WHEN A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE ACTS AND SOUNDS AS THIS ONE DOES I BELEIVE IT IS TIME TO REPLACE HER ONCE IN FOR ALL. SHE IS A DETRIMENT TO SOCIETY AS WELL AS THE COUNTRY.
CNSNews.com
Feinstein ‘Not Concerned’ About Russian Bombers in Venezuela
Friday, September 12, 2008
By Josiah Ryan, Staff Writer
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (AP Photo)(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a senior member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told CNSNews.com Thursday that she is not concerned about Russia’s announcement on Wednesday that it had moved two long-range bombers to a base in Venezuela, a South American country just over a thousand miles from Florida.
Other senators, however, both Republican and Democrat, were less optimistic about Russia’s action.
“No,” Feinstein replied when CNSNews.com asked if she was concerned by Russia’s move. “I don’t think Russia would launch attacks on the United States.”
“I think the relations are going through a very difficult period,” said Feinstein. “I think it’s very important to look very carefully at the Georgia-Russia situation and really remember that the best interest of the United States is to solve the issue without military action if we can.”
Russia’s defense ministry announced on Wednesday that two of its Tupolev Tu-160 strategic bombers, would be stationed temporarily at Libertador Airfield in Venezuela in order to participate in war games in conjunction with Hugo Chavez’s Venezuelan regime.
The Tupolev Tu-160, according to globalsecurity.com, is the most powerful combat aircraft in the Russian arsenal. It is capable of reaching speeds of up to 2,000 kilometers per hour and delivering nuclear weapons.
Given its speed, the Tu-160 would be capable of reaching Washington, D.C., or New York City from anywhere in Venezuela in less than two hours, and of reaching the Florida coastline in less than one hour.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), who serves with Feinstein on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said she believes the Russian action in Venezuela requires close scrutiny from the U.S.
“There is a continuing pattern over the last several months of Russian intimidation,” Mikulski told CNSNews.com. “Russia is trying to reclaim power in the world, and they are using the same old bullying intimidation tactics that go back to Brezhnev and Stalin.
“They tried to take down Estonia with a cyber attack. They moved tanks into Georgia, and now there are the fighter craft. If they want to show their world power, they should do it through diplomacy and not through intimidation,” she added.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) agreed that the relocation of the aircraft is a cause for concern and told CNSNews.com that Alaska, which is separated from Russia by the Bering Sea, has often encountered Russian military aircraft flying uncomfortably near U.S. airspace.
“What you are suggesting doesn’t surprise me, and yes it concerns me,” said Murkowski. “If it is clearly a flexing of muscle and effort to display force, it makes you wonder what the objective is and what the appropriate response should be.”
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-4 of 4 Comments Loading...
pappy at 07:17 PM - September 12, 2008
one bomb, one plane. drop one around west virginia, and one at either fort knox or in the financial district, and that should cause enough damage to keep anyone scrambling to find a less laxidasical attitude.
mrdocuman at 05:46 PM - September 12, 2008
Feinstein doesn't THINK Russia would attack us???? Great. I really want to rely on that, don't you?
JulianH at 05:15 PM - September 12, 2008
Feinstein is at it again, and her ostrich syndrome strikes. This seems to be a major way of living for people like her. If you hide your head from reality, blame other for problems, through mountains of money towards it, or pass more useless laws the problem will cease to exist or go away. In this instance. The senator is hiding her head in the sand. What doesn't she get about what two long range bombers in our backyard. Especially when said bombers reside in a hostile country, and are owned by a former (current) adversary. Especially when said bombers can fly at supersonic speeds, and carry nuclear weapons. Sounds pretty fishy to this writer. One would like to know that the other ostrich liberals think. What of Obama, would he negotiate with Russia or Venezuela? Does he even have to capacity to negotiate from a place of power, or only from a cowards point of view. That of avoiding confrontation, and giving your enemy anything they want? It would be nice to know the answers.
Moshe at 01:28 PM - September 12, 2008
Keep on believing that "MS" Feinstein, you and your kind will destroy this country.
September 13, 2008
Palin: U.S. Shouldn’t ‘Second Guess’ Israel
CNSNews.com
Palin: U.S. Shouldn’t ‘Second Guess’ Israel
Friday, September 12, 2008
By Julie Stahl
This photo provided by ABC News shows Charles Gibson talking to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on Thursday, Sept. 11, 2008, in Fairbanks, Alaska. (AP Photo/ABC News, Donna Svennevik) Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) – The U.S. cannot allow Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government to obtain nuclear weapons and should not “second guess” Israel if it decided to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, said Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in an interview with ABC News on Thursday.
“I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government, are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe,” Republican Sen. John McCain’s running mate said.
“We have got to make sure these weapons of mass destruction -- that nuclear weapons are not given to the hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran,” Palin said.
Palin, who has never visited Israel, was asked how the U.S. should respond if Israel feels the need to strike Iranian nuclear facilities.
“Well first, we are friends of Israel, and I don’t think we should second guess the measures Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security,” she said.
Asked two more times if the U.S. should cooperate or agree with an Israeli strike, Palin repeated that the U.S. shouldn’t “second guess” what Israel needs to do to secure the nation.
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama also has said that Israel must decide on matters concerning its own security. He says that all options are on the table in dealing with Iran, but he also has expressed willingness to sit down and talk with the radical leadership in Tehran.
On his visit to Israel in July, Obama said he wanted to mobilize the international community to offer a series of “big sticks and big carrots” to persuade the Iranian regime to back away from its nuclear program. (See earlier story)
But some analysts here say that Obama’s has surrounded himself with foreign policy advisers who believe that a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – and not Iran -- is the foundation for resolving all other Middle East conflicts.
Sen. John McCain has taken a tougher stand on Iran, calling it a “terrorist nation” that poses “an enormous threat to Israel.”
McCain has said he would be willing to meet with the Iranians, but only with they recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce terrorism, scrap their pursuit of nuclear weapons and stop training terror groups.
In an interview with Israeli television in July, McCain said that he hoped Israel would never feel so threatened that it needed to attack Iran. But he said that the U.S. would never allow a second Holocaust to take place.
‘Judeo-Christian values’
Yoram Ettinger, a former Israeli diplomatic liaison to the U.S. Congress, said Palin’s world view is more important than her experience.
“Palin’s dedication to Judeo-Christian values should provide a high degree of comfort for Israel,” Ettinger told CNSNews.com.
He also hailed “Palin’s sense of patriotism and realism as far as international terrorism and rogue regimes [are concerned].”
According to Ettinger, Palin’s world view, which is based on the Bible, he said, is more important than any speeches that she or the other candidates may deliver.
But Hillel Schenker, vice chair of Democrats Abroad in Israel told CNSNews.com earlier this week that “most American Jews,” except for “right-wing” religious Jews, would have a problem with Palin’s “Christian fundamentalist” faith.
There have been whispers here that Israel may attack Iran some time after the presidential elections in November and before the new administration takes office – particularly if Obama wins.
Israeli media reports have said that Washington has warned Israel against attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities.
On Thursday, the Israeli daily Ha’aretz reported that a security package requested by Israel -- which the U.S. has so far refused to give Israel -- includes a large number of “bunker-buster” bombs as well as permission to use an air corridor to Iran.
The U.S. reportedly is worried that Israel would use the aid to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. If the U.S. rejects the aid request, it would make it difficult for Israel to attack Iran, the paper said.
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-1 of 1 Comments Loading...
LifeRyder at 01:53 PM - September 12, 2008
Any group, human or animal, can only be pushed to far. Then they push back, in the case our species that would probably being about the second coming. We are living in very dangerous times, and I pray God is listening.
Palin: U.S. Shouldn’t ‘Second Guess’ Israel
Friday, September 12, 2008
By Julie Stahl
This photo provided by ABC News shows Charles Gibson talking to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on Thursday, Sept. 11, 2008, in Fairbanks, Alaska. (AP Photo/ABC News, Donna Svennevik) Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) – The U.S. cannot allow Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government to obtain nuclear weapons and should not “second guess” Israel if it decided to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, said Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in an interview with ABC News on Thursday.
“I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government, are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe,” Republican Sen. John McCain’s running mate said.
“We have got to make sure these weapons of mass destruction -- that nuclear weapons are not given to the hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran,” Palin said.
Palin, who has never visited Israel, was asked how the U.S. should respond if Israel feels the need to strike Iranian nuclear facilities.
“Well first, we are friends of Israel, and I don’t think we should second guess the measures Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security,” she said.
Asked two more times if the U.S. should cooperate or agree with an Israeli strike, Palin repeated that the U.S. shouldn’t “second guess” what Israel needs to do to secure the nation.
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama also has said that Israel must decide on matters concerning its own security. He says that all options are on the table in dealing with Iran, but he also has expressed willingness to sit down and talk with the radical leadership in Tehran.
On his visit to Israel in July, Obama said he wanted to mobilize the international community to offer a series of “big sticks and big carrots” to persuade the Iranian regime to back away from its nuclear program. (See earlier story)
But some analysts here say that Obama’s has surrounded himself with foreign policy advisers who believe that a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – and not Iran -- is the foundation for resolving all other Middle East conflicts.
Sen. John McCain has taken a tougher stand on Iran, calling it a “terrorist nation” that poses “an enormous threat to Israel.”
McCain has said he would be willing to meet with the Iranians, but only with they recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce terrorism, scrap their pursuit of nuclear weapons and stop training terror groups.
In an interview with Israeli television in July, McCain said that he hoped Israel would never feel so threatened that it needed to attack Iran. But he said that the U.S. would never allow a second Holocaust to take place.
‘Judeo-Christian values’
Yoram Ettinger, a former Israeli diplomatic liaison to the U.S. Congress, said Palin’s world view is more important than her experience.
“Palin’s dedication to Judeo-Christian values should provide a high degree of comfort for Israel,” Ettinger told CNSNews.com.
He also hailed “Palin’s sense of patriotism and realism as far as international terrorism and rogue regimes [are concerned].”
According to Ettinger, Palin’s world view, which is based on the Bible, he said, is more important than any speeches that she or the other candidates may deliver.
But Hillel Schenker, vice chair of Democrats Abroad in Israel told CNSNews.com earlier this week that “most American Jews,” except for “right-wing” religious Jews, would have a problem with Palin’s “Christian fundamentalist” faith.
There have been whispers here that Israel may attack Iran some time after the presidential elections in November and before the new administration takes office – particularly if Obama wins.
Israeli media reports have said that Washington has warned Israel against attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities.
On Thursday, the Israeli daily Ha’aretz reported that a security package requested by Israel -- which the U.S. has so far refused to give Israel -- includes a large number of “bunker-buster” bombs as well as permission to use an air corridor to Iran.
The U.S. reportedly is worried that Israel would use the aid to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. If the U.S. rejects the aid request, it would make it difficult for Israel to attack Iran, the paper said.
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-1 of 1 Comments Loading...
LifeRyder at 01:53 PM - September 12, 2008
Any group, human or animal, can only be pushed to far. Then they push back, in the case our species that would probably being about the second coming. We are living in very dangerous times, and I pray God is listening.
Palin: ‘I Didn’t Blink’
CNSNews.com
Palin: ‘I Didn’t Blink’
Friday, September 12, 2008
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
In this image released by ABC, anchor Charles Gibson talks to Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin in Fairbanks, Alaska, on Thursday, Sept. 11, 2008. (AP Photo/ABC, Donna Svennik) (CNSNews.com) - In his interview with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on Thursday, ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson suggested that Palin’s willingness to accept John McCain's vice presidential offer without hesitation demonstrated "hubris."
Palin, expressing confidence in her readiness, said, “You can’t blink.” So -- “I didn’t.”
Gibson pressed her, “And you didn't say to yourself, ‘Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?’”
“I didn't hesitate, no,” Palin responded.
“Didn't that take some hubris?” Gibson asked.
“I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on -- reform of this country and victory in the war -- you can't blink. So I didn't blink then, even when asked to run as his running mate.”
Gibson also asked Palin if she’d ever traveled outside the country or met a foreign head of state, questions apparently designed to portray her as lacking in foreign policy expertise.
Later, in move that could be interpreted as “gotcha” journalism, Gibson asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?”
Palin, apparently not sure what the Bush Doctrine is, asked him, “In what respect?”
Gibson responded, “What do you interpret it to be?”
“His world view,” Palin said.
"The Bush Doctrine, enunciated in Sept. 2002, before the Iraq war," Gibson said.
Gibson let her talk -- Palin mentioned President Bush's attempt to rid the world of Islamic extremists and terrorists. Gibson then explained what the Bush Doctrine is.
“The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?”
“I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America,” Palin said.
Gibson also pressed Palin on a remark she made in her church, when she said, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God."
“Are we fighting a holy war?” Gibson asked Palin, following up with the question, “Are you sending your son on a task that is from God?
Palin said she doesn’t know if the task is from God. She said her remark in church was inspired by Abraham Lincoln: “But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.”
Palin added: “I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That, in my world view, is the grand plan."
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 10 Comments 1 2 Next Loading...
denialator at 08:19 PM - September 12, 2008
IMO, Governor Palin did a better job answering the question on the "Bush Doctrine", a sly attempt to intimidate his guest and confuse the issue, than Gibson did in phrasing the question. The way the question was phrased, void of context or related to a particular subject, demonstrated poor etiquette and disrespect for a seasoned journalist. Ambiguity is undesirable when defining issues of importance, and unacceptable to force one to second guess one's intent, or to answer, with specificity, questions of such broad scope. Gibson failed to specify his context or even cite a reference to known subject material. The "Bush Doctrine" is not commonly known by all and could cover a myriad of topics from Energy to Homeland Security. Gibson should be cited for his own hubris. This is "gotcha politics" at work, not good live, broadcast journalism. Governor Palin's forthright approach and genuineness, whether in agreement with everyone or not, should be admired and respected.
Orator at 05:19 PM - September 12, 2008
Typically as a newsperson, Gibson doesn't even know what hubris is. He doesn't understand the difference between hubris and confidence. He doesn't think it to be hubris when he presses someone to say something he wants to hear and something they want to say. Again, it is all a part of the supreme hubris(thinking I know everything)and the moral rationalization of the media. I, for one, am sick of them. I wonder why they can stand to go to bed at night.
MrPitchfork at 04:44 PM - September 12, 2008
“The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?” ... I think she should have said "NO to the preemptive strike B.S." because IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! Its the same tactic that Hitler used in WWII. Maybe that's where Bush got the idea since his family did business with Hitler in WWII.. ...WE THE PEOPLE are soooo screwed...
geologan at 02:41 PM - September 12, 2008
Good ol' Charlie! Still a newsman seeking to get "one-up" on his interviewee! Using words that he hopes will trip up the subject and make him look good. Good for Sarah. She came back strong and met his challenge. (By the way, it's interesting that Jimmy and Bill were 'just governors' when they started their bid for the White House.) I just hope that Governor Palin keeps in mind that all the attacks are an indication that the other side thinks that she is the kind and quality of person that really can assume the presidency is called on to do so. Go Pit Bull!
NeitherNor at 02:21 PM - September 12, 2008
To "Liberty Call": does the word SENATOR mean anything to you? I am so sick of hearing people babble the words "community organizer" as if it was the ONLY thing that Obama has ever done in his career. He was Illinois state senator, he is a U.S. Senator, he has created legislation on weapons control, public accountability of federal funds, electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returning US soldiers. He has travelled on OFFICIAL trips to Europe, the Middle East, & Africa. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, and is an attorney. Now, in comparison, let's see... Sarah Palin has been Governor of Alaska for TWO YEARS? She's been a mayor, & a city councilperson. All in the State of Alaska. She's got a bachelor's degree in... journalism. She loves to brag about her hunting, fishing & barracuda hockey mom skills. That's quite a comparison. And as for Charlie Gibson... he is about the most impartial and fair news reporter and interviewer I know.
P
Palin: ‘I Didn’t Blink’
Friday, September 12, 2008
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
In this image released by ABC, anchor Charles Gibson talks to Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin in Fairbanks, Alaska, on Thursday, Sept. 11, 2008. (AP Photo/ABC, Donna Svennik) (CNSNews.com) - In his interview with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on Thursday, ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson suggested that Palin’s willingness to accept John McCain's vice presidential offer without hesitation demonstrated "hubris."
Palin, expressing confidence in her readiness, said, “You can’t blink.” So -- “I didn’t.”
Gibson pressed her, “And you didn't say to yourself, ‘Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?’”
“I didn't hesitate, no,” Palin responded.
“Didn't that take some hubris?” Gibson asked.
“I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on -- reform of this country and victory in the war -- you can't blink. So I didn't blink then, even when asked to run as his running mate.”
Gibson also asked Palin if she’d ever traveled outside the country or met a foreign head of state, questions apparently designed to portray her as lacking in foreign policy expertise.
Later, in move that could be interpreted as “gotcha” journalism, Gibson asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?”
Palin, apparently not sure what the Bush Doctrine is, asked him, “In what respect?”
Gibson responded, “What do you interpret it to be?”
“His world view,” Palin said.
"The Bush Doctrine, enunciated in Sept. 2002, before the Iraq war," Gibson said.
Gibson let her talk -- Palin mentioned President Bush's attempt to rid the world of Islamic extremists and terrorists. Gibson then explained what the Bush Doctrine is.
“The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?”
“I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America,” Palin said.
Gibson also pressed Palin on a remark she made in her church, when she said, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God."
“Are we fighting a holy war?” Gibson asked Palin, following up with the question, “Are you sending your son on a task that is from God?
Palin said she doesn’t know if the task is from God. She said her remark in church was inspired by Abraham Lincoln: “But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.”
Palin added: “I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That, in my world view, is the grand plan."
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 10 Comments 1 2 Next Loading...
denialator at 08:19 PM - September 12, 2008
IMO, Governor Palin did a better job answering the question on the "Bush Doctrine", a sly attempt to intimidate his guest and confuse the issue, than Gibson did in phrasing the question. The way the question was phrased, void of context or related to a particular subject, demonstrated poor etiquette and disrespect for a seasoned journalist. Ambiguity is undesirable when defining issues of importance, and unacceptable to force one to second guess one's intent, or to answer, with specificity, questions of such broad scope. Gibson failed to specify his context or even cite a reference to known subject material. The "Bush Doctrine" is not commonly known by all and could cover a myriad of topics from Energy to Homeland Security. Gibson should be cited for his own hubris. This is "gotcha politics" at work, not good live, broadcast journalism. Governor Palin's forthright approach and genuineness, whether in agreement with everyone or not, should be admired and respected.
Orator at 05:19 PM - September 12, 2008
Typically as a newsperson, Gibson doesn't even know what hubris is. He doesn't understand the difference between hubris and confidence. He doesn't think it to be hubris when he presses someone to say something he wants to hear and something they want to say. Again, it is all a part of the supreme hubris(thinking I know everything)and the moral rationalization of the media. I, for one, am sick of them. I wonder why they can stand to go to bed at night.
MrPitchfork at 04:44 PM - September 12, 2008
“The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?” ... I think she should have said "NO to the preemptive strike B.S." because IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! Its the same tactic that Hitler used in WWII. Maybe that's where Bush got the idea since his family did business with Hitler in WWII.. ...WE THE PEOPLE are soooo screwed...
geologan at 02:41 PM - September 12, 2008
Good ol' Charlie! Still a newsman seeking to get "one-up" on his interviewee! Using words that he hopes will trip up the subject and make him look good. Good for Sarah. She came back strong and met his challenge. (By the way, it's interesting that Jimmy and Bill were 'just governors' when they started their bid for the White House.) I just hope that Governor Palin keeps in mind that all the attacks are an indication that the other side thinks that she is the kind and quality of person that really can assume the presidency is called on to do so. Go Pit Bull!
NeitherNor at 02:21 PM - September 12, 2008
To "Liberty Call": does the word SENATOR mean anything to you? I am so sick of hearing people babble the words "community organizer" as if it was the ONLY thing that Obama has ever done in his career. He was Illinois state senator, he is a U.S. Senator, he has created legislation on weapons control, public accountability of federal funds, electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returning US soldiers. He has travelled on OFFICIAL trips to Europe, the Middle East, & Africa. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, and is an attorney. Now, in comparison, let's see... Sarah Palin has been Governor of Alaska for TWO YEARS? She's been a mayor, & a city councilperson. All in the State of Alaska. She's got a bachelor's degree in... journalism. She loves to brag about her hunting, fishing & barracuda hockey mom skills. That's quite a comparison. And as for Charlie Gibson... he is about the most impartial and fair news reporter and interviewer I know.
P
September 12, 2008
Palin Slams Expose the Real Democrats
Palin Slams Expose the Real Democrats
Friday, September 12, 2008 3:01 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
For two weeks, Democrats and their media allies have leveled scorching fire at Sarah Palin. It's not having much effect, but they keep at it anyway.
The latest Fox News poll shows Palin with a 54-27 favorable/unfavorable ratio, which compares well with Barack Obama's 57-36, John McCain's 60-33 and Joe Biden's 51-29. (Of the four, she's the most popular).
Why do Democrats feel so threatened? They've even stopped attacking McCain and President Bush to launch a vicious and sexist barrage at her that would normally make a feminist angry and a Democrat blush.
Basically, it's this: John McCain only endangers Democratic chances of victory this November, but Sarah Palin is an existential threat to the Democratic Party.
She threatens a core element of the party's base — women.
When African-Americans like Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, or Condi Rice rise to prominence as a Republican, they endanger the Democratic coalition. So would a Republican labor leader.
And so, above all, does the woman Republican running for vice president.
Democrats can't stomach seeing the feminist movement's impetus for greater female political participation and empowerment "hijacked" by a pro-life woman who espouses traditional values. They must obliterate her, lest her popularity eat away at their party's core.
So the Democrats are hysterical in their attacks on her. South Carolina's Democratic Party chairwoman, Carol Fowler (wife of a national party chairman), said that the only qualification Palin had for vice president was that she hadn't had an abortion. Tabloids are digging up dirt on Palin's children. And liberal bloggers have suggested that Palin would neglect her children if she were elected (while the Democratic candidate has young children at home, too).
That liberals would resort to such blatant sexism shows their desperation.
But the Fox News poll of Sept. 8-9 indicates a deeper reality of Palin's popularity. On the question of which of the four candidates best understands what day-to-day life is like in America, Palin finished first, with 33 percent. (Obama drew 32 percent, McCain 17 percent and Biden 10 percent.)
She's not popular because she's a radical feminist or pro-choice advocate. It's because she understands what it's like to be a woman in 21st century America.
She's never ascended to the elite, so she doesn't need to stoop to conquer as most well-heeled feminist leaders must. She lives far from the plastic pseudo-reality where a fossilized ideology substitutes for human compassion and empathy. As such, she rises above the slogans of both the left and the right and proposes to bring to Washington a dose of reality — a taste of real life.
She may become the first woman in national office, yet the Democrats, feminists and liberals can't control her, and that burns them up.
Elections come and go, but Palin is a far more fundamental threat to the Democratic Party. And that's why they fear her so.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Friday, September 12, 2008 3:01 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
For two weeks, Democrats and their media allies have leveled scorching fire at Sarah Palin. It's not having much effect, but they keep at it anyway.
The latest Fox News poll shows Palin with a 54-27 favorable/unfavorable ratio, which compares well with Barack Obama's 57-36, John McCain's 60-33 and Joe Biden's 51-29. (Of the four, she's the most popular).
Why do Democrats feel so threatened? They've even stopped attacking McCain and President Bush to launch a vicious and sexist barrage at her that would normally make a feminist angry and a Democrat blush.
Basically, it's this: John McCain only endangers Democratic chances of victory this November, but Sarah Palin is an existential threat to the Democratic Party.
She threatens a core element of the party's base — women.
When African-Americans like Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, or Condi Rice rise to prominence as a Republican, they endanger the Democratic coalition. So would a Republican labor leader.
And so, above all, does the woman Republican running for vice president.
Democrats can't stomach seeing the feminist movement's impetus for greater female political participation and empowerment "hijacked" by a pro-life woman who espouses traditional values. They must obliterate her, lest her popularity eat away at their party's core.
So the Democrats are hysterical in their attacks on her. South Carolina's Democratic Party chairwoman, Carol Fowler (wife of a national party chairman), said that the only qualification Palin had for vice president was that she hadn't had an abortion. Tabloids are digging up dirt on Palin's children. And liberal bloggers have suggested that Palin would neglect her children if she were elected (while the Democratic candidate has young children at home, too).
That liberals would resort to such blatant sexism shows their desperation.
But the Fox News poll of Sept. 8-9 indicates a deeper reality of Palin's popularity. On the question of which of the four candidates best understands what day-to-day life is like in America, Palin finished first, with 33 percent. (Obama drew 32 percent, McCain 17 percent and Biden 10 percent.)
She's not popular because she's a radical feminist or pro-choice advocate. It's because she understands what it's like to be a woman in 21st century America.
She's never ascended to the elite, so she doesn't need to stoop to conquer as most well-heeled feminist leaders must. She lives far from the plastic pseudo-reality where a fossilized ideology substitutes for human compassion and empathy. As such, she rises above the slogans of both the left and the right and proposes to bring to Washington a dose of reality — a taste of real life.
She may become the first woman in national office, yet the Democrats, feminists and liberals can't control her, and that burns them up.
Elections come and go, but Palin is a far more fundamental threat to the Democratic Party. And that's why they fear her so.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Obama Should Be ‘More Aggressive’
Carville: Obama Should Be ‘More Aggressive’
Thursday, September 11, 2008 2:02 PM
By: Rick Pedraza Article Font Size
Democratic strategist James Carville tells Newsmax that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama hasn’t been aggressive enough in his campaign against Republican rival John McCain.
“His message has gotten a little more focused,” Carville says about Obama during the past month, “but what’s happened in this campaign – and the Republicans have gotten very good at this – is every morning they get up and say, ‘What is that we can do to make people forget what’s happened to their lives?’
“I think the Obama people need to realize that every day they get up they have this mundane, but very important, task of reminding people what has happened in their lives and who to blame for it.”
The strategy the Democratic Party is using, Carville says, reflects too much reassurance, and not enough passion.
Recent polls have shown a 20-point shift of white women support from Obama to McCain, but Carville is not alarmed.
“In politics, everybody gets alarmed at everything,” he says. “These convention bounces don’t happen all the time. We have to wait until Governor [Sarah] Palin is weaned from the teleprompter. Right now we only know her from what we see on the teleprompter. So, we’ll wait and see.”
Carville turns out to be a good prognosticator. Last time Newsmax interviewed him, Carville said Obama would pick Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate, and that McCain’s choice would be a surprise. Turns out he was right on both counts.
“It was a shocker,” he says. “I thought that since Obama would reassure us, McCain would surprise us. That did happen, and now we’re in the next phase of the campaign.”
Did Obama make a big, and potentially fatal, mistake by not putting Hillary on the ticket with him?
“There are a lot of people that argue that if [Obama] had picked Hillary, he would have forced McCain to react in a different way,” Carville explains. “It certainly would have had a positive impact on his fundraising. But by the same token, he’s the nominee and he’s entitled to pick who he wants.”
Does Hillary want Obama to lose so she can run against McCain in four years?
“She’s campaigned more for Obama than any runner up for the nomination has campaigned for anybody,” Carville says.
“I don’t have any reason to think her support is not sincere. There’s no evidence that it’s not.”
Carville: 'Too Much Reassurance, Not Enough Passion'
Thursday, September 11, 2008 2:02 PM
By: Rick Pedraza Article Font Size
Democratic strategist James Carville tells Newsmax that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama hasn’t been aggressive enough in his campaign against Republican rival John McCain.
“His message has gotten a little more focused,” Carville says about Obama during the past month, “but what’s happened in this campaign – and the Republicans have gotten very good at this – is every morning they get up and say, ‘What is that we can do to make people forget what’s happened to their lives?’
“I think the Obama people need to realize that every day they get up they have this mundane, but very important, task of reminding people what has happened in their lives and who to blame for it.”
The strategy the Democratic Party is using, Carville says, reflects too much reassurance, and not enough passion.
Recent polls have shown a 20-point shift of white women support from Obama to McCain, but Carville is not alarmed.
“In politics, everybody gets alarmed at everything,” he says. “These convention bounces don’t happen all the time. We have to wait until Governor [Sarah] Palin is weaned from the teleprompter. Right now we only know her from what we see on the teleprompter. So, we’ll wait and see.”
Carville turns out to be a good prognosticator. Last time Newsmax interviewed him, Carville said Obama would pick Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate, and that McCain’s choice would be a surprise. Turns out he was right on both counts.
“It was a shocker,” he says. “I thought that since Obama would reassure us, McCain would surprise us. That did happen, and now we’re in the next phase of the campaign.”
Did Obama make a big, and potentially fatal, mistake by not putting Hillary on the ticket with him?
“There are a lot of people that argue that if [Obama] had picked Hillary, he would have forced McCain to react in a different way,” Carville explains. “It certainly would have had a positive impact on his fundraising. But by the same token, he’s the nominee and he’s entitled to pick who he wants.”
Does Hillary want Obama to lose so she can run against McCain in four years?
“She’s campaigned more for Obama than any runner up for the nomination has campaigned for anybody,” Carville says.
“I don’t have any reason to think her support is not sincere. There’s no evidence that it’s not.”
Carville: 'Too Much Reassurance, Not Enough Passion'
Storm brewing between state officials and Muslim school
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storm brewing between state officials and Muslim school
By KATHERINE KERSTEN, Star Tribune
Last update: September 10, 2008 -
Last week, Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TiZA) and the Minnesota Department of Education appeared to reach an understanding in the controversy over whether Islam is being promoted at this public school.
But behind the scenes, a storm may be brewing.
TiZA officials have "taken a confrontational road" in discussions with the department, according to Deputy MDE Commissioner Chas Anderson, the department's No. 2 official.
Anderson says that the two sides have not yet reached an agreement on one key issue and that MDE will be closely monitoring TiZA's performance in future months.
TiZA is a K-8 charter school in Inver Grove Heights, financed by taxpayers. Its students have scored well on standardized tests. But like all public schools, it may not encourage or endorse religion, or favor one religion over another.
A number of facts raise questions about TiZA on this score. Its executive director, Asad Zaman, is an imam, or Muslim religious leader. The school shares a building with a mosque and the Minnesota chapter of the Muslim American Society, which the Chicago Tribune has described as the American branch of the Muslim Brotherhood -- "the world's most influential Islamic fundamentalist group."
Most of TiZA's students are Muslim, many from low-income immigrant families. The school breaks daily for prayer, its cafeteria serves halal food (permissible under Islamic law), and Arabic is a required subject.
School buses do not leave until after-school Muslim Studies classes, which many students attend, have ended for the day.
Last spring, MDE opened an investigation after press reports raised questions about whether TiZA has been blurring the church/state line. The investigation focused on the school's 30-minute Friday communal prayer event, among other issues. The service -- led by adults -- has been conducted on school premises, and both students and teachers have attended.
In a report issued in May, the MDE concluded that TiZA's Friday prayer event violated the law and since then has been working with the school to make changes.
"We wanted TiZA to do Friday prayers the way all other public schools" handle similar activities -- "as release time, under state law," said Anderson. In a release-time arrangement, students move off-site for religious activities.
But TiZA said no, according to Anderson. Instead, the school will continue to hold Friday prayer on its premises. Students will lead prayer and staff will be present only "to ensure student safety," said Zaman in a letter to the MDE.
In a response to Zaman's letter, Anderson wrote complaining of what she called the "defensive tone" of the letter in which he set forth the school's intentions. "It is inaccurate for TiZA to imply that MDE's legal concerns regarding the school's operations ... were unfounded," she wrote, "and it is of utmost importance that TiZA take seriously its responsibility to comply with applicable state and federal laws."
TiZA now says it will shorten Friday prayers -- whose length has been a potential concern because of instructional time requirements -- though it has not said by how much.
MDE has agreed that TiZA's new arrangement on after-school bus transportation will bring the school into legal compliance on that issue. But the department is highly skeptical that TiZA's proposed arrangement for on-site, student-led Friday prayers will work.
We are "very troubled by it," said Anderson in an interview. "This may look good on paper. But how can you have an assembly with older students in charge of younger students?" she said. MDE plans to track the situation closely and conduct site visits.
Asked to respond to MDE's continuing concerns, the school issued a statement through spokesman Blois Olson saying: "TiZA Academy has reached agreement with the Department of Education ... and will continue to work with the department to ensure that we continue to be in compliance with all state and federal laws."
While TiZA and the department don't agree about the Friday prayer service -- even over whether they have an agreement on it -- there are other religious accommodations at the school that raise questions. In its May report, for example, MDE said that regularly scheduled daily prayers at TiZA appear to pass legal muster because they are "voluntary and student-led."
But imagine the reaction if prayer time -- reflecting only one faith -- were built into the schedule at, say, Stillwater Junior High.
Asked if other public schools would be allowed to accommodate religion the way that TiZA accommodates Islam, Anderson said: "We sought guidance, we want guidance" from federal sources and the Minnesota attorney general, "but no one will give us a black and white answer."
MDE says there are broader questions at issue. "This upcoming legislative session may be an appropriate forum" for "a serious discussion about the appropriateness of sectarian organizations sponsoring publicly-funded nonsectarian charter schools in the first place," said Anderson in a statement Monday.
For now, she added, "This is a gray area. School authorities at TiZA know it's a gray area, and they are walking right up to and over that line."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Storm brewing between state officials and Muslim school
By KATHERINE KERSTEN, Star Tribune
Last update: September 10, 2008 -
Last week, Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TiZA) and the Minnesota Department of Education appeared to reach an understanding in the controversy over whether Islam is being promoted at this public school.
But behind the scenes, a storm may be brewing.
TiZA officials have "taken a confrontational road" in discussions with the department, according to Deputy MDE Commissioner Chas Anderson, the department's No. 2 official.
Anderson says that the two sides have not yet reached an agreement on one key issue and that MDE will be closely monitoring TiZA's performance in future months.
TiZA is a K-8 charter school in Inver Grove Heights, financed by taxpayers. Its students have scored well on standardized tests. But like all public schools, it may not encourage or endorse religion, or favor one religion over another.
A number of facts raise questions about TiZA on this score. Its executive director, Asad Zaman, is an imam, or Muslim religious leader. The school shares a building with a mosque and the Minnesota chapter of the Muslim American Society, which the Chicago Tribune has described as the American branch of the Muslim Brotherhood -- "the world's most influential Islamic fundamentalist group."
Most of TiZA's students are Muslim, many from low-income immigrant families. The school breaks daily for prayer, its cafeteria serves halal food (permissible under Islamic law), and Arabic is a required subject.
School buses do not leave until after-school Muslim Studies classes, which many students attend, have ended for the day.
Last spring, MDE opened an investigation after press reports raised questions about whether TiZA has been blurring the church/state line. The investigation focused on the school's 30-minute Friday communal prayer event, among other issues. The service -- led by adults -- has been conducted on school premises, and both students and teachers have attended.
In a report issued in May, the MDE concluded that TiZA's Friday prayer event violated the law and since then has been working with the school to make changes.
"We wanted TiZA to do Friday prayers the way all other public schools" handle similar activities -- "as release time, under state law," said Anderson. In a release-time arrangement, students move off-site for religious activities.
But TiZA said no, according to Anderson. Instead, the school will continue to hold Friday prayer on its premises. Students will lead prayer and staff will be present only "to ensure student safety," said Zaman in a letter to the MDE.
In a response to Zaman's letter, Anderson wrote complaining of what she called the "defensive tone" of the letter in which he set forth the school's intentions. "It is inaccurate for TiZA to imply that MDE's legal concerns regarding the school's operations ... were unfounded," she wrote, "and it is of utmost importance that TiZA take seriously its responsibility to comply with applicable state and federal laws."
TiZA now says it will shorten Friday prayers -- whose length has been a potential concern because of instructional time requirements -- though it has not said by how much.
MDE has agreed that TiZA's new arrangement on after-school bus transportation will bring the school into legal compliance on that issue. But the department is highly skeptical that TiZA's proposed arrangement for on-site, student-led Friday prayers will work.
We are "very troubled by it," said Anderson in an interview. "This may look good on paper. But how can you have an assembly with older students in charge of younger students?" she said. MDE plans to track the situation closely and conduct site visits.
Asked to respond to MDE's continuing concerns, the school issued a statement through spokesman Blois Olson saying: "TiZA Academy has reached agreement with the Department of Education ... and will continue to work with the department to ensure that we continue to be in compliance with all state and federal laws."
While TiZA and the department don't agree about the Friday prayer service -- even over whether they have an agreement on it -- there are other religious accommodations at the school that raise questions. In its May report, for example, MDE said that regularly scheduled daily prayers at TiZA appear to pass legal muster because they are "voluntary and student-led."
But imagine the reaction if prayer time -- reflecting only one faith -- were built into the schedule at, say, Stillwater Junior High.
Asked if other public schools would be allowed to accommodate religion the way that TiZA accommodates Islam, Anderson said: "We sought guidance, we want guidance" from federal sources and the Minnesota attorney general, "but no one will give us a black and white answer."
MDE says there are broader questions at issue. "This upcoming legislative session may be an appropriate forum" for "a serious discussion about the appropriateness of sectarian organizations sponsoring publicly-funded nonsectarian charter schools in the first place," said Anderson in a statement Monday.
For now, she added, "This is a gray area. School authorities at TiZA know it's a gray area, and they are walking right up to and over that line."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
September 11, 2008
DEAR MR. OBAMA
THIS LETTER WAS INFACT SENT TO MR. OBAMA. SINCE I AM PUTTING OUT FOR ALL TO SEE AND DOING SO WITHOUT THE AUTHORS PERMISSION I HAVE DELETED HIS NAME.
THE REPROCUSSIONS ARE MINE AND MINE ALONE. DAVE ANDERSON.
Dear Mr. Obama,
It is August 30, 2008. My name is xxxx xxxxx. I am a 50 something conservative white male. I have followed your campaign closely, including the speeches you and others made at the democratic national convention. I am respectfully providing you with seven simple (probably shallow) reasons why I could never vote for you. I believe my opinion is shared by many people. While there may not be quite enough to prevent you from becoming president of this nation, I do think there is an awakening to the fact that you are not a (the) messiah that the media and liberal Hollywood entertainers are trying to portray you.
1.
I hear your mantra of change, change, change. Yet, you picked a long term, liberal, Washington insider (Joe Biden) to be your running mate. This is NOT change. It is a move that hypocritically refutes the very thing you supposedly stand for. Your campaign then slammed McCain for picking Sarah Palin, apparently, because she is NOT a Washington insider. She is a maverick who cleaned-up Alaska’s quagmire of political scandals. Which way is it, Barack? Is it okay for you to pick a Washington insider under the mantra of “change”, but not okay for John McCain to pick a smart, aggressive, reformer?
2.
You have the single most liberal voting record in the senate. This indicates to me and others like me that you may very well be an angry black man seeking to punish our country for sins of a different generation. I am not racist. I have some biases just like you and every other human alive. Unlike the democratic party who claims to be for the minority (but their record heavily refutes this), I will give any person who truly needs help, help. I married a “minority” girl 35 years ago (she is Hispanic) and have seen the evils of prejudice first hand. However, I have also seen my wife and my children and others in her family throw off the veil of self imposed prejudicial bondage and move ahead. They love our country and do not view themselves any different than I view myself as a citizen of this country. Your lovely wife so disappointed people like me during this campaign when she stated it was the first time she had ever been proud of this country. She apparently never noticed the massive aid we give dozens of other countries. She apparently never noticed the sacrifice of literally millions of veterans who helped make this country a free nation and helped liberate other nations from brutal dictators such as Adolf Hitler. She apparently does not remember that she attended ivy league universities with scholarship money that ultimately (at least some of it) was paid for by our taxes. This troubles me more than you know. She is an angry black woman who appears to not like her country very much. I don’t want her representing me to the rest of the world.
3.
You claim Christianity but apparently do not realize that the Bible teaches that he who does not work, does not eat. The Bible does not say or even suggest that he who CANNOT work, should not eat. Yet, your liberal policies reward people who are capable of working, but choose to not do so. This bothers me. I know that if you are elected our taxes will spiral upwards. You should heed the words of Winston Churchill: “We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” If I like anything about you, it is your campaign promise to balance the federal budget. Unfortunately, we have heard this a huge number of times from a number of different politicians and we realize that when you energize the very liberal Nancy Pelosi, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, etc, etc, and the many other democrats like them, a balanced budget will never, ever happen on your watch.
4,
During your question and answer session with Rick Warren of Saddleback Church your answer concerning the question of where does life begin, stunned me: “Above your pay grade?” Does this mean when something bad happens as President of this nation that you are going to look at your salary to determine if you can respond? I am sorry, but this was the most serious gaffe I have seen you make. Frankly, it shows me that you are pandering in the most obvious manner. You will choose your words not from your heart, but from an agenda that I believe is still hidden from the American people.
5.
If anything stands out about you it is probably your appeasement mentality. In this era of rampant, radical Islamic extremism and with the latest stunt pulled by the re-energized Russian government, I am not sure appeasement is healthy. I again revert to the words of Winston Churchill: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
6.
You and your party tacitly believe that a 13 or 14 year old girl must have the parents approval to have the school nurse provide them with a Tylenol when they have a headache at school. Yet, this same girl can become pregnant and the school can skirt her off to a clinic and abort the child in her body without the parents knowing or being notified. This scares the hell out of me. You have two little girls. Would you be upset if this happened to them and you were not informed? Then why do you stand for this? It makes no sense to me.
7.
My seventh and final point (for now) is your supporters. I have watched the Hollywood entertainers that support you, systematically embrace Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and others like him. I see the continuous smut and garbage produced by Hollywood, the very people who promote you the most vigorously. It is not a positive point to me and others like me to see these over-paid, bizarre, poor examples of human existence fawn over you and push you and your liberal agenda as hard as they do. The way that I see it; When the devil is for you, we should question whether or not we should be against you.
In closing, I just want you to know that you scare me. I cannot vote for you. It is not because of your skin color. It is because these items and many, many others like them. Do not claim that my dislike for you is race based. It is because I do not feel you have the best interests of this nation at heart.
Respectfully,
xxxx x. xxxxx
THE REPROCUSSIONS ARE MINE AND MINE ALONE. DAVE ANDERSON.
Dear Mr. Obama,
It is August 30, 2008. My name is xxxx xxxxx. I am a 50 something conservative white male. I have followed your campaign closely, including the speeches you and others made at the democratic national convention. I am respectfully providing you with seven simple (probably shallow) reasons why I could never vote for you. I believe my opinion is shared by many people. While there may not be quite enough to prevent you from becoming president of this nation, I do think there is an awakening to the fact that you are not a (the) messiah that the media and liberal Hollywood entertainers are trying to portray you.
1.
I hear your mantra of change, change, change. Yet, you picked a long term, liberal, Washington insider (Joe Biden) to be your running mate. This is NOT change. It is a move that hypocritically refutes the very thing you supposedly stand for. Your campaign then slammed McCain for picking Sarah Palin, apparently, because she is NOT a Washington insider. She is a maverick who cleaned-up Alaska’s quagmire of political scandals. Which way is it, Barack? Is it okay for you to pick a Washington insider under the mantra of “change”, but not okay for John McCain to pick a smart, aggressive, reformer?
2.
You have the single most liberal voting record in the senate. This indicates to me and others like me that you may very well be an angry black man seeking to punish our country for sins of a different generation. I am not racist. I have some biases just like you and every other human alive. Unlike the democratic party who claims to be for the minority (but their record heavily refutes this), I will give any person who truly needs help, help. I married a “minority” girl 35 years ago (she is Hispanic) and have seen the evils of prejudice first hand. However, I have also seen my wife and my children and others in her family throw off the veil of self imposed prejudicial bondage and move ahead. They love our country and do not view themselves any different than I view myself as a citizen of this country. Your lovely wife so disappointed people like me during this campaign when she stated it was the first time she had ever been proud of this country. She apparently never noticed the massive aid we give dozens of other countries. She apparently never noticed the sacrifice of literally millions of veterans who helped make this country a free nation and helped liberate other nations from brutal dictators such as Adolf Hitler. She apparently does not remember that she attended ivy league universities with scholarship money that ultimately (at least some of it) was paid for by our taxes. This troubles me more than you know. She is an angry black woman who appears to not like her country very much. I don’t want her representing me to the rest of the world.
3.
You claim Christianity but apparently do not realize that the Bible teaches that he who does not work, does not eat. The Bible does not say or even suggest that he who CANNOT work, should not eat. Yet, your liberal policies reward people who are capable of working, but choose to not do so. This bothers me. I know that if you are elected our taxes will spiral upwards. You should heed the words of Winston Churchill: “We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” If I like anything about you, it is your campaign promise to balance the federal budget. Unfortunately, we have heard this a huge number of times from a number of different politicians and we realize that when you energize the very liberal Nancy Pelosi, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, etc, etc, and the many other democrats like them, a balanced budget will never, ever happen on your watch.
4,
During your question and answer session with Rick Warren of Saddleback Church your answer concerning the question of where does life begin, stunned me: “Above your pay grade?” Does this mean when something bad happens as President of this nation that you are going to look at your salary to determine if you can respond? I am sorry, but this was the most serious gaffe I have seen you make. Frankly, it shows me that you are pandering in the most obvious manner. You will choose your words not from your heart, but from an agenda that I believe is still hidden from the American people.
5.
If anything stands out about you it is probably your appeasement mentality. In this era of rampant, radical Islamic extremism and with the latest stunt pulled by the re-energized Russian government, I am not sure appeasement is healthy. I again revert to the words of Winston Churchill: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
6.
You and your party tacitly believe that a 13 or 14 year old girl must have the parents approval to have the school nurse provide them with a Tylenol when they have a headache at school. Yet, this same girl can become pregnant and the school can skirt her off to a clinic and abort the child in her body without the parents knowing or being notified. This scares the hell out of me. You have two little girls. Would you be upset if this happened to them and you were not informed? Then why do you stand for this? It makes no sense to me.
7.
My seventh and final point (for now) is your supporters. I have watched the Hollywood entertainers that support you, systematically embrace Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and others like him. I see the continuous smut and garbage produced by Hollywood, the very people who promote you the most vigorously. It is not a positive point to me and others like me to see these over-paid, bizarre, poor examples of human existence fawn over you and push you and your liberal agenda as hard as they do. The way that I see it; When the devil is for you, we should question whether or not we should be against you.
In closing, I just want you to know that you scare me. I cannot vote for you. It is not because of your skin color. It is because these items and many, many others like them. Do not claim that my dislike for you is race based. It is because I do not feel you have the best interests of this nation at heart.
Respectfully,
xxxx x. xxxxx
WEAKNESS IS REARING IT'S UGLY HEAD
Unless we take immediate action, some conservative legislators may cave in and give up when it comes to giving the American people a measure of energy independence and relief from high prices at the gas pump.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just played his trump card, which is the political equivalent of blackmail and extortion.
Simply put, Reid is telling conservatives in Congress to give up on "drill here, drill now" ... agree to "sham" legislation that will increase your taxes and drive up your cost for gasoline at the pump ... or he'll make sure conservatives take the blame for shutting down the government.
According to the Capitol Hill newspaper, The Hill:
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) cautioned Republicans Monday against forcing a government shutdown over expanded oil drilling while noting increased support for bipartisan energy legislation... Republicans are mulling whether to press the offshore oil drilling fight by blocking the funding resolution, which contains the congressional moratorium on such drilling. Reid reminded the GOP that its government shutdown led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) during the Clinton administration was met with widespread public disapproval."
Reid went on to self-righteously pontificate:
"We are not interested in any games being played. We simply want to make sure the government is allowed to function. There have been Republicans saying what they want to do is close down the government. I would hope that some of those people have read very recent history where Gingrich tried to do that and it didn't work out well for the Republicans and certainly didn't work out well for this country."
The only ones playing games here are Harry Reid and his liberal cohorts in Congress.
This sickening gamesmanship and disgusting political maneuvering beg some rather obvious questions:
What does a moratorium on drilling have to do with funding the United States government in the first place?
Why not take the drilling moratorium out of the funding resolution and allow a fair-up-or-down vote on domestic drilling?
That's why we have our own message for Reid and his liberal allies in Congress who are dead set on raising the price of gasoline and keeping us dependent on foreign oil at the behest of left-wing special interests.
Harry Reid needs to be told, in no uncertain terms, that holding the American people hostage is not a "game" and the American people are not going to let him get away with it!
Moreover, our elected leaders (particularly the conservatives in Congress who have bravely championed the call for domestic drilling and lower prices at the pump) need to understand that NO LIBERAL-INSPIRED "COMPROMISE" OR SO-CALLED "COMPREHENSIVE" LEGISLATION WILL BE TOLERATED... PERIOD!
If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and liberals in the House and Senate want to play games and shut the government down over this issue... SO BE IT! The American people will know who is to blame!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Fax Messages to President George W. Bush, Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and each and every Member of the Republican Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them in no uncertain terms that the American people will not stand for Harry Reid’s political games! Tell them that "drill here and drill now" means just that. Tell them that you expect them to lift the moratorium without any political games or so-called "compromise" bills.
And most importantly let our conservative elected officials know that if liberals intend to hold domestic drilling hostage to a potential government shutdown, the American people still want them to stand firm!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/drillvii.html
AOL Members May Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlink does not function, copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
Are Conservatives Already Starting To Waffle?
John Gizzi with Human Events thinks so.
"The White House wouldn’t rule out signing a continuing resolution to fund the government that includes a ban on offshore drilling. That response from Press Secretary Dana Perino this afternoon has several on the pro-energy side a bit nervous as to just how fully committed the Bush Administration is to making off-shore drilling happen."
But Gizzi goes on to say what Republicans should be doing... how they should be playing the game:
"Fair enough. But wouldn’t it also help make an appropriations bill move a bit if the threat of a veto of a CR with a ban on offshore drilling were put on the table now?"
Gizzi is 100 percent right! Why can't conservatives play hardball? Why can't President Bush threaten to veto legislation that does not contain adequate provisions for domestic drilling? Why can't conservatives in Congress stand up to Reid’s political games?
That last question is gaining importance because it would appear that a growing number of conservative legislators are starting to waffle!
According to TheStreet.com:
"Senate Majority Leader Reid has placed his faith for compromise in the so-called 'Gang of 10,' which has increased now to 16 senators."
The Associated Press reports:
"A bipartisan group, originally known as the Gang of Ten, that has crafted a drilling compromise gained more members and has grown to 22 senators."
So why are they running for the hills?
The crux of the problem is that too many of our conservative legislators actually believe the American people WILL BLAME THEM for a government shutdown!
What they need to hear from each and every one of us RIGHT NOW is that the American people WILL BLAME THEM if they "compromise" or vote in favor of so-called "comprehensive" legislation .
They need to know that YOU WANT THEM TO STAND FIRM!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Fax Messages to President George W. Bush, Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and each and every Member of the Republican Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them in no uncertain terms that the American people will not stand for Harry Reid’s political games! Tell them that "drill here and drill now" means just that. Tell them that you expect them to lift the moratorium without any political games or so-called "compromise" bills.
And most importantly let our conservative elected officials know that if liberals intend to hold domestic drilling hostage to a potential government shutdown, the American people still want them to stand firm!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/drillvii.html
AOL Members May Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlink does not function, copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
The Choice Is Between Energy Independence And Lower Prices At The Pump Or Higher Taxes And Higher Prices At The Pump!
Harry Reid actually had the nerve to issue the following statement:
"It should be clear to all that we are offering Republicans multiple opportunities to vote for increased drilling, which they have chosen to make their marquee legislative priority and campaign issue. We offered votes on drilling before the August recess, and Republicans rejected our offers. This time, I hope Republicans will put their votes where their mouths are to pass comprehensive legislation that includes drilling."
The statement is outright deceptive!
What Reid and his liberals cohorts have actually offered are "sham bills" designed to increase our taxes, increase the cost of gasoline at the pump and increase our dependence on foreign oil.
Here's what House Minority Leader John Boehner had to say:
"Instead of giving the American people the energy bill they expect and deserve, it appears that Democrats will bring up another sham bill loaded up with tax hikes and failed energy policies that will raise gasoline prices further, not lower them. Any bill that puts 80 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf off limits permanently cannot be called an 'all of the above' energy plan, and the American people will not support it. We have three weeks left in this Congress, and it's time for the Democrats who control it to do the right thing and give Americans the energy vote they deserve."
Of course, Reid has yet to put his latest "sham" on the table, but it is likely to take the form of the so-called "compromise" legislation being offered by the ever-growing "Gang of Ten."
Here's what The Wall Street Journal wrote about that plan:
"Ask GOP Senate candidate Bob Schaffer what he thinks of the recent 'Gang of 10' Senate energy compromise, and his answer is short and not sweet: 'I'd call it 40% tax increase, 10% energy and 50% snake oil.'"
The Journal wrote in another piece wrote that; "The Sierra Club couldn't have penned it better."
And the Institute for Energy Research called the "Gang of Ten" betrayal, as it was originally proposed, a blueprint for economic and electoral disaster and pointed out that this so-called "compromise" legislation:
severely limits potential production by only granting four coastal states the ability to opt out of energy bans;
imposes arbitrary 50-mile buffer zones that would exclude a wealth of potential resource deposits (i.e. the Gulf of Mexico's Destin Dome which is some 25 miles offshore) and;
possibly give the ban the force of permanent law for the first time ever.
In other words, liberals in Congress are basically telling us that we can drill for all the oil we want as long as we drill where there is NO OIL!
And now it would appear that some Republicans may actually succumb to Reid's legislative blackmail and vote in favor of "snake oil."
We can stop that from happening by taking immediate action!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Fax Messages to President George W. Bush, Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and each and every Member of the Republican Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them in no uncertain terms that the American people will not stand for Harry Reid’s political games! Tell them that "drill here and drill now" means just that. Tell them that you expect them to lift the moratorium without any political games or so-called "compromise" bills.
And most importantly let our conservative elected officials know that if liberals intend to hold domestic drilling hostage to a potential government shutdown, the American people still want them to stand firm!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/drillvii.html
AOL Members May Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlink does not function, copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
Yours In Freedom,
Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.org
P.S. Please help us reach as many concerned Americans as possible by forwarding this e-mail to at least 10 of your friends and family members.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just played his trump card, which is the political equivalent of blackmail and extortion.
Simply put, Reid is telling conservatives in Congress to give up on "drill here, drill now" ... agree to "sham" legislation that will increase your taxes and drive up your cost for gasoline at the pump ... or he'll make sure conservatives take the blame for shutting down the government.
According to the Capitol Hill newspaper, The Hill:
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) cautioned Republicans Monday against forcing a government shutdown over expanded oil drilling while noting increased support for bipartisan energy legislation... Republicans are mulling whether to press the offshore oil drilling fight by blocking the funding resolution, which contains the congressional moratorium on such drilling. Reid reminded the GOP that its government shutdown led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) during the Clinton administration was met with widespread public disapproval."
Reid went on to self-righteously pontificate:
"We are not interested in any games being played. We simply want to make sure the government is allowed to function. There have been Republicans saying what they want to do is close down the government. I would hope that some of those people have read very recent history where Gingrich tried to do that and it didn't work out well for the Republicans and certainly didn't work out well for this country."
The only ones playing games here are Harry Reid and his liberal cohorts in Congress.
This sickening gamesmanship and disgusting political maneuvering beg some rather obvious questions:
What does a moratorium on drilling have to do with funding the United States government in the first place?
Why not take the drilling moratorium out of the funding resolution and allow a fair-up-or-down vote on domestic drilling?
That's why we have our own message for Reid and his liberal allies in Congress who are dead set on raising the price of gasoline and keeping us dependent on foreign oil at the behest of left-wing special interests.
Harry Reid needs to be told, in no uncertain terms, that holding the American people hostage is not a "game" and the American people are not going to let him get away with it!
Moreover, our elected leaders (particularly the conservatives in Congress who have bravely championed the call for domestic drilling and lower prices at the pump) need to understand that NO LIBERAL-INSPIRED "COMPROMISE" OR SO-CALLED "COMPREHENSIVE" LEGISLATION WILL BE TOLERATED... PERIOD!
If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and liberals in the House and Senate want to play games and shut the government down over this issue... SO BE IT! The American people will know who is to blame!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Fax Messages to President George W. Bush, Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and each and every Member of the Republican Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them in no uncertain terms that the American people will not stand for Harry Reid’s political games! Tell them that "drill here and drill now" means just that. Tell them that you expect them to lift the moratorium without any political games or so-called "compromise" bills.
And most importantly let our conservative elected officials know that if liberals intend to hold domestic drilling hostage to a potential government shutdown, the American people still want them to stand firm!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/drillvii.html
AOL Members May Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlink does not function, copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
Are Conservatives Already Starting To Waffle?
John Gizzi with Human Events thinks so.
"The White House wouldn’t rule out signing a continuing resolution to fund the government that includes a ban on offshore drilling. That response from Press Secretary Dana Perino this afternoon has several on the pro-energy side a bit nervous as to just how fully committed the Bush Administration is to making off-shore drilling happen."
But Gizzi goes on to say what Republicans should be doing... how they should be playing the game:
"Fair enough. But wouldn’t it also help make an appropriations bill move a bit if the threat of a veto of a CR with a ban on offshore drilling were put on the table now?"
Gizzi is 100 percent right! Why can't conservatives play hardball? Why can't President Bush threaten to veto legislation that does not contain adequate provisions for domestic drilling? Why can't conservatives in Congress stand up to Reid’s political games?
That last question is gaining importance because it would appear that a growing number of conservative legislators are starting to waffle!
According to TheStreet.com:
"Senate Majority Leader Reid has placed his faith for compromise in the so-called 'Gang of 10,' which has increased now to 16 senators."
The Associated Press reports:
"A bipartisan group, originally known as the Gang of Ten, that has crafted a drilling compromise gained more members and has grown to 22 senators."
So why are they running for the hills?
The crux of the problem is that too many of our conservative legislators actually believe the American people WILL BLAME THEM for a government shutdown!
What they need to hear from each and every one of us RIGHT NOW is that the American people WILL BLAME THEM if they "compromise" or vote in favor of so-called "comprehensive" legislation .
They need to know that YOU WANT THEM TO STAND FIRM!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Fax Messages to President George W. Bush, Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and each and every Member of the Republican Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them in no uncertain terms that the American people will not stand for Harry Reid’s political games! Tell them that "drill here and drill now" means just that. Tell them that you expect them to lift the moratorium without any political games or so-called "compromise" bills.
And most importantly let our conservative elected officials know that if liberals intend to hold domestic drilling hostage to a potential government shutdown, the American people still want them to stand firm!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/drillvii.html
AOL Members May Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlink does not function, copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
The Choice Is Between Energy Independence And Lower Prices At The Pump Or Higher Taxes And Higher Prices At The Pump!
Harry Reid actually had the nerve to issue the following statement:
"It should be clear to all that we are offering Republicans multiple opportunities to vote for increased drilling, which they have chosen to make their marquee legislative priority and campaign issue. We offered votes on drilling before the August recess, and Republicans rejected our offers. This time, I hope Republicans will put their votes where their mouths are to pass comprehensive legislation that includes drilling."
The statement is outright deceptive!
What Reid and his liberals cohorts have actually offered are "sham bills" designed to increase our taxes, increase the cost of gasoline at the pump and increase our dependence on foreign oil.
Here's what House Minority Leader John Boehner had to say:
"Instead of giving the American people the energy bill they expect and deserve, it appears that Democrats will bring up another sham bill loaded up with tax hikes and failed energy policies that will raise gasoline prices further, not lower them. Any bill that puts 80 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf off limits permanently cannot be called an 'all of the above' energy plan, and the American people will not support it. We have three weeks left in this Congress, and it's time for the Democrats who control it to do the right thing and give Americans the energy vote they deserve."
Of course, Reid has yet to put his latest "sham" on the table, but it is likely to take the form of the so-called "compromise" legislation being offered by the ever-growing "Gang of Ten."
Here's what The Wall Street Journal wrote about that plan:
"Ask GOP Senate candidate Bob Schaffer what he thinks of the recent 'Gang of 10' Senate energy compromise, and his answer is short and not sweet: 'I'd call it 40% tax increase, 10% energy and 50% snake oil.'"
The Journal wrote in another piece wrote that; "The Sierra Club couldn't have penned it better."
And the Institute for Energy Research called the "Gang of Ten" betrayal, as it was originally proposed, a blueprint for economic and electoral disaster and pointed out that this so-called "compromise" legislation:
severely limits potential production by only granting four coastal states the ability to opt out of energy bans;
imposes arbitrary 50-mile buffer zones that would exclude a wealth of potential resource deposits (i.e. the Gulf of Mexico's Destin Dome which is some 25 miles offshore) and;
possibly give the ban the force of permanent law for the first time ever.
In other words, liberals in Congress are basically telling us that we can drill for all the oil we want as long as we drill where there is NO OIL!
And now it would appear that some Republicans may actually succumb to Reid's legislative blackmail and vote in favor of "snake oil."
We can stop that from happening by taking immediate action!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Fax Messages to President George W. Bush, Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and each and every Member of the Republican Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them in no uncertain terms that the American people will not stand for Harry Reid’s political games! Tell them that "drill here and drill now" means just that. Tell them that you expect them to lift the moratorium without any political games or so-called "compromise" bills.
And most importantly let our conservative elected officials know that if liberals intend to hold domestic drilling hostage to a potential government shutdown, the American people still want them to stand firm!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/drillvii.html
AOL Members May Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlink does not function, copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
Yours In Freedom,
Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.org
P.S. Please help us reach as many concerned Americans as possible by forwarding this e-mail to at least 10 of your friends and family members.
Obama Panicking Over Palin
Obama Panicking Over Palin
Thursday, September 11, 2008 9:10 AM
By: Michael Reagan Article Font Size
Once upon a time it was inevitable that Hillary Clinton would be the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. It didn’t work out that way.
A few weeks ago, it seemed inevitable that Barack Obama would win the presidency handily. That isn’t working out either.
A few weeks ago, it seemed inevitable that John McCain was in for a drubbing. Yet another inevitablility not working out.
In political campaigns, things can always change, of course, but as of now, it appears that John McCain is headed for the White House. That’s not inevitable, but at the moment it looks as if he’s headed for the winner’s circle, thanks largely to his choice of a running mate who has electrified most of the electorate.
The Obama campaign’s stunned reaction to this totally unexpected development has been at first to ridicule McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin, then to underestimate the effect she was having on the McCain campaign, and now to go all-out in attacking her.
Obama’s reaction to this sudden turn in his fortunes has been nothing less that sheer and visible disorientation. It’s obvious that he simply doesn’t know which way to turn, and his confusion has led him to launch a sleazy campaign to destroy Gov. Palin’s reputation — no matter what it takes — before she destroys his presidential hopes.
A prime symptom of his disorientation was the ill-advised comment about putting lipstick on a pig. The old self-confident, sure-footed Barack Obama, safe in the cocoon woven about him by a worshipful media, would have understood the consequences of making such a remark and the almost certain probability that it would be a boomerang that would smite him on its return trip, and would have thus avoided it.
This disaster, however, is nothing compared to the catastrophe that is waiting in the wings as a result of his scorched-earth attack on Sarah Palin. Unable to grasp the obvious fact that the media’s ongoing effort to slander Palin is backfiring, he has allowed his campaign to dispatch an army of lawyers and private investigators to Alaska to dig for dirt in Palin’s backyard.
Obama must understand that Palin, with a favorability rating in excess of 80 percent, is unpopular among the old-boy’s network she has uprooted, and has easily fended off their attempts to damage her reputation.
Turning to these malcontents for ammunition, when their arsenal of anti-Palin weapons has proved worthless, is a massive waste of effort that is certain to backfire again. They haven’t made a dent in her popularity.
Nor will Obama’s scandal mongers. Try as they may to make a mountain over the so-called “troopergate” molehill, for example, they will have a hard time explaining why it would be wrong to want to see a four-times married and divorced law enforcement officer kept on the job when he had tasered his 11-year-old stepson, illegally shot a moose, drank beer in his patrol car on one occasion, and told others his father-in-law would "eat a f'ing lead bullet" if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce.
According to the Anchorage Daily News: "Col. Julia Grimes, then head of Alaska State Troopers, wrote in March 1, 2006, ‘The record clearly indicates a serious and concentrated pattern of unacceptable and at times, illegal activity occurring over a lengthy period, which establishes a course of conduct totally at odds with the ethics of our profession.’"
She warned that if he messed up again, he'd be fired.
"This discipline is meant to be a last chance to take corrective action," Grimes wrote. "You are hereby given notice that any further occurrences of these types of behaviors or incidents will not be tolerated and will result in your termination."
This is the man the media and the Obama gumshoes want to pillory Sarah Palin for wanting to have stripped of his badge and gun, and portray him as a victim of heartless Sarah.
Talk about panic.
© 2008 Mike Reagan
Thursday, September 11, 2008 9:10 AM
By: Michael Reagan Article Font Size
Once upon a time it was inevitable that Hillary Clinton would be the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. It didn’t work out that way.
A few weeks ago, it seemed inevitable that Barack Obama would win the presidency handily. That isn’t working out either.
A few weeks ago, it seemed inevitable that John McCain was in for a drubbing. Yet another inevitablility not working out.
In political campaigns, things can always change, of course, but as of now, it appears that John McCain is headed for the White House. That’s not inevitable, but at the moment it looks as if he’s headed for the winner’s circle, thanks largely to his choice of a running mate who has electrified most of the electorate.
The Obama campaign’s stunned reaction to this totally unexpected development has been at first to ridicule McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin, then to underestimate the effect she was having on the McCain campaign, and now to go all-out in attacking her.
Obama’s reaction to this sudden turn in his fortunes has been nothing less that sheer and visible disorientation. It’s obvious that he simply doesn’t know which way to turn, and his confusion has led him to launch a sleazy campaign to destroy Gov. Palin’s reputation — no matter what it takes — before she destroys his presidential hopes.
A prime symptom of his disorientation was the ill-advised comment about putting lipstick on a pig. The old self-confident, sure-footed Barack Obama, safe in the cocoon woven about him by a worshipful media, would have understood the consequences of making such a remark and the almost certain probability that it would be a boomerang that would smite him on its return trip, and would have thus avoided it.
This disaster, however, is nothing compared to the catastrophe that is waiting in the wings as a result of his scorched-earth attack on Sarah Palin. Unable to grasp the obvious fact that the media’s ongoing effort to slander Palin is backfiring, he has allowed his campaign to dispatch an army of lawyers and private investigators to Alaska to dig for dirt in Palin’s backyard.
Obama must understand that Palin, with a favorability rating in excess of 80 percent, is unpopular among the old-boy’s network she has uprooted, and has easily fended off their attempts to damage her reputation.
Turning to these malcontents for ammunition, when their arsenal of anti-Palin weapons has proved worthless, is a massive waste of effort that is certain to backfire again. They haven’t made a dent in her popularity.
Nor will Obama’s scandal mongers. Try as they may to make a mountain over the so-called “troopergate” molehill, for example, they will have a hard time explaining why it would be wrong to want to see a four-times married and divorced law enforcement officer kept on the job when he had tasered his 11-year-old stepson, illegally shot a moose, drank beer in his patrol car on one occasion, and told others his father-in-law would "eat a f'ing lead bullet" if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce.
According to the Anchorage Daily News: "Col. Julia Grimes, then head of Alaska State Troopers, wrote in March 1, 2006, ‘The record clearly indicates a serious and concentrated pattern of unacceptable and at times, illegal activity occurring over a lengthy period, which establishes a course of conduct totally at odds with the ethics of our profession.’"
She warned that if he messed up again, he'd be fired.
"This discipline is meant to be a last chance to take corrective action," Grimes wrote. "You are hereby given notice that any further occurrences of these types of behaviors or incidents will not be tolerated and will result in your termination."
This is the man the media and the Obama gumshoes want to pillory Sarah Palin for wanting to have stripped of his badge and gun, and portray him as a victim of heartless Sarah.
Talk about panic.
© 2008 Mike Reagan
September 10, 2008
Obama And 9/11
I CAN'T INGINE OBUMA AS POOP PUMPER MUCH LESS PRESIDENT
Obama And 9/11
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2008 4:20 PM PT
The Anniversary: Eight days after terrorism declared war on America, a young state senator blamed it on "a failure of empathy" — yet another reason why Barack Obama should never be commander in chief.
The July 20 issue of the New Yorker magazine got a lot of attention for its cover, which carried a "satirical" cartoon depicting Michelle and Barack Obama that Obama supporters found tasteless and offensive. Buried inside that issue's feature story, however, was a reaction by Obama to 9/11 that all voters should find even more tasteless and offensive.
The article reprised a piece published in Chicago's Hyde Park Herald on Sept. 19, 2001, and written by a then-unknown and otherwise undistinguished state senator from Illinois. The senator, a former community organizer, wrote that after tightening security at our airports and repairing our intelligence networks, we "must also engage . . . in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness."
According to Barack Obama, the madness that drove terrorists to turn passenger jets into manned cruise missiles aimed at our centers of finance, government and military power "grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."
As if the answer to the attacks should have been food stamps for al-Qaida.
Sen. Obama advised caution and warned of overreacting. "We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad," he wrote. "We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent."
We should also be just as concerned, he felt, with American anger and bigotry as we were about al-Qaida.
In an opinion piece in Commentary magazine, writer Abe Greenwald commented on Obama's belief that the 9/11 attacks were rooted in poverty and despair. "Strange," he called it, "considering our attackers were wealthy and educated, connected and ecstatic."
As Greenwald put it, Obama "could have asked (terrorist and colleague) Bill Ayers, 'Bill, did your 'failure of empathy' stem from your impoverished upbringing as the son of the CEO of Commonwealth Edison?" Did poverty and despair also cause the Weather Underground member and host of Obama's first fundraiser to bomb government buildings?
Fact is, the roster of terrorists and their handlers reads like a list of of Ivy Leaguers:
Osama bin Laden, the son of a Saudi billionaire, studied engineering. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, architect of 9/11 and other major attacks, has a degree in mechanical engineering. Mohammed Atta, who flew a jet into the World Trade Center, is the son of a lawyer and earned a master's degree in urban planning at Hamburg University. Ayman al-Zawahri is an eye surgeon. Seven doctors were involved in the London-Glasgow bomb plots.
You get the idea, even if Barack Obama doesn't.
In a speech before a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, President Bush pointed out the real reasons Islamofascists hate us: "They hate what they see right here in this chamber — a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."
Bush aptly called the 9/11 terrorists and their ilk "the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century."
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism," he said.
Knowing the nature of your enemy is the key to victory. On the seventh anniversary of 9/11, we should all thank President Bush for keeping America safe. Along the way, he brought freedom and democracy to the Middle East, draining the terrorist swamp.
Bush gets it. So does John McCain. This is one thing we shouldn't want to change.
Email To Friend |
Obama And 9/11
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2008 4:20 PM PT
The Anniversary: Eight days after terrorism declared war on America, a young state senator blamed it on "a failure of empathy" — yet another reason why Barack Obama should never be commander in chief.
The July 20 issue of the New Yorker magazine got a lot of attention for its cover, which carried a "satirical" cartoon depicting Michelle and Barack Obama that Obama supporters found tasteless and offensive. Buried inside that issue's feature story, however, was a reaction by Obama to 9/11 that all voters should find even more tasteless and offensive.
The article reprised a piece published in Chicago's Hyde Park Herald on Sept. 19, 2001, and written by a then-unknown and otherwise undistinguished state senator from Illinois. The senator, a former community organizer, wrote that after tightening security at our airports and repairing our intelligence networks, we "must also engage . . . in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness."
According to Barack Obama, the madness that drove terrorists to turn passenger jets into manned cruise missiles aimed at our centers of finance, government and military power "grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."
As if the answer to the attacks should have been food stamps for al-Qaida.
Sen. Obama advised caution and warned of overreacting. "We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad," he wrote. "We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent."
We should also be just as concerned, he felt, with American anger and bigotry as we were about al-Qaida.
In an opinion piece in Commentary magazine, writer Abe Greenwald commented on Obama's belief that the 9/11 attacks were rooted in poverty and despair. "Strange," he called it, "considering our attackers were wealthy and educated, connected and ecstatic."
As Greenwald put it, Obama "could have asked (terrorist and colleague) Bill Ayers, 'Bill, did your 'failure of empathy' stem from your impoverished upbringing as the son of the CEO of Commonwealth Edison?" Did poverty and despair also cause the Weather Underground member and host of Obama's first fundraiser to bomb government buildings?
Fact is, the roster of terrorists and their handlers reads like a list of of Ivy Leaguers:
Osama bin Laden, the son of a Saudi billionaire, studied engineering. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, architect of 9/11 and other major attacks, has a degree in mechanical engineering. Mohammed Atta, who flew a jet into the World Trade Center, is the son of a lawyer and earned a master's degree in urban planning at Hamburg University. Ayman al-Zawahri is an eye surgeon. Seven doctors were involved in the London-Glasgow bomb plots.
You get the idea, even if Barack Obama doesn't.
In a speech before a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, President Bush pointed out the real reasons Islamofascists hate us: "They hate what they see right here in this chamber — a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."
Bush aptly called the 9/11 terrorists and their ilk "the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century."
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism," he said.
Knowing the nature of your enemy is the key to victory. On the seventh anniversary of 9/11, we should all thank President Bush for keeping America safe. Along the way, he brought freedom and democracy to the Middle East, draining the terrorist swamp.
Bush gets it. So does John McCain. This is one thing we shouldn't want to change.
Email To Friend |
A 'Macaca' Moment For Obama?
A 'Macaca' Moment For Obama?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Back when he led the polls, Barack Obama gallantly promised a new, post-partisan politics. Now his lead is gone, and he's getting personal about Sarah Palin. However he justifies it, he's starting to look small.
Ever since the governor of Alaska joined the Republican ticket, Team Obama has been at a loss about how to take her on. For a while, they just called Gov. Palin the "mayor of Wasilla" and "lieutenant governor" of the state. But now they've turned to far worse code words in a bid to psychologically demean her.
On Tuesday in Virginia, Obama himself sank to levels not even plumbed by Joe Biden. He basically called the GOP's vice presidential contender a stinking fish and a pig, all to the knowing cheers of his audience.
"You can put lipstick on a pig," he told his crowd. "It's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink. We've had enough of the same old thing."
But rest assured, Obama said when questioned later, the statement was "innocent."
We're not so sure. In light of Palin's reference to pit bulls and lipstick in her convention speech last week, and her nickname of Barracuda, Obama's remark looked like a bid to psychologically bully her with an arpeggio of trash talk.
It also wasn't spontaneous. Obama's remarks leading into the lipstick comment appeared to be lifted from a Sept. 5 political cartoon by the Washington Post's Tom Toles. Confidently delivered, Obama's lines were all memorized.
The hostility of it all echoes politician George Allen's exasperated identification of an Indian-American filmmaker who was stalking him as "macaca," a patronizing remark that sank his campaign. It's made worse because claims of sexism against Obama from disgruntled Hillary Clinton Democrats are already a live issue.
It was hip and modern Obama, not crotchety old John McCain, who called a female reporter "sweetie" on the campaign trail, noting in his apology that it was a bad habit.
Meanwhile, feminist columnist Tammy Bruce wrote recently that Obama just didn't compare Hillary Clinton to actress Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction." He actually said: "I understand that Sen. Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal." He effectively reduced her strong electoral challenge to premenstrual syndrome.
Obama then refused to even consider Clinton as his running mate, despite the votes she'd bring. It infuriated many female voters.
The mate he did pick, Joe Biden, has shown at least as much befuddlement. After solicitously complimenting Palin on her looks, he called Palin the "lieutenant governor" of Alaska.
Obama himself has condescendingly referred to Palin's motherhood to deflect voter attention from her successful role as governor. "She hasn't been on the scene, you know, she's got five kids and my hat goes off to anybody who's looking after five. I've got two and they tire Michelle and me out," he smarmed.
His supporters in the left-wing blogosphere reflected the tone Obama had set, obsessively Googling for Palin bikini pictures, and photoshopping their own when they couldn't find any.
Why would someone like Obama, presumably from the "enlightened" liberal branch of the Democratic Party, stoop to such apparent misogyny in lieu of confronting Palin as a political opponent?
It's not merely that she's got a stellar record as governor that eclipses his record by comparison, but perhaps the crude identity politics of the Democratic platform as well.
Democrats don't see voters as individuals, but as special interest groups. They pigeonhole them into narrow agendas and identities, and anyone who dares to stand outside that is considered a nonperson. They can be degraded.
In Denver, the main spoil Democrats offered to women was abortion on demand, not party power. No small wonder, then, that a Democrat leader Wednesday said McCain chose Palin, "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion."
Governor of Alaska, our biggest energy state? A reformer who took on her own party? Initiator of the world's largest construction project in the $40 billion trans-Canada natural gas pipeline? National Guard chief in our most strategic state?
These are real achievements. Democrats could challenge them, but they have little to offer instead.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Back when he led the polls, Barack Obama gallantly promised a new, post-partisan politics. Now his lead is gone, and he's getting personal about Sarah Palin. However he justifies it, he's starting to look small.
Ever since the governor of Alaska joined the Republican ticket, Team Obama has been at a loss about how to take her on. For a while, they just called Gov. Palin the "mayor of Wasilla" and "lieutenant governor" of the state. But now they've turned to far worse code words in a bid to psychologically demean her.
On Tuesday in Virginia, Obama himself sank to levels not even plumbed by Joe Biden. He basically called the GOP's vice presidential contender a stinking fish and a pig, all to the knowing cheers of his audience.
"You can put lipstick on a pig," he told his crowd. "It's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink. We've had enough of the same old thing."
But rest assured, Obama said when questioned later, the statement was "innocent."
We're not so sure. In light of Palin's reference to pit bulls and lipstick in her convention speech last week, and her nickname of Barracuda, Obama's remark looked like a bid to psychologically bully her with an arpeggio of trash talk.
It also wasn't spontaneous. Obama's remarks leading into the lipstick comment appeared to be lifted from a Sept. 5 political cartoon by the Washington Post's Tom Toles. Confidently delivered, Obama's lines were all memorized.
The hostility of it all echoes politician George Allen's exasperated identification of an Indian-American filmmaker who was stalking him as "macaca," a patronizing remark that sank his campaign. It's made worse because claims of sexism against Obama from disgruntled Hillary Clinton Democrats are already a live issue.
It was hip and modern Obama, not crotchety old John McCain, who called a female reporter "sweetie" on the campaign trail, noting in his apology that it was a bad habit.
Meanwhile, feminist columnist Tammy Bruce wrote recently that Obama just didn't compare Hillary Clinton to actress Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction." He actually said: "I understand that Sen. Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal." He effectively reduced her strong electoral challenge to premenstrual syndrome.
Obama then refused to even consider Clinton as his running mate, despite the votes she'd bring. It infuriated many female voters.
The mate he did pick, Joe Biden, has shown at least as much befuddlement. After solicitously complimenting Palin on her looks, he called Palin the "lieutenant governor" of Alaska.
Obama himself has condescendingly referred to Palin's motherhood to deflect voter attention from her successful role as governor. "She hasn't been on the scene, you know, she's got five kids and my hat goes off to anybody who's looking after five. I've got two and they tire Michelle and me out," he smarmed.
His supporters in the left-wing blogosphere reflected the tone Obama had set, obsessively Googling for Palin bikini pictures, and photoshopping their own when they couldn't find any.
Why would someone like Obama, presumably from the "enlightened" liberal branch of the Democratic Party, stoop to such apparent misogyny in lieu of confronting Palin as a political opponent?
It's not merely that she's got a stellar record as governor that eclipses his record by comparison, but perhaps the crude identity politics of the Democratic platform as well.
Democrats don't see voters as individuals, but as special interest groups. They pigeonhole them into narrow agendas and identities, and anyone who dares to stand outside that is considered a nonperson. They can be degraded.
In Denver, the main spoil Democrats offered to women was abortion on demand, not party power. No small wonder, then, that a Democrat leader Wednesday said McCain chose Palin, "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion."
Governor of Alaska, our biggest energy state? A reformer who took on her own party? Initiator of the world's largest construction project in the $40 billion trans-Canada natural gas pipeline? National Guard chief in our most strategic state?
These are real achievements. Democrats could challenge them, but they have little to offer instead.
Email To Friend |
McCain Has Proven He's a Change Agent
McCain Has Proven He's a Change Agent
Wednesday, September 10, 2008 2:26 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Now that the conventions are over, it is evident that the battle of John McCain is over (McCain won), and the battle of Barack Obama will determine the outcome of the election.
Now that McCain has definitively, and I suspect irreversibly, separated himself from Bush, he has become an acceptable alternative to Obama for voters seeking change. The question now is whether Obama's extra quotient of change — or the different direction that change will take — is worth the risk of electing him.
Obama was wrong to invest so much in the Bush-McCain linkage. Any candidate can define himself at his convention. And if McCain chose, as he did, to use the gathering to distance himself from Washington and from the Bush administration, there was really nothing that Obama could do to stop him. He should have focused very specifically on McCain himself and taken shots at specific votes and bills that he introduced.
Now, after the massive exposure McCain got at his convention and the demonstrable commitment to change embodied in the selection of Sarah Palin, it is too late.
The Obama campaign doesn't seem to get that it is running against McCain, not Sarah Palin. They spent the entire Republican Convention and the week since attacking the vice presidential candidate. That's like stabbing the capillaries instead of the arteries.
Nobody is going to vote for or against McCain because they want Sarah Palin to be vice president of the United States, or don't. But Palin has served, and will serve, a key purpose in illustrating and demonstrating what kind of a man John McCain is. She stands as a tribute to his desire to bring change, his willingness to cut loose from the past, and his courage in attempting innovation.
No amount of criticism of Palin is going to stop that process. Obama needs to remember who his opponent is.
Now the election will hinge on a referendum on Obama. Is the extra healthcare coverage he would pass worth the huge tax increases he will impose?
Nobody buys his claim that he will only increase taxes on a few rich people and give the rest of us tax cuts. Voters can add, and they realize that his spending plans and tax-cut promises come to a trillion dollars and that his tax increases represent only one-tenth as much. They know that everyone who pays taxes will end up paying more if Obama is elected. The question will be, Is it worth it?
Is his commitment to income redistribution and increasing tax "fairness" worth the risk his tax plans pose for the economy?
Is his plan to pull out of Iraq and his commitment to multilateralism in foreign policy worth the risk of putting someone with virtually no foreign policy experience in charge of our international relations in the middle of a war?
Is his promise to respect the Constitution and ratchet back the intrusions of the Bush homeland security measures worth the extra risk of terror attack?
The answer to these questions will only partially depend on what Obama is proposing and on how sound we think his judgment is. They will also depend on the events that will transpire between now and Election Day.
If Iran moves closer to getting nuclear weapons or Israel attacks Iran to forestall that development, things could change in a hurry. If the current atmosphere of economic uncertainty and impending possible crisis — signaled by the federal takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae — deepens, it may make voters less willing to risk the high taxes and big spending that Obama will bring in his wake.
If Russia continues to assert its imperial right to dominate Eastern Europe and restore a Soviet-style satellite empire, voters will wonder if they can take a chance on Obama.
But if things are relatively peaceful and uneventful, voters may bristle at the stagnation and turn to Obama in the hopes of change.
The key point is that this race is now not about Bush or McCain or Clinton or Palin. It's all about Obama.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Print Page |
Wednesday, September 10, 2008 2:26 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Now that the conventions are over, it is evident that the battle of John McCain is over (McCain won), and the battle of Barack Obama will determine the outcome of the election.
Now that McCain has definitively, and I suspect irreversibly, separated himself from Bush, he has become an acceptable alternative to Obama for voters seeking change. The question now is whether Obama's extra quotient of change — or the different direction that change will take — is worth the risk of electing him.
Obama was wrong to invest so much in the Bush-McCain linkage. Any candidate can define himself at his convention. And if McCain chose, as he did, to use the gathering to distance himself from Washington and from the Bush administration, there was really nothing that Obama could do to stop him. He should have focused very specifically on McCain himself and taken shots at specific votes and bills that he introduced.
Now, after the massive exposure McCain got at his convention and the demonstrable commitment to change embodied in the selection of Sarah Palin, it is too late.
The Obama campaign doesn't seem to get that it is running against McCain, not Sarah Palin. They spent the entire Republican Convention and the week since attacking the vice presidential candidate. That's like stabbing the capillaries instead of the arteries.
Nobody is going to vote for or against McCain because they want Sarah Palin to be vice president of the United States, or don't. But Palin has served, and will serve, a key purpose in illustrating and demonstrating what kind of a man John McCain is. She stands as a tribute to his desire to bring change, his willingness to cut loose from the past, and his courage in attempting innovation.
No amount of criticism of Palin is going to stop that process. Obama needs to remember who his opponent is.
Now the election will hinge on a referendum on Obama. Is the extra healthcare coverage he would pass worth the huge tax increases he will impose?
Nobody buys his claim that he will only increase taxes on a few rich people and give the rest of us tax cuts. Voters can add, and they realize that his spending plans and tax-cut promises come to a trillion dollars and that his tax increases represent only one-tenth as much. They know that everyone who pays taxes will end up paying more if Obama is elected. The question will be, Is it worth it?
Is his commitment to income redistribution and increasing tax "fairness" worth the risk his tax plans pose for the economy?
Is his plan to pull out of Iraq and his commitment to multilateralism in foreign policy worth the risk of putting someone with virtually no foreign policy experience in charge of our international relations in the middle of a war?
Is his promise to respect the Constitution and ratchet back the intrusions of the Bush homeland security measures worth the extra risk of terror attack?
The answer to these questions will only partially depend on what Obama is proposing and on how sound we think his judgment is. They will also depend on the events that will transpire between now and Election Day.
If Iran moves closer to getting nuclear weapons or Israel attacks Iran to forestall that development, things could change in a hurry. If the current atmosphere of economic uncertainty and impending possible crisis — signaled by the federal takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae — deepens, it may make voters less willing to risk the high taxes and big spending that Obama will bring in his wake.
If Russia continues to assert its imperial right to dominate Eastern Europe and restore a Soviet-style satellite empire, voters will wonder if they can take a chance on Obama.
But if things are relatively peaceful and uneventful, voters may bristle at the stagnation and turn to Obama in the hopes of change.
The key point is that this race is now not about Bush or McCain or Clinton or Palin. It's all about Obama.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Print Page |
Enjoy
THIS SENT VIA SEVERAL READERS AND FRIENDS OF FRIENDS THANKS TO ALL ESPECIALLY ALICE
Enjoy
Enjoy
One of Them and One of Us
by Patrick J. Buchanan
One wonders: What did Sarah Palin ever do to inspire the rage and bile that exploded on her selection by John McCain? What is there either in this woman's record or resume to elicit such feline ferocity?
What did we know of her when she was introduced?
That she was a mother of five who had brought into this world a baby boy with Down syndrome, thus living her Christian beliefs. That she was a small-town conservative who had risen from mayor of Wasilla (Pop. 9,700) to be governor of a state twice the size of Texas .
That she was a reformer who had dethroned an Old Boys' Network by dumping a sitting Republican governor. That she had taken on Big Oil, taxed the companies and returned the money in $1,200 checks to every citizen of Alaska . And that she had cut a deal with Canada to build a pipeline to bring natural gas to her fellow Americans.
And, oh, yes. She was "Sarah Barracuda" -- a fierce high school athlete, a runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant, a Feminist for Life and lifetime member of the NRA. Introduced by McCain, she praised Hillary Clinton and pledged to finish her work by smashing through the glass ceiling in which Hillary had made 18 million cracks.
What, in any or all of this, is there to justify the feral attacks within minutes of her introduction? What had she done to cause this outburst? Answer: absolutely nothing.
No. Sarah Palin is not resented for what she has done, but for who she is: a Christian conservative who believes unborn children are gifts of God, even those with birth defects, and have a God-given right to life.
Normally, the press is reluctant to rummage into the private lives of public servants, unless their conduct affects their duties or they preach virtues they hypocritically do not practice.
Yet, no sooner was Palin introduced, than the media went berserk over the news that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. As one in three births in America is out-of-wedlock and Hollywood celebrates this lifestyle, why did The New York Times and The Washington Post splash this "news" on page one above the fold?
How does Bristol Palin's pregnancy disqualify Sarah Palin to be vice president? Why is it even relevant?
They did it because they thought it would damage Sarah Palin in the eyes of a Christian community they do not comprehend.
So out of bounds was the media that Obama, in an act of decency, declared Palin's family off limits and reminded the media that he was himself born to a teenage single mom.
If one would wish to see the famous liberal double standard on naked display, consider.
Palin's daughter was fair game for a media that refused to look into reports that John Edwards, a Democratic candidate for president, was conducting an illicit affair with a woman said to be carrying his child and cheating on his faithful wife Elizabeth, who has incurable cancer. That was not a legitimate story, but Bristol Palin's pregnancy is?
Why did the selection of Sarah Palin cause a suspension of all standards and a near riot among a media that has been so in the tank for Barack even "Saturday Night Live" has satirized the infatuation?
Because she is one of us -- and he is one of them.
Barack and Michelle are affirmative action, Princeton, Columbia , Harvard Law. She is public schools and Idaho State . Barack was a Saul Alinsky social worker who rustled up food stamps. Sarah Palin kills her own food.
Michelle has a $300,000-a-year sinecure doing PR for a Chicago hospital. Todd Palin is a union steelworker who augments his income working vacations on the North Slope . Sarah has always been proud to be an American. Michelle was never proud of America -- until Barack started winning.
Barack has zero experience as an executive. Sarah ran her own fishing fleet, was mayor for six years and runs the largest state in the union. She belongs to a mainstream Christian church. Barack was, for 15 years, a parishioner at Trinity United and had his daughters baptized by Pastor Jeremiah Wright, whose sermons are saturated in black-power, anti-white racism and anti-Americanism.
Sarah is a rebel. Obama has been a go-along, get-along cog in the Daley Machine. She is Middle America . Barack, behind closed doors in San Francisco , mocked Middle Americans as folks left behind by the global economy who cling bitterly to their Bibles, bigotries and guns.
Barack has zero foreign policy experience. Palin runs a state that is home to anti-missile, missile and air defense bases facing the Far East, commands the Alaska National Guard and has a soldier-son heading for Iraq .
Barack, says the National Journal, has the most left-wing voting record in the Senate, besting Socialist Bernie Sanders. Palin's stances read as though they were lifted from Reagan's 1980 "no pale pastels" platform. And this is what this media firestorm is all about.
-----------
Read more articles like this at HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE!
http://www.humanevents.com/
Enjoy
Enjoy
One of Them and One of Us
by Patrick J. Buchanan
One wonders: What did Sarah Palin ever do to inspire the rage and bile that exploded on her selection by John McCain? What is there either in this woman's record or resume to elicit such feline ferocity?
What did we know of her when she was introduced?
That she was a mother of five who had brought into this world a baby boy with Down syndrome, thus living her Christian beliefs. That she was a small-town conservative who had risen from mayor of Wasilla (Pop. 9,700) to be governor of a state twice the size of Texas .
That she was a reformer who had dethroned an Old Boys' Network by dumping a sitting Republican governor. That she had taken on Big Oil, taxed the companies and returned the money in $1,200 checks to every citizen of Alaska . And that she had cut a deal with Canada to build a pipeline to bring natural gas to her fellow Americans.
And, oh, yes. She was "Sarah Barracuda" -- a fierce high school athlete, a runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant, a Feminist for Life and lifetime member of the NRA. Introduced by McCain, she praised Hillary Clinton and pledged to finish her work by smashing through the glass ceiling in which Hillary had made 18 million cracks.
What, in any or all of this, is there to justify the feral attacks within minutes of her introduction? What had she done to cause this outburst? Answer: absolutely nothing.
No. Sarah Palin is not resented for what she has done, but for who she is: a Christian conservative who believes unborn children are gifts of God, even those with birth defects, and have a God-given right to life.
Normally, the press is reluctant to rummage into the private lives of public servants, unless their conduct affects their duties or they preach virtues they hypocritically do not practice.
Yet, no sooner was Palin introduced, than the media went berserk over the news that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. As one in three births in America is out-of-wedlock and Hollywood celebrates this lifestyle, why did The New York Times and The Washington Post splash this "news" on page one above the fold?
How does Bristol Palin's pregnancy disqualify Sarah Palin to be vice president? Why is it even relevant?
They did it because they thought it would damage Sarah Palin in the eyes of a Christian community they do not comprehend.
So out of bounds was the media that Obama, in an act of decency, declared Palin's family off limits and reminded the media that he was himself born to a teenage single mom.
If one would wish to see the famous liberal double standard on naked display, consider.
Palin's daughter was fair game for a media that refused to look into reports that John Edwards, a Democratic candidate for president, was conducting an illicit affair with a woman said to be carrying his child and cheating on his faithful wife Elizabeth, who has incurable cancer. That was not a legitimate story, but Bristol Palin's pregnancy is?
Why did the selection of Sarah Palin cause a suspension of all standards and a near riot among a media that has been so in the tank for Barack even "Saturday Night Live" has satirized the infatuation?
Because she is one of us -- and he is one of them.
Barack and Michelle are affirmative action, Princeton, Columbia , Harvard Law. She is public schools and Idaho State . Barack was a Saul Alinsky social worker who rustled up food stamps. Sarah Palin kills her own food.
Michelle has a $300,000-a-year sinecure doing PR for a Chicago hospital. Todd Palin is a union steelworker who augments his income working vacations on the North Slope . Sarah has always been proud to be an American. Michelle was never proud of America -- until Barack started winning.
Barack has zero experience as an executive. Sarah ran her own fishing fleet, was mayor for six years and runs the largest state in the union. She belongs to a mainstream Christian church. Barack was, for 15 years, a parishioner at Trinity United and had his daughters baptized by Pastor Jeremiah Wright, whose sermons are saturated in black-power, anti-white racism and anti-Americanism.
Sarah is a rebel. Obama has been a go-along, get-along cog in the Daley Machine. She is Middle America . Barack, behind closed doors in San Francisco , mocked Middle Americans as folks left behind by the global economy who cling bitterly to their Bibles, bigotries and guns.
Barack has zero foreign policy experience. Palin runs a state that is home to anti-missile, missile and air defense bases facing the Far East, commands the Alaska National Guard and has a soldier-son heading for Iraq .
Barack, says the National Journal, has the most left-wing voting record in the Senate, besting Socialist Bernie Sanders. Palin's stances read as though they were lifted from Reagan's 1980 "no pale pastels" platform. And this is what this media firestorm is all about.
-----------
Read more articles like this at HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE!
http://www.humanevents.com/
Spare Me the Phony Outrage,’ Obama Says
CNSNews.com
‘Spare Me the Phony Outrage,’ Obama Says
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama addresses supporters at Lebanon High School High School in Lebanon, Va., Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2008. (AP Photo/Don Petersen)(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Barack Obama, appearing at a Norfolk, Va., high school Wednesday morning, responded to the “made-up controversy” involving Obama’s own comment about “lipstick on a pig.”
“Enough! I don’t care what they say about me. But I love this country too much to let them (Republicans) take over another election with lies and phony outrage and Swift Boat politics. Enough is enough.”
At a campaign appearance in rural Virginia on Tuesday, Obama questioned Sen. John McCain’s commitment to “change,” saying, “You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig.”
Although he said it with a straight face, many Americans viewed the comment as a sly reference to Sen. John McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has joked that the only difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull is lipstick. (See earlier story)
The McCain campaign and its supporters expressed outrage, and by Wednesday morning, the Republican National Committee had produced an ad juxtaposing Obama’s and Palin’s “lipstick” comments -- and suggesting that Obama had deliberately insulted Palin.
“What their campaign has done this morning is the same game that has made people sick and tired of politics in this country,” Obama said on Wednesday. “They seize on an innocent remark, try to take it out of context, throw up an outrageous ad, because they know that it’s catnip to the news media.”
Obama said the American people end up losing when the important issues are not addressed. “The McCain campaign would much rather have a story about phony and foolish diversions than the future,” he said.
“These are serious times. And they call for a serious debate about where we need to take the nation.” Obama then listed some of the serious issues and warned that a McCain administration would continued the “failed” policies of the Bush administration.
“So spare me the phony outrage,” Obama said. “We have real problems in this country right now. And the American people are looking to us for answers, not distractions, not diversions, not manipulations. They want real answers to the real problems that we are facing. That’s the kind of debate that I intend to have, because that’s the kind of debate that the American people deserve.”
Recent polls indicate that white women are moving to the McCain campaign in large numbers.
According to the latest Washington Post/ABC News survey, white women back the McCain-Palin ticket over Obama-Biden, 53-41 percent. Before the conventions, they backed Obama over McCain by 50-42 percent.
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 9 Comments 1 2 Next Loading...
csaling at 01:45 PM - September 10, 2008
When Obama scratched his face & flipped off Hillary Clinton his fans cheered. Of course he was just scratching his face. When Obama referred to Pigs & Lipstick, his fans cheered. When Obama referred to Dead Fish wrapped in paper, his fans cheered & began chanting no more pit bull? If Obama's fans believe his was insulting Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin & John McCain. What are the rest of us to believe?
MrPitchfork at 01:16 PM - September 10, 2008
hahaha! You've got to be kidding me... I guess their campaign has always been so honest and straight forward with all that promise of "change". Yeah right.. change.. LOL... how about this for change.. shrink the federal government, get rid of the federal reserve and IRS, become energy independent, create jobs in America, protect our borders, stop stealing money from the American people... FIRE Pelosi.. send Al Gore to China as restitution for the deficit.. They can have the money he's saving from making his house "green".. no wait.. it uses 20% MORE energy than it did before...
gjgilm@aol.com at 01:11 PM - September 10, 2008
first he failed to respect our wounded in Europe, now he reaches into the gutter to name call, and THEN has the audacity, having created this fire to blame the republicans about not talking about serious issues----the junior senator from Ill. is showing his lack of experience---and his lack of social skills---it would seem Haavard didn't fully take on him. Gary (old dude) http://threescoreplusten.blogspot.com/
Tarmangani at 01:04 PM - September 10, 2008
Just an innocent remark. I suppose if McCain said something like "My plan is the steak and lobster plan and theirs is the fried chicken and watermelon plan.". I suppose Barack would just say that there was no harm and McCain was just trying to make a point. I tend to think he would not.
Albaby at 12:59 PM - September 10, 2008
Spare me your phony "love of country" and "Swift boat politics comments. They are as outrageous as most of your other comments. I see you also regularly wrap yourself in the flag and wear a flag pin now. Will you show us where those other seven states are? LOL
Post New Comment
You must be logged in to leave comments! Click here to log in.
CNSNews.com Toolbox
Print Article
E-mail this Article
Subscribe to E-Brief
CNSNews.com News Ticker
Share it:
x Send link to a friend:
sending...
Your Name: Your E-mail: Your Friend(s) e-mail address(s):
Add emails separated with ";"
Related Articles
Poll Shows McCain Still Leads Obama by Five Points
McCain Closing in on Obama on Economy
Obama on Wright, Ayers: ‘Guilt by Association’
November Lineup: Obama vs. Obama
Americans Mull Obama’s ‘Lipstick on a Pig’ Comment
Foreigners Support Obama over McCain by More Than 4 to 1, Global Poll Shows
Obama Promises to Boost Charter School Funding
McCain Holds onto Five-Point Lead
Related Videos
Bob Barr: Libertarians Are In It To Win It"
Newt Gingrich: 'Elite Media Is Totally Pro-Obama'
Obama is No 'Anti-War' Candidate, Say Liberal Activists
‘Spare Me the Phony Outrage,’ Obama Says
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama addresses supporters at Lebanon High School High School in Lebanon, Va., Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2008. (AP Photo/Don Petersen)(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Barack Obama, appearing at a Norfolk, Va., high school Wednesday morning, responded to the “made-up controversy” involving Obama’s own comment about “lipstick on a pig.”
“Enough! I don’t care what they say about me. But I love this country too much to let them (Republicans) take over another election with lies and phony outrage and Swift Boat politics. Enough is enough.”
At a campaign appearance in rural Virginia on Tuesday, Obama questioned Sen. John McCain’s commitment to “change,” saying, “You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig.”
Although he said it with a straight face, many Americans viewed the comment as a sly reference to Sen. John McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has joked that the only difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull is lipstick. (See earlier story)
The McCain campaign and its supporters expressed outrage, and by Wednesday morning, the Republican National Committee had produced an ad juxtaposing Obama’s and Palin’s “lipstick” comments -- and suggesting that Obama had deliberately insulted Palin.
“What their campaign has done this morning is the same game that has made people sick and tired of politics in this country,” Obama said on Wednesday. “They seize on an innocent remark, try to take it out of context, throw up an outrageous ad, because they know that it’s catnip to the news media.”
Obama said the American people end up losing when the important issues are not addressed. “The McCain campaign would much rather have a story about phony and foolish diversions than the future,” he said.
“These are serious times. And they call for a serious debate about where we need to take the nation.” Obama then listed some of the serious issues and warned that a McCain administration would continued the “failed” policies of the Bush administration.
“So spare me the phony outrage,” Obama said. “We have real problems in this country right now. And the American people are looking to us for answers, not distractions, not diversions, not manipulations. They want real answers to the real problems that we are facing. That’s the kind of debate that I intend to have, because that’s the kind of debate that the American people deserve.”
Recent polls indicate that white women are moving to the McCain campaign in large numbers.
According to the latest Washington Post/ABC News survey, white women back the McCain-Palin ticket over Obama-Biden, 53-41 percent. Before the conventions, they backed Obama over McCain by 50-42 percent.
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 9 Comments 1 2 Next Loading...
csaling at 01:45 PM - September 10, 2008
When Obama scratched his face & flipped off Hillary Clinton his fans cheered. Of course he was just scratching his face. When Obama referred to Pigs & Lipstick, his fans cheered. When Obama referred to Dead Fish wrapped in paper, his fans cheered & began chanting no more pit bull? If Obama's fans believe his was insulting Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin & John McCain. What are the rest of us to believe?
MrPitchfork at 01:16 PM - September 10, 2008
hahaha! You've got to be kidding me... I guess their campaign has always been so honest and straight forward with all that promise of "change". Yeah right.. change.. LOL... how about this for change.. shrink the federal government, get rid of the federal reserve and IRS, become energy independent, create jobs in America, protect our borders, stop stealing money from the American people... FIRE Pelosi.. send Al Gore to China as restitution for the deficit.. They can have the money he's saving from making his house "green".. no wait.. it uses 20% MORE energy than it did before...
gjgilm@aol.com at 01:11 PM - September 10, 2008
first he failed to respect our wounded in Europe, now he reaches into the gutter to name call, and THEN has the audacity, having created this fire to blame the republicans about not talking about serious issues----the junior senator from Ill. is showing his lack of experience---and his lack of social skills---it would seem Haavard didn't fully take on him. Gary (old dude) http://threescoreplusten.blogspot.com/
Tarmangani at 01:04 PM - September 10, 2008
Just an innocent remark. I suppose if McCain said something like "My plan is the steak and lobster plan and theirs is the fried chicken and watermelon plan.". I suppose Barack would just say that there was no harm and McCain was just trying to make a point. I tend to think he would not.
Albaby at 12:59 PM - September 10, 2008
Spare me your phony "love of country" and "Swift boat politics comments. They are as outrageous as most of your other comments. I see you also regularly wrap yourself in the flag and wear a flag pin now. Will you show us where those other seven states are? LOL
Post New Comment
You must be logged in to leave comments! Click here to log in.
CNSNews.com Toolbox
Print Article
E-mail this Article
Subscribe to E-Brief
CNSNews.com News Ticker
Share it:
x Send link to a friend:
sending...
Your Name: Your E-mail: Your Friend(s) e-mail address(s):
Add emails separated with ";"
Related Articles
Poll Shows McCain Still Leads Obama by Five Points
McCain Closing in on Obama on Economy
Obama on Wright, Ayers: ‘Guilt by Association’
November Lineup: Obama vs. Obama
Americans Mull Obama’s ‘Lipstick on a Pig’ Comment
Foreigners Support Obama over McCain by More Than 4 to 1, Global Poll Shows
Obama Promises to Boost Charter School Funding
McCain Holds onto Five-Point Lead
Related Videos
Bob Barr: Libertarians Are In It To Win It"
Newt Gingrich: 'Elite Media Is Totally Pro-Obama'
Obama is No 'Anti-War' Candidate, Say Liberal Activists
U.N. Thugs
WELL WORTH READING, GOOD FOUNDATION FOR GET U S OUT THE UN AND THE UN OUT OF US.
U.N. Thugs
By Christine Williams
FrontPageMagazine.com
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=2F7B062F-8FE7-47AB-8F84-483F76CDC926
Support for Israel has never ranked high on the United Nations’ agenda. And the upcoming World Conference Against Racism, scheduled for early 2009 in Geneva, Switzerland, presents a valid case. Many observers are concerned that the UN-sponsored event will simply serve as yet another a platform to launch attacks against Israel -- as the previous world anti-racism conference did in Durban, South Africa, seven years ago.
Even by the standards of the organization’s traditional antagonism toward the Jewish State, the U.N.’s 2001 Durban gathering marked a low point. To the extent that “racism” was discussed, it was only to condemn Israeli policies. Little wonder that the conference, known as “ Durban I,” is largely remembered as a U.N.-backed assault on Israel.
Now it’s back. And if early evidence is any guide, Durban II, as the Geneva event is already being called, will be a replay of its predecessor. Consider that the chair of the conference’s planning committee is Libya, whose longtime leader, Muammar Gadhafi, has recently claimed that the Israeli Mossad aims to assassinate Barack Obama. The vice chair of the conference, meanwhile, is communist Cuba. And the fact that Iran's president has notoriously called for Israel’s destruction has not, expectedly, prevented it from playing a key leadership role in the upcoming conference.
Nor does it bode well for Durban II that its agenda will be set by the 56-member Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). In particular, the conference will consider responses to “Islamophobia.” In this connection, the OIC’s members will consider what they regard as the problematic Western right to free speech. Referring to the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed published in Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten and to “Fitna,” Dutch politician Geert Wilders’s documentary about Islam, OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu recently promised to send “a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed.” He went on to warn Western countries to “look seriously into the question of freedom of expression.”
For their part, Western countries should make clear that they will not allow the OIC to dictate what can and cannot be said about Islam. Instead, they should shift the focus onto the OIC. Instead of concerning themselves with alleged Western prejudices, Islamic states would do well to ponder the rampant racism in the Muslim World. Darfur, where an estimated 300,000 Muslims have been killed by their fellow Muslims, prompting the United Nations to call it the worst human rights disaster in the world, would be a logical starting point. From there, the OIC might consider the continued bloodshed between Shiites and Sunnis, and the fanatical suicide bombers who have claimed the lives of thousands of their co-religionists. One need hardly look to the West to find “Islamophobia” in action.
As for “racism,” the conference’s nominal subject, it is worth bearing in mind that slavery - the most racist of practices - endures in the Islamic world even as it has been abolished in the West. In OIC member states like Sudan and Mauritania, Arabs still keep black African slaves. Sudan 's president, Omar al-Bashir, who was indicted by the World Court for human rights abuses in Darfur, is reputed to have black slaves in his own house. According to NGO reports, some 200,000 southern Sudanese have been enslaved during Bashir’s reign, a practice that the UN has charged is “deeply rooted in Arab and Muslim supremacism.” (Such grim statistics did not deter the Sudanese Minister of Justice from demanding, in a stunning act of hypocrisy, reparations for historical slavery during Durban I.) And while Mauritania legally abolished slavery in 1980, it is still practiced secretly. Even Muslims in the West have not accepted its ban on slavery. For example, four Arab princesses were found in July living in Brussels with 17 slaves.
The persistence of slavery in the Muslim world is not, of course, surprising. In August 1990, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights was affirmed by the 57 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). It stated that Islamic Sharia law is the sole source of the Islamic perspective on human rights. And slavery is codified in Sharia law. It is doubtful, naturally, that this detail will be much discussed during Durban II.
In light of recent history, it makes sense that Israel has decided to boycott next year’s conference. Canada has also decided to boycott Durban II, and other Western countries should consider following the Canadian example. It’s the height of absurdity for free nations to have to endure lectures on human rights from its preeminent abusers. In 2001, they could have claimed to be unaware of the conference’s sinister agenda. Seven years later, ignorance is no longer an excuse or an option.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Williams is the producer and host of the Canadian award-winning daily current affairs program On the Line (CTS).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Congress for Truth
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
member@americancongressfortruth.org
http://www.americancongressfortruth.org
Every day, American Congress for Truth (ACT) a 501c3 non-profit organization is on the front lines fighting for you in meeting with politicians, decision makers, speaking on college campuses and planning events to educate and inform the public about the threat of Islamofascism. To maintain and bolster our efforts, we need your continued solidarity, activism and financial support. We are only as strong as our supporters. We thank you for helping us carry on this important work.
U.N. Thugs
By Christine Williams
FrontPageMagazine.com
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=2F7B062F-8FE7-47AB-8F84-483F76CDC926
Support for Israel has never ranked high on the United Nations’ agenda. And the upcoming World Conference Against Racism, scheduled for early 2009 in Geneva, Switzerland, presents a valid case. Many observers are concerned that the UN-sponsored event will simply serve as yet another a platform to launch attacks against Israel -- as the previous world anti-racism conference did in Durban, South Africa, seven years ago.
Even by the standards of the organization’s traditional antagonism toward the Jewish State, the U.N.’s 2001 Durban gathering marked a low point. To the extent that “racism” was discussed, it was only to condemn Israeli policies. Little wonder that the conference, known as “ Durban I,” is largely remembered as a U.N.-backed assault on Israel.
Now it’s back. And if early evidence is any guide, Durban II, as the Geneva event is already being called, will be a replay of its predecessor. Consider that the chair of the conference’s planning committee is Libya, whose longtime leader, Muammar Gadhafi, has recently claimed that the Israeli Mossad aims to assassinate Barack Obama. The vice chair of the conference, meanwhile, is communist Cuba. And the fact that Iran's president has notoriously called for Israel’s destruction has not, expectedly, prevented it from playing a key leadership role in the upcoming conference.
Nor does it bode well for Durban II that its agenda will be set by the 56-member Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). In particular, the conference will consider responses to “Islamophobia.” In this connection, the OIC’s members will consider what they regard as the problematic Western right to free speech. Referring to the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed published in Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten and to “Fitna,” Dutch politician Geert Wilders’s documentary about Islam, OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu recently promised to send “a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed.” He went on to warn Western countries to “look seriously into the question of freedom of expression.”
For their part, Western countries should make clear that they will not allow the OIC to dictate what can and cannot be said about Islam. Instead, they should shift the focus onto the OIC. Instead of concerning themselves with alleged Western prejudices, Islamic states would do well to ponder the rampant racism in the Muslim World. Darfur, where an estimated 300,000 Muslims have been killed by their fellow Muslims, prompting the United Nations to call it the worst human rights disaster in the world, would be a logical starting point. From there, the OIC might consider the continued bloodshed between Shiites and Sunnis, and the fanatical suicide bombers who have claimed the lives of thousands of their co-religionists. One need hardly look to the West to find “Islamophobia” in action.
As for “racism,” the conference’s nominal subject, it is worth bearing in mind that slavery - the most racist of practices - endures in the Islamic world even as it has been abolished in the West. In OIC member states like Sudan and Mauritania, Arabs still keep black African slaves. Sudan 's president, Omar al-Bashir, who was indicted by the World Court for human rights abuses in Darfur, is reputed to have black slaves in his own house. According to NGO reports, some 200,000 southern Sudanese have been enslaved during Bashir’s reign, a practice that the UN has charged is “deeply rooted in Arab and Muslim supremacism.” (Such grim statistics did not deter the Sudanese Minister of Justice from demanding, in a stunning act of hypocrisy, reparations for historical slavery during Durban I.) And while Mauritania legally abolished slavery in 1980, it is still practiced secretly. Even Muslims in the West have not accepted its ban on slavery. For example, four Arab princesses were found in July living in Brussels with 17 slaves.
The persistence of slavery in the Muslim world is not, of course, surprising. In August 1990, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights was affirmed by the 57 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). It stated that Islamic Sharia law is the sole source of the Islamic perspective on human rights. And slavery is codified in Sharia law. It is doubtful, naturally, that this detail will be much discussed during Durban II.
In light of recent history, it makes sense that Israel has decided to boycott next year’s conference. Canada has also decided to boycott Durban II, and other Western countries should consider following the Canadian example. It’s the height of absurdity for free nations to have to endure lectures on human rights from its preeminent abusers. In 2001, they could have claimed to be unaware of the conference’s sinister agenda. Seven years later, ignorance is no longer an excuse or an option.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Williams is the producer and host of the Canadian award-winning daily current affairs program On the Line (CTS).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Congress for Truth
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
member@americancongressfortruth.org
http://www.americancongressfortruth.org
Every day, American Congress for Truth (ACT) a 501c3 non-profit organization is on the front lines fighting for you in meeting with politicians, decision makers, speaking on college campuses and planning events to educate and inform the public about the threat of Islamofascism. To maintain and bolster our efforts, we need your continued solidarity, activism and financial support. We are only as strong as our supporters. We thank you for helping us carry on this important work.
McCain: Obama 'Lipstick' Remark Disgraceful
McCain: Obama 'Lipstick' Remark Disgraceful
Tuesday, September 9, 2008 10:00 PM
LEBANON, Va. -- What's the difference between the presidential campaign before and after the national political conventions? Lipstick. The colorful cosmetic has become a political buzzword, thanks to Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's joke in her acceptance speech that lipstick is the only thing that separates a hockey mom like her from a pit bull.
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama told an audience Tuesday that GOP presidential nominee John McCain says he'll change Washington, but he's just like President Bush.
"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said to an outbreak of laughter, shouts and raucous applause from his audience, clearly drawing a connection to Palin's joke even if it's not what Obama meant. "It's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years."
McCain's campaign called the comments "offensive and disgraceful" and said Obama owes Palin an apology. Obama's campaign said he wasn't referring to Palin and said the GOP camp was engaging in a "pathetic attempt to play the gender card." Obama's camp also noted that McCain once used the same phrase to describe Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care plan.
Obama followed up by saying Palin is an interesting story, drawing boos at the mention of her name that he tried to cut off.
"Look, she's new, she hasn't been on the scene, she's got five kids. And my hat goes off to anybody who's looking after five. I've got two and they tire Michelle and me out," he said.
In Virginia, a questioner asked Obama to join Republicans and agree that candidates' families and religion are off limits. Palin's pregnant teenage daughter and the teachings of her church, the nondenominational Wasilla Bible Church, have been the subject of scrutiny since McCain picked her as his running mate.
Obama responded that he already has said families are off limits and he's very protective of his daughters, 10-year-old Malia and 7-year-old Sasha. He said he doesn't want their inevitable future mistakes to become newspaper fodder if he gets to the White House.
Obama also is no stranger to attacks on his religion. He's been the subject of a false rumor campaign saying he's a Muslim, and the racially tinged sermons of his longtime former preacher caused problems for his campaign earlier this year.
He stressed that he's a Christian and "so the fact that Gov. Palin is deeply religious, that's a good thing." Poking around in her religion or saying it's wrong is offensive, he said, adding that he wants to debate the issues.
"But don't give people some sort of religious litmus test because I don't want somebody to question my faith and I'm certainly not going to question somebody else's," he said.
Print Page
Tuesday, September 9, 2008 10:00 PM
LEBANON, Va. -- What's the difference between the presidential campaign before and after the national political conventions? Lipstick. The colorful cosmetic has become a political buzzword, thanks to Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's joke in her acceptance speech that lipstick is the only thing that separates a hockey mom like her from a pit bull.
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama told an audience Tuesday that GOP presidential nominee John McCain says he'll change Washington, but he's just like President Bush.
"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said to an outbreak of laughter, shouts and raucous applause from his audience, clearly drawing a connection to Palin's joke even if it's not what Obama meant. "It's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years."
McCain's campaign called the comments "offensive and disgraceful" and said Obama owes Palin an apology. Obama's campaign said he wasn't referring to Palin and said the GOP camp was engaging in a "pathetic attempt to play the gender card." Obama's camp also noted that McCain once used the same phrase to describe Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care plan.
Obama followed up by saying Palin is an interesting story, drawing boos at the mention of her name that he tried to cut off.
"Look, she's new, she hasn't been on the scene, she's got five kids. And my hat goes off to anybody who's looking after five. I've got two and they tire Michelle and me out," he said.
In Virginia, a questioner asked Obama to join Republicans and agree that candidates' families and religion are off limits. Palin's pregnant teenage daughter and the teachings of her church, the nondenominational Wasilla Bible Church, have been the subject of scrutiny since McCain picked her as his running mate.
Obama responded that he already has said families are off limits and he's very protective of his daughters, 10-year-old Malia and 7-year-old Sasha. He said he doesn't want their inevitable future mistakes to become newspaper fodder if he gets to the White House.
Obama also is no stranger to attacks on his religion. He's been the subject of a false rumor campaign saying he's a Muslim, and the racially tinged sermons of his longtime former preacher caused problems for his campaign earlier this year.
He stressed that he's a Christian and "so the fact that Gov. Palin is deeply religious, that's a good thing." Poking around in her religion or saying it's wrong is offensive, he said, adding that he wants to debate the issues.
"But don't give people some sort of religious litmus test because I don't want somebody to question my faith and I'm certainly not going to question somebody else's," he said.
Print Page
Can Palin Be VP and a Good Mother? Absolutely
Can Palin Be VP and a Good Mother? Absolutely
Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:17 PM
By: Ronald Kessler Article Font Size
As if in a time warp from the '50s, liberal commentators like Sally Quinn have questioned whether a woman with five kids can handle the job of being vice president. But for those who picture Sarah Palin coming back from her office at the White House each evening to cook dinner and wash dishes, here’s what the life of a vice president really is like.
The vice president lives rent-free in a handsome 9,150-square-foot, three-story mansion overlooking Massachusetts Avenue Northwest. Complete with pool, pool house, and indoor gym, the white brick house was built in 1893 as the home of the superintendent of the U.S. Naval Observatory. Congress turned it into the official residence of the vice president in 1974 and gave it the address One Observatory Circle.
During the day, at least five Navy stewards attend to every personal need of the second family, including cooking, shopping for food, cleaning, and doing the laundry. The stewards, officially called Navy enlisted aides, make a mean latté, which they served me when I interviewed Lynne Cheney about her book “Blue Skies, No Fences: A Memoir of Childhood and Family.”
Owned by the Navy, the home sits on 12 acres. At least two groundskeepers take care of the outside, supplemented by contractors hired by the General Services Administration.
Staffers with offices in the residence and in the west wing attend to planning trips and social events, which Vice President Cheney tends to give a few times month. At times, the staff also helps Lynne Cheney with shopping.
Beyond the incremental cost of food for themselves, the Cheneys receive all services free of charge. They do not have to pay for heat or electricity. Nor is there any need for ADT.
The Secret Service maintains a round-the-clock vigil at the home and drives the Cheneys wherever they want to go. As at the White House, the Secret Service outfitted the home with an array of sensors, video cameras, and other intrusion detectors.
To be sure, Dick Cheney works hard. He arrives at the White House by 8 a.m. each day, leaving in time for dinner. He even fetches his own coffee at the White House mess. But he also manages to spend weekends at his home on the eastern shore, flown there by Marine helicopter.
Not a bad life, especially when one considers that if Palin is elected vice president, her husband Todd says he plans to be a stay-at-home dad. But the fact that any response is needed to claims that Gov. Palin cannot be a mother and vice president at the same time, demeans women.
The irony is that, in their eagerness to attack John McCain’s running mate, liberals who stand for equal rights for women sadly are sabotaging their own cause by suggesting that being a mother disqualifies a candidate for the second highest office in the land.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:17 PM
By: Ronald Kessler Article Font Size
As if in a time warp from the '50s, liberal commentators like Sally Quinn have questioned whether a woman with five kids can handle the job of being vice president. But for those who picture Sarah Palin coming back from her office at the White House each evening to cook dinner and wash dishes, here’s what the life of a vice president really is like.
The vice president lives rent-free in a handsome 9,150-square-foot, three-story mansion overlooking Massachusetts Avenue Northwest. Complete with pool, pool house, and indoor gym, the white brick house was built in 1893 as the home of the superintendent of the U.S. Naval Observatory. Congress turned it into the official residence of the vice president in 1974 and gave it the address One Observatory Circle.
During the day, at least five Navy stewards attend to every personal need of the second family, including cooking, shopping for food, cleaning, and doing the laundry. The stewards, officially called Navy enlisted aides, make a mean latté, which they served me when I interviewed Lynne Cheney about her book “Blue Skies, No Fences: A Memoir of Childhood and Family.”
Owned by the Navy, the home sits on 12 acres. At least two groundskeepers take care of the outside, supplemented by contractors hired by the General Services Administration.
Staffers with offices in the residence and in the west wing attend to planning trips and social events, which Vice President Cheney tends to give a few times month. At times, the staff also helps Lynne Cheney with shopping.
Beyond the incremental cost of food for themselves, the Cheneys receive all services free of charge. They do not have to pay for heat or electricity. Nor is there any need for ADT.
The Secret Service maintains a round-the-clock vigil at the home and drives the Cheneys wherever they want to go. As at the White House, the Secret Service outfitted the home with an array of sensors, video cameras, and other intrusion detectors.
To be sure, Dick Cheney works hard. He arrives at the White House by 8 a.m. each day, leaving in time for dinner. He even fetches his own coffee at the White House mess. But he also manages to spend weekends at his home on the eastern shore, flown there by Marine helicopter.
Not a bad life, especially when one considers that if Palin is elected vice president, her husband Todd says he plans to be a stay-at-home dad. But the fact that any response is needed to claims that Gov. Palin cannot be a mother and vice president at the same time, demeans women.
The irony is that, in their eagerness to attack John McCain’s running mate, liberals who stand for equal rights for women sadly are sabotaging their own cause by suggesting that being a mother disqualifies a candidate for the second highest office in the land.
September 9, 2008
Sarah Palin by an Alaskan Brush Pilot
Subject: Who is Sarah Palin by an Alaskan Brush Pilot and Guide
One of our good friends, Eddie Spalten from San Antonio , fishes at the Wildman Lodge on the Alaskan Peninsula . The lodge is owned by Butch and Kathy Wildman. The Wildmans spend their winters in Texas and their summers in Alaska . Kathy’s father and former husband served in the Alaskan legislature for around 30 years so Butch and Kathy know Alaska politics.
Eddie emailed Butch and asks Butch what the Wildmans think of Gov. Sarah Palin. Butch’s unedited email is attached below. Please read it and forward it to your friends. This is what the citizens of Alaska think of Sarah Palin!
Thanks, Gene Powell
.
-----Original Message-----
From: Wildman Lake & Cinder River Lodges [mailto:fish@wildmanlodge.com]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 12:19 AM
To: eddie@amerroofing.com
Subject: Who is Sarah
Hi Eddie:
Fishing is good here at Wildman and I rarely have time for politics, but many of our friends are asking us “Who is Sarah Palin?” Of course, as Alaskans, Kathy and I are extremely proud of her. We just want to let you know that Sarah “Barracuda” Palin is a straight shooting, hard charging, get it done gal. She knows when to listen, how to analyze the facts and how to make a decision, then implement the plan. She doesn’t do a poll before jumping in with both feet like too many of the Washington types. She has little legislative experience because she has always held the EXECUTIVE position; in private life, as mayor of Anchorage ’s largest bedroom community or more recently as Governor of our State. She is a smart, attractive home grown Alaska girl with excellent moral and family values. She can see what needs to be done and does not hesitate to get it done.
One of our State’s major problems is that its Capital is in Juneau, 500 miles from the nearest road and 800 air miles from the population base which is Anchorage, Wasilla and Fairbanks. Our legislature and most of the State government is in Juneau and they ALL behave like a bunch of freshmen in a college town. It has been this way since Statehood in 1959. When Sarah moved to Juneau , so did accountability and responsibility When the oil revenue started flown and a barrel of North Slope Crude hit $23.00, these people began spending money like drunken sailors. You can only imagine what was happenings when oil hit $100.00 a barrel, about the time Sarah took command. My wife Kathy has first-hand experience with this fiasco, as her father and also her ex-husband were Alaska Legislators who served in Juneau as Senators, Senate President, or members of the State House for a combined period spanning nearly three decades.
About the time Sarah took the HELM as Governor of Alaska, about half of the State legislature was in the pocket of big oil companies or contractors doing big projects for Native Corporations around Alaska, all funded by State oil revenue. Alaska government was nothing but a good old boys club riding the perpetual wave of prosperity. This filtered down from the legislature, through the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Labor and even spilled in to the Public Safety who are supposed to “preserve and protect”.
When Sarah walked into the Governor’s Mansion, she promptly dismissed the State Trooper detachment assigned to Governor and had her and her husband’s gun case brought in from Wasilla. Then, she got rid of the former Governor’s STATE Jet and told legislators that there were no more free rides, they would have to fly Alaska Airlines, just like her and her family if they wanted to travel. Next came the nut cutting (the Barracuda part) the heads that rolled were too numerous to name, but when Sarah finished cleaning house, a number of our legislators ended up in jail for on corruption charges, or tendered their resignations along with numerous department heads and those who have been riding the gravy train for way too long, AND THEN SHE HAD LUNCH. By the end of the day, Sarah Palin had saved the people of Alaska millions and has not yet slowed down.
She has truly brought CHANGE to Juneau . I personally know several persons in the private sector in Alaska , that hold her in high esteem. She surrounds herself with smart people, many from my hometown of Anchorage , she listens to them but makes her own decisions. Sarah Palin is a no B.S. politician. It is refreshing that there is such a thing anymore. You want to talk about CHANGE? You should see a before and after picture of the State government in Alaska . That’s CHANGE! Sarah will bring a number of things to the election. I am sure she will appeal many voters who my otherwise could have gone the other direction on election day. The conservative block will not be for Barack. We have their vote. We need what Sarah will bring, first to the election and second, what she will bring to Washington D.C. McCain has been advised well, Let’s just hope the American people can get the straight scoop on her in the weeks ahead. This is just the opinion of one Alaska Bush Pilot and Guide, who pays attention to national politics, watches the news and is deathly afraid of the direction our nation is headed. I guarantee that if Sarah gets a chance to dig her spurs into the flanks of the liberal Washington types, they will know that she is in the saddle.
Butch King
Pilot/Guide
Butch & Kathy King
Proprietors
Wildman Lake Lodge
http://www.wildmanlodge.com
No one likes to read long drawn out messages
...so here's the executive summary.........
Congress Military
John McCain 26 Years 22 years
Barack Obama 143 days 0
Summary Concluded.
One of our good friends, Eddie Spalten from San Antonio , fishes at the Wildman Lodge on the Alaskan Peninsula . The lodge is owned by Butch and Kathy Wildman. The Wildmans spend their winters in Texas and their summers in Alaska . Kathy’s father and former husband served in the Alaskan legislature for around 30 years so Butch and Kathy know Alaska politics.
Eddie emailed Butch and asks Butch what the Wildmans think of Gov. Sarah Palin. Butch’s unedited email is attached below. Please read it and forward it to your friends. This is what the citizens of Alaska think of Sarah Palin!
Thanks, Gene Powell
.
-----Original Message-----
From: Wildman Lake & Cinder River Lodges [mailto:fish@wildmanlodge.com]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 12:19 AM
To: eddie@amerroofing.com
Subject: Who is Sarah
Hi Eddie:
Fishing is good here at Wildman and I rarely have time for politics, but many of our friends are asking us “Who is Sarah Palin?” Of course, as Alaskans, Kathy and I are extremely proud of her. We just want to let you know that Sarah “Barracuda” Palin is a straight shooting, hard charging, get it done gal. She knows when to listen, how to analyze the facts and how to make a decision, then implement the plan. She doesn’t do a poll before jumping in with both feet like too many of the Washington types. She has little legislative experience because she has always held the EXECUTIVE position; in private life, as mayor of Anchorage ’s largest bedroom community or more recently as Governor of our State. She is a smart, attractive home grown Alaska girl with excellent moral and family values. She can see what needs to be done and does not hesitate to get it done.
One of our State’s major problems is that its Capital is in Juneau, 500 miles from the nearest road and 800 air miles from the population base which is Anchorage, Wasilla and Fairbanks. Our legislature and most of the State government is in Juneau and they ALL behave like a bunch of freshmen in a college town. It has been this way since Statehood in 1959. When Sarah moved to Juneau , so did accountability and responsibility When the oil revenue started flown and a barrel of North Slope Crude hit $23.00, these people began spending money like drunken sailors. You can only imagine what was happenings when oil hit $100.00 a barrel, about the time Sarah took command. My wife Kathy has first-hand experience with this fiasco, as her father and also her ex-husband were Alaska Legislators who served in Juneau as Senators, Senate President, or members of the State House for a combined period spanning nearly three decades.
About the time Sarah took the HELM as Governor of Alaska, about half of the State legislature was in the pocket of big oil companies or contractors doing big projects for Native Corporations around Alaska, all funded by State oil revenue. Alaska government was nothing but a good old boys club riding the perpetual wave of prosperity. This filtered down from the legislature, through the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Labor and even spilled in to the Public Safety who are supposed to “preserve and protect”.
When Sarah walked into the Governor’s Mansion, she promptly dismissed the State Trooper detachment assigned to Governor and had her and her husband’s gun case brought in from Wasilla. Then, she got rid of the former Governor’s STATE Jet and told legislators that there were no more free rides, they would have to fly Alaska Airlines, just like her and her family if they wanted to travel. Next came the nut cutting (the Barracuda part) the heads that rolled were too numerous to name, but when Sarah finished cleaning house, a number of our legislators ended up in jail for on corruption charges, or tendered their resignations along with numerous department heads and those who have been riding the gravy train for way too long, AND THEN SHE HAD LUNCH. By the end of the day, Sarah Palin had saved the people of Alaska millions and has not yet slowed down.
She has truly brought CHANGE to Juneau . I personally know several persons in the private sector in Alaska , that hold her in high esteem. She surrounds herself with smart people, many from my hometown of Anchorage , she listens to them but makes her own decisions. Sarah Palin is a no B.S. politician. It is refreshing that there is such a thing anymore. You want to talk about CHANGE? You should see a before and after picture of the State government in Alaska . That’s CHANGE! Sarah will bring a number of things to the election. I am sure she will appeal many voters who my otherwise could have gone the other direction on election day. The conservative block will not be for Barack. We have their vote. We need what Sarah will bring, first to the election and second, what she will bring to Washington D.C. McCain has been advised well, Let’s just hope the American people can get the straight scoop on her in the weeks ahead. This is just the opinion of one Alaska Bush Pilot and Guide, who pays attention to national politics, watches the news and is deathly afraid of the direction our nation is headed. I guarantee that if Sarah gets a chance to dig her spurs into the flanks of the liberal Washington types, they will know that she is in the saddle.
Butch King
Pilot/Guide
Butch & Kathy King
Proprietors
Wildman Lake Lodge
http://www.wildmanlodge.com
No one likes to read long drawn out messages
...so here's the executive summary.........
Congress Military
John McCain 26 Years 22 years
Barack Obama 143 days 0
Summary Concluded.
The Case against Barack Obama:
BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION BY A LOYAL READER AND CONTRIBUTER THANKS AD FROM DAA
Today's News & Views
September 9, 2008
Starting a Serious National Conversation About Barack Obama
The Case against Barack Obama:
The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate
By David Freddoso
Regnery Publishing, 2008, 244 pages
If there is an overriding lesson to David Freddoso's meticulous, measured, and thoroughly mesmerizing examination of the rise of a very unlikely presidential nominee it might be "don't embellish!" There is plenty, more than enough, in the record of pro-abortion Sen. Barack Obama that Americans will find unappealing.
But getting the truth out about the one-term senator is much easier said than done. "Our press normally fixes a critical eye on ambitious politicians who promise us the world," Freddoso writes in the introduction. "That eye just seems to well up with tears whenever it falls upon the junior senator from Illinois."
All of us have many first-hand brushes with that reality. For example, how many times have we heard that pro-life Senator John McCain's choice for vice president--pro-life Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin--is "short on experience"? Ask exactly what it is in Obama's time in the Illinois state Senate or the United States Senate that qualifies him to hold the most powerful office in the world, and you get variations of what I have often heard from starry-eyed friends: just look, it's all there. Where? On Obama's web page.
Truth be told, as Freddoso does so well in his book, Obama has a paper-thin bordering on non-existent list of accomplishments. If you listen attentively, most of the time the core of the case Obama makes for himself just glides over this inconvenient truth. Instead it's about being a "reformer" who is able to "reach across the aisle" to Republicans because he "transcends" humdrum partisan politics.
However, according to Freddoso, "the idea of Barack Obama as a reformer is a great lie." Obama "has silently and at times vocally cooperated with Chicago's Democrat Machine to preserve one of the most overtly corrupt political systems in the nation."
Too late for the book but in time to be mentioned in an interview with me (and to be included in a column written for nationalreview.com), Freddoso pointed to the Saddleback Forum which took place a couple of weeks ago. Rick Warren asked Obama to name one time when he had acted against his own or his party's interests for the good of the nation.
"He responded by citing his work with John McCain on ethics reform--work that in fact never occurred," Freddoso patiently explains. "The two men never did work together on ethics reform--in fact they clashed in a nasty exchange of letters over the issue after meeting once to discuss it. Obama's fictional answer to this question was revealing, given that the entire premise of his campaign is his alleged commitment to bipartisan reform." As Freddoso put it in an answer to a question I asked him recently, "He continues to validate the thesis of my book."
As I read The Case against Barack Obama, it became clear that abortion is a prism through which we can understand a man whose outsized talents are matched by an overweening ambition.
Freddoso writes, "Hillary Clinton was not radical enough on abortion." To be fair Sen. Clinton has plenty of company: nobody is more radical on abortion than Barack Obama. Freddoso quotes columnist Terence Jeffrey, who correctly observed, "Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate ever."
Freddoso uses Obama's behind the scenes work to scuttle Illinois's "Born-Alive Infant Protection Act" as a particularly telling illustration of "a shrewd, calculating politician" who "reflexively goes to ideological views that are very far to the Left from most Americans."
His portrait is good but incomplete. Freddoso did not have the benefit of NRLC's White Paper
(http://nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html), which documents how Obama led the fight to kill a bill to provide legal protection for babies who are born alive during abortions, based on a vision of "abortion rights" more sweeping than that defended by any member of Congress--and then actively misrepresented the substance of the legislation when he sought higher office.
And, of course, Obama signs the Abortion Establishment's Pledge of Allegiance to be behind every piece of legislation it proposes, including the measure Obama vowed to sign as his first act as president: the Freedom of Choice Act. FOCA makes Roe v. Wade seem moderate by comparison. Co-sponsored by Obama, it is a piece of legislation so extreme it would wipe out every limitation on abortion and re-legalize partial-birth abortion.
"Politicians promises are often empty," Freddoso writes, "But this one deserves to be taken seriously." Sen. Obama is "less respectful of human life than even the most pro-abortion members of the United States Senate."
Let me end with where The Case against Barack Obama begins: the hearing room of the Chicago Board of Elections Commissioners, January 2, 1996. It is a deeply revealing story about Obama's first run for public office.
According to Freddoso, in his political autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, "Obama attributes his 1996 election [as a state senator] to the message he brought to the neighborhoods of Chicago's South Side--telling people to drop their cynicism about politics, because yes, they can make a difference through voting, activism, and advocacy." Obama himself wrote, "It was a pretty convincing speech, I thought."
That's the myth. The reality is that his speechifying had nothing to do with the election. Obama's campaign volunteers and staffers were at the hearing "to challenge the nearly 1,600 signatures that state senator Alice Palmer's campaign had collected in order to place her on the ballot for re-election."
Obama's people were there, Freddoso writes, to "disqualify as many signatures as possible." They succeeded. Indeed, by the time they got through, the other three candidates were disqualified as well.
"Technically, everything legal and on the up and up," Freddoso told me, "but throwing an incumbent state senator off the ballot doesn't quite fit with the image he's trying to sell now--as an agent of positive change and reform and somebody who is not cynical about politics."
Freddoso quotes from one admirer who dubbed Obama "a kind of human Rorschach test." Freddoso quotes Obama biographer David Mendell, who wrote that Obama "is an exceptionally gifted politician whom throughout his life, has been able to make people of widely divergent vantage points see in him exactly what they want to see." People see in him what they want to see. I asked Freddoso what he thought of that assessment.
"When reporters start to pull at some of these threads, I really do think a very different image of this man is going to emerge--a shrewd, calculating politician aligned with the Chicago machine who reflexively goes to ideological views that are very far to the Left from most Americans." Indeed he believes "the halo is already starting to come off his head, particularly with the news about the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act."
As for his book, which appeared at number 5 on the August 24 New York Times Bestseller List for hardcover nonfiction, Freddoso has high hopes. "I hope it can start a serious national conversation about his record that sets aside the lies but also takes a real look at his record, which is not a flattering one."
Today's News & Views
September 9, 2008
Starting a Serious National Conversation About Barack Obama
The Case against Barack Obama:
The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate
By David Freddoso
Regnery Publishing, 2008, 244 pages
If there is an overriding lesson to David Freddoso's meticulous, measured, and thoroughly mesmerizing examination of the rise of a very unlikely presidential nominee it might be "don't embellish!" There is plenty, more than enough, in the record of pro-abortion Sen. Barack Obama that Americans will find unappealing.
But getting the truth out about the one-term senator is much easier said than done. "Our press normally fixes a critical eye on ambitious politicians who promise us the world," Freddoso writes in the introduction. "That eye just seems to well up with tears whenever it falls upon the junior senator from Illinois."
All of us have many first-hand brushes with that reality. For example, how many times have we heard that pro-life Senator John McCain's choice for vice president--pro-life Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin--is "short on experience"? Ask exactly what it is in Obama's time in the Illinois state Senate or the United States Senate that qualifies him to hold the most powerful office in the world, and you get variations of what I have often heard from starry-eyed friends: just look, it's all there. Where? On Obama's web page.
Truth be told, as Freddoso does so well in his book, Obama has a paper-thin bordering on non-existent list of accomplishments. If you listen attentively, most of the time the core of the case Obama makes for himself just glides over this inconvenient truth. Instead it's about being a "reformer" who is able to "reach across the aisle" to Republicans because he "transcends" humdrum partisan politics.
However, according to Freddoso, "the idea of Barack Obama as a reformer is a great lie." Obama "has silently and at times vocally cooperated with Chicago's Democrat Machine to preserve one of the most overtly corrupt political systems in the nation."
Too late for the book but in time to be mentioned in an interview with me (and to be included in a column written for nationalreview.com), Freddoso pointed to the Saddleback Forum which took place a couple of weeks ago. Rick Warren asked Obama to name one time when he had acted against his own or his party's interests for the good of the nation.
"He responded by citing his work with John McCain on ethics reform--work that in fact never occurred," Freddoso patiently explains. "The two men never did work together on ethics reform--in fact they clashed in a nasty exchange of letters over the issue after meeting once to discuss it. Obama's fictional answer to this question was revealing, given that the entire premise of his campaign is his alleged commitment to bipartisan reform." As Freddoso put it in an answer to a question I asked him recently, "He continues to validate the thesis of my book."
As I read The Case against Barack Obama, it became clear that abortion is a prism through which we can understand a man whose outsized talents are matched by an overweening ambition.
Freddoso writes, "Hillary Clinton was not radical enough on abortion." To be fair Sen. Clinton has plenty of company: nobody is more radical on abortion than Barack Obama. Freddoso quotes columnist Terence Jeffrey, who correctly observed, "Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate ever."
Freddoso uses Obama's behind the scenes work to scuttle Illinois's "Born-Alive Infant Protection Act" as a particularly telling illustration of "a shrewd, calculating politician" who "reflexively goes to ideological views that are very far to the Left from most Americans."
His portrait is good but incomplete. Freddoso did not have the benefit of NRLC's White Paper
(http://nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html), which documents how Obama led the fight to kill a bill to provide legal protection for babies who are born alive during abortions, based on a vision of "abortion rights" more sweeping than that defended by any member of Congress--and then actively misrepresented the substance of the legislation when he sought higher office.
And, of course, Obama signs the Abortion Establishment's Pledge of Allegiance to be behind every piece of legislation it proposes, including the measure Obama vowed to sign as his first act as president: the Freedom of Choice Act. FOCA makes Roe v. Wade seem moderate by comparison. Co-sponsored by Obama, it is a piece of legislation so extreme it would wipe out every limitation on abortion and re-legalize partial-birth abortion.
"Politicians promises are often empty," Freddoso writes, "But this one deserves to be taken seriously." Sen. Obama is "less respectful of human life than even the most pro-abortion members of the United States Senate."
Let me end with where The Case against Barack Obama begins: the hearing room of the Chicago Board of Elections Commissioners, January 2, 1996. It is a deeply revealing story about Obama's first run for public office.
According to Freddoso, in his political autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, "Obama attributes his 1996 election [as a state senator] to the message he brought to the neighborhoods of Chicago's South Side--telling people to drop their cynicism about politics, because yes, they can make a difference through voting, activism, and advocacy." Obama himself wrote, "It was a pretty convincing speech, I thought."
That's the myth. The reality is that his speechifying had nothing to do with the election. Obama's campaign volunteers and staffers were at the hearing "to challenge the nearly 1,600 signatures that state senator Alice Palmer's campaign had collected in order to place her on the ballot for re-election."
Obama's people were there, Freddoso writes, to "disqualify as many signatures as possible." They succeeded. Indeed, by the time they got through, the other three candidates were disqualified as well.
"Technically, everything legal and on the up and up," Freddoso told me, "but throwing an incumbent state senator off the ballot doesn't quite fit with the image he's trying to sell now--as an agent of positive change and reform and somebody who is not cynical about politics."
Freddoso quotes from one admirer who dubbed Obama "a kind of human Rorschach test." Freddoso quotes Obama biographer David Mendell, who wrote that Obama "is an exceptionally gifted politician whom throughout his life, has been able to make people of widely divergent vantage points see in him exactly what they want to see." People see in him what they want to see. I asked Freddoso what he thought of that assessment.
"When reporters start to pull at some of these threads, I really do think a very different image of this man is going to emerge--a shrewd, calculating politician aligned with the Chicago machine who reflexively goes to ideological views that are very far to the Left from most Americans." Indeed he believes "the halo is already starting to come off his head, particularly with the news about the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act."
As for his book, which appeared at number 5 on the August 24 New York Times Bestseller List for hardcover nonfiction, Freddoso has high hopes. "I hope it can start a serious national conversation about his record that sets aside the lies but also takes a real look at his record, which is not a flattering one."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
