Michelle Malkin on Michelle Obama

“Damn That Barack Hussein Obama!” The Anti-Wright/Fagler Preacher Man

The Truth Hurts! Hussein Recruits Staff To Fight Internet Smears

Something interesting to think about.

Something interesting to think about.


 

 

Cindy Hensley McCain has been disparaged as a trophy wife, a Barbie, an heiress with fancy purses, even the Paris Hilton of politics. But there’s more to the picture than meets the eye.

Yes, Mrs. McCain is the perfectly coifed blonde standing dutifully behind the senator during his speeches. And yes, she wears stylish clothing and carries a Prada purse. And it’s true she doesn’t say much. But feminist critics who write her off as a ‘stand-by-your-man’ shrinking violet are selling her short. In many ways, Cindy McCain stacks up sturdier than Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama. And she’d make a more impressive first lady. 

Mrs. McCain:  More than meets the eye.

While Obama’s wife has been hating America, complaining about the war and undermining our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, McCain’s wife has been worrying about her sons who actually are fighting or planning to fight in the war on terror. One, in fact, was until a few months ago deployed in Iraq during some of the worst violence.

You don’t hear the McCains talk about it, but their 19-year-old Marine, Jimmy, is preparing for his second tour of duty. Their 21-year-old son, Jack, is poised to graduate from Annapolis and also could join the Marines as a second lieutenant. The couple made the decision not to draw attention to their sons out of respect for other families with sons and daughters in harm’s way.

Cindy also says she doesn’t want to risk falling apart on the campaign trail talking about Jimmy who was so young when he enlisted she had to sign consent forms for his medical tests before he could report for duty and potentially upsetting parents of soldiers who are serving or have been killed.

The McCains want to make sure their boys get no special treatment. Same goes for their five other children, including a daughter they adopted from Bangladesh. During a visit to Mother Teresa’s orphanage there, Cindy noticed a dying baby. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save her life. So she brought the child home to America for the surgery she desperately needed. The baby is now their healthy, 16-year-old daughter, Bridget.

Though all seven McCain children including two Sen. McCain adopted from his first marriage are supportive of their father, they prefer their privacy to the glare of the campaign trail. Another daughter, Meghan, 23, helps him behind the scenes.

Cindy McCain not only cherishes her children, but also her country, which in an election year filled with America-bashing, is a refreshing novelty. She seethed when she heard Michelle Obama’s unpatriotic remarks that she only recently grew proud of America. ‘I am very proud of my country,’ Mrs. McCain asserted.

She also may be tougher than the other women in the race. While Hillary thinks she’s come under sniper fire on mission trips abroad, Cindy has actually seen violence. She witnessed a boy get blown up by a mine in Kuwait during a trip with an international group that removes land mines from war-torn countries.

Mrs. McCain also is a hands-on philanthropist. She sits on the board of Operation Smile, which arranges for plastic surgeons to fix cleft palates and other birth defects. She also has helped organize relief missions to Micronesia.

During a scuba-diving vacation to the islands, Mrs. McCain took a friend to a local hospital to have a cut treated. She was shocked, and saddened, by what she saw.

‘They opened the door to the OR, where the supplies were, and there were two cats and a whole bunch of rats climbing out of the sterile supplies,’ she recalled. ‘They had no X-ray machine, no beds. To me, it was devastating because it was a U.S. trust territory.’

As soon as she returned home, she arranged for medical equipment and teams of doctors to be sent to treat the island children.

Michelle Obama may contribute to CARE, which fights global poverty and works to empower poor women. Cindy sits on its board.

While the Democrat women talk about helping the poor and needy, Cindy McCain actually rolls up her sleeves and does it. Who’s the out-of-touch elitist?

 

Obama: I was for high gas prices before I was against them

Obama: I was for high gas prices before I was against them

Rick Moran
Jim Geraghty reports on an interview Obama gave CNBC on the gas crisis where the candidate came out four square – for higher gas prices:

Barack Obama: I think that… we have been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage. And the president, frankly, hasn’t had an energy policy.* And as a consequence we’ve been consuming energy as if it’s infinite. We now know that our demand is badly outstripping supply with China and India growing as rapidly as they are.

CNBC’s John Harwood: So could the (high) oil prices help us?

Barack Obama: I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money in their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more rapidly, particularly U.S. automakers…

Geraghty translates:

The obvious inference is that Obama doesn’t object to $4 a gallon gas per se, just how rapidly the price increased. Most Americans hate it and want gas prices to go down as rapidly as possible. Obama wants to “help people to make the adjustment” to “new circumstances.”
Is reducing the price of a gallon of gas a policy priority for Obama? Or does he, like Thomas Friedman, believe that the president should “guarantee people a high price of gasoline – forever.”

It’s no secret that liberals believe gas prices have always been too low. But you might notice that they are having much more fun recently skewering Republicans and wailing about the high price of fuel.

Some Democrats in the past have advocated as much as a $5 a gallon increase in the gas tax to punish Americans for driving. Funny, we don’t hear much about those proposals now. And here’s Barack Obama telling us “tough sh*t America, get used to it.”

Something else that’s kind of strange; it’s funny how statements like this by Obama never make it on any other newscasts…

 

Countering Democrats on Drilling

Countering Democrats on Drilling

By Patrick J. Casey

The Democrats have a standardized talking point against any domestic drilling (in  ANWR, the Midwest oil shales and off-shore), settling on the comeback: “It won’t help us today.” Energy-savvy Republicans too often respond “If Clinton hadn’t vetoed ANWR, that oil field would have been producing three years ago.” While technically correct, the retort doesn’t hit the Democrats where they are weakest.

 

Battle of the Narratives

 

Blame for the rise of gasoline prices (and everything else dependent on petroleum) is a political commodity right now, with each side seeking to hold the other culpable. The Democrats are avoiding their traditional environmental arguments for good reason.

 

If the voters see environmentalists, tree-huggers, and their Democratic political minions as causing $4 or $5 dollar a gallon gasoline, along with the rise in consumer prices across the board because of the increase of the cost of oil used as an ingredient in many products, they will blame the Democrats.

 

And frustration with environmentalism is starting to show up in the polls, which are indicating an increasing call for domestic drilling from the American public. 

 

With most of the TV interview time on the major networks and cable news stations limited to a minute or so, there is a very short window in which a politician can get out an effective message. Even worse is the decreasing sound bite time used in non-interview style news reports. According to a recent study, that’s down to 7.7 seconds. So it’s vital for the GOP to develop a quick response to the Democrats’ argument that will focus attention on the positives of the GOP argument.

What is that effective message? Here’s a suggestion. It should be used every time a Democrat marches out their new favorite line:

 

Every solution currently under consideration by the Democrats and Republicans is a future solution. Oil drilling and processing is a present-day technology that offers the quickest solution to our energy needs. As the other technologies are gradually proven and perfected and go on-line, we can then reduce our dependence on oil.

 

A sympathetic news media will often grant time for the Democrats’ counter argument, which is likely to be: this “solution” won’t solve the problem of speculative  investors forcing up the price of oil.

 

The Republicans’ retort to that excuse should be along the following lines:

 

Right now, with the Democrats in charge, global investors realize that Congress will never allow the United States to develop its own energy reserves. With a Democratic President it would be even worse.  If the Democrats stop their obstruction of drilling, that would immediately put downward pressure on such speculation in the oil futures markets.

 

Or the Democrats might respond by suggesting that we regulate the commodities market, especially the oil commodities market NYMEX. The GOP response should be:

 

If the Democrats go after NYMEX, then oil speculators will move the futures markets overseas to a more friendly economic host, such as Dubai. We must address the fundamentals of supply and demand, instead of blocking every chance we get to create jobs and wealth in America through domestic production..

 

The facts and the answers to the energy crunch are on the GOP’s side. Right now, every Republican interviewed attacks the problem with different talking points. The public likes and appreciates simple messages — that’s why the Democrats have been so effective with their “drilling won’t help us today” slogan. The GOP must have a unified and concise message, repeated every time there’s a microphone or a camera around, that effectively counters the Democrats’ and the media’s opposition to common sense and logical solutions to our energy needs.

 

Unless the presumptive nominee changes his position, this will put Republicans at odds with the McCain campaign. That’s fine, since he’s in the wrong on this issue. And I’m certain that he’d appreciate the “maverick” nature of Republicans in Congress going against a president or presumed presidential nominee.

 

John McCain feels free to disagree with his party, and there is no reason Republicans shouldn’t return the favor. Independent swing voters, much sought after by McCain, seem to have a taste for divided government. A few of them might actually be more inclined to vote for Republican in Congress as well as McCain if they knew that  Congtressional Republicans would not be in his pocket or vice versa

The Execution of Britain

The Execution of Britain

Created 2008-06-05 12:14

I will defend all Western and indeed infidel countries against Islamic Jihad, but I admit I feel especially close to Britain, not just because of the long cultural and historic ties between Scandinavia and the British Isles, but also because I appreciate the good that has come out of British culture. It makes me all the more sad to see how humiliated this great nation is today, and how many natives feel forced to leave what once was their country.

In May 2008, 18 year-old Ben Smith was stopped in a routine check. The police officer noticed an English flag on the parcel shelf and ordered him to remove it because it was “racist towards immigrants.” One of the first things foreign powers usually do when they invade a country is to ban its national symbols. The fact that you can no longer run your flag in parts of Britain – and the Netherlands, Sweden, France, etc. – shows that the country is de facto under occupation, not just by Muslims, but by Multiculturalists and Globalists of all kinds.

In an essay entitled Put away the flags, Howard Zinn, the Leftist author of the best-selling book A People’s History of the United States, writes that “On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed. Is not nationalism – that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder – one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?” He concludes that “We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.”

The problem is, rights can only be protected by sovereign states upholding their territorial integrity. How is “the global community” or “the human race” going to protect Mr. Zinn’s liberties? For a free society to function, the state has to pass laws in the best interest of its citizenry and enforce these within its territory. Otherwise, self-government is impossible. In order to defend this territory from outside aggression, people need to identify with it as something more than just a random space on a map. By removing sovereign states, you remove the very foundations of a free society. Maybe some groups actually desire this?

The British Foreign Minister Milliband stated late in 2007 that the European Union should expand to include Muslim nations in North Africa and the Middle East. The French President Sarkozy and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed this early in 2008. Since the EU involves the free movement of people across borders, European leaders are thus opening the floodgates to tens of millions of Muslims at a time when native Europeans already feel like aliens in their own cities. It’s the greatest betrayal in the history of Western civilization and it has been planned for many years, as those who have read Bat Ye’or‘s writings about Eurabia will know.

I believe native Europeans should seriously consider creating a European Indigenous People’s Movement to protect our interests. Our authorities currently reward those who use violence and punish those who don’t. Native Europeans are ignored if we protest peacefully against mass immigration or the expanding pan-European superstate. Muslims get concessions while we are treated with increasing hostility from those who are supposed to be our leaders.

Muslims in Jordan, a country that takes part in the Barcelona process of “Euro-Mediterranean cooperation” and thus a likely future EU member, recently sued the Danish cartoonists who drew Muhammad for “blasphemy” against Islam, a “crime” that potentially carries the death penalty according to sharia law. Not too many years into the future, we could face a situation where citizens of, say, Denmark could be arrested by their own authorities and handed over to be tried for “crimes against Islam” in one of the Arab “partner countries” of the EU. If this sounds unthinkable to you, look at the case of the Dutch cartoonist who was recently arrested by a dozen police officers for the crime of publishing cartoons insulting immigrants.

PM Tony Blair expressed “profound relief” over the end of a hostage crisis in 2007 where British soldiers had been kidnapped by the Islamic Republic of Iran, telling the mullahs that “we bear you no ill will.” Blair will be remembered as one of the worst leaders in history. Even Chamberlain didn’t flood his country with enemies and present this as something positive. Mass immigration has been going on for decades but showed a spectacular increase under Blair’s and Brown’s Labour regime. The spike was so powerful that it is tempting to speculate whether the authorities had deliberately set out to dismantle their own nation.

According to newspaper columnist Leo McKinstry, the English are being turned into second-class citizens in their own country: “England is in the middle of a profoundly disturbing social experiment. For the first time in a mature democracy, a Government is waging a campaign of aggressive discrimination against its indigenous population.”

Similar things are happening all over the Western world, not just in England or Britain, but Britain is definitely one of the worst countries, yes. I’ve been debating with people which country is most likely to get the first Eurabian civil war triggered by mass immigration. There are several possible candidates, but my money is on Britain, because the anger among ordinary citizens is only rivaled by the brutal political repression tactics.

In a survey published in April 2008, one in three medical doctors in Britain said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long. At the same time, Muslim men with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits. The “welfare state” now means that the natives should watch grandma die because she’s getting old anyway and we need the money to pay Muslims with multiple wives and numerous children so that they can feel comfortable while colonizing the country.

Also in April 2008, David T, a stunned dad and his little boy, were banned from swimming at a popular public sports center in east London because this was a “Muslim men-only swimming” session. Several Christian priests have been physically attacked by Muslims in east London, leading one bishop to worry about “no-go-zones” for Christian in some parts of the country. In early June, a Muslim police community support officer ordered Christian preachers to stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham. They were threatened with arrest for committing a “hate crime” and were told they risked being beaten up if they returned. In March 2008, two Islamic terrorists were moved to different prisons after complaining that their fellow inmates were “too white.” Dhiren Barot had masterminded a radioactive bomb plot involving limousines packed with nails and explosives and Omar Khyam plotted to blow up the Bluewater shopping centre in Kent.

How do native Brits react to this? Well, some get angry, as they should. Bryan Cork, 49, was jailed for six months for “racist slurs” after he had shouted insults at Muslim worshippers outside a Cumbria mosque, including “proud to be British” and “go back to where you came from.” This was after the London Jihadist bombings in 2005. Judge Paul Batty told him that racism in any form would not be tolerated. I hear much talk about “national suicide” these days, but Mr. Cork apparently had no desire to commit national suicide, he was held down by his own authorities for refusing to accept the organized destruction of his nation. What we are dealing with here isn’t suicide; it’s an execution of an entire nation, perhaps an entire civilization, the greatest civilization ever created by man.

Even children face this kind of ideological intimidation. Codie Stott, a teenage British schoolgirl, was forced to spend hours in a police cell after she was reported by her teachers for “racism.” She had objected, in the mildest possible terms, to being placed during class with a group of South Asian immigrants who talked among themselves in a language she didn’t understand. For this, she was dragged to the local police station and had her fingerprints and photograph taken. 18-year-old Jamie who has Down’s syndrome and the mental age of a five-year-old was charged with “racism” after an argument with an immigrant. Meanwhile, the UK is being brought to its knees in an epidemic of violent crime and white native girls get raped by immigrants in spectacular numbers, just like all over Western Europe.

Why do people still take this lying down? I wonder about that sometimes. Maybe they feel that their votes don’t matter and have resigned into a state of quiet apathy. Since many are dependent upon government support and being branded a “bigot” could cause you to lose your livelihood, people still have too much to lose by openly opposing these policies. Such subtle blackmail can be quite effective in suppressing dissent. This could, however, change rapidly in the event of a serious economic downturn. Another crucial element is confusion. People are deliberately kept in the dark by the media and the authorities regarding the full scale of what they are facing. Combined with Muslim violence and intimidation of critics, we have a climate of fear and confusion. People who are scared and confused can be easily controlled.

I’ve recently been re-reading the books of American evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond, especially Guns, Germs, and Steel. He has some points, but his most important flaw is his complete failure to explain how the Greater Middle East went from being a global center of civilization, which it was in ancient times, to being a global center of anti-civilization. This was not caused by smallpox or because zebras are more difficult to domesticate than water buffaloes. It was caused by Islam. Diamond, with his emphasis on historical materialism, fails to explain the rise of the West and especially why English, not Arabic, Chinese or Mayan, became the global lingua franca. What’s so special about those rainy and foggy islands?

As Australian author Keith Windschuttle told a New Zealand audience, “The concepts of free enquiry and free expression and the right to criticise entrenched beliefs are things we take so much for granted they are almost part of the air we breathe. We need to recognise them as distinctly Western phenomena.” He warns that the survival of this great achievement now depends entirely “on whether we have the intelligence to understand their true value and the will to face down their enemies.”

No other civilization on earth ever created an equivalent of the European university system. One of the most important reasons why Europe surpassed China during the early modern age is more political freedom and free speech. The reason why English became the dominant language is because Britain and its offspring enjoyed great political liberty even by Western standards, and a corresponding economic dynamism.

Probably no empire in world history has been more benevolent than the British Empire, yet a report from February 2008 recommended that patriotism should be avoided in school lessons because British history is “morally ambiguous.” I suppose Islamic history isn’t, with almost 1400 years of brutal Jihad warfare on several continents?

I’m sure the British are being told that the ongoing mass immigration is a result of their “colonial history.” I live in a country with no colonial history, yet we are still subject to mass immigration. We are also being told that we should allow Pakistani or Nigerian flags to celebrate our Constitution Day because this will be “good for integration.” This has nothing to do with colonialism. So what does it have to do with? Well, I’m starting to wonder whether it has something to do with the Western love affair with free speech and political liberty. Those who desire a world where society is regulated and everybody does what the authorities tell them to do fear this Western preference for political self-determination.

If we look at the West during the past thousand years, we have generally enjoyed an unusually high degree of freedom and power sharing. This has been the case more in some periods and countries than in others, but in the big scheme of things this remains true. However, although this arrangement has been good for our civilization as a whole, some of our elites apparently are jealous of the more authoritarian system in other cultures. They want to turn the West into a “normal,” meaning more corrupt and less free, civilization, aided by the forces of globalization. We are witnessing rising nepotism, and perhaps those at the top desire this.

The political elites no longer believe in stupid things such as borders, cultures and national sovereignty. Islam upsets their world-view, so they ignore it and move on with their project of globalization, anyway. The most hardcore Leftists actively side with Islam because its hatred of the West and its concept of a global umma coincide with their own globalist outlook. Yes, I know that Socrates stated “I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world,” but I don’t think he meant it quite as literally as Western elites do now. Socrates didn’t have an entire village of Muslims transplanted to his street during the space of a single generation, and he didn’t have his daughters or female relatives raped by Muslims in his own country.

Our traditional freedoms were the result of a specific culture, developed over centuries of hard struggles. Maybe other cultures have to go through similar struggles of their own to achieve this, and some will perhaps never be able to do so. We should protect our freedoms at home before we try to export them, and we should protect them by preserving the European-derived culture which created them.

Our enemies, internal and external, want to destroy the Western world because we represent liberty, and they want to destroy Britain in particular because it gave birth to the most powerful pro-liberty culture within the Western tradition. I hope the British can regain their strength and throw off their traitor class, but they need to do so soon. We cannot allow the greatest nation in human history to be destroyed by the planet’s most barbaric cultures. The British people, like their Dutch, German, Italian, Spanish and Danish counterparts, have every right to desire self-determination and self-preservation, and limit or even completely halt immigration as they see fit to ensure this. Those who say otherwise are evil, and need to be exposed as such. The Western world is under attack by a global Islamic Jihad. To support continued mass immigration of Muslims in this situation should be regarded as high treason, and punished as such.

 
See also:

Creating a European Indigenous People’s Movement
, 6 April 2008

 


Another day, another radical supporter of Obama

Another day, another radical supporter of Obama

Rick Moran
Next time Obama takes to the stump, let’s watch and see if he’s wearing anything pink.

If so, it shouldn’t surprise us. That’s because one of Obama’s “bundlers” – supporters who raise cash by the bushelful for the candidate – just happens to be the co-founder of the ultra radical group Code Pink.

Jodie Davis served as a human shield for Saddam prior to the war and has even been an apologist for Osama Bin Laden according to Ed Morrissey. Here’s Ed describing her appearance on a radio show:

Ibbetson tries to explain that we hadn’t done anything to provoke the 9/11 attacks by saying we hadn’t invaded Afghanistan. Davis replies that we were in Saudi Arabia, which to her gave al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden a rational reason to kill thousands of Americans in terrorist attacks. Note that she says, “I don’t think any terrorist attack is justified,” and then says we should listen to Osama bin Laden and change our policies because – “Sometimes, it would be a good idea to listen to why someone is trying to blow you up”.
Q: Do you think that’s a valid argument?
A: Sure. Why do we have bases in the Middle East?
Does Barack Obama share these views with his new bundler and the founder of Code Pink? Does he also feel that we should heed Osama bin Laden’s speeches and adjust our policies in the Middle East accordingly? If Davis represents the kind of people Obama wants to attract to his campaign, that says quite a bit about his approach to terrorism and the defense of American interests in the Middle East.

I would say to my good friend Ed that the answer is we don’t know. Since the candidate himself is nearly incoherent on his Middle East policy and policy toward Israel, it is impossible to say where he stands.

Not so Ms. Davis. She has made abundantly clear that she stands with America’s enemies – a curious death wish many on the left seem to have, don’t you think?

I predict Obama will wear a pink tie sometime soon to show his solidarity with Code Pink…

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky

Jimmy Carter on Obama’s lack of substance and experience

Obama on why he shouldn’t have run for president

Obama on why he shouldn’t have run for president

Back in 2004, Obama felt that it would be too soon for a newly-minted senator to run for president (agreeing with Jimmy Carter that it was too soon). Rosslyn Smith reminds us of a

November 2004 video (hat tip: Gateway Pundit) taken right after Obama had won his Senate race in a landslide shows him saying:
 

 

“I am a believer in knowing what you’re doing when you apply for a job. And, I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket I would essentially have to start now before having served a day in the Senate. Now, there are some people who may be comfortable doing that, but I’m not one of those people.”

Watch it here:  http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obama_on_why_he_shouldnt_have.html

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers