THIS BRINGS TO MIND THE MEANING OF HAVING STRENGTH TO ABSOLUTELY ENFORCE THE MONROE DOCTRINE. AND DO WE HAVE THE FORCE AND DO WE HAVE SOMEONE WITH THE SPINE TO BRING TO FACE THE DOCTRINE.
Who'll Back Monroe Doctrine?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, September 16, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Geopolitics: The Black Sea-Caribbean chess game continues. The flight of two Russian bombers to Venezuela raises the possibility of the next president, or even this one, being forced to intervene in our own hemisphere.
There are enough definitions of the Bush Doctrine to make it a separate category on the game show "Jeopardy." Gov. Sarah Palin was grilled on it by ABC's Charles Gibson as a test of her competence for higher office. But there's another doctrine no one remembers that may prove critical in the next four years.
Touring journalists captured the outline of a Russian Tu-160 "Blackjack" nuclear-capable bomber in August at a military base south of Moscow. Two Tu-160s landed last week in Venezuela as part of Russia's attempt to meddle in America's hemisphere.
In President James Monroe's Annual Message to Congress on Dec. 2, 1823, he delivered what has come to be called the Monroe Doctrine.
The United States sent a "keep off the grass" message to the powers of the Old World that the Americas were no longer open to European colonization, and that any effort to extend European political influence into the New World would be considered by the U.S. "as dangerous to our peace and safety."
The Monroe Doctrine figured prominently before and during the Cuban Missile Crisis as the Soviet Union tried to establish a permanent military base in Cuba and extend the Warsaw Pact into our hemisphere.
At an Aug. 29, 1962, press conference, President Kennedy warned Moscow: "The Monroe Doctrine means what it has meant since President Monroe and John Quincy Adams enunciated it, and that is that we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere, and that is why we oppose what is happening in Cuba today."
Oppose Moscow we did, blockading Cuba and forcing the removal of Soviet bombers and missiles targeted on the United States.
The Russian bear is back in our neck of the woods, and a foreign power is once again trying to extend its power to the Western Hemisphere. Moscow has found willing accomplices, reconnecting with its old ally Cuba and finding common cause in the anti-U.S. regime of Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.
After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Moscow bided its time, watching as NATO expanded well into the old "Evil Empire."
Now, flush with energy revenues and a rebuilding military, the empire is striking back, starting with NATO wannabe Georgia. The presence of U.S. and NATO warships in the Black Sea delivering supplies to the Georgian port of Poti, led by the USS Mount Whitney, has not amused the reborn czars.
A week ago, a pair of supersonic and nuclear-capable Russian Tu-160 "Blackjack" bombers landed in Venezuela, ostensibly to conduct patrols over neutral waters in the Caribbean and the Pacific.
The planes, which were escorted by U.S. aircraft all the way, were scheduled to stay a month. Defying expectations, the planes are now due to leave Thursday.
Still, the potential presence of Russian bombers in the Caribbean if and when that phone rings at 3 a.m. seriously complicates things.
So do joint military exercises scheduled for November, perhaps Russia's most provocative move since the Soviet Union supported Marxist guerrillas in Nicaragua and El Salvador. The chief of Venezuela's naval intelligence, Admiral Salbatore Cammarata Bastidas, says a flotilla of Russian warships, along with 1,000 Russian soldiers, will be headed to Caracas this year.
"The Russians are clearly signaling to the Americans that their presence in the Black Sea will be met by a Russian presence in the Caribbean," said Stratfor analyst George Friedman.
The Russian armada will include the Kirov-class "Peter the Great," a nuclear-powered heavy missile cruiser, one of the largest warships in the world. It is armed with SS-N-19 Shipwreck long-range anti-ship missiles. She will be sailing in an area where nine of every 14 barrels of imported oil, even some Alaskan oil, must transit.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy decided to re-form the Fourth Fleet to patrol the Caribbean.
The fleet, disbanded in 1953, is said to be needed for drug interdiction following the flood of trafficking from Venezuela after its 2005 cutoff of cooperation with the Drug Enforcement Administration. We suspect it will also keep an eye out for Russian heavy cruisers.
JFK thought the Monroe Doctrine still meant what it said. Do we? In a confrontation, who will blink this time?
Email To Friend |
September 16, 2008
Community Organizer In Chief
Community Organizer In Chief
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, September 16, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama claims he worked for a "small group of churches" as a community organizer. In fact, he was hired by a radical Alinskyite group, and Saul Alinsky's own son has outed him.
Buried last month in the Boston Globe's letters to the editor was a three-paragraph letter congratulating Obama for putting on a great show at the Democratic National Convention.
That open-stadium rally in Denver, with it's packed crowd and perfectly timed chanting of key phrases, "had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky-style," opined the letter-writer. The reference was to the hard-boiled Chicago socialist and father of radical community organizing.
"Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness," the author continued. "When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.
"I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008," the author said. "It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday."
The person who signed the letter, Lee David Alinsky, a longtime public TV producer in the Boston area, is indeed the son of the late radical. Alinsky no doubt felt compelled to make the tribute on behalf of Obama because Obama refuses to even acknowledge his Alinsky training in public.
He is quick to say that the community organizing he did in Chicago was "the best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School." But he never tells us who educated him, not even in the two memoirs he's written. He also fails to disclose who hired him. Obama claimed in the recent national service forum at Columbia University that he worked for "churches" while organizing on the South Side of Chicago.
Talk about putting lipstick on a pig. Obama in fact worked for a subsidiary of the radical Gamaliel Foundation, a Chicago-based Alinsky group, and he was paid by the radical Woods Fund, which supports Gamaliel. Gamaliel's Web site and history page make plain that it evolved from the Alinsky school of organizing. Its training methods acknowledge an "agitational" style of organizing.
Obama also fails to disclose that he himself became a trainer of community organizers for the radical Gamaliel network. He also won't disclose that he contributed to a Chicago forum called "After Alinsky," where he argued for a "systematic approach" to community organizing and more "power" to bring about social change.
Serving on Gamaliel's board of directors is John McKnight, who wrote a letter of recommendation for Obama to Harvard. McKnight is a noted "student of Alinsky" and former ACLU director who now teaches at Northwestern University.
McKnight also sits on the board of the National People's Action, or NPA, a particularly thuggish group of Alinskyite agitators who sing the following ditty when picketing the homes of business and government leaders: "Who's on your hit list, NPA? Who's on your hit list of today? Take no prisoner, take no names. Kick 'em in the ass when they play their games."
Some community organizers are well-meaning and harmless. But not the ones Obama threw in with. They intimidate and agitate for more government home loans, more government job programs, a ban on police profiling, more benefits for illegal aliens, felon voting rights, minimum wage hikes, "environmental justice" and so on.
What they do is not harmless. What they demand is not noble. But Obama wants to give them more money and power, and organize them on a "large scale." He can run from his radical organizing record, but he can't hide.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, September 16, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama claims he worked for a "small group of churches" as a community organizer. In fact, he was hired by a radical Alinskyite group, and Saul Alinsky's own son has outed him.
Buried last month in the Boston Globe's letters to the editor was a three-paragraph letter congratulating Obama for putting on a great show at the Democratic National Convention.
That open-stadium rally in Denver, with it's packed crowd and perfectly timed chanting of key phrases, "had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky-style," opined the letter-writer. The reference was to the hard-boiled Chicago socialist and father of radical community organizing.
"Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness," the author continued. "When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.
"I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008," the author said. "It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday."
The person who signed the letter, Lee David Alinsky, a longtime public TV producer in the Boston area, is indeed the son of the late radical. Alinsky no doubt felt compelled to make the tribute on behalf of Obama because Obama refuses to even acknowledge his Alinsky training in public.
He is quick to say that the community organizing he did in Chicago was "the best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School." But he never tells us who educated him, not even in the two memoirs he's written. He also fails to disclose who hired him. Obama claimed in the recent national service forum at Columbia University that he worked for "churches" while organizing on the South Side of Chicago.
Talk about putting lipstick on a pig. Obama in fact worked for a subsidiary of the radical Gamaliel Foundation, a Chicago-based Alinsky group, and he was paid by the radical Woods Fund, which supports Gamaliel. Gamaliel's Web site and history page make plain that it evolved from the Alinsky school of organizing. Its training methods acknowledge an "agitational" style of organizing.
Obama also fails to disclose that he himself became a trainer of community organizers for the radical Gamaliel network. He also won't disclose that he contributed to a Chicago forum called "After Alinsky," where he argued for a "systematic approach" to community organizing and more "power" to bring about social change.
Serving on Gamaliel's board of directors is John McKnight, who wrote a letter of recommendation for Obama to Harvard. McKnight is a noted "student of Alinsky" and former ACLU director who now teaches at Northwestern University.
McKnight also sits on the board of the National People's Action, or NPA, a particularly thuggish group of Alinskyite agitators who sing the following ditty when picketing the homes of business and government leaders: "Who's on your hit list, NPA? Who's on your hit list of today? Take no prisoner, take no names. Kick 'em in the ass when they play their games."
Some community organizers are well-meaning and harmless. But not the ones Obama threw in with. They intimidate and agitate for more government home loans, more government job programs, a ban on police profiling, more benefits for illegal aliens, felon voting rights, minimum wage hikes, "environmental justice" and so on.
What they do is not harmless. What they demand is not noble. But Obama wants to give them more money and power, and organize them on a "large scale." He can run from his radical organizing record, but he can't hide.
Email To Friend |
Obama's Double-Dealing Diplomacy
Obama's Double-Dealing Diplomacy
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, September 16, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama premised his campaign on calling for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. But now he's been quietly telling Iraq "not so fast." It's part of a deceptive pattern.
Iraq's Foreign Minister Moshyar Zebari told the New York Post's Amir Taheri that Obama made delaying the troops' return a key theme of his talks with Iraqi leaders during his campaign stop in Baghdad last July.
"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the U.S. elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari told Teheri, on the record.
Funny, that's not what Obama told voters. He has made an immediate pullout the cornerstone of his campaign. Taheri's report signals the Democratic standard-bearer would manipulate the war's end for political advantage and is willing to deceive voters to do it.
This in itself is reprehensible. But his secret calls also leave U.S. troops unnecessarily in harm's way. It's the kind of foreign policy meddling that serves Obama's interests over the national interest.
"Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America," Taheri reported. "To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years."
Can Obama be trusted? We ask because he's shown a pattern of secretive double-dealing with voters, not just in his talking about small town voters one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco, as Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin pointed out, but particularly in foreign affairs.
It dates back to at least February, when Obama's economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, secretly told the Canadian embassy that Obama's demagoguery against NAFTA in the primaries was just a Styrofoam-pillar bid to win the Ohio vote.
Obama's pattern of deception continued. In March, Colombian troops raided a FARC terrorist camp in Ecuador and recovered a terrorist computer belonging to a top FARC warlord, Raul Reyes.
Computer e-mails revealed that someone who knew Obama's positions had secretly met with the terrorists and assured them Obama would cut U.S. military aid under Plan Colombia and veto its free trade pact. Both are major goals of the Marxist terrorists aligned with America's enemies.
Subsequent events confirmed this. Obama did come out in favor of shutting Colombia out of free trade. More disturbingly, Obama adviser Daniel Restrepo last week told Colombia's Radio Caracol that Obama planned to convert the military aid Colombia needs to crush terrorists into social aid programs that don't.
That's not the end of it. Now Obama is double-dealing with Iraqi officials to leave American troops in harm's way and prolong the appearance of war long enough to call it a failure and win votes.
The astonishing thing about Obama's deals is they're the very thing Democrats accused Republicans of without a shred of proof.
They accused Richard Nixon of making a secret deal with the North Vietnamese to prolong the Vietnam war enough to presumably win election in 1968.
Years later, in 1980, they accused Ronald Reagan of making a secret deal with Iranian terrorists holding U.S. diplomats hostage to win election over incumbent Jimmy Carter.
Neither of these claims, often repeated by leftist historians, has ever been proven. But the statement of Iraq's foreign minister, speaking to a leading writer on foreign policy, is considerably stronger as evidence. It signals that Obama places politics over the national interest to the extent that he would work against his own public positions to gull voters into electing him.
It's the absolute opposite of John McCain's courageous position supporting the surge in Iraq, even as politicos were warning him he'd lose the election for it. "I'd rather lose an election than lose a war," McCain said.
With Obama's promises to sit down with dictators in Venezuela, Cuba, Syria and Iran, voters have a right to ask if he's made any deals at odds with his public condemnations of them, too. Before he starts acting like president, he needs to come clean to voters and reveal his true positions. Whatever they are, voters have a right to know.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, September 16, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama premised his campaign on calling for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. But now he's been quietly telling Iraq "not so fast." It's part of a deceptive pattern.
Iraq's Foreign Minister Moshyar Zebari told the New York Post's Amir Taheri that Obama made delaying the troops' return a key theme of his talks with Iraqi leaders during his campaign stop in Baghdad last July.
"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the U.S. elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari told Teheri, on the record.
Funny, that's not what Obama told voters. He has made an immediate pullout the cornerstone of his campaign. Taheri's report signals the Democratic standard-bearer would manipulate the war's end for political advantage and is willing to deceive voters to do it.
This in itself is reprehensible. But his secret calls also leave U.S. troops unnecessarily in harm's way. It's the kind of foreign policy meddling that serves Obama's interests over the national interest.
"Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America," Taheri reported. "To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years."
Can Obama be trusted? We ask because he's shown a pattern of secretive double-dealing with voters, not just in his talking about small town voters one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco, as Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin pointed out, but particularly in foreign affairs.
It dates back to at least February, when Obama's economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, secretly told the Canadian embassy that Obama's demagoguery against NAFTA in the primaries was just a Styrofoam-pillar bid to win the Ohio vote.
Obama's pattern of deception continued. In March, Colombian troops raided a FARC terrorist camp in Ecuador and recovered a terrorist computer belonging to a top FARC warlord, Raul Reyes.
Computer e-mails revealed that someone who knew Obama's positions had secretly met with the terrorists and assured them Obama would cut U.S. military aid under Plan Colombia and veto its free trade pact. Both are major goals of the Marxist terrorists aligned with America's enemies.
Subsequent events confirmed this. Obama did come out in favor of shutting Colombia out of free trade. More disturbingly, Obama adviser Daniel Restrepo last week told Colombia's Radio Caracol that Obama planned to convert the military aid Colombia needs to crush terrorists into social aid programs that don't.
That's not the end of it. Now Obama is double-dealing with Iraqi officials to leave American troops in harm's way and prolong the appearance of war long enough to call it a failure and win votes.
The astonishing thing about Obama's deals is they're the very thing Democrats accused Republicans of without a shred of proof.
They accused Richard Nixon of making a secret deal with the North Vietnamese to prolong the Vietnam war enough to presumably win election in 1968.
Years later, in 1980, they accused Ronald Reagan of making a secret deal with Iranian terrorists holding U.S. diplomats hostage to win election over incumbent Jimmy Carter.
Neither of these claims, often repeated by leftist historians, has ever been proven. But the statement of Iraq's foreign minister, speaking to a leading writer on foreign policy, is considerably stronger as evidence. It signals that Obama places politics over the national interest to the extent that he would work against his own public positions to gull voters into electing him.
It's the absolute opposite of John McCain's courageous position supporting the surge in Iraq, even as politicos were warning him he'd lose the election for it. "I'd rather lose an election than lose a war," McCain said.
With Obama's promises to sit down with dictators in Venezuela, Cuba, Syria and Iran, voters have a right to ask if he's made any deals at odds with his public condemnations of them, too. Before he starts acting like president, he needs to come clean to voters and reveal his true positions. Whatever they are, voters have a right to know.
Email To Friend |
Why McCain Can't Send Emails
Why McCain Can't Send Emails
Tuesday, September 16, 2008 2:27 PM
By: Tim Collie
A campaign ad mocking Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s computer literacy is backfiring on Democratic rival Barack Obama in some very painful ways.
While McCain himself has often joked about his ignorance of email and phone texting, the Vietnam veteran rarely goes into the reason: his hands and fingers were shattered by wartime torture, making it painful to keyboard for any length of time.
That revelation has been buried in a Boston Globe story for nearly a decade and was uncovered by National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg last week. The news has enraged McCain supporters and stirred up political blogs.
Goldberg included this passage from the article, published on March 4, 2000:
"McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan — Ted Williams is his hero — but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball."
You wouldn’t know any of that from looking at the Obama ad, which mocks McCain as a techno-dolt. In a photograph taken from the early 1980s, he’s shown wearing giant glasses and a period suit. To hammer home the point that he’s out of touch, the ad features shots of a disco ball, antique computers and large, first-generation cell phones.
"1982, John McCain goes to Washington," says the voiceover. "Things have changed in the last 26 years, but McCain hasn't. "He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail, still doesn't understand the economy, and favors two hundred billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class.”
The ad was supposed to be the first stage of the new, gloves-off, Obama strategy to counter the popular rise of Sarah Palin. But the campaign, now sensitive that it might be perceived as mocking the handicapped, responded that McCain has admitted numerous times that he is learning how to use a Blackberry and other devices.
“There's a whole economic revolution going on that has fundamentally changed the economy and fundamentally changed people's lives, and he's removed from that," Rahm Emmanuel, an Illinois congressman and key Obama supporter, told reporters Friday in unveiling the ad.
But that doesn’t seem to be the case. McCain has long been praised as one of the tech-saaviest members of the U.S. Senate.
In 2000, Slate.com cited him for what it described as a web first: “the first-ever cyberfundraiser." The article also noted that McCain’s war wounds limited him at the keyboard, but described him as an enthusiast who embraced Silicon Valley entrepreneurs like Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos. That same year, Forbes magazine described McCain as the "Senate's savviest technologist."
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008 2:27 PM
By: Tim Collie
A campaign ad mocking Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s computer literacy is backfiring on Democratic rival Barack Obama in some very painful ways.
While McCain himself has often joked about his ignorance of email and phone texting, the Vietnam veteran rarely goes into the reason: his hands and fingers were shattered by wartime torture, making it painful to keyboard for any length of time.
That revelation has been buried in a Boston Globe story for nearly a decade and was uncovered by National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg last week. The news has enraged McCain supporters and stirred up political blogs.
Goldberg included this passage from the article, published on March 4, 2000:
"McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan — Ted Williams is his hero — but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball."
You wouldn’t know any of that from looking at the Obama ad, which mocks McCain as a techno-dolt. In a photograph taken from the early 1980s, he’s shown wearing giant glasses and a period suit. To hammer home the point that he’s out of touch, the ad features shots of a disco ball, antique computers and large, first-generation cell phones.
"1982, John McCain goes to Washington," says the voiceover. "Things have changed in the last 26 years, but McCain hasn't. "He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail, still doesn't understand the economy, and favors two hundred billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class.”
The ad was supposed to be the first stage of the new, gloves-off, Obama strategy to counter the popular rise of Sarah Palin. But the campaign, now sensitive that it might be perceived as mocking the handicapped, responded that McCain has admitted numerous times that he is learning how to use a Blackberry and other devices.
“There's a whole economic revolution going on that has fundamentally changed the economy and fundamentally changed people's lives, and he's removed from that," Rahm Emmanuel, an Illinois congressman and key Obama supporter, told reporters Friday in unveiling the ad.
But that doesn’t seem to be the case. McCain has long been praised as one of the tech-saaviest members of the U.S. Senate.
In 2000, Slate.com cited him for what it described as a web first: “the first-ever cyberfundraiser." The article also noted that McCain’s war wounds limited him at the keyboard, but described him as an enthusiast who embraced Silicon Valley entrepreneurs like Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos. That same year, Forbes magazine described McCain as the "Senate's savviest technologist."
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Dr. Jack Wheeler Regarding Obama
Do you know Dr Jack Wheeler?
Sorry if I'm sending this a second time, please excuse. L.
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration."
An eloquent description of Barack Obama.
Jack Wheeler is a brilliant man who was the author of Reagan's strategy to break the back of the Soviet Union with the star wars race and expose their inner weakness. For years he wrote a weekly intelligence update that was extremely interesting and well structured and informed. He consults(ed) with several mega corporations on global trends and the future, etc. I think he is in semi-retirement now. He is a true patriot with a no-nonsense approach to everything. He is also a somewhat well known mountain climber and adventurer.
Subject: Dr. Jack Wheeler Regarding Obama
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.
He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya . Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.
What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.
Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.
It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.
Thus Obama has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be e ffective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.
Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior.
His candidacy is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any straight thinking American.
Pass this on to every straight thinking American you know!
Dr. Jack Wheeler
Sorry if I'm sending this a second time, please excuse. L.
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration."
An eloquent description of Barack Obama.
Jack Wheeler is a brilliant man who was the author of Reagan's strategy to break the back of the Soviet Union with the star wars race and expose their inner weakness. For years he wrote a weekly intelligence update that was extremely interesting and well structured and informed. He consults(ed) with several mega corporations on global trends and the future, etc. I think he is in semi-retirement now. He is a true patriot with a no-nonsense approach to everything. He is also a somewhat well known mountain climber and adventurer.
Subject: Dr. Jack Wheeler Regarding Obama
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.
He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya . Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.
What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.
Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.
It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.
Thus Obama has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be e ffective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.
Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior.
His candidacy is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any straight thinking American.
Pass this on to every straight thinking American you know!
Dr. Jack Wheeler
OBAMA GROUP ATTACKS McCAIN'S POW STATUS
Obama Group Attacks McCain's POW Status
One of John McCain's fellow prisoners of war in Vietnam is the star of a new "Swift Boat" style ad in which he describes the Republican presidential nominee as "unfit to lead."
"The prisoner of war experience is not a good prerequisite for president of the United States," Phillip Butler says in the ad, which is produced by Brave New PAC, a liberal political action committee affiliated with Brave New Films. "He was known as a very volatile guy and he would blow up and go like a Roman candle. John McCain is not someone I would like to see with his finger near the red button."
The McCain campaign issued this response to the POW ad, according to Boston.com: "It's unfortunate that Senator [Barack] Obama has fallen so far, from opposing outside expenditures and supporting public financing at the beginning of this race to opting out of public financing and now "looking the other way" on independent expenditures — no matter how vile.
"But this comes after a week in which Senator Obama openly questioned Senator McCain's patriotism and his honor as part of a new series of "tough" attacks that have been dutifully echoed by the press. But it should be clear by now that Senator Obama will say anything, and do anything, in order to get elected."
Leighton Woodhouse, communications director for both Brave New Films and the PAC, told Fox News that the ad would air for two days on CNN and MSNBC. Woodhouse said the groups may extend the ad if “it seems to be resonating.”
The ad is similar in tone to those produced in 2004 by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which assailed John Kerry's military record. According to Fox, the Brave New PAC ad is part of a new effort by outside groups to help Obama in his quest for the White House. Last week, The Atlantic magazine reported that Obama’s campaign would no longer criticize outside groups that are helping spread his campaign message.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
One of John McCain's fellow prisoners of war in Vietnam is the star of a new "Swift Boat" style ad in which he describes the Republican presidential nominee as "unfit to lead."
"The prisoner of war experience is not a good prerequisite for president of the United States," Phillip Butler says in the ad, which is produced by Brave New PAC, a liberal political action committee affiliated with Brave New Films. "He was known as a very volatile guy and he would blow up and go like a Roman candle. John McCain is not someone I would like to see with his finger near the red button."
The McCain campaign issued this response to the POW ad, according to Boston.com: "It's unfortunate that Senator [Barack] Obama has fallen so far, from opposing outside expenditures and supporting public financing at the beginning of this race to opting out of public financing and now "looking the other way" on independent expenditures — no matter how vile.
"But this comes after a week in which Senator Obama openly questioned Senator McCain's patriotism and his honor as part of a new series of "tough" attacks that have been dutifully echoed by the press. But it should be clear by now that Senator Obama will say anything, and do anything, in order to get elected."
Leighton Woodhouse, communications director for both Brave New Films and the PAC, told Fox News that the ad would air for two days on CNN and MSNBC. Woodhouse said the groups may extend the ad if “it seems to be resonating.”
The ad is similar in tone to those produced in 2004 by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which assailed John Kerry's military record. According to Fox, the Brave New PAC ad is part of a new effort by outside groups to help Obama in his quest for the White House. Last week, The Atlantic magazine reported that Obama’s campaign would no longer criticize outside groups that are helping spread his campaign message.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Breaking News from MoneyNews.com
Breaking News from MoneyNews.com
Wall Street Shaken as Merrill Is Sold, Lehman Files for Bankruptcy Protection
Bank of America, the biggest retail bank in the U.S., reached an all-stock deal on Sunday night to acquire Merrill Lynch & Co., the largest brokerage firm, for $50 billion or $29 a share. Merrill had reported $52.2 billion in losses and write-downs from subprime mortgages.
Meanwhile, early Monday morning, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., the fourth-largest U.S. investment bank and the biggest underwriter of mortgage-backed securities at the height of the U.S. real estate market, joined the list of other investment banks like Bear Stearns Cos. that couldn't survive the credit crunch.
The 158-year-old Lehman filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after Barclays Plc and Bank of America Corp. abandoned takeover talks. The company had lost 94 percent of its market value this year.
According to Bloomberg, it was the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history. Lehman employs about 25,000 people worldwide and listed more than $613 billion in debt.
But Lehman is not ready to throw in the towel. The Wall Street Journal reported that Lehman Brothers is still trying to sell its U.S. broker-dealer and investment management businesses.
Meanwhile, American International Group, the largest insurer in the U.S., says it plans to announce a restructuring plan that will include selling off part of its business to raise cash and boost investors' confidence.
The Federal Reserve and a global consortium of banks have stepped in fast to head off a worldwide panic on stock and other financial exchanges. They announced a $70 billion pool of funds to lend to troubled financial companies.
Editor's Note: We Warned You First of the Housing Crisis. Protect Your Portfolio Now.
Ten banks — Bank of America, Barclays, Citibank, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and UBS — have agreed to provide $7 billion each "to help enhance liquidity and mitigate the unprecedented volatility and other challenges affecting global equity and debt markets."
In addition, the Federal Reserve announced late Sunday that it was broadening the types of collateral that financial institutions can use to obtain loans from the Fed.
If only investors could read the headlines in advance.
Somebody knew that mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were doomed. If they didn't have inside information, they certainly had a strong gut feeling that the feds would move in and take over.
Now the stocks, once high-fliers with multi-million dollar lobbyists and huge executive salaries, are on the verge of delisting. American taxpayers are stuck with the dregs, again.
What if you knew months ago that banks stocks would fall? That housing was in trouble? Would you have invested differently?
Of course you would have. And you would invest differently right now if the headlines of tomorrow were right here, in front you, in black and white.
Of course, if you had been reading Moneynews.com and its sister publication, Financial Intelligence Report (FIR), you would have known all about the banking and housing mess — three full years ago! And about the oil collapse we are seeing unfold now. And the dollar's return to prominence after months in the cellar.
Editor's Note: Don't Let the Liquidity Crisis Sink Your Stocks!
We're not making idle boasts. Here are the headlines as they appeared in FIR.
Several years ago, Sir John Templeton warned us on housing, saying that "a 50 percent drop off in prices is quite possible."
Latest: Adjusted for inflation, housing is down 24 percent so far, and housing guru Robert Shiller warns that 30 percent is possible. Of course, in overheated markets like Las Vegas and parts of California, 50 percent was right on the mark. And nobody has dared call a bottom for housing yet.
As early as 2005, we said gold could be on the verge of its greatest bull market in more than three decades. At the time, gold had already soared to an 18-year high of $480.25 an ounce — a $45 increase from the beginning of the year. It was just beginning, reported FIR.
Latest: Gold topped $1,030 an ounce in March, then fell back to its historical, inflation adjusted average, in the mid-$800 range. Now experts warn that gold mines won't add capacity unless they see prices over $1,200 an ounce, something sure to push gold higher still.
In December 2007, we reviewed our previous forecasts and found that every single one had come true: the housing bust was under way, credit was contracting, the dollar collapsed, and gold rose. Two other calls — stagflation and a general stock market decline — are unfolding now.
Latest: Let's touch just on those last two, stagflation and stocks. Inflation popped in July to 9.8 percent at the wholesale level, the biggest 12-month rise since 1981. The economy is eking out growth and heading for a serious slump soon. Need we mention in detail the massive hit that the Dow has taken?
In early 2008, we concluded in FIR that the dollar’s decline had bottomed out. The big gains that investors have reaped in recent years betting against the dollar will likely not be seen in the near future.
Latest: The dollar just hit a fresh 12-month high against the euro.
In May 2008, FIR reported on the inevitable China slowdown, and the risk of rising inflation even if its red-hot economy cools.
Latest: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, writing in Foreign Affairs, warns of an impending collapse in the Chinese economy, and Morgan Stanley Asia Chairman Stephen Roach is fretting that, even with slower growth, inflation soon will roar in the communist nation.
All the way back in 2004, we told investors that oil would spike from $29 to as high as $70 a barrel within 18 months. Then it doubled again. When oil topped out at $140 a few months back, we immediately called the collapse.
Latest: Oil is fast heading toward $100 a barrel. As the United States, Europe, and even China hit the brakes, there's little to keep oil buoyant and much pushing it downward.
You need to know what the best financial minds in the world are saying. Time and again, readers of FIR have been steps ahead of the crowd, helping investors to protect themselves from one crisis after another. The housing crisis, rising oil prices, liquidity crunch, the inflation lie, the baby boomer crisis, and much more. We also advised investors years ago that commodities were set to take off, and those who took our advice cashed in big time with most commodities rising close to 300 percent to 500 percent since that time.
Many have profited — preserved their life savings and significant portions of their family’s wealth — by reading FIR. Can you afford to be without this type of valuable information in today's volatile economic and political climate?
Wall Street Shaken as Merrill Is Sold, Lehman Files for Bankruptcy Protection
Bank of America, the biggest retail bank in the U.S., reached an all-stock deal on Sunday night to acquire Merrill Lynch & Co., the largest brokerage firm, for $50 billion or $29 a share. Merrill had reported $52.2 billion in losses and write-downs from subprime mortgages.
Meanwhile, early Monday morning, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., the fourth-largest U.S. investment bank and the biggest underwriter of mortgage-backed securities at the height of the U.S. real estate market, joined the list of other investment banks like Bear Stearns Cos. that couldn't survive the credit crunch.
The 158-year-old Lehman filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after Barclays Plc and Bank of America Corp. abandoned takeover talks. The company had lost 94 percent of its market value this year.
According to Bloomberg, it was the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history. Lehman employs about 25,000 people worldwide and listed more than $613 billion in debt.
But Lehman is not ready to throw in the towel. The Wall Street Journal reported that Lehman Brothers is still trying to sell its U.S. broker-dealer and investment management businesses.
Meanwhile, American International Group, the largest insurer in the U.S., says it plans to announce a restructuring plan that will include selling off part of its business to raise cash and boost investors' confidence.
The Federal Reserve and a global consortium of banks have stepped in fast to head off a worldwide panic on stock and other financial exchanges. They announced a $70 billion pool of funds to lend to troubled financial companies.
Editor's Note: We Warned You First of the Housing Crisis. Protect Your Portfolio Now.
Ten banks — Bank of America, Barclays, Citibank, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and UBS — have agreed to provide $7 billion each "to help enhance liquidity and mitigate the unprecedented volatility and other challenges affecting global equity and debt markets."
In addition, the Federal Reserve announced late Sunday that it was broadening the types of collateral that financial institutions can use to obtain loans from the Fed.
If only investors could read the headlines in advance.
Somebody knew that mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were doomed. If they didn't have inside information, they certainly had a strong gut feeling that the feds would move in and take over.
Now the stocks, once high-fliers with multi-million dollar lobbyists and huge executive salaries, are on the verge of delisting. American taxpayers are stuck with the dregs, again.
What if you knew months ago that banks stocks would fall? That housing was in trouble? Would you have invested differently?
Of course you would have. And you would invest differently right now if the headlines of tomorrow were right here, in front you, in black and white.
Of course, if you had been reading Moneynews.com and its sister publication, Financial Intelligence Report (FIR), you would have known all about the banking and housing mess — three full years ago! And about the oil collapse we are seeing unfold now. And the dollar's return to prominence after months in the cellar.
Editor's Note: Don't Let the Liquidity Crisis Sink Your Stocks!
We're not making idle boasts. Here are the headlines as they appeared in FIR.
Several years ago, Sir John Templeton warned us on housing, saying that "a 50 percent drop off in prices is quite possible."
Latest: Adjusted for inflation, housing is down 24 percent so far, and housing guru Robert Shiller warns that 30 percent is possible. Of course, in overheated markets like Las Vegas and parts of California, 50 percent was right on the mark. And nobody has dared call a bottom for housing yet.
As early as 2005, we said gold could be on the verge of its greatest bull market in more than three decades. At the time, gold had already soared to an 18-year high of $480.25 an ounce — a $45 increase from the beginning of the year. It was just beginning, reported FIR.
Latest: Gold topped $1,030 an ounce in March, then fell back to its historical, inflation adjusted average, in the mid-$800 range. Now experts warn that gold mines won't add capacity unless they see prices over $1,200 an ounce, something sure to push gold higher still.
In December 2007, we reviewed our previous forecasts and found that every single one had come true: the housing bust was under way, credit was contracting, the dollar collapsed, and gold rose. Two other calls — stagflation and a general stock market decline — are unfolding now.
Latest: Let's touch just on those last two, stagflation and stocks. Inflation popped in July to 9.8 percent at the wholesale level, the biggest 12-month rise since 1981. The economy is eking out growth and heading for a serious slump soon. Need we mention in detail the massive hit that the Dow has taken?
In early 2008, we concluded in FIR that the dollar’s decline had bottomed out. The big gains that investors have reaped in recent years betting against the dollar will likely not be seen in the near future.
Latest: The dollar just hit a fresh 12-month high against the euro.
In May 2008, FIR reported on the inevitable China slowdown, and the risk of rising inflation even if its red-hot economy cools.
Latest: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, writing in Foreign Affairs, warns of an impending collapse in the Chinese economy, and Morgan Stanley Asia Chairman Stephen Roach is fretting that, even with slower growth, inflation soon will roar in the communist nation.
All the way back in 2004, we told investors that oil would spike from $29 to as high as $70 a barrel within 18 months. Then it doubled again. When oil topped out at $140 a few months back, we immediately called the collapse.
Latest: Oil is fast heading toward $100 a barrel. As the United States, Europe, and even China hit the brakes, there's little to keep oil buoyant and much pushing it downward.
You need to know what the best financial minds in the world are saying. Time and again, readers of FIR have been steps ahead of the crowd, helping investors to protect themselves from one crisis after another. The housing crisis, rising oil prices, liquidity crunch, the inflation lie, the baby boomer crisis, and much more. We also advised investors years ago that commodities were set to take off, and those who took our advice cashed in big time with most commodities rising close to 300 percent to 500 percent since that time.
Many have profited — preserved their life savings and significant portions of their family’s wealth — by reading FIR. Can you afford to be without this type of valuable information in today's volatile economic and political climate?
September 15, 2008
The Real Culprits In This Meltdown
The Real Culprits In This Meltdown
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Big Government: Barack Obama and Democrats blame the historic financial turmoil on the market. But if it's dysfunctional, Democrats during the Clinton years are a prime reason for it.
Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.
But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.
Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."
Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.
And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.
As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.
Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.
Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses.
In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.
But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America.
At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.
The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope.
There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril. If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road.
But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn't get it. They won't acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if misguided, acts.
Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government solutions.
While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge.
Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's fingerprints all over it.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Big Government: Barack Obama and Democrats blame the historic financial turmoil on the market. But if it's dysfunctional, Democrats during the Clinton years are a prime reason for it.
Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.
But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.
Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."
Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.
And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.
As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.
Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.
Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses.
In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.
But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America.
At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.
The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope.
There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril. If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road.
But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn't get it. They won't acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if misguided, acts.
Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government solutions.
While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge.
Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's fingerprints all over it.
Email To Friend |
This Too Will Pass
This Too Will Pass
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Wall Street: Old timers will recall F.I. DuPont or Goodbody & Co. Not-so-old timers remember E.F. Hutton and Kidder Peabody. Now we can add Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros. to the storied names that have fallen.
We drop these names (and we could have mentioned a hundred more) for two reasons: (1) to remind readers that this isn't the first time an investment bank or brokerage has gone under, and (2) to point out that the country has always survived and grown.
In fact, what's happening now is quite normal in a financial system characterized by booms that lead to excesses that then require corrections before any renewal takes place. We'd be hard-pressed to remember a bear market when one or more financial firms didn't go out of business.
In the oil crisis of the 1970s, for example, major financial companies such as Penn Central and Franklin National went bust. The booming '80s saw hundreds of banks go belly up due to bad loans made to the farm sector and the Third World, and, later, S&L loans to U.S. homeowners.
The '90s? Remember the Long-Term Capital Management debacle in '98, following the Asia Crisis in '95 and coinciding with Russia's ruble meltdown? Then, too, we heard predictions that the world as we knew it was ending. It wasn't.
Yes, the problems to be worked out this time seem scarier than most. And watching institutions like Bear and Lehman fail, and Merrill Lynch taken over just like that, doesn't inspire confidence.
But they're no different from other investment firms of the past that have paid the price for making too many bad decisions or taking too many risks in what is already a high-risk business.
How long all this will last is anyone's guess. But this a big country, with a highly liquid market and a still-strong economy. We'll get through it.
We also see something of a silver lining in the decentralization of financial power. That power has always resided in New York City, where a herd mentality too often prevails. The piling of Wall Street firms into exotic mortgage investments is only the latest example.
New York is also full of brokers and analysts schooled in the investment theories of college professors, many of whom have never invested successfully.
Much of the nation's investment talent, however, can be found elsewhere — not only in Boston, with its exemplary mutual-fund organizations, but also in places like Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, Denver, San Francisco and Los Angeles.
In fact, some of the best money managers we know use Wall Street as a contrary indicator: Whatever it's doing, they do the opposite.
It's worth noting that Bank of America, the company that was called upon to bail out the troubled New York firms in this situation, is headquartered in Charlotte, N.C.
It's long been our contention that too much thinking is done for the country out of New York and Washington. (The same is true of the media business, which because of agenda-driven, East Coast biases no longer seems able to report what's really going on.)
Fortunately, America continues to be driven by inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs who will go on creating the products and services that keep the economy growing and people at work.
We trust that this reality — along with the stewardship of experienced leaders such as Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed chief Bernanke — will in time lead to stabilization and recovery.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Wall Street: Old timers will recall F.I. DuPont or Goodbody & Co. Not-so-old timers remember E.F. Hutton and Kidder Peabody. Now we can add Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros. to the storied names that have fallen.
We drop these names (and we could have mentioned a hundred more) for two reasons: (1) to remind readers that this isn't the first time an investment bank or brokerage has gone under, and (2) to point out that the country has always survived and grown.
In fact, what's happening now is quite normal in a financial system characterized by booms that lead to excesses that then require corrections before any renewal takes place. We'd be hard-pressed to remember a bear market when one or more financial firms didn't go out of business.
In the oil crisis of the 1970s, for example, major financial companies such as Penn Central and Franklin National went bust. The booming '80s saw hundreds of banks go belly up due to bad loans made to the farm sector and the Third World, and, later, S&L loans to U.S. homeowners.
The '90s? Remember the Long-Term Capital Management debacle in '98, following the Asia Crisis in '95 and coinciding with Russia's ruble meltdown? Then, too, we heard predictions that the world as we knew it was ending. It wasn't.
Yes, the problems to be worked out this time seem scarier than most. And watching institutions like Bear and Lehman fail, and Merrill Lynch taken over just like that, doesn't inspire confidence.
But they're no different from other investment firms of the past that have paid the price for making too many bad decisions or taking too many risks in what is already a high-risk business.
How long all this will last is anyone's guess. But this a big country, with a highly liquid market and a still-strong economy. We'll get through it.
We also see something of a silver lining in the decentralization of financial power. That power has always resided in New York City, where a herd mentality too often prevails. The piling of Wall Street firms into exotic mortgage investments is only the latest example.
New York is also full of brokers and analysts schooled in the investment theories of college professors, many of whom have never invested successfully.
Much of the nation's investment talent, however, can be found elsewhere — not only in Boston, with its exemplary mutual-fund organizations, but also in places like Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, Denver, San Francisco and Los Angeles.
In fact, some of the best money managers we know use Wall Street as a contrary indicator: Whatever it's doing, they do the opposite.
It's worth noting that Bank of America, the company that was called upon to bail out the troubled New York firms in this situation, is headquartered in Charlotte, N.C.
It's long been our contention that too much thinking is done for the country out of New York and Washington. (The same is true of the media business, which because of agenda-driven, East Coast biases no longer seems able to report what's really going on.)
Fortunately, America continues to be driven by inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs who will go on creating the products and services that keep the economy growing and people at work.
We trust that this reality — along with the stewardship of experienced leaders such as Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed chief Bernanke — will in time lead to stabilization and recovery.
Email To Friend |
Palin Slams Expose the Real Democrats
Palin Slams Expose the Real Democrats
Friday, September 12, 2008 3:01 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
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
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
Poll: It's Palin Over Biden 50%-40%
Poll: It's Palin Over Biden 50%-40%
Monday, September 15, 2008 2:02 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
The two party conventions and the trend of recent events have moved America more toward the Republican Party than it has been at any time this year, data from the latest Fox News survey suggest. The nation still trends Democratic, but less so than it has during this entire election season.
The most dramatic manifestation of this reversal is, of course, in the head-to-head ballot test of John McCain versus Barack Obama. While Fox News had Obama ahead by 42-39 in its Aug. 19-20 survey, its poll for Sept. 8-9 shows McCain ahead by 45-42. Obama hasn't changed, but McCain has moved up six points.
It's way too early for slight changes in the head-to-head ballot test to matter, but there has been a basic trend away from the Democratic Party in recent months. In an April 28-29 sample, 44 percent of voters said they were Democrats, while only 30 percent said they were Republicans.
That 14-point gap in favor of the Democrats closed to a nine-point gap at the end of July and collapsed to only seven points by Sept. 8-9. Now, 41 percent say they're Democrats, while 34 percent identify themselves as Republicans. It's still a Democratic year, but by only half as much as it was four months ago.
And the Democratic edge on issues has eroded somewhat in the last few months.
At the end of July, voters trusted the Democrats better to handle the economy by 11 points: 47-36. Now, the Democratic lead on the economy has dwindled to only four points: 46-40.
On Obama's signature issue, the Iraq war, voters trusted the Republicans to handle it better by 52-39 in early September, compared with only a 46-40 advantage in mid-June.
The two conventions also sparked a Republican gain on the energy issue. Asked which party they trusted more to achieve energy independence, the voters gave the Democrats an eight-point lead before the conventions and an only two-point lead now.
Sarah Palin has had a lot to do with the shift. Asked to say which candidate made the smarter choice for vice president, voters said John McCain did in choosing Palin by 50 percent-40 percent.
Key to Palin's popularity is the sense that she understands the average person's problems. On the question of which of the four candidates for president and vice president best "understands the problems of day to day life in America," Palin finished first with 33 percent, Obama second with 32 percent, McCain third with 17 percent and Biden last with 10 percent — a combined 50-42 margin for the Republican candidates.
By attacking Palin, the Democrats have gone overboard and maximized her influence on the election. Asked if Palin had been the object of sexist attacks in the media, 45 percent said yes, compared to only 33 percent who felt that Obama had been victimized by racist attacks.
The more the Democrats and the media pour incoming fire on Palin, the more they polarize themselves as sexist and elitist, two things you don't want to be in today's America.
But, in perhaps the worst news in this survey for Obama, when asked whom they'd consult for advice if they faced the "toughest decision of your life," voters chose McCain over him by 50-34. If the toughest decision is who to vote for president, McCain can take comfort in this finding.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Monday, September 15, 2008 2:02 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
The two party conventions and the trend of recent events have moved America more toward the Republican Party than it has been at any time this year, data from the latest Fox News survey suggest. The nation still trends Democratic, but less so than it has during this entire election season.
The most dramatic manifestation of this reversal is, of course, in the head-to-head ballot test of John McCain versus Barack Obama. While Fox News had Obama ahead by 42-39 in its Aug. 19-20 survey, its poll for Sept. 8-9 shows McCain ahead by 45-42. Obama hasn't changed, but McCain has moved up six points.
It's way too early for slight changes in the head-to-head ballot test to matter, but there has been a basic trend away from the Democratic Party in recent months. In an April 28-29 sample, 44 percent of voters said they were Democrats, while only 30 percent said they were Republicans.
That 14-point gap in favor of the Democrats closed to a nine-point gap at the end of July and collapsed to only seven points by Sept. 8-9. Now, 41 percent say they're Democrats, while 34 percent identify themselves as Republicans. It's still a Democratic year, but by only half as much as it was four months ago.
And the Democratic edge on issues has eroded somewhat in the last few months.
At the end of July, voters trusted the Democrats better to handle the economy by 11 points: 47-36. Now, the Democratic lead on the economy has dwindled to only four points: 46-40.
On Obama's signature issue, the Iraq war, voters trusted the Republicans to handle it better by 52-39 in early September, compared with only a 46-40 advantage in mid-June.
The two conventions also sparked a Republican gain on the energy issue. Asked which party they trusted more to achieve energy independence, the voters gave the Democrats an eight-point lead before the conventions and an only two-point lead now.
Sarah Palin has had a lot to do with the shift. Asked to say which candidate made the smarter choice for vice president, voters said John McCain did in choosing Palin by 50 percent-40 percent.
Key to Palin's popularity is the sense that she understands the average person's problems. On the question of which of the four candidates for president and vice president best "understands the problems of day to day life in America," Palin finished first with 33 percent, Obama second with 32 percent, McCain third with 17 percent and Biden last with 10 percent — a combined 50-42 margin for the Republican candidates.
By attacking Palin, the Democrats have gone overboard and maximized her influence on the election. Asked if Palin had been the object of sexist attacks in the media, 45 percent said yes, compared to only 33 percent who felt that Obama had been victimized by racist attacks.
The more the Democrats and the media pour incoming fire on Palin, the more they polarize themselves as sexist and elitist, two things you don't want to be in today's America.
But, in perhaps the worst news in this survey for Obama, when asked whom they'd consult for advice if they faced the "toughest decision of your life," voters chose McCain over him by 50-34. If the toughest decision is who to vote for president, McCain can take comfort in this finding.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
September 14, 2008
WHAT THEY DO IS WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN OR SEE
John Glenn (DEMOCRAT) said this ----- It should make us all think a little:
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month
of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq .
When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, tell them the following:
FDR (DEMOCRAT) led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost .. an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman (DEMOCRAT) finished that war and started one in Korea . North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ... an average of 18,334 per year.
John F. Kennedy (DEMOCRAT) escalated the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
Johnson (DEMOCRAT) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ... an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton (DEMOCRAT) went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
This one is a fact that makes me mad as hell.
In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. And the Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.
But Wait, There's more.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno (DEMOCRAT) to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.
We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton (DEMOCRAT) to find the Rose law firm billing records.
>
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy (DEMOCRAT) to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida !!!
Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is high!
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.
But Wait ...There's more!
JOHN GLENN (on the Senate floor - January 26, 2004)
Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum (Democrat) is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living.
This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.
Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
'How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?'
Senator Glenn (D-Ohio): 'I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank. I ask you to go with me, as I went the other day... to a veteran's hospital and look those men ... with their mangled bodies ... in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job!
You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee ... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DAD'S didn't hold a job.
You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery , where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags. You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you have the gall to tell ME that those people didn't have a job?
What about Metzenbaum? For those who don't remember During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA .
Now he's a Senator!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. I you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
WHY WOMEN SHOULD VOTE
THERE WERE OVER 100 ENDORSEMENTS TO THIS EM RECEIVED 9-14 IT IS AN EXCELENT REMINDER OF THE PAINS THIS NATIONS WOMEN WENT THROUGH TO OBTAIN THE SIMPLE RIGHT TO VOTE.
We forget how hard it was to get the right to vote
WHY WOMEN SHOULD VOTE
This is the story of our Grandmothers and Great-grandmothers; they lived only 90 years ago.
Remember,it was not until 1920 that women were granted the right to go to the polls and vote.
The women were innocent and defenseless, but they were jailed nonetheless for picketing the White House, carrying signs asking for the vote.
And by the end of the night, they were barely alive. Forty prison guards wielding clubs and their warden's blessing went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly convicted of 'obstructing sidewalk traffic.'
They beat Lucy Burns, chained her hands to the cell bars above her head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping for air.
They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an iron bed and knocked her out cold. Her cellmate, Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack. Additional affidavits described the guards grabbing, dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting and kicking the women.
Thus unfolded the 'Night of Terror' on Nov. 15, 1917, when the warden at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there because they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's White Ho use for the right to vote.
For weeks, the women's only water came from an open pail. Their food--all of it colorless slop--was infested with worms.
When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until she vomited. She was tortured lik e this for weeks until word was smuggled out to the press.
So, refresh my memory. Some women won't vote this year because- -why, exactly? We have carpool duties? We have to get to work? Our vote doesn't matter? It's raining?
Last week, I went to a sparsely attended screening of HBO's new movie 'Iron Jawed Angels.' It is a graphic depiction of the battle these women waged so that I could pull the curtain at the polling booth and have my say. I am ashamed to say I needed the reminder.
All these years later, voter registration is still my passion. But the actual act of voting had become less personal for me, more rote. Frankly, voting often felt more like an obligation than a privilege. Sometimes it was inconvenient.
My friend Wendy, who is my age and studied women's history, saw the HBO movie, too. When she stopped by my desk to talk about it, she looked angry. She was--with herself. 'One thought kept coming back to me as I watched that movie,' she said. 'What would those women think of the way I use, or don't use, my right to vote? All of us take it for granted now, not just younger women, but those of us who did seek to learn.' The right to vote, she said, had become valuable to her 'all over again.'
HBO released the movie on video and DVD . I wish all history, social studies and government teachers would include the movie in their curriculum I want it shown on Bunco night, too, and anywhere else women gather. I realize this isn't our usual idea of socializing, but we are not voting in the numbers that we should be, and I think a little shock therapy is in order.
It is jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and his cronies try to persuade a psychiatrist to declare Alice Paul insane so that she could be permanently institutionalized. And it is inspiring to watch the doctor refuse. Alice Paul was strong, he said, and brave. That didn't make her crazy.
The doctor admonished the men: 'Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity.'
Please, if you are so inclined, pass this on to all the women you know. We need to get out and vote and use this right that was fought so hard for by these very courageous women. Whether you vote democratic, republican or independent party - remember to vote.
History is being made.
Please pass this on to the women you know.
We forget how hard it was to get the right to vote
WHY WOMEN SHOULD VOTE
This is the story of our Grandmothers and Great-grandmothers; they lived only 90 years ago.
Remember,it was not until 1920 that women were granted the right to go to the polls and vote.
The women were innocent and defenseless, but they were jailed nonetheless for picketing the White House, carrying signs asking for the vote.
And by the end of the night, they were barely alive. Forty prison guards wielding clubs and their warden's blessing went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly convicted of 'obstructing sidewalk traffic.'
They beat Lucy Burns, chained her hands to the cell bars above her head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping for air.
They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an iron bed and knocked her out cold. Her cellmate, Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack. Additional affidavits described the guards grabbing, dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting and kicking the women.
Thus unfolded the 'Night of Terror' on Nov. 15, 1917, when the warden at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there because they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's White Ho use for the right to vote.
For weeks, the women's only water came from an open pail. Their food--all of it colorless slop--was infested with worms.
When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until she vomited. She was tortured lik e this for weeks until word was smuggled out to the press.
So, refresh my memory. Some women won't vote this year because- -why, exactly? We have carpool duties? We have to get to work? Our vote doesn't matter? It's raining?
Last week, I went to a sparsely attended screening of HBO's new movie 'Iron Jawed Angels.' It is a graphic depiction of the battle these women waged so that I could pull the curtain at the polling booth and have my say. I am ashamed to say I needed the reminder.
All these years later, voter registration is still my passion. But the actual act of voting had become less personal for me, more rote. Frankly, voting often felt more like an obligation than a privilege. Sometimes it was inconvenient.
My friend Wendy, who is my age and studied women's history, saw the HBO movie, too. When she stopped by my desk to talk about it, she looked angry. She was--with herself. 'One thought kept coming back to me as I watched that movie,' she said. 'What would those women think of the way I use, or don't use, my right to vote? All of us take it for granted now, not just younger women, but those of us who did seek to learn.' The right to vote, she said, had become valuable to her 'all over again.'
HBO released the movie on video and DVD . I wish all history, social studies and government teachers would include the movie in their curriculum I want it shown on Bunco night, too, and anywhere else women gather. I realize this isn't our usual idea of socializing, but we are not voting in the numbers that we should be, and I think a little shock therapy is in order.
It is jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and his cronies try to persuade a psychiatrist to declare Alice Paul insane so that she could be permanently institutionalized. And it is inspiring to watch the doctor refuse. Alice Paul was strong, he said, and brave. That didn't make her crazy.
The doctor admonished the men: 'Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity.'
Please, if you are so inclined, pass this on to all the women you know. We need to get out and vote and use this right that was fought so hard for by these very courageous women. Whether you vote democratic, republican or independent party - remember to vote.
History is being made.
Please pass this on to the women you know.
WHO LIED TO WHO
THIS MAY BE LATE BUT STILL IMPORTANT
WHO LIED TO WHO
Now we know why he(GW) had no concern for the Dems and their accusations. Let's see if the history books get rewritten and updated with this new info. I knew they were there, and the desert has an easy time of covering up anything without leaving any trace of activity. PLease go to the link for the story on MSNBC at the bottom of the article.
I WAS MISINFORMED ALSO.....THOUGHT YOU MIGHT LIKE TO READ THIS BIT OF SUPRESSED INFO. MAYBE, TOO MANY OF US GOT TOO MAD AT BUSH TOO QUICKLY, ABOUT TOO MUCH NEGATIVE REPORTING.........................GRIDER
I thought you might find this interesting. I wonder why it wasn't covered more in the news?
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 3:10 PM
Subject: Fw: Saddam's Nuclear Program - fact or fiction??
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Subject: Saddam's Nuclear Program - fact or fiction??
(I guess I too would have waited to announce this until the shipment was at it's destination)
Note link to
MSNBC story at bottom of page.
On July 5, 2008, the Associated Press (AP) released a story titled: Secret
U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq. The opening paragraph is as follows:
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program - a huge
stockpile of concentrated natural uranium - reached a Canadian port Saturday
to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two week airlift from
Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
See anything wrong with this picture? We have been hearing from the
far-left for more than five years how, "Bush lied." Somehow, that slogan
loses its credibility now that 550 metric tons of Saddam's yellowcake, used
for nuclear weapon enrichment, has been discovered and shipped to Canada for
its new use as nuclear energy.
It appears that American troops found the 550 metric tons of uranium in 2003
after invading Iraq. They had to sit on this information and the uranium
itself, for fear of terrorists attempting to steal it. It was guarded and
kept safe by our military in a 23,000-acre site with large sand beams
su rrounding the site.
This is vindication for the Bush administration, having been attacked
mercilessly by the liberal media and the far-left pundits on the
blogosphere. Now that it is proven that President Bush did not lie about
Saddam's nuclear ambitions, one would think the mainstream media would
report the story? Once the AP released the story, the mainstream media
should have picked it up and broadcast it worldwide.
This never happened, due in large part I believe, to the fact that the
mainstream media would have to admit they were wrong about Bush's war
motives all along. Thankfully, the AP got it right when it sai d, "The
removal of 550 metric tons of 'yellowcake'" - the seed material for
higher-grade nuclear enrichment - was a significant step toward closing the
books on Saddam's nuclear legacy."
Closing the book on Saddam's nuclear legacy? Did Saddam have a nuclear
legacy after all? I thought Bush lied? As it turns out, the people who
lied were Joe Wilson and his wife.
Valerie Plame engaged in a clear case of nepotism and convinced the CIA to
send her husband on a fact finding mission in February 2002, seeking to
determine if Saddam Hussein attempted to buy yellowcake from Niger. The CIA
and British intelligence believed Saddam contacted Niger for that purpose
but needed proof.
During his trip t o Niger, Wilson actually interviewed the former prime
minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki. Mayaki told Wilson that in June
of 1999, an Iraqi delegation expressed interest in "expanding commercial
relations" for the purposes of purchasing yellowcake.
Wilson chose to overlook Mayaki's remarks and reported to the CIA that
there was no evidence of Hussein wanting to purchase yellowcake from Niger.
However, with British intelligence insisting the claim was true, President
Bush used that same claim in his State of the Union address in January of
2003.
Outraged by Bush's insistence that the claim was true, Wilson wrote an
op-ed in the New York Times in the summer of 2003 slamming Bush.
Wilson did this in spite of the fact that Mayaki said Saddam did try to buy
the yellowcake from Niger. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
disagreed with Wilson and supported Mayaki's claim. This meant nothing to
Wilson who was opposed to the Iraq war and thus had ulterior motives in
covering up the prime minister's statements.
It was a simple tactic really. If the far-left and their friends in the
media could prove Bush li ed about Hussein wanting to purchase yellowcake
from Niger, it would undermine President Bush's credibility and give them
more cause for asking what other "lies" he may have told.
Yet, the real lie came from Wilson, who=2 0interpreted his own meaning from the
prime minister's statements and concluded all by himself that the claim of
Saddam attempting to purchase yellowcake was "unequivocally wrong."
Curiously, the CIA sat on this information and did not inform the CIA
Director, who sided with Bush on the yellowcake claim. This was made public
in a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in July 2004.
Valerie Plame also engaged in her own lie campaign by spreading the notion
that the Bush administration "outed" her as a CIA agent. Never mind
that it was Richard Armitage -- no friend of the Bush administration -- who leaked
Plame's identity to the press. Never mind that Plame had not been in the
field as a CIA agent i n some six years.
The truth is, due to their opposition to the war, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame,
the mainstream media and their left-wing friends on the blogosphere engaged
in a propaganda campaign to undermine the Bush administration. Now that
Saddam's uranium has been made public and is no longer a threat to the
world, do you think these aforementioned parties will apologize and admit
they were wrong? Don't count on it. The rest of the American people
should hear the truth about Saddam's uranium. It is up to you and me to inform
them every chance we get.
As far as the anti-war crowd is concerned, the next time they say that,
"Bush lied," we should tell them to, "Have the yellowcake and
eat it, too."
This story was verified. If you want to see it, click on the link below.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
WHO LIED TO WHO
Now we know why he(GW) had no concern for the Dems and their accusations. Let's see if the history books get rewritten and updated with this new info. I knew they were there, and the desert has an easy time of covering up anything without leaving any trace of activity. PLease go to the link for the story on MSNBC at the bottom of the article.
I WAS MISINFORMED ALSO.....THOUGHT YOU MIGHT LIKE TO READ THIS BIT OF SUPRESSED INFO. MAYBE, TOO MANY OF US GOT TOO MAD AT BUSH TOO QUICKLY, ABOUT TOO MUCH NEGATIVE REPORTING.........................GRIDER
I thought you might find this interesting. I wonder why it wasn't covered more in the news?
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 3:10 PM
Subject: Fw: Saddam's Nuclear Program - fact or fiction??
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Subject: Saddam's Nuclear Program - fact or fiction??
(I guess I too would have waited to announce this until the shipment was at it's destination)
Note link to
MSNBC story at bottom of page.
On July 5, 2008, the Associated Press (AP) released a story titled: Secret
U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq. The opening paragraph is as follows:
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program - a huge
stockpile of concentrated natural uranium - reached a Canadian port Saturday
to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two week airlift from
Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
See anything wrong with this picture? We have been hearing from the
far-left for more than five years how, "Bush lied." Somehow, that slogan
loses its credibility now that 550 metric tons of Saddam's yellowcake, used
for nuclear weapon enrichment, has been discovered and shipped to Canada for
its new use as nuclear energy.
It appears that American troops found the 550 metric tons of uranium in 2003
after invading Iraq. They had to sit on this information and the uranium
itself, for fear of terrorists attempting to steal it. It was guarded and
kept safe by our military in a 23,000-acre site with large sand beams
su rrounding the site.
This is vindication for the Bush administration, having been attacked
mercilessly by the liberal media and the far-left pundits on the
blogosphere. Now that it is proven that President Bush did not lie about
Saddam's nuclear ambitions, one would think the mainstream media would
report the story? Once the AP released the story, the mainstream media
should have picked it up and broadcast it worldwide.
This never happened, due in large part I believe, to the fact that the
mainstream media would have to admit they were wrong about Bush's war
motives all along. Thankfully, the AP got it right when it sai d, "The
removal of 550 metric tons of 'yellowcake'" - the seed material for
higher-grade nuclear enrichment - was a significant step toward closing the
books on Saddam's nuclear legacy."
Closing the book on Saddam's nuclear legacy? Did Saddam have a nuclear
legacy after all? I thought Bush lied? As it turns out, the people who
lied were Joe Wilson and his wife.
Valerie Plame engaged in a clear case of nepotism and convinced the CIA to
send her husband on a fact finding mission in February 2002, seeking to
determine if Saddam Hussein attempted to buy yellowcake from Niger. The CIA
and British intelligence believed Saddam contacted Niger for that purpose
but needed proof.
During his trip t o Niger, Wilson actually interviewed the former prime
minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki. Mayaki told Wilson that in June
of 1999, an Iraqi delegation expressed interest in "expanding commercial
relations" for the purposes of purchasing yellowcake.
Wilson chose to overlook Mayaki's remarks and reported to the CIA that
there was no evidence of Hussein wanting to purchase yellowcake from Niger.
However, with British intelligence insisting the claim was true, President
Bush used that same claim in his State of the Union address in January of
2003.
Outraged by Bush's insistence that the claim was true, Wilson wrote an
op-ed in the New York Times in the summer of 2003 slamming Bush.
Wilson did this in spite of the fact that Mayaki said Saddam did try to buy
the yellowcake from Niger. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
disagreed with Wilson and supported Mayaki's claim. This meant nothing to
Wilson who was opposed to the Iraq war and thus had ulterior motives in
covering up the prime minister's statements.
It was a simple tactic really. If the far-left and their friends in the
media could prove Bush li ed about Hussein wanting to purchase yellowcake
from Niger, it would undermine President Bush's credibility and give them
more cause for asking what other "lies" he may have told.
Yet, the real lie came from Wilson, who=2 0interpreted his own meaning from the
prime minister's statements and concluded all by himself that the claim of
Saddam attempting to purchase yellowcake was "unequivocally wrong."
Curiously, the CIA sat on this information and did not inform the CIA
Director, who sided with Bush on the yellowcake claim. This was made public
in a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in July 2004.
Valerie Plame also engaged in her own lie campaign by spreading the notion
that the Bush administration "outed" her as a CIA agent. Never mind
that it was Richard Armitage -- no friend of the Bush administration -- who leaked
Plame's identity to the press. Never mind that Plame had not been in the
field as a CIA agent i n some six years.
The truth is, due to their opposition to the war, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame,
the mainstream media and their left-wing friends on the blogosphere engaged
in a propaganda campaign to undermine the Bush administration. Now that
Saddam's uranium has been made public and is no longer a threat to the
world, do you think these aforementioned parties will apologize and admit
they were wrong? Don't count on it. The rest of the American people
should hear the truth about Saddam's uranium. It is up to you and me to inform
them every chance we get.
As far as the anti-war crowd is concerned, the next time they say that,
"Bush lied," we should tell them to, "Have the yellowcake and
eat it, too."
This story was verified. If you want to see it, click on the link below.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE COMPARISON TALKING POINTS
THIS IS A RERUN BUT WORTH IT ALL.
SIMPLE MATH:
2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE COMPARISON TALKING POINTS
ISSUE
JOHN McCAIN
BARAK OBAMA
Favors new drilling offshore US
Yes
No
Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it
Yes
No
Served in the US Armed Forces
Yes
No
Amount of time served in the US Senate
22 YEARS
173 DAYS
Will institute a socialized national health care plan
No
Yes
Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy
No
Yes
Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately
No
Yes
Supports gun ownership rights
Yes
No
Supports homosexual marriage
No
Yes
Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase
No
Yes
Voted against making English the official language
No
Yes
Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals
No
Yes
CAPITAL GAINS TAX
MCCAIN
0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.
OBAMA
28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.)
DIVIDEND TAX
MCCAIN
15% (no change)
OBAMA
39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.')
INCOME TAX
MCCAIN
(no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50 K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250
OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!
INHERITANCE TAX
MCCAIN
- 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
OBAMA
Restore the inheritance tax
Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.
NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA
New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet.
New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already)
New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity)
New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....
New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!
You can verify the above at the following web sites:
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html
http://electionsfoxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes
http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html
< SPAN class=yshortcuts>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain/
!
SIMPLE MATH:
2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE COMPARISON TALKING POINTS
ISSUE
JOHN McCAIN
BARAK OBAMA
Favors new drilling offshore US
Yes
No
Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it
Yes
No
Served in the US Armed Forces
Yes
No
Amount of time served in the US Senate
22 YEARS
173 DAYS
Will institute a socialized national health care plan
No
Yes
Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy
No
Yes
Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately
No
Yes
Supports gun ownership rights
Yes
No
Supports homosexual marriage
No
Yes
Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase
No
Yes
Voted against making English the official language
No
Yes
Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals
No
Yes
CAPITAL GAINS TAX
MCCAIN
0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.
OBAMA
28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.)
DIVIDEND TAX
MCCAIN
15% (no change)
OBAMA
39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.')
INCOME TAX
MCCAIN
(no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50 K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250
OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!
INHERITANCE TAX
MCCAIN
- 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
OBAMA
Restore the inheritance tax
Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.
NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA
New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet.
New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already)
New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity)
New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....
New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!
You can verify the above at the following web sites:
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html
http://electionsfoxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes
http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html
< SPAN class=yshortcuts>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain/
!
Democrats Display Destructive Delight
THO THIS IS LATE IN GETTING TO ME IT STILL HAS THE MESSAGE, AND THAT IS THAT THE DEMOCRATES AND THEIR ILK EG M. MOORE DO EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO PERSUADE PEOPLE THAT 'GOD' IS ON THEIR SIDE AND TO DESTROY REPUBLICANS AS THEY ARE THE CAUSE OF ALL TROUBLE.
Democrats Display Destructive Delight
By Jeff Crouere
September 2, 2008
Once again a major hurricane has hit the New Orleans area. Once again, I have evacuated my family along with millions of harried Gulf Coast residents. We are worried about our family members, friends, property, and pets. It is stressful time for all of us in this region of the country.
It was just three years ago that Hurricane Katrina devastated our area creating horrendous damage and killing over 1,600 people. Unfortunately, there are tens of thousands of people who have not been able to return home. Thousands of homes remain damaged and unoccupied. Sadly, our community has not recovered from Katrina; yet, now we have to face another killer storm. It is a tragic situation that is more than nerve wracking for all of us in the New Orleans area and throughout the Gulf Coast.
In the midst of this tragedy, liberal propagandist Michael Moore, a bloated blowhard, has insulted every resident of the threatened region. Moore told fellow Republican hater and lunatic liberal MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, that Hurricane Gustav was proof that there "is a God in Heaven." Moore crowed that it was delicious irony that President Bush was scheduled to speak to the GOP convention at the same time the devastating hurricane would be rampaging across the northern Gulf Coast.
By celebrating the political ramifications of Gustav, Moore and Olbermann were displaying more concern about partisan politics than the well being of millions of Americans. It was a disgusting display of nasty partisanship at a time of national crisis. Any decent human being should be more worried about the safety of fellow Americans than scoring political points.
Of course three years ago, Hurricane Katrina devastated the New Orleans area and the federal response was lame and delayed. Yet, the local and state response was equally inadequate. This time, the federal government has been proactive and very aggressive in evacuating local residents and preparing for this hurricane. The actions of Louisiana state government led by new Republican Governor Bobby Jindal has been the antithesis of what happened during Katrina. At that time, Democrat Governor Kathleen Blanco was overwhelmed, overly emotional and ill-prepared. She clearly was not able to convey any leadership or inspire any confidence in state government. In contrast, for this emergency, Governor Jindal has acted quickly and confidently and certainly saved lives by his leadership during this crisis.
Regrettably, several leading Democrats are using this tragedy to score political points. Former DNC Chairman Don Fowler said that the hurricane demonstrates that "God is on our side." A shocking video captured a heartless Fowler laughing about this tragedy and saying that it would negatively impact the Republican convention. In another example of horrible insensitivity, liberal Fox News contributor and Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill said that Republicans must be "praying for tornadoes" so that President Bush will skip the convention. This type of disgusting partisanship is why many people are tired of politics.
Let me be clear to these liberal Democrats, no sane Republican official is praying for tornadoes. In fact, Republican leaders gathered for the convention are very concerned about the impact of the storm and will lead an effort to assist in the recovery of the area. For example, President Bush did not attend the convention so that he could manage the federal response to Hurricane Gustav.
It is time to remind these callous Democrats that God did not send a hurricane to help one party or to harm people to score political points. The God that I worship is a merciful and loving God that watches over all of his flock, regardless of political affiliation.
This tragedy should be an opportunity for people to put aside political labels and pull together to insure a quick recovery from this disaster. The last thing anyone should be doing at this point is to try to take political advantage of this tragedy. The comments of these leading Democrats are incredibly cruel and show complete insensitivity to the plight of their fellow Americans. Now is not the time to play partisan politics, there will be plenty of time for that once this threat passes.
Democrats Display Destructive Delight
By Jeff Crouere
September 2, 2008
Once again a major hurricane has hit the New Orleans area. Once again, I have evacuated my family along with millions of harried Gulf Coast residents. We are worried about our family members, friends, property, and pets. It is stressful time for all of us in this region of the country.
It was just three years ago that Hurricane Katrina devastated our area creating horrendous damage and killing over 1,600 people. Unfortunately, there are tens of thousands of people who have not been able to return home. Thousands of homes remain damaged and unoccupied. Sadly, our community has not recovered from Katrina; yet, now we have to face another killer storm. It is a tragic situation that is more than nerve wracking for all of us in the New Orleans area and throughout the Gulf Coast.
In the midst of this tragedy, liberal propagandist Michael Moore, a bloated blowhard, has insulted every resident of the threatened region. Moore told fellow Republican hater and lunatic liberal MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, that Hurricane Gustav was proof that there "is a God in Heaven." Moore crowed that it was delicious irony that President Bush was scheduled to speak to the GOP convention at the same time the devastating hurricane would be rampaging across the northern Gulf Coast.
By celebrating the political ramifications of Gustav, Moore and Olbermann were displaying more concern about partisan politics than the well being of millions of Americans. It was a disgusting display of nasty partisanship at a time of national crisis. Any decent human being should be more worried about the safety of fellow Americans than scoring political points.
Of course three years ago, Hurricane Katrina devastated the New Orleans area and the federal response was lame and delayed. Yet, the local and state response was equally inadequate. This time, the federal government has been proactive and very aggressive in evacuating local residents and preparing for this hurricane. The actions of Louisiana state government led by new Republican Governor Bobby Jindal has been the antithesis of what happened during Katrina. At that time, Democrat Governor Kathleen Blanco was overwhelmed, overly emotional and ill-prepared. She clearly was not able to convey any leadership or inspire any confidence in state government. In contrast, for this emergency, Governor Jindal has acted quickly and confidently and certainly saved lives by his leadership during this crisis.
Regrettably, several leading Democrats are using this tragedy to score political points. Former DNC Chairman Don Fowler said that the hurricane demonstrates that "God is on our side." A shocking video captured a heartless Fowler laughing about this tragedy and saying that it would negatively impact the Republican convention. In another example of horrible insensitivity, liberal Fox News contributor and Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill said that Republicans must be "praying for tornadoes" so that President Bush will skip the convention. This type of disgusting partisanship is why many people are tired of politics.
Let me be clear to these liberal Democrats, no sane Republican official is praying for tornadoes. In fact, Republican leaders gathered for the convention are very concerned about the impact of the storm and will lead an effort to assist in the recovery of the area. For example, President Bush did not attend the convention so that he could manage the federal response to Hurricane Gustav.
It is time to remind these callous Democrats that God did not send a hurricane to help one party or to harm people to score political points. The God that I worship is a merciful and loving God that watches over all of his flock, regardless of political affiliation.
This tragedy should be an opportunity for people to put aside political labels and pull together to insure a quick recovery from this disaster. The last thing anyone should be doing at this point is to try to take political advantage of this tragedy. The comments of these leading Democrats are incredibly cruel and show complete insensitivity to the plight of their fellow Americans. Now is not the time to play partisan politics, there will be plenty of time for that once this threat passes.
Are Pelosi's allies chickening out on their 550,000 job giveaway?
Are Pelosi's allies chickening out on their 550,000 job giveaway?
. . . The House Judiciary Committee has found excuses to put off this awful visa increase till next week
--we can still beat it!
It's important to receive your donations today.
Go Here To Donate https://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/donate-online-credit-card.html
DEAR DAVE ANDERSON,
Our opponents in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee desperately want to give away 550,000 American jobs!
If it were to pass, H.R. 5882 would bring in 550,000 permanent greencard holders, above the 1 million immigrants already planned! With U.S. unemployment shooting up to a five-year high, this is the very worst time to add more competition to Americans.
But Nancy Pelosi and her allies backed down yesterday before they could get the immigration increase past the Judiciary Committee. They thought it would be easy. Instead, they ran into a buzzsaw.
That's because our army of hundreds of thousands of citizen activists swung into action, swamping the opposition with phone calls and faxes.
By last night it became clear our opponents just couldn't make it happen. So they delayed action till next week, hoping opposition will die down.
Fat chance! We're never going to give up or give in. But our danger is SEVERE!
go Here To Donate https://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/donate-online-credit-card.html
In the midst of all Roy's requests to you to fax and phone, the NumbersUSA business staff reminds us that this is the mid-month point when we need to raise another month's financial support for our operations.
Did you know that NumbersUSA depends on contributions from first-time donors for one-quarter of our support? We really do need your help.
Especially in this time of political crisis, we need thousands of you to press the button below as soon as you receive this email.
NumbersUSA employs the four finest immigration lobbyists in America, fighting day and night . . . gathering intelligence, mustering arguments, devising strategies. Did you know that our opposition's lobbyists outnumber us more than 100 to 1? That's why we need your help.
Our biggest asset is you and your friends, our activist army that has now grown to over 739,000 activist members. YOU and your colleagues have sent more than a 100,000 faxes THIS WEEK ALONE to Congress using the unique NumbersUSA faxing system.
Imagine our members going down individually to copy shops and sending that many faxes to Congress in a single week. What would it cost? Not only is our service always no cost to you, but we do almost all the work in sending the faxes.
The struggle is now, and we need your help right now.
Go here to donate https://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/donate-online-credit-card.html
Remember, if you are ill, unemployed, or living on a small fixed income, please do not contribute. We only ask for help from those able to help.
THANK YOU IN ADVANCE,
JIM ROBB
Vice President, Operations
NumbersUSA
Numbers USA
1601 N. Kent Street
Suite 1100
Arlington, VA 22209
. . . The House Judiciary Committee has found excuses to put off this awful visa increase till next week
--we can still beat it!
It's important to receive your donations today.
Go Here To Donate https://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/donate-online-credit-card.html
DEAR DAVE ANDERSON,
Our opponents in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee desperately want to give away 550,000 American jobs!
If it were to pass, H.R. 5882 would bring in 550,000 permanent greencard holders, above the 1 million immigrants already planned! With U.S. unemployment shooting up to a five-year high, this is the very worst time to add more competition to Americans.
But Nancy Pelosi and her allies backed down yesterday before they could get the immigration increase past the Judiciary Committee. They thought it would be easy. Instead, they ran into a buzzsaw.
That's because our army of hundreds of thousands of citizen activists swung into action, swamping the opposition with phone calls and faxes.
By last night it became clear our opponents just couldn't make it happen. So they delayed action till next week, hoping opposition will die down.
Fat chance! We're never going to give up or give in. But our danger is SEVERE!
go Here To Donate https://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/donate-online-credit-card.html
In the midst of all Roy's requests to you to fax and phone, the NumbersUSA business staff reminds us that this is the mid-month point when we need to raise another month's financial support for our operations.
Did you know that NumbersUSA depends on contributions from first-time donors for one-quarter of our support? We really do need your help.
Especially in this time of political crisis, we need thousands of you to press the button below as soon as you receive this email.
NumbersUSA employs the four finest immigration lobbyists in America, fighting day and night . . . gathering intelligence, mustering arguments, devising strategies. Did you know that our opposition's lobbyists outnumber us more than 100 to 1? That's why we need your help.
Our biggest asset is you and your friends, our activist army that has now grown to over 739,000 activist members. YOU and your colleagues have sent more than a 100,000 faxes THIS WEEK ALONE to Congress using the unique NumbersUSA faxing system.
Imagine our members going down individually to copy shops and sending that many faxes to Congress in a single week. What would it cost? Not only is our service always no cost to you, but we do almost all the work in sending the faxes.
The struggle is now, and we need your help right now.
Go here to donate https://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/donate-online-credit-card.html
Remember, if you are ill, unemployed, or living on a small fixed income, please do not contribute. We only ask for help from those able to help.
THANK YOU IN ADVANCE,
JIM ROBB
Vice President, Operations
NumbersUSA
Numbers USA
1601 N. Kent Street
Suite 1100
Arlington, VA 22209
September 13, 2008
Feinstein ‘Not Concerned’ About Russian Bombers in Venezuela
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
