Election ’08 Backgrounder

  

Financial Crisis | Iraq | Defense | Background & Character | Judges & Courts | Energy

 

FINANCIAL CRISIS

Quick Facts:

  • Democrats created the mortgage crisis by forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them.
  • In 2006, McCain sponsored a bill to fix the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Barney Frank and other Democrats successfully opposed it.
  • Obama was one of the highest recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac donations in Congress.

Related Editorials

 

IRAQ


Quick Facts:

  • When the U.S. was on the verge of losing in Iraq, McCain chose to stand and fight.  Obama chose retreat.
  • Even after the surge succeeded, Obama told ABC’s Terry Moran he would still oppose it if he had the chance to do it all over again.

Related Editorials

 

DEFENSE

Quick Facts:

  • Obama has promised to significantly cut defense spending, including saying “I will slow our development of future combat systems.”
  • John McCain has vowed: “We must continue to deploy a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent, robust missile defenses and superior conventional forces that are capable of defending the United States and our allies.”

Related Editorials

Obama Video: Watch Now

 

 

BACKGROUND & CHARACTER

Quick Facts:

  • Obama voted “present” 135 times as a state senator, and according to David Ignatius of the Washington Post, “gained a reputation for skipping tough votes.”
  • McCain has taken stances unpopular with his own party and/or the public on controversial issues, including immigration, campaign finance reform, judicial nominations, the Iraq War and more.

Related Editorials

 

 

JUDGES & COURTS


Quick Facts:

  • In a 2001 interview, Obama said he regretted that the Supreme Court “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”
  • In the same interview, Obama criticized the Supreme Court because it “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”
  • Obama has focused on empathy, rather than legal reasoning and restraint, as his basis for appointing judges, saying, “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy…to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.”
  • McCain opposes judicial activism, saying, “my nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power.”

Related Editorials

Obama 2001 Interview: Listen Now

 

ENERGY


Quick Facts:

  • McCain has proposed building 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 and is in favor of drilling in sectors of the Outer Continental Shelf.
  • Obama has refused to take a stand, saying only “we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix” and he will “look at” drilling offshore.

Related Editorials

»
McCain: The Energy Candidate

» McCain On Nukes: Yes We Can
» Breaking The Back Of High Oil

 

Posted in ABC, Abortion, Accountable America, ACLU, ACORN, Ahmadinejad, Al Gore, Alinsky, American Civil Liberties Union, American Fifth Column, American Friends of Peace Now, American values, anti-American, Anti-Semitic, anti-war movement, antisemitism, ANWR, ANWR oil, AP, AP/CNN, Associated Press, Atomic Islam, B Hussein Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank, Barry Soetoro, Bill Ayers, Bill Clinton, Black Nationalism, border security, CBS, CBS evening news, CBS news, Charlie Rangel, CHAVEZ, Chavez-Castro, Christian Voices, christian vote, Cindy McCain, CNN muslim sympathizers, CNN pro islam, Congress, Credit Crunch, Democrat Communist Party, Democrat corruption, Democrat george soros, democrat half truth, democrat lies, democrat muslim, democrat polls, Democrat Presidential debate, democrat scandals, Democrat Shadow Government, democrat socialists, Democratic Corruption, Democratic majority, democratic morals, Democratic socialism, Democratic Socialists of America, Democratic traitors, Democrats and drilling, Democrats and Earmarking, democrats and global Warming, democrats and illegal immigration, Democrats and Subprime mortgages, Democrats and talk radio, Earmarking, earmarks, Fairness Doctrine, Fannie Mae, Fatah, Freddie Mac, free speech, George Bush, George Soros, GOP, GOP leadership, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Hollywood liberals, Howard Dean, Hugo Chavez, human trafficking, Hussein Obama, Iran, Iran revolt, Iran threat, iraq, Iraq jihadists, Iraq Oil, Iraq surge, Iraq War, Islam, islam fundamentalist, Islam sympathizers, Islamic Fifth Column, Islamic immigration, Israel, Israel Defense Forces, Israeli Jets, Jeremiah Wright, Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Joe the Plumber, John Conyers, John Kerry, John McCain, John Murtha, Katie Couric, Keith Ellison, left-wing hatred for George W. Bush, left-wing ideologues, Leftist Claptrap, Liberal Churches, liberal jihad, liberal media, McCain, McCain Palin, Mexican migrants, Michelle Obama, middle east, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Nancy Pelosi, nation of islam, Nazi Pelosi, NY Times, Obama, Obama Jackboots, Obama Tax Plan, Sarah Palin. Leave a Comment »

McCain’s Gauntlet Speech

McCain’s Gauntlet Speech

By Lee Cary

McCain’s recent speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council delivered many important messages.  Some were aimed at the upcoming general election campaign. Others were international messages directed toward friends, foes and those in the middle.

Campaign Messages
McCain spent his first 300-plus words disclaiming an image that the MSM will eventually try to tag him with: an old, trigger-happy, fighter pilot.  Far from trigger-happy – he knows the horror of war.
Then he obliquely juxtaposed his self-descriptive label of realistic idealist with an implied one of naïve idealist to be applied later to whoever becomes his opponent. Why did he not apply the label to both Democrat candidates now? Because he’ll make the realistic versus naïve comparison directly if Obama is the nominee, and indirectly if it’s Clinton, for whom he has more respect. Premature to make it now.
Assume that Obama is the nominee, as is likely.  Merely labeling him a naïve idealist won’t be enough. McCain will have to do what President Bush has not done well.  He’ll need to make a more compelling case for not withdrawing from Iraq too soon. In this speech he took an articulate step in that direction by linking the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with “the transcendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terrorism.”
“In the troubled and often dangerous region they occupy, these two nations can either be sources of extremism and instability or they can in time become pillars of stability, tolerance, and democracy…And whether they eventually become stable democracies themselves, or are allowed to sink back into chaos and extremism, will determine not only the fate of that critical part of the world, but our fate as well.”
In the context of linking the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan with radical Islamic terrorism, McCain set a cornerstone for how he’ll differentiate himself from either Democrat opponent.
“Any president who does not regard this threat as transcending all others does not deserve to sit in the White House, for he or she does not take seriously enough the first and most basic duty a president has – to protect the lives of the American people.”  (emphasis added)
When Obama criticizes McCain for supporting Bush’s war in Iraq, McCain can say:
Maybe you didn’t notice that I repeatedly called for the removal of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and a new strategy in Iraq.  A strategy we eventually adopted, by the way, and is yielding success.
When Obama calls for a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, McCain will play the Irresponsible Statesmanship Card mentioned in his speech:
“It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our national character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possibly genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible, and premature withdrawal.”
Obama will remind us again and often that he was against the war from the beginning. In response, McCain can say:
That’s the past, Senator Obama. Today we’re talking about the future, and a hope that the Iraqis can believe in. Because when it comes to our success in Iraq – Yes We Can, and Yes We Will.
His Los Angeles speech laid the groundwork for all these retorts and others.
Either Democrat nominee will equate a McCain victory with a Bush Third Term.  Countering that in advance, McCain reminded us that he’s not been a Bush sycophant.  He’s noted how he’s been against torture, inhuman treatment of prisoners, and wants to close Guantanamo. In that run of issues he included words some conservative critics may have glossed over: “…work with our allies to forge a new international understanding on the disposition of dangerous detainees under our control.”  Message:  Our allies will be responsible for helping us deal with these “dangerous” people because criticism from a distance without helping to solve the problem is counterproductive.
As soon as the MSM begins to support the Bush Third Term theme, McCain can say,
Look my friends, a little straight talk here: As early as 1999, the New York Times was referring to me as a “maverick.” In fact, they ran a story about me in July that year entitled ‘The Mantle of the Maverick Suits McCain.’  They’ve continued to apply that label to me ever since.  Just last January, the Times ran an article entitled “McCain, Long a G.O.P. Maverick, Is Gaining Mainstream Support.” So, if I’ve been such a maverick for so long, how can I now be a reincarnation of President Bush?   
Checkmate. 
International Messages
Now, to briefly review some of the international messages aimed at friends, foes and those in the middle.
TO All Nations:  We’ll continue to lead, but with a style that will not project what some of you have perceived as arrogance.
This message angered some conservatives, but it was necessary for our friends to hear it, regardless of whether we’ve accepted or rejected their criticism.
TO Hugo Chavez and Fidel’s little brother:  You have a choice to make. Isolate yourself further or embrace this future:
“Ours can be the first completely democratic hemisphere, where trade is free across borders, where the rule of law and the power of the free markets advance the security and prosperity of all.”
TO Russia:  Consult your English dictionary as I note the danger you pose by being “revanchist.” I think Brazil and India have more business being in the G-8 that you do.  And, I plan to grow NATO right up to your front door.  You feel me, Putin?
I had to look it up:  Revanchist: One who follows a policy seeking to retaliate, especially to recover lost territory.
TO China:  To really become a true friend of ours, you’ll need to be a more responsible world citizen, make your military intentions clearer, and stop trying to elbow us out of Asia. 
TO Africa:  It’s time some of you become more responsible nations. And, it’s time we help you eradicate malaria on the African continent.
TO Iran & N. Korea:  Be advised that we’re closely watching your efforts to attain nuclear weapons, and that I plan to further involve our friends in that watching.  No threats at this time.
TO Islamic Terrorists:  Don’t expect a McCain administration to be any less aggressive against you than was Bush’s. And maybe more so.
TO Selected Middle East Countries:  You know who you are.  We’re done relying on your out-dated autocracies as the safest path to the future of the Middle East.
TO Other Democracies:  Let’s form a “new global compact” – a League of Democracies. 
This message is a shot across the bow of the U.N.  Among all his international messages, this one is most noteworthy.
“We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact – a League of Democracies – that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.”
Finally,
TO the United Nations:  I am prepared to engage your bias, corruption and incompetence. You’re on notice.
That last message alone should atone for any perception on the part of some conservatives that John McCain is another John Kerry.

Lee Cary is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.

Obama’s Wright fantasy

Obama’s Wright fantasy

Clarice Feldman
Undoubtedly hoping to tie Hillary in the fabulist category, Obama tells a whopper of his own and Tom Maguire captures it in amber (well online, anyway):

Can someone help me with what looks like the latest fantasy from Obama as he explains his Reverend Wright (emphasis added):
WASHINGTON – White House hopeful Barack Obama suggests he would have left his Chicago church had his longtime pastor, whose fiery anti-American comments about U.S. foreign policy and race relations threatened Obama’s campaign, not stepped down.
“Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying at the church,” Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, “The View.” The interview will be broadcast Friday.
Let’s make the working assumption that this excerpt is accurate and in context – time will tell, since the show airs tomorrow.
So, when did Wright acknowledge that what he had said was deeply offensive and inappropriate?  The AP story recounts some of Wright’s controversial comments but oddly omits to mention his apology, as does all other news coverage with which I am familiar.  And I am strangely certain that a Wright apology would have made the news – unless he never made it publicly.
So what are we supposed to believe – that Wright apologized to Obama, who is now apologizing to the rest of us on Wright’s behalf?  For heaven’s sake, this really does show that Obama is made of Presidential stuff – maybe he can do an Apology Tour, just as Bill Clinton did.

The Party of Death

The Party of Death

By David Forsmark
FrontPageMagazine.com | 3/27/2008

Embryo: A Defense of Human Life
By Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen
Doubleday, $23.95, 224pp.
Someone watching the Democratic candidates debate could be forgiven for wondering if they’re viewing a year-old videotape.

But the reality is Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are so hidebound by ideology and beholden to left-wing interest groups that actual events are not allowed to intrude on their scripts.

There has been, for instance, no appreciable change in the position of the candidates — or Democrat Party leaders — on Iraq since the grimmest days of sectarian violence, even though the military surge has brought tremendous success. Former opponents have joined our side, and many signs of national unity are springing up at the micro — and, yes, the macro — level.

“Surrender! All is lost!” remains the battle cry of the Democrat Party. That might be “change,” but it hardly qualifies as “hope.”

Similarly, despite recent breakthroughs in adult and umbilical stem cell research that many scientists say make the ethically troubling notion of killing human embryos unnecessary for research, Democrats are still busy damning George W. Bush for the fact that Christopher Reeves didn’t rise up and walk.

Clinton and Obama almost daily repeat the canard that George W. Bush has halted stem cell research. In reality, Bush only denied federal funding for such research; then again, in their worldview, the denial of taxpayers’ money to pay for embryonic stem cell lab work is the same as banning it. But even more troublling is Clinton and Obama’s callousness in refusing to even consider any ethical quandary in taking one life for the benefit of another.

But what do you expect from people who are willing to lose a war in order to score political points and for whom even banning the grotesqueries of partial birth abortion is not worth offending the smallest part of their political base?

Pro-life conservatives generally have two straw men to battle when arguing their case, one from each end of the life cycle — the case for embryonic life and some variation on the Terry Schiavo case. In each instance, the charge of religious extremism is likely to be hurled.

Because the charge that the argument in favor of embryonic right to life is purely a religious one, prominent bioethicists Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen set out on what might seem a peculiar task. In Embryo: A Defense of Human Life, they decide to make the case for the rights of human embryos absent any religious argument whatsoever.

Whatever you think of this daunting — and occasionally rhetorically awkward — task, most readers will be persuaded by the authors’ main thesis by the book’s opening brilliant illustration. In fact, the first dozen pages or so, with minor editing, would make a superb pamphlet for pro-life groups to distribute.

The authors open Embryo with a subchapter called Noah and the Flood. No, this Noah’s not the 600 year-old patriarch pf Old Testament fame with his floating zoo; he’s the youngest person to be rescued from Hurricane Katrina’s floodwaters.

Noah Benton Markham had been one of 1,400 frozen embryos rescued from a New Orleans hospital threatened by the rising waters. As the authors point out, had it not been for rescue workers:

Noah would have perished. For it was Noah who was frozen in one of those canisters, Noah who was brought from New Orleans by boat, Noah who was subsequently planted in his mother’s womb, and Noah who was born on January 16, 2007.

The frozen embryo brought out that day, the authors point out, could not have become anything other than Noah. His parents might have been able to have another baby, but it would not have been Noah. Noah could not have been recreated at another time. Noah was genetically complete when the police officers brought him to safety, it was his life that was saved.

Therefore, the authors conclude, and this is “confirmed by all the best science”:

(H)uman embryos are from the beginning, human beings sharing an indentity with, though younger than, the older human beings they will grow up to become.

To one extent or another, the rest of Embryo is a scientific defense of this proposition, and an answer to nearly every argument commonly made against it.

The authors are convinced that the argument can only be won by removing religion from the argument and focusing solely on “science” and “universally accepted philosophical methods of inquiry.”

Of course, arguing such matters in a non-religious vacuum creates its own problems — and begs its own questions.

George and Tollifsen argue persuasively that there is no time at which a human embryo is “not a person.” Thus, it has the rights all persons enjoy –  most basically, the “right not to be killed.”

While the right of a person not to be killed is universally accepted in the West, it is also the result of a particular religious ethos — one rejected by Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam and bin Laden to name a few.

It is the rejection of the Judeo-Christian ethos that leads scientists who would never dream of rejecting the right to life to a breathing human to deny it to embryonic humans. One can hardly argue that those scientists are ignorant of the genetic makeup or human completeness of the embryo.

However, since the same scientists — along with leftist politicians and hard-core feminists — confuse the issue by arguing that resistance to killing or experimenting on embryonic human life is made on purely mystical grounds and not scientific ones, George and Tollefsen have performed a vital service with this book.

Embryo is a brief but not an easy read. While the authors have a clear and concise writing style reminiscent of James Q. Wilson’s thoughtful books on ethics and the law, the issues here are of necessity sometimes discussed in highly technical terms.However, whether you read it straight through, digest it in chunks or keep it as a handy reference guide for sticky arguments —  such as why it is not hypocritical for a pro-lifer to say a fireman, if forced to choose, should rescue a 5-year-old girl rather than a tray of embryos — Embryo is a valuable addition to the library of anyone who engages in the war of ideas.

The Divider

The Divider

By Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com | 2/21/2008

A critical plank of Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign has been his appeal for national unity. In speeches crafted to bridge partisan divides, he has assailed the “drama and division and distraction” of Washington politics and urged Americans to rise above their differences. Whatever one makes of this approach, and substantively it leaves a great deal to be desired, there is little doubting its success thus far. Whether in southern states like South Carolina, with their large black electorates, or majority-white states like Iowa and Wisconsin, Obama’s message has found popular purchase. So it is not a little ironic that the cross-racial bonhomie engendered by the Obama campaign is threatened by the woman closest to the senator: his wife Michelle Obama. 

That was most apparent in Wisconsin this week, where the tension between Obama’s soothing, post-racial politics and his wife’s more astringent views flared out in the open. As Sen. Obama traversed the state to make his final pitch to the voters, Michelle Obama spent the week chiding them for their past folly. Speaking in Milwaukee, she said, “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”

It was a jarring statement. Did the candidate’s wife really mean to suggest that the country had been hopeless until her husband emerged as the Democratic frontrunner? Indeed she did, and just a few hours later, she reiterated the point in nearly identical terms. “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country — not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment.” There was no mistaking her message: Until it found the wisdom to rally around her husband, America had been a source of constant disappointment for Mrs. Obama.

When her remarks justifiably aroused outrage, the unenviable task of explaining them away fell to the senator himself. On the one hand, Obama said, his wife’s words had been taken “out of context.” But at the same time, Sen. Obama continued, “she’s pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she’s not alone.” And sure enough, it was this cynicism that landed her in trouble in the first place.

Yet it’s hard to see what Michelle Obama has to be cynical about. Though it is true that she was born on the South Side of Chicago, there is no shortage of Americans who start from humble beginnings. The difference is that, unlike many, Michelle Obama is also a child of privilege. In a recent interview with Newsweek, Obama reveals that she got into Princeton University not on the strength of her grades, which she admits were unexceptional, but thanks to her brother Craig, a star athlete and gifted student who preceded her to the school. As a “legacy” candidate and a beneficiary of affirmative action, Michelle Obama was granted an opportunity that others more accomplished were denied. Nor, according to friends quoted in the article, did Obama object when she was later accepted to Harvard as part of the school’s outreach to minority students. “She recognized that she had been privileged by affirmative action and she was very comfortable with that,” her friend recalls.

Comfortable, perhaps, but certainly not content. A more humble personality might have appreciated the unearned advantages she had been afforded. Michelle Obama seems instead to have developed an abiding sense of racial resentment. This resentment finds its most bitter expression in her 1985 Princeton senior thesis, conveniently blocked from public viewing by the school until after next year’s presidential election, titled “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community.” In it, the young Michelle LaVaughn Robinson paints a grim portrait of her future prospects, warning against “further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.” Regardless of the opportunities that had been offered her, Obama continued to see herself as a victim of a racist white society, trapped in the divide that her husband’s campaign now seeks to breech.  

It would be unfair to assume that Michelle Obama’s writings as an angry and alienated undergrad are a reliable guide to her current views about race and her country more generally. After all, contrary to the grim prognosis in her Princeton thesis, Obama went on to succeed in the white “social structure” she had deemed so forbidding. She has held jobs at top corporate law-firms in Chicago, earned six-figure salaries, and seen her husband, himself of African descent, all but clinch the nomination of the Democratic Party. If that is not enough to make her a full participant in American society, nothing is.

But all evidence indicates that her views remain unchanged. In a February 2007 appearance with her husband on 60 Minutes, for instance, she said that “as a black man, you know, Barack can get shot going to the gas station.” Not the least of the problems with the charge was its conspiratorial suggestion that blacks were being targeted on account of their race. And in one tragic sense they were, though not, as Obama’s statement seemed to imply, by whites: According to the U.S. Department of Justice, between 1976 and 2005, 94 percent of black victims were killed by blacks. Empirically baseless, Michelle Obama’s warning nonetheless revealed how deeply she had absorbed the narrative of black victimization in America.

It does not follow that the mixed messages of the Obama campaign — his hopeful and forward-looking, hers sullen and intransigent — will slow its current momentum. The rapturous crowds who flock by the thousands to the senator’s campaign stops seem unlikely to stand for any criticism of their candidate. (Sometimes literally: fainting has reportedly become a common occurrence at Obama rallies.) Before them, neither Obama nor any member of his campaign can do wrong. General election voters, on the other hand, may look less sympathetically on the prospect of a First Lady who would carry her unrequited grievances to the White House.

“We are the change we seek,” Barack Obama is fond of saying on the campaign trail. To the extent that the phrase has any meaning, it is that the United States is fundamentally a noble country, with an active and engaged citizenry seeking do right. Sen. Obama has certainly persuaded his supporters to believe that. Now if only he could convince his own wife.



Jacob Laksin is a senior editor for FrontPage Magazine. He is a 2007 Phillips Foundation Journalism Fellow. His e-mail is jlaksin@gmail.com

Suspicious U-Haul Truck Reported at Dallas Courthouse Where Hamas Case Is on Docket

Suspicious U-Haul Truck Reported at Dallas Courthouse Where Hamas Case Is on Docket

Is this something we’re going to have to get used to in America?

The story is developing; this from Fox (thanks to CGiddensJr):

DALLAS — Authorities are investigating reports of a suspicious U-Haul truck at the Earle Cabell Federal Building in Dallas where opening statements are scheduled in a case against alleged Hamas fundraisers.Prosecutors are set to spell out their case today against leaders of a Muslim charity that federal officials say funneled millions of dollars to the Middle Eastern militant group Hamas.

The trial in federal district court in Dallas caps an investigation into the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development that lasted more than a decade and spanned half the world.

Defense attorneys say Holy Land supported humanitarian efforts in Palestinian neighborhoods but didn’t knowingly aid Hamas.

Dallas Muslim women arrested after standoff with police; explosive devices found in house; conducted surveillance at airport last April

Dallas Muslim women arrested after standoff with police; explosive devices found in house; conducted surveillance at airport last April

“The two are noteworthy because a few months ago, they were seen at Dallas Love Field, both dressed in camouflage pants under traditional Muslim robes, conducting what appeared to be surveillance, officials said.”

“Women arrested after police standoff,” by Steve Thompson for The Dallas Morning News (thanks to Jay S.):

It started with a routine domestic disturbance, except that the pair involved has recently been under investigation by federal terrorism officials.Before the day ended, Arlington police had negotiated a six-hour standoff, their robot had been shot at with a paintball gun, and they had called in a bomb squad over four potentially explosive devices.

Kimberly Al-Homsi called 911 about 12:40 a.m. Monday. She said her friend, Aisha Hamad, had threatened her with a knife. The two are noteworthy because a few months ago, they were seen at Dallas Love Field, both dressed in camouflage pants under traditional Muslim robes, conducting what appeared to be surveillance, officials said.

Police say that Monday morning, when an officer came to the door, Ms. Hamad threatened to shoot him. She told him the only way she would leave was in a body bag.

So began the standoff, during which she fired a paintball gun at a tactical robot and missed, police say, and at the end of which a negotiator persuaded her to come out peacefully. Once outside, Ms. Hamad, 50, fought with them while they tried to handcuff her, police say, so they used a Taser on her.

Police took Ms. Hamad to a hospital, where she was to undergo a mental evaluation. She is likely to face assault charges, Arlington police spokeswoman Christy Gilfour said.

Meanwhile, police searched the home on Wembley Road and found four explosive devices, one of which was sitting on a bedroom table.

Posted by Robert at 11:39 AM | Comments (34

The Destruction of the United States. http://expreacherman.wordpress.com/

 http://expreacherman.wordpress.com/

Retired Pastor — 77 year old narrow-minded Conservative Christian.

Posted in Uncategorized at 1:54 pm by expreacherman

A few weeks before the last election I wrote a post “Vote Like Your Life Depends on It.” (HERE)

Some were critical of my alarmist attitude.

Now, with a liberal House and Senate, helped along by “moderates” and “Conservatives,” our freedoms and faith are under constant attack.

There is no national leadership willing to take the risks to counter the loss of our liberty and, maybe sooner than later, the loss of our blessed country.

Please read all of this shocking but logical and well documented article by J. R. Nyquist,  “The Destruction of the United States.”

Here are a few devastating excerpts:

“No country is immortal. No nation is invincible. To make the point less delicately, America will one day cease to exist. And it may be useful, especially given the multiple crises now developing, to contemplate the mortality of the world’s most powerful country. What would the world be like without the United States?”

“It is not nice to say that major powers like China or Russia seek the destruction of the United States. It is not nice to say that Russia and China are governed by thugs. But anyone who studies the foreign policies, chicanery, secret maneuvers and war preparations of Beijing and Moscow cannot honestly conclude otherwise.”

…. “We already know from defector testimony that Russia’s war plan incorporates the use of false flag terrorist diversionary operations in the early stages of the next world war. GRU defector Viktor Suvorov explained long ago that such operations were referred to as “gray terror.” The fact that Ayman al-Zawahri was named as a longtime agent of the KGB is the icing on the nuclear cake (as it were). The fact that Alexander Litvinenko – the man who fingered Zawahri – was recently poisoned by polonium-210, underscores the hardscrabble reality of the nuclear terror game. The United States government and President Bush aren’t looking at the problem squarely. They are looking away from the main threat, toward a tertiary threat. This is a fatal error, because the war we are in isn’t simply a war against Muslim extremists. It is a much broader, more deceptive conflict.

“The United States has never been nearer to destruction.”

Last November our country voted for a group of politicians who are dedicated to a weakened country with detent and dialog with those who have vowed to destroy America and Israel. America has no national leadership who recognizes the multiple threats against our country. our faith, our liberties, our families and our very lives. Our freedoms are at risk and very few understand or care. America voted — but look what we got.

Now, more than ever America needs Jesus Christ and Christians who are not afraid to share Him with others. We need national leaders who will not disparage Christians and Jews but with moral courage and principles, stand up for and defend our country and the Nation of Israel regardless of the cost.

Find out how to KNOW for sure you are going to Heaven

Fear the Terrorists, Not President Bush — On the left, my former party of choice, feels that the biggest issues confronting America are corporate greed, “the culture of corruption” (as if this does not occur on both sides), Wal-Mart, “big business,” churchgoing Christians, global warming and an assault on the civil liberties of us and terrorists. To deny this would be scandalously untrue — The “Drive-by” big city media feels the need to rant about how we “torture” terrorists, keep “secret prisons,” check phone records of suspected terrorists, regress back to Katrina whining, yada, yada and yada. The ACLU, “peace organizations,” the legal world, academia and Hollywood, not surprisingly, fall for this flawed, inane logic too. History has always proved these acrimonious fools wrong, and will again this time… if we’re not killed first by our enemies because of their devious behaviors.

Fear the Terrorists, Not President Bush
October 31st, 2006

Next Tuesday is midterm election day. When you cast your vote – if you choose to partake in this most honorable American tradition – please remember what is at stake.

On the left, my former party of choice, feels that the biggest issues confronting America are corporate greed, “the culture of corruption” (as if this does not occur on both sides), Wal-Mart, “big business,” churchgoing Christians, global warming and an assault on the civil liberties of us and terrorists. To deny this would be scandalously untrue.

On the right, my current “fearmongering” party of choice feels the biggest issue (singular) is to eliminating and freeing the world of Islamo-fascist Nazis. There is no denying this, and the sooner we, as in all other world wars, are free to do this, the better. My party wants to save the non-Muslim world, America, Israel and especially “liberal values” like sexual and gender freedoms (not just libertinism, but the freedom of women) freedom of religion, speech and of the press.

Unfortunately, aside from Radical Muslims, we have many domestic factors working against us:

The “Drive-by” big city media feels the need to rant about how we “torture” terrorists, keep “secret prisons,” check phone records of suspected terrorists, regress back to Katrina whining, yada, yada and yada. The ACLU, “peace organizations,” the legal world, academia and Hollywood, not surprisingly, fall for this flawed, inane logic too. History has always proved these acrimonious fools wrong, and will again this time… if we’re not killed first by our enemies because of their devious behaviors.

President Bush, sadly as of late, has fallen prey to dangerous political correctness and multi-cultural balderdash as he tries to unite this country. He has attempted to make good on his promise to be the great uniter, and the man has undeniably been more liberal than conservative the past year.

There is no need to do this, Mr. President.

This country was divided long before President Bush took office, and he has done his best to unite it. But many who hypocritically seek “redistribution of wealth” spend their weekends picking up wheatgrass at Whole Foods on their way to Nantucket, do not want to be united with Americans who attend church on Sunday, wave the flag, and enjoy Nascar, Applebee’s and saving money at Wal-Mart. Too bad for them. These arrogant, misguided folks have chosen to regressively look back, to sacrifice their platform to go after Mr. Bush (who is not up for re-election, by the way).

Fatuous liberals like Paul Krugman — who saw nothing wrong with comparing the backlash against the Dixie Chicks to the rise of Nazism — or the countless jabberers who have over the years denounced William F. Buckley Jr., Barry Goldwater, Sean Hannity et al. as fascists are difficult to respect, much less take seriously. As Jonah Goldberg wrote in September,

“One gets the sense that today’s liberals — beyond their phobia of offending the coalition of the oppressed (in this case, the Muslims of CAIR) — are reluctant to let Bush use “Islamic fascism” because they don’t want to give up their monopoly on the F-word.”

George Bush needs to stop trying so hard to make “peace” with those who despise us within our nation and are more concerned with meaningless impeachment than saving our world. His efforts have never been appreciated, but someday, like Reagan and those before him, perhaps they will. 

Thankfully, by the grace of G-d, the patriotic men and women of the military will save this nation as they always have. They will not get thanks from the coastal elites, but this is expected.

It’s not just that the wrong party could take power, but this party’s leaders, some of those who would be in charge of essential committees like Ways and Means, the Judiciary, Commerce, etc, are variously on record as not supporting Israel (and being proud of it!), raising taxes, ending free trade, drilling in ANWR (animals are more important than people, usually) and naturally, impeaching Bush. That will surely take our attention away from the Islamic Nazis, North Koreans and by October of next year, as opposed to fraudulent filmmakers who dream of Bush being dead, we all could be in severe peril. I’d personally put it at 50/50.

I hope that most Americans will take a deep breath, realize Bush had noble, correct intentions for freeing tens of millions from a madman and then remember that unemployment is the lowest in five years; the Dow is over 12,000 points. Inflation is 2.1 percent, the deficit is being dramatically reduced, and gas prices are falling. Let’s just hope that if the GOP maintains control, we don’t waste time, effort and money on Democrat protests and recounts. Which state this time? Indiana? Missouri? Do I hear Maryland?

Vote accordingly, and consider whether you want to tell your grandchildren you defeated carbon dioxide emissions or Islamo Nazi Fascists who threatened the free world.

Ari Kaufman is a freelance writer in Indianapolis, regularly contributing to the Indianapois Star and the Jewish Post and Opinion. He’s also the co-author of an upcoming book on educational reform. His archived work can be accessed here.

Ari Kaufman

George Soros Takes Aim at Israel

 George Soros Takes Aim at Israel

NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2006 3:45 p.m. EDT

Billionaire investor George Soros is leading a move to stitch together an American Jewish political lobby that is “anti-Israel,” according to a column in the Jerusalem Post.

Soros, who spent millions attempting to defeat President Bush in 2004, is one of a “tiny minority of American Jews” who have played a role in undermining support for Israel in the Democratic Party, and they now seek “to undermine Israel’s position in the U.S. in general,” Caroline Glick writes in the Post.

Soros has invited another American Jewish billionaire, Peter Lewis, along with “North American Jewish plutocrats” like Charles and Edgar Bronfman, to join forces with him and leftist Jewish American organizations – including American Friends of Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum and Brit Tzedek v’Shalom – to construct a political lobby that will weaken the influence of the pro-Israel lobby.

“Many of the individuals and organizations associated with the initiative have actively worked to undermine Israel,” Glick writes.

“Soros caused a storm in 2003 when, during a fund-raising conference for Israel, he alleged that Israel was partially responsible for the rise in anti-Semitic violence in Europe because of its harsh response to Palestinian terrorism.”

Glick also points out that in November 2005, the leaders of the Israel Policy Forum met with Condoleezza Rice and urged her to dismiss Israel’s security concerns regarding two of the Gaza Strip’s border crossing points. As a result, Rice pressured Israel to make dangerous concessions to the Palestinians.

And after Hamas’ electoral victory in January, American Friends of Peace Now, Israel Policy Forum and Brit Tzedek v’Shalom worked to shield the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority from Congressional sanctions.

Together they worked to torpedo the Palestinian Anti-Terror Act, which enjoyed overwhelming support in the Congress and was designed to update American policy toward the Palestinian Authority in the wake of Hamas’ ascendance to power.

Among its provisions, the bill called for an immediate end to U.S. assistance to nongovernmental and U.N. organizations operating in the PA that had connections to terrorist organizations.

Due to the lobbying efforts of the “Jewish leftists,” the Palestinian Anti-Terror Act was eventually scuttled, Glick notes, adding:

“Soros would like to institutionalize the ad-hoc coalition’s success in undermining the Palestinian Anti-Terror Act in a new lobby.

“While its Jewish founders insist that they are pro-Israel, the fact of the matter is that they are about to establish an American Jewish anti-Israel lobby.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers