporter. WHERE IS
OUR INVESTIGATIVE MEDIA!?
A formal plan for targeting America was devised three years after the
Iranian revolution in 1982. The plan was summarized in a 1991
memorandum by Mohamed Akram, an operative of the global Muslim
Brotherhood. 'The process of settlement' of Muslims in America , Akram
explained, 'is a civilization jihad process.' This means that members
of the Brotherhood must understand that their work in ' America is a
kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western
civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their
hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and
God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.'
There is terrorism we can see, smell and fear, but there is a new kind
of terror invading The United States in the form of Sharia law and
finance. Condoning it is civilization suicide. Middle East Muslims are
coming to America in record numbers and building hate infidel mosques,
buying our corporations, suing us for our traditions, but they and the
whole subject of Islam is white noise leaving uninformed Americans
about who and what is really peaceful. Where is our investigative
press? Any criticism of Islam or their intentions, even though Islamic
leaders state their intentions daily around the globe, brings-forth a
volley of 'racist' from the left-wing Democrat crowd.
Lies and deception behind a master plan - the ingredients for 'The
Manchurian Candidate' or the placement of an anti-American President
in our nation's White House? Is it mere coincidence that an
anti-capitalist run for President at the same time Islamic sharia
finance and law is trying to make advancing strides into the United
States? Is it mere coincidence this same candidate wants to dis-arm
our nuclear capability at a time when terrorist Muslim nations are
expanding their nuclear weapons capability? Is it mere coincidence
this candidate wants to reduce our military at a time of global jihad
from Muslim nations?
Change for America ? What change? To become another 'nation of Islam'?
'It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God or the
Bible.' George Washington
COULD IT BE THE REASON OUR COUNTRY HAS NOT BEEN UNDER ATTACK SINCE
9-11 BECAUSE THE MUSLIMS HAVE AN AGENDA TO TAKE OVER OUR GOVERNMENT
BY PLACING A MUSLIM IN THE PRESIDENCY. IT MAY COME TO PASS IF
AMERICANS DON'T WAKE UP!
The Jihad Candidate - by Rich Carroll
Conspiracy theories make for interesting novels when the story-line is
not so absurd that it can grasp our attention. 'The Manchurian
Candidate' and 'Seven Days in May' are examples of plausible chains of
events that captures the reader's imagination at best-seller level.
'What if' has always been the solid grist of fiction.
Get yourself something cool to drink, find a relaxing position, but
before you continue, visualize the television photos of two jet
airliners smashing into the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan and remind
yourself this cowardly act of Muslim terror was planned for eight
years.
How long did it take Islam and their oil money to find a candidate for
President of the United States ? As long as it took them to place a
Senator from Illinois and Minnesota ? The same amount of time to create
a large Muslim enclave in Detroit ? The time it took them to build over
2,000 mosques in America ? The same amount of time required to place
radical wahabbist clerics in our military and prisons as 'chaplains'?
Find a candidate who can get away with lying about their father being
a 'freedom fighter' when he was actually part of the most corrupt and
violent government in Kenya 's history. Find a candidate with close
ties to The Nation of Islam and the violent Muslim overthrow in
Africa , a candidate who is educated among white infidel Americans but
hides his bitterness and anger behind a superficial toothy smile.
Find a candidate who changes his American name of Barry to the Muslim
name of Barak Hussein Obama, and dares anyone to question his true
ties under the banner of 'racism'. Nurture this candidate in an
atmosphere of anti-white American teaching and surround him with
Islamic teachers. Provide him with a bitter, racist, anti-white,
anti-American wife, and supply him with Muslim middle east connections
and Islamic monies. Allow him to be clever enough to get away with his
anti-white rhetoric and proclaim he will give $834 billion taxpayer
dollars to the Muslim controlled United Nations for use in Africa .
Install your candidate in an atmosphere of deception because
questioning him on any issue involving Africa or Islam would be seen
as 'bigoted racism'; two words too powerful to allow the citizenry to
be informed of facts. Allow your candidate to employ several black
racist Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan followers as members of his
Illinois Senatorial and campaign staffs.
Where is the bloodhound American 'free press' who doggedly overturned
every stone in the Watergate case? Where are our nation's reporters
that have placed every Presidential candidate under the microscope of
detailed scrutiny; the same press who pursue Bush's 'Skull and Bones'
club or ran other candidates off with persistent detective and
research work? Why haven't 'newsmen' pursued the 65 blatant lies
told by this candidate during the Presidential primaries? Where
are the stories about this candidate's cousin and the Muslim butchery
in Africa ? Since when did our national press corps become weak, timid,
and silent? Why haven't they regaled us with the long list of
socialists and communists who have surrounded this 'out of nowhere'
Democrat candidate or that his church re-printed the Hamas Manifesto
in their bulletin, and that his 'close pastor friend and mentor' met
with Middle East terrorist Moammar Gaddafi, (Guide of the First of
September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya) Why isn't the American press telling us this candidate is
supported by every Muslim organization in the world?
As an ultimate slap in the face, be blatant in the fact your candidate
has ZERO interest in traditional American values and has the most
liberal voting record in U.S. Senate history. Why has the American
main stream media clammed-up on any negative reporting on Barak
Hussein Obama? Why will they print Hillary Rodham Clinton's name but
never write his middle name? Is it not his name? Why, suddenly, is ANY
information about this candidate not coming from main stream media,
but from the blogosphere by citizens seeking facts and the truth? Why
isn't our media connecting the dots with Islam? Why do they focus on
'those bad American soldiers' while Islam slaughters non Muslims daily
in 44 countries around the globe? Why does our media refer to Darfur as
'ethnic cleansing' instead of what it really is; Muslims killing non
Muslims! There is enough strange, anti-American activity surrounding
Barak Hussein Obama to pique the curiosity of any reporter. WHERE IS
OUR INVESTIGATIVE MEDIA!?
A formal plan for targeting America was devised three years after the
Iranian revolution in 1982. The plan was summarized in a 1991
memorandum by Mohamed Akram, an operative of the global Muslim
Brotherhood. 'The process of settlement' of Muslims in America , Akram
explained, 'is a civilization jihad process.' This means that members
of the Brotherhood must understand that their work in ' America is a
kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western
civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their
hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and
God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.'
There is terrorism we can see, smell and fear, but there is a new kind
of terror invading The United States in the form of Sharia law and
finance. Condoning it is civilization suicide. Middle East Muslims are
coming to America in record numbers and building hate infidel mosques,
buying our corporations, suing us for our traditions, but they and the
whole subject of Islam is white noise leaving uninformed Americans
about who and what is really peaceful. Where is our investigative
press? Any criticism of Islam or their intentions, even though Islamic
leaders state their intentions daily around the globe, brings-forth a
volley of 'racist' from the left-wing Democrat crowd.
Lies and deception behind a master plan - the ingredients for 'The
Manchurian Candidate' or the placement of an anti-American President
in our nation's White House? Is it mere coincidence that an
anti-capitalist run for President at the same time Islamic sharia
finance and law is trying to make advancing strides into the United
States? Is it mere coincidence this same candidate wants to dis-arm
our nuclear capability at a time when terrorist Muslim nations are
expanding their nuclear weapons capability? Is it mere coincidence
this candidate wants to reduce our military at a time of global jihad
from Muslim nations?
Change for America ? What change? To become another 'nation of Islam'?
'It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God or the
Bible.' George Washington
COULD IT BE THE REASON OUR COUNTRY HAS NOT BEEN UNDER ATTACK SINCE
9-11 BECAUSE THE MUSLIMS HAVE AN AGENDA TO TAKE OVER OUR GOVERNMENT
BY PLACING A MUSLIM IN THE PRESIDENCY. IT MAY COME TO PASS IF
AMERICANS DON'T WAKE UP!
Hospital Doctor Slams Obama, Canceled Visit
Hospital Doctor Slams Obama, Canceled Visit
Thursday, July 31, 2008 3:07 PM
The McCain campaign issued the following statement today:
Today, Dr. Danny Jazarevic, who served as the Chief of Trauma, Critical Care and Vascular Surgery at Landstuhl, issued the following statement on Barack Obama's canceled visit to Ramstein and Landstuhl:
"Last week, Senator Obama skipped a visit with wounded U.S. troops at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany because the Pentagon would not allow campaign staff or media to accompany him into the hospital. I served as director of trauma surgery at that hospital for nearly four years and saw the effect that a visit from a celebrity like Senator Obama could have on morale. During that time, I do not recall a single member of Congress canceling a visit with the troops despite being just a few hours away, but Senator Obama seems to have been more concerned with how the visit would affect him than how it would affect the soldiers recovering from wounds received in the service of their country."
Dr. Danny Jazarevic served as the Chief of Trauma, Critical Care and Vascular Surgery at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. In 1984, Dr. Jazarevic joined the United States Army and later the Florida National Guard. He has since served in Honduras, Africa, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, and Iraq. From December 2002 through January 2006, Dr. Jazarevic was assigned to the U.S. Army Hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, where he served as Chief of Trauma, Critical Care and Vascular Surgery. During this period, he deployed to Iraq numerous times, including with the 101st Airborne Division Forward Surgical Team and as Director of Operations for the 44th U.S. Army Medical Command. He is currently the Chief Trauma Surgeon at a civilian medical center in Florida, and also serves as a full Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve. Dr. Jazarevic has been awarded the Bronze Star Medal.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Thursday, July 31, 2008 3:07 PM
The McCain campaign issued the following statement today:
Today, Dr. Danny Jazarevic, who served as the Chief of Trauma, Critical Care and Vascular Surgery at Landstuhl, issued the following statement on Barack Obama's canceled visit to Ramstein and Landstuhl:
"Last week, Senator Obama skipped a visit with wounded U.S. troops at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany because the Pentagon would not allow campaign staff or media to accompany him into the hospital. I served as director of trauma surgery at that hospital for nearly four years and saw the effect that a visit from a celebrity like Senator Obama could have on morale. During that time, I do not recall a single member of Congress canceling a visit with the troops despite being just a few hours away, but Senator Obama seems to have been more concerned with how the visit would affect him than how it would affect the soldiers recovering from wounds received in the service of their country."
Dr. Danny Jazarevic served as the Chief of Trauma, Critical Care and Vascular Surgery at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. In 1984, Dr. Jazarevic joined the United States Army and later the Florida National Guard. He has since served in Honduras, Africa, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, and Iraq. From December 2002 through January 2006, Dr. Jazarevic was assigned to the U.S. Army Hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, where he served as Chief of Trauma, Critical Care and Vascular Surgery. During this period, he deployed to Iraq numerous times, including with the 101st Airborne Division Forward Surgical Team and as Director of Operations for the 44th U.S. Army Medical Command. He is currently the Chief Trauma Surgeon at a civilian medical center in Florida, and also serves as a full Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve. Dr. Jazarevic has been awarded the Bronze Star Medal.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Rep. Robert Wexler Gets Home in His Fla. District
IS IT NOT AMAZING THAT FOR SIX TERMS THIS JERK HAS NOT LIVED IN HIS DISTRICT AND FURTHER THAT HE GETS REELECTED. AMAZING.....
Rep. Robert Wexler Gets Home in His Fla. District
Wednesday, July 30, 2008 10:49 AM
By: Jim Meyers
Six-term Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler has bowed to charges that he doesn’t really live in his Florida congressional district and said he will lease an apartment in the state.
Controversy about Wexler arose last week when Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly accused him of being a bogus Floridian, disclosing that Wexler owns a home in Potomac, Md., and claims residency at his in-laws’ home in a 55-and-older community near Delray Beach, Fla.
O’Reilly was informed about Wexler’s domestic situation by his Republican challenger Ed Lynch.
Wexler sold his Palm Beach County home after he was elected in 1996 and moved his family to the Washington area. He signed a loan document with his wife in 2005 describing his Maryland home as “my/our principal residence,” according to the Palm Beach Post.
In a statement released by Wexler’s office on Tuesday, the congressman said: “My wife, Laurie, and I have decided to lease a residence of our own in Palm Beach County.
“Although I am confident that I have represented my district as well as anybody possibly could, I have heard the concerns of some of my constituents and do not want this issue to distract from my advocacy of the important issues facing our community and country.”
Wexler’s chief of staff Eric Johnson said the congressman could sign a lease on a three-bedroom apartment as soon as next week.
Rep. Robert Wexler Gets Home in His Fla. District
Wednesday, July 30, 2008 10:49 AM
By: Jim Meyers
Six-term Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler has bowed to charges that he doesn’t really live in his Florida congressional district and said he will lease an apartment in the state.
Controversy about Wexler arose last week when Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly accused him of being a bogus Floridian, disclosing that Wexler owns a home in Potomac, Md., and claims residency at his in-laws’ home in a 55-and-older community near Delray Beach, Fla.
O’Reilly was informed about Wexler’s domestic situation by his Republican challenger Ed Lynch.
Wexler sold his Palm Beach County home after he was elected in 1996 and moved his family to the Washington area. He signed a loan document with his wife in 2005 describing his Maryland home as “my/our principal residence,” according to the Palm Beach Post.
In a statement released by Wexler’s office on Tuesday, the congressman said: “My wife, Laurie, and I have decided to lease a residence of our own in Palm Beach County.
“Although I am confident that I have represented my district as well as anybody possibly could, I have heard the concerns of some of my constituents and do not want this issue to distract from my advocacy of the important issues facing our community and country.”
Wexler’s chief of staff Eric Johnson said the congressman could sign a lease on a three-bedroom apartment as soon as next week.
Pelosi's Planet
Pelosi's Planet
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 30, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Politics: "I'm trying to save the planet," declares House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, which is a lot for one person. Maybe she should just try to save herself from the embarrassment that comes with spouting such inanities.
When challenged in an interview with Politico.com about her bullheaded refusal to let Republicans submit energy policies for approval, Pelosi resorted to risible hyperbole to justify her iron-fisted rule of the House parliamentary process.
"I'm trying to save the planet; I'm trying to save the planet," she responded. "I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy."
If the San Francisco Democrat's magisterial narcissism isn't off-putting enough, her intent should be. She's saying that her importance to the survival of Earth transcends our system of open government, elections and power-sharing. Because she's trying to save the world, she can't be challenged and dissent will not be tolerated.
Pelosi's arrogation of power is not unlike that of the monarchs of old who claimed a divine right to rule. And, just as queens had kings, the speaker has a male imperial sitting on the adjacent throne: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Obstructionism by Reid, D-Nev., who freely uses the trite phrase "we cannot drill our way out of the problem," is also costing Americans at the pump.
By blocking proposals for using more of our own energy resources, Pelosi and Reid are going hard against the grain. Our IBD/TIPP Poll shows 64% of Americans support offshore drilling while only 25% oppose it. They also favor drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by 47%-43% (the rest aren't sure). And a whopping 73% believe that fuel prices are a bigger challenge to the country than global warming.
Pelosi is probably no more interested in those numbers than she is in admitting that the planet does not need saving and is, in fact, doing well without her help.
By any objective standard, Earth is not in trouble. Indeed, the environment is greatly improved. Our skies, rivers and land are cleaner than they were at the dawn of the environmental movement.
Credit economic progress. It has moved the developed world from smokestack industries to more benign activities and has cleaned up, through technology that heavily depends on economic growth, the industries that still pollute.
It's clear that richer is cleaner. To be richer, we need access to cheap fossil fuels. It's a simple equation, one that even the deluded who think they need to save the world can understand.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 30, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Politics: "I'm trying to save the planet," declares House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, which is a lot for one person. Maybe she should just try to save herself from the embarrassment that comes with spouting such inanities.
When challenged in an interview with Politico.com about her bullheaded refusal to let Republicans submit energy policies for approval, Pelosi resorted to risible hyperbole to justify her iron-fisted rule of the House parliamentary process.
"I'm trying to save the planet; I'm trying to save the planet," she responded. "I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy."
If the San Francisco Democrat's magisterial narcissism isn't off-putting enough, her intent should be. She's saying that her importance to the survival of Earth transcends our system of open government, elections and power-sharing. Because she's trying to save the world, she can't be challenged and dissent will not be tolerated.
Pelosi's arrogation of power is not unlike that of the monarchs of old who claimed a divine right to rule. And, just as queens had kings, the speaker has a male imperial sitting on the adjacent throne: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Obstructionism by Reid, D-Nev., who freely uses the trite phrase "we cannot drill our way out of the problem," is also costing Americans at the pump.
By blocking proposals for using more of our own energy resources, Pelosi and Reid are going hard against the grain. Our IBD/TIPP Poll shows 64% of Americans support offshore drilling while only 25% oppose it. They also favor drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by 47%-43% (the rest aren't sure). And a whopping 73% believe that fuel prices are a bigger challenge to the country than global warming.
Pelosi is probably no more interested in those numbers than she is in admitting that the planet does not need saving and is, in fact, doing well without her help.
By any objective standard, Earth is not in trouble. Indeed, the environment is greatly improved. Our skies, rivers and land are cleaner than they were at the dawn of the environmental movement.
Credit economic progress. It has moved the developed world from smokestack industries to more benign activities and has cleaned up, through technology that heavily depends on economic growth, the industries that still pollute.
It's clear that richer is cleaner. To be richer, we need access to cheap fossil fuels. It's a simple equation, one that even the deluded who think they need to save the world can understand.
Israeli Election Could Impact Decision on Iran
Israeli Election Could Impact Decision on Iran
Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:40 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
The most important primary for our 2008 election may be yet to come — the Kadima Party primary in Israel in mid or late September. It pits liberal-leaning Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni against hardliner and former Army Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz. (Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is expected to sit out the contest and concentrate on staying out of jail.)
The polls are neck and neck; in the most recent, Livni's once-formidable lead has shrunk to two points. Hanging over the battle is the Iranian nuclear program.
Livni is thought unlikely to attack Iran precipitously; she largely sees eye-to-eye with advocates of diplomatic solutions to the various problems her country faces. But Mofaz has openly said he'd resort to bombing Iran if it were necessary to stop the mullahs from getting the bomb.
So if Mofaz wins, military action becomes much more likely. But when?
By most accounts, the Israeli Defense Force would need considerable American cooperation to pull off such a strike. No top-level Israeli politician has much confidence that Barack Obama would be forthcoming. But most are confident that President Bush or John McCain would give Israel the help that it needs.
So if Obama wins here, a Mofaz government would feel great pressure to attack before Bush leaves office. If McCain wins, Israel would have more time.
But Mofaz might not want to wait for our election. Why risk antagonizing a President-elect Obama by taking military action that he might vigorously oppose? If Obama, having won, were to counsel patience, what Israeli prime minister could ignore him?
Before the U.S. election, on the other hand, Obama might be reluctant to take a position — and the Israelis need feel no compulsion to conform to any advice from a man who isn't yet be president-elect.
Surely, an Israeli attack on Iran would bring a sharp and instant response from Iran and from its satellites, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as its pawns in Iraq. It would presage war in Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank along with an air war of Israeli missiles and bombers against Iranian missiles.
Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states would criticize Israel in public but probably breathe a sign of relief in private that Iran's nuclear ambitions were thwarted or at least postponed.
The ensuing crisis would probably militate in McCain's favor if it erupted before the U.S. election. The more a foreign crisis intrudes on our politics, the more voters are apt to trust a seasoned hand like him and not to give an ingénue like Obama his shot.
Polls show that voters trust McCain much more than Obama to handle a foreign crisis. An unavoidable national-security threat would give McCain a huge boost. Just as in 2004, if the issue is terrorism or foreign crises, the Republican will prevail. If the issues are domestic policy, the Democrat will win.
Of course, Mofaz would need other parties to form a governing coalition. The dovish Labor Party might not lend itself to any aggressive purpose — but a Mofaz determined to bring down Iran's nuclear program might reach across to Likud and bring in hardline ex-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to make a war politically possible.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:40 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
The most important primary for our 2008 election may be yet to come — the Kadima Party primary in Israel in mid or late September. It pits liberal-leaning Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni against hardliner and former Army Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz. (Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is expected to sit out the contest and concentrate on staying out of jail.)
The polls are neck and neck; in the most recent, Livni's once-formidable lead has shrunk to two points. Hanging over the battle is the Iranian nuclear program.
Livni is thought unlikely to attack Iran precipitously; she largely sees eye-to-eye with advocates of diplomatic solutions to the various problems her country faces. But Mofaz has openly said he'd resort to bombing Iran if it were necessary to stop the mullahs from getting the bomb.
So if Mofaz wins, military action becomes much more likely. But when?
By most accounts, the Israeli Defense Force would need considerable American cooperation to pull off such a strike. No top-level Israeli politician has much confidence that Barack Obama would be forthcoming. But most are confident that President Bush or John McCain would give Israel the help that it needs.
So if Obama wins here, a Mofaz government would feel great pressure to attack before Bush leaves office. If McCain wins, Israel would have more time.
But Mofaz might not want to wait for our election. Why risk antagonizing a President-elect Obama by taking military action that he might vigorously oppose? If Obama, having won, were to counsel patience, what Israeli prime minister could ignore him?
Before the U.S. election, on the other hand, Obama might be reluctant to take a position — and the Israelis need feel no compulsion to conform to any advice from a man who isn't yet be president-elect.
Surely, an Israeli attack on Iran would bring a sharp and instant response from Iran and from its satellites, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as its pawns in Iraq. It would presage war in Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank along with an air war of Israeli missiles and bombers against Iranian missiles.
Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states would criticize Israel in public but probably breathe a sign of relief in private that Iran's nuclear ambitions were thwarted or at least postponed.
The ensuing crisis would probably militate in McCain's favor if it erupted before the U.S. election. The more a foreign crisis intrudes on our politics, the more voters are apt to trust a seasoned hand like him and not to give an ingénue like Obama his shot.
Polls show that voters trust McCain much more than Obama to handle a foreign crisis. An unavoidable national-security threat would give McCain a huge boost. Just as in 2004, if the issue is terrorism or foreign crises, the Republican will prevail. If the issues are domestic policy, the Democrat will win.
Of course, Mofaz would need other parties to form a governing coalition. The dovish Labor Party might not lend itself to any aggressive purpose — but a Mofaz determined to bring down Iran's nuclear program might reach across to Likud and bring in hardline ex-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to make a war politically possible.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
