America Must Lead, Not Hype an Election

 

America Must Lead, Not Hype an Election

By
William Sullivan

By the end of the Cold War,
Americans had become accustomed to the dichotomy between Communism and
democracy, and as practitioners of democracy, we generally view it as a more
promising path than other forms of government.  So it comes as no surprise
that the knee-jerk reaction to the turmoil in Egypt is to hold democratic
elections so the people can decide for themselves who will provide the mandates
they must live by.  This is why it is fashionable for men like State
Department spokesman P.J. Crowley to suggest
that he wants to see “free, fair, and credible elections … the sooner
that can happen, the better.”  And Barack Obama has expressed
the wish to “transition into a new government.”

 

There is an inherent problem with
the application of this strategy when it comes to much of the Middle East,
however.  The Egyptians who now seek a reformation do not look to elect an
innovator vying for peace; they look to elect an enforcer.  You
see, to the fundamentalist factions that oppose Mubarak, someone has already
provided the mandates they must live by.  He has mandated that women be covered from head to toe and that they live
subservient lives without basic human rights.  It is even quite acceptable
that women be married and violated prior to adolescence.  This
sovereign has decreed that execution be the proper punishment
for homosexuality.  He has demanded that any who does not accept his
mandates is either killed or subjugated for a lack of faith, and that sacrificing oneself in that
endeavor is the greatest of all triumphs, worthy of divine reward.  And
most important to Mubarak’s opposition, this sovereign has mandated that Jews
be purged
from the land that Allah has given to his followers.

 

As you’ve likely guessed, that
person is Muhammad, prophet of the Islamic faith that roughly 90%
of Egyptians follow.  And those who wish to depose Mubarak follow the very
literal instruction of the Quran and Hadith cited above, and particularly the
last bit referenced.

 

Mubarak, though a Muslim, has not
followed these fundamental instructions quite so literally, it seems.  He
has worked to honor Egypt’s peace accord with Israel, an arrangement where the
latter returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, which was a spoil of the
defensive Six-Day War and an important land buffer to deter future Egyptian
aggression.  Israel, at the behest of American counsel, offered
the Sinai as a sign of good faith to establish a relationship of coexistence.
And largely for the crime of honoring a peace agreement, Mubarak’s leadership
is threatened by fundamentalist followers of Islam.

 

History has shown that the procedure
of democratic election has little or no value when the seeds of a warped and twisted
ideology have found purchase and flourished in vast numbers of a voting
population.  Indeed, Adolf Hitler was elected by a populace that was very
aware of his anti-Bolshevism and anti-Semitism, as well as his purpose of Nazi
hegemony.  The fact that he was democratically elected did not make his
regime any less dangerous or evil.

 

So why are the president, his
spokesmen, and countless Americans so eager to see elections in Egypt?  It
is because they, too, are the victims of the very same proselytizing ideology
that afflicts the masses in Egypt who long for Mubarak’s ousting and Israel’s
destruction.

 

The Muslim Brotherhood found its way
into American sympathies as a misunderstood Islamic outreach group, spreading
the bold message of a “peaceful Islam.”  The group has made an
impact in North America through subsidiary groups like the Muslim Student
Association (whose brand of tolerance is portrayed in this exchange
between an MSA member and David Horowitz).  The Muslim Brotherhood has demanded the resignation of Mubarak’s regime, prompting pundits like the
pro-Hizballah Reza Aslan to suggest that “the Muslim Brotherhood will have
a significant role to play in post-Mubarak Egypt.  And that is a good
thing.”

 

As Robert Spencer juxtaposes with
the comment on his website,
Mr. Azlan’s optimism is very curious when you consider that a Muslim
Brotherhood memorandum specifically states the following:

 

Their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in
eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and
“sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of
believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over
all other religions.

 

It is difficult to miss the meaning
in the line “‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands
of believers,” but our president would still endorse a popular election in
Egypt when the leading candidate to institute reform is the Muslim Brotherhood
– the very group that would suggest such deceit to destroy America?

 

The president likely does so because
he is pandering to the sensibilities of America’s misguided progressives, who
presume that parity exists between Islam’s followers in the Middle East and
those who follow other religions or those who lack religion altogether.
Not only do many of these Americans widely maintain this blind presumption
(usually on the weak basis of perhaps knowing Westernized Muslims), but it is
often vigorously defended by those who know nothing of Islam or its
history.  Consider how many times you have heard someone relate the evil
crimes of fundamentalist Islam or its literal dogma mandating violence,
affronts to human rights, and submission, only to have champions of political
correctness remind that person of the Spanish Inquisition, or the Salem Witch
Trials, or the poster child of Christian terror, Timothy McVeigh.  The
purpose of such defenses is not to address the issue of Islam, but to avoid
addressing the issue of Islam by suggesting that everyone else is just as bad!

 

The truth is that we Americans have
unrivaled privilege in harboring such blissful ignorance.  We do not have
to send our children to school on buses with a very real fear that a fanatical
suicide bomber will take their lives in efforts to reach a mythical paradise.  We do not
live in fear that in our hometowns, we have to endure regular rocket attacks and threats
of genocide by foreign factions that wish to convey that we and our country do
not have the right to exist.

 

It is not for our sake alone that we
must finally address the problem of fundamental Islam.  It is for our
friends in the Jewish state of Israel, who live with such realities and, at
this very moment, quake in anticipation of the outcome of the Egyptian crisis.

 

On December 5, 2010, Geert Wilders spoke
to the Israeli people in Tel Aviv.  His is a message that I and millions
of my American brethren share.  He begs:

 

Let us stand with Israel because the Jews have no other
state, while the Palestinians already have Jordan. … Let us stand with Israel
because the Jewish state needs defendable [sic] borders to secure its own
survival.  Let us stand with Israel because it is the frontline in the
battle for the survival of the West.

 

I would like to say this to my own
countrymen: let us stand with Israel in spite of our president, who would sit silent
as Iran cries for freedom from an oppressive Islamic regime that vows
a Jewish genocide, only to later take the first opportunity to suggest the
“transitioning” away from an Egyptian regime that has fostered peace
with Israel for thirty years.  Let us stand with Israel so their
relinquishing of the Sinai does not yield a launchpad for Egyptian rockets traveling to Israel.

 

We need to stand with Israel because
we believe in freedom and human rights, and it is clear that the Islamic
fundamentalists and the Muslim Brotherhood that seek power in Egypt do
not.

 

A response as simple as an
“election” is certainly not a proper solution to the immense problem
we face.  Rather, we must demand that President Obama be the leader of the
free world that he was elected to be and condemn any who would suggest the
illegal existence of Israel.  It is time for him to lead the American
people in standing alongside our allies in Israel as they struggle to live as a
free people, without the shackles of Islamism, the perpetual realities of
suicide bombings, or the threat of a nuclear strike.

 

Because, as Geert Wilders so perfectly said
at the Free Speech Summit in September of last year, “we are all Israel
now.”

 

William Sullivan blogs at politicalpalaverblog.blogspot.com.

Page Printed from:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/america_must_lead_not_hype_an.html

at February 06, 2011 – 12:04:30 PM CST

Obama’s Ignorance of World Affairs on Full Display in India

Obama’s Ignorance of World Affairs on Full Display in India

Michael Filozof

 

When George W. Bush was sworn into office, he was mocked
by his political enemies as a parochial idiot who had no understanding of world
affairs. That proved untrue. By contrast Barack Obama was touted as a
multicultural “citizen of the world” whose childhood residence in Indonesia,
adult trips to Pakistan and Kenya, and Harvard degree were supposed proof of his
sophistication. Obama subsequently disproved this belief by making reference to
“speaking Austrian” during a European speech and sending Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton to Russia to “press the reset button,” (the word “reset” in
Russian was misspelled) a stunt so stupid that a high school girl at a Model UN
conference probably wouldn’t do it.

Now, in his quasi-imperial trip to India, Obama has made ridiculous
P.C.-inspired statements that managed to offend both India and Pakistan and
reveal an astounding ignorance of South Asian politics and history.
First, Obama told an Indian audience that he supported India’s bid to gain
a permanent seat (and veto) on the UN Security Council. Aside from the fact that
this is unlikely to happen, the idea greatly offends Pakistan, a sworn enemy of
India since both countries became independent in 1947. While Obama’s support for
an Indian seat on the Security Council was greeted with applause in India, it
was immediately denounced by Pakistan. Pakistan is our “ally” in the war on
terror, but it is very unstable, partially ungovernable, and likely harboring
Osama bin Laden. Obama gratuitously offended it by supporting its #1 enemy,
India. How can this possibly help our efforts in the Af-Pak theater of
war?
Second, Obama contradicted centuries of Indian history when he told an
Indian schoolgirl that Islam is a “religion of peace” and that only “extremists”
corrupt it. According to The Hindu newspaper, Obama said Islam is “a
religion that reaffirms peace, fairness, tolerance. I think all of us recognize
that this great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted by
violence.” This must be an astonishingly false statement to Indian ears and to
anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Indian history.
India has had virtually non-stop conflict with Islam since it was first
invaded by Muslims in the seventh century. Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan have
been in a virtual state of war since 1947, when British India was partitioned
along religious lines, resulting in nearly a million casualties. Today, both
India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed powers. There have been at least three
shooting wars since 1947 and constant low-grade war over Kashmir. The attack on
the Indian parliament by Muslim terrorists in 2001 and the Mumbai Massacre,
perpetrated by Pakistani Muslims in 2008, are not the result of “extremists” who
“distort” Islam but merely the latest incidents in centuries of war and
conquest India has suffered at the hands of the “religion of peace.”
It’s clear that the Obama foreign policy isn’t based on sophistication or
even a basic knowledge of world affairs. It’s based purely on fatuous P.C.
sentiments that meet with approval in faculty lounges, but are downright
dangerous to American security in the real world.

Page Printed
from:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/11/obamas_ignorance_of_world_affa.html

at November 09, 2010 – 11:49:36 AM CST

// <![CDATA[//  

A citizen’s required reading for July 4th: The Declaration of Independence (with music)

 

A citizen’s required reading for July 4th: The Declaration of Independence (with music)
July 4, 2010 | 12:01 am

Independence Hall in the City of Philadelphia where the Declaration of Independence was signed

The United States’ Declaration of Independence may well be the most cited yet least read or understood document in American history.

Some have suggested over the years that each responsible U.S. citizen should take the occasion of the Nation’s birthday to read that precious document every year, something like pausing at Thanksgiving to give thanks or at New Year’s to ponder what’s past and ahead.

Obviously, we can’t require that. But The Ticket can facilitate that. So here it is, in its historic entirety. For those who are curious to see how the historic document evolved, the wording refined and trimmed, through several writings, including those funny s’s that look like f’s, they can view side-by-side versions right here.

And for those who’d like a little musical accompaniment, we have a special treat this July 4th. It’s a video version of the anthem performed by one of our favorite singers, a woman with an amazingly crystaline voice who writes her own songs. We met her here as a Ticket follower on Twitter. Her name is Amiena (her music website is here). 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWk0dZAyDTA&feature=player_embedded

The final version of the Declaration is right here with paragraphs edited for length for typographical purposes on this modern webpage.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

— Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such….

…. is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of….

 

…large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

Declaration of IndependenceHe has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,

That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

— And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton     ###

U.S. And Israel Further Divided: Obama Caves To Muslims, Stabs Ally In The Back Over Nukes Benjamin Netanyahu, more American than Obama, at a 4th of July celebration in Israel

U.S. And Israel Further Divided: Obama Caves To Muslims, Stabs Ally In The Back Over Nukes

July 4th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

04mideast-articlelarge
Benjamin Netanyahu, more American than Obama, at a 4th of July celebration in Israel

New York Times:

WASHINGTON — It was only one paragraph buried deep in the most plain-vanilla kind of diplomatic document, 40 pages of dry language committing 189 nations to a world free of nuclear weapons. But it has become the latest source of friction between Israel and the United States in a relationship that has lurched from crisis to crisis over the last few months.

At a meeting to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in May, the United States yielded to demands by Arab nations that the final document urge Israel to sign the treaty — a way of spotlighting its historically undeclared nuclear weapons.

Israel believed it had assurances from the Obama administration that it would reject efforts to include such a reference, an Israeli official said, and it saw this as another sign of unreliability by its most important ally. In a recent visit to Washington, Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, raised the issue in meetings with senior American officials.

With Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu scheduled to meet President Obama on Tuesday at the White House, the flap may introduce a discordant note into a meeting that both sides are eager to portray as a chance for Israel and the United States to turn the page after a rocky period.

Other things have changed notably for the better in American-Israeli relations since Mr. Netanyahu called off his last visit to the White House to rush home to deal with the crisis after Israel’s deadly attack on a humanitarian aid flotilla sailing to Gaza in late May. His agreement to ease the land blockade on Gaza, which came at the request of the United States, has helped thaw the chill between the governments, American and Israeli officials said.

Meanwhile, the raft of new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, after the passage of the United Nations resolution, has reassured Israelis, who viewed Mr. Obama’s attempts to engage Iran with unease. Mr. Obama signed the American sanctions into law on Thursday.

“The overall tone is more of a feel-good visit than we’ve seen in the past,” said David Makovsky, director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It has been more focused on making sure that the Ides of March have passed.”

He was referring to the dispute during a visit to Israel by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in March, when Israel approved plans for Jewish housing in East Jerusalem. Mr. Obama was enraged by what he perceived as a slight to Mr. Biden, and when Mr. Netanyahu visited a few weeks later, the While House showed its displeasure by banning cameras from recording the visit.

But despite the better atmospherics, some analysts said the nuclear nonproliferation issue symbolizes why Israel remains insecure about the intentions of the Obama administration. In addition to singling out Israel, the document, which has captured relatively little public attention, calls for a regional conference in 2012 to lay the groundwork for a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. Israel, whose nuclear arsenal is one of the world’s worst-kept secrets, would be on the hot seat at such a meeting.

At the last review conference, in 2005, the Bush administration refused to go along with any references to Israel, one of several reasons the meeting ended in acrimony, without any statement.

This time, Israel believed the Obama administration would again take up its cause. As a non-signatory to the treaty, Israel did not attend the meeting. But American officials consulted the Israelis on a text in advance, which they found acceptable, a person familiar with those discussions said. That deepened their surprise at the end.

Administration officials said the United States negotiated for months with Egypt, on behalf of the Arab states, to leave out the reference to Israel. While the United States supports the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East, it stipulated that any conference would be only a discussion, not the beginning of a negotiation to compel Israel to sign on to the treaty.

The United States practices a policy of ambiguity with respect to Israel’s nuclear stockpile, neither publicly discussing it nor forcing the Israeli government to acknowledge its existence.

The United States, recognizing that the document would upset the Israelis, sought to distance itself even as it signed it.

In a statement released after the conference ended, the national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, said, “The United States deplores the decision to single out Israel in the Middle East section of the NPT document.” He said it was “equally deplorable” that the document did not single out Iran for its nuclear ambitions. Any conference on a nuclear-free Middle East, General Jones said, could only come after Israel and its neighbors had made peace.

The United States, American officials said, faced a hard choice: refusing to compromise with the Arab states on Israel would have sunk the entire review conference. Given the emphasis Mr. Obama has placed on nonproliferation, the United States could not accept such an outcome.

It also would complicate the administration’s attempts to build bridges to the Arab world, an effort that is at the heart of some of the disagreements between the United States and Israel.

Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Obama will have plenty of other things to discuss this week. After several rounds of indirect talks, brokered by the administration’s special envoy, George J. Mitchell, the United States is pushing the Israelis and the Palestinians to begin direct negotiations.

A central question, analysts said, is whether Mr. Netanyahu will extend Israel’s self-imposed moratorium on new residential construction in West Bank settlements, which expires in September. He is unlikely to take such a step unless the Palestinians agree to face-to-face talks, they said.

For Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu, the most basic priority may be establishing trust between them — which is why the flap over the nuclear conference, though small, is potentially troublesome.

“Most American presidents who end up being successful on Israel manage to create, even amid great mistrust and suspicion, a pretty good working relationship,” said Aaron David Miller, a longtime Middle East peace negotiator. “This has been a real crisis of confidence, which cuts to the core of how each leader sees his respective world.”

A suggestion for this 4th of July

A suggestion for this 4th of July

Jerry Philipson

Every patriotic American should do two things on this July 4th.

First, recite the Presidential Oath of Office to themselves and second, resolve to do everything they can within the law to prevent Obama from inflicting further damage on the country and the world until he is tossed out of office in disgrace in the next election.

In other words, we must all be President. We must all take personal responsibility for safeguarding our values and beliefs and this great nation of ours because thanks to Obama and his acolytes the consequences will be catastrophic if we don’t. Hell, they already have been in many ways and if we don’t get on with it now America and the world will be unrecognizable by the time he’s through.

The Oath of Office is as follows…I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Since Obama has proven incapable of doing the job we must do it for him.

Voters Say Secure The Border First

Voters Say Secure The Border First

July 2nd, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

062810_borderfencebreak_monster_397x224

Fox News:

A majority of American voters think the federal government should secure the country’s borders first, before Congress works on new immigration legislation.

The Obama administration wants comprehensive immigration overhaul to come first, while Republican leaders are pushing for improved border security as the top priority. A Fox News poll released Friday asked American voters what should happen first: 59 percent think the government should secure the border first, while 30 percent think the priority should be new legislation.

Large numbers of Republicans (72 percent) and independents (65 percent) support securing the border first. Views are fairly evenly split among Democrats, with a slim plurality putting border security (44 percent) before Congressional action (41 percent).

The national telephone poll was conducted for Fox News by Opinion Dynamics Corp. among 900 registered voters from June 29 to June 30. For the total sample, the poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Some 19 percent of voters think the country’s borders are more secure today than they were five years ago, while 26 percent say they are less secure. Nearly half — 47 percent — say things haven’t changed in five years.

Just over half of voters — 52 percent — favor Arizona’s new immigration law. That’s almost twice as many as the 27 percent who oppose it. Another 21 percent have no opinion.

There’s a huge partisan divide on the new state law, which goes into effect at the end of July.

Fully 73 percent of Republicans support the law, 43 percentage points more than the 30 percent of Democrats who do. Among independents, a 57 percent majority favors the legislation.

Those living in the West (55 percent) and Midwest (54 percent) are a bit more likely to favor the law than those in the South (50 percent) and Northeast (49 percent).

Few voters, however, see immigration as the country’s top issue: Only 4 percent cite it as the most important issue for President Obama to be working on right now. That’s far fewer than the number who say the priority should be the economy/jobs (32 percent), the Gulf oil spill (14 percent), the deficit (12 percent), health care (6 percent), and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (6 percent).

U.S. – Mexican Border is Terrorists’ Moving Sidewalk

U.S. – Mexican Border is Terrorists’ Moving Sidewalk

June 30th, 2010

By Deroy Murdock

 

While Americans march against Arizona’s new restrictions on unlawful immigration, hundreds of illegal aliens from countries awash in Muslim terrorists tiptoe across the U.S.-Mexican frontier.New York, N.Y. – According to the federal Enforcement Integrated Database, 125 individuals were apprehended along the border from fiscal year 2009 through April 20, 2010. These deportable aliens included two Syrians, seven Sudanese, and 17 Iranians, all nationals from the three Islamic countries that the U.S. government officially classifies as state sponsors of terrorism.

Federal authorities also track “special interest countries” from which terrorism could be directed against America. Over the aforementioned period, 99 of those nations’ citizens also were nabbed on the border. They were: two Afghans, five Algerians, 13 Iraqis, 10 Lebanese, 22 Nigerians, 28 Pakistanis, two Saudis, 14 Somalis, and three Yemenis. During FY 2007 and FY 2008, federal officials caught 319 people from these same countries traversing America’s southwest border.

Some such characters were confined in Arizona, which recently adopted a controversial law that lets cops ask the citizenship status of those they suspect of other possible violations. WSB-TV recently publicized an April 15, 2010, “population breakdown” of immigrants detained at a facility in Florence, Ariz. Of the 395 males behind bars, 198 were Mexican, 18 hailed from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

Perhaps these gentlemen simply want to pursue the American dream. Worrisome signs suggest, however, that some may have arrived via blistering, cactus-adorned deserts so they could blow Americans to smithereens.

Texas Border Patrol agents discovered, along with Iranian currency and Islamic prayer rugs, an Arabic clothing patch that reads “martyr” and “way to immortality.” Another shows a jet flying into a skyscraper.

“Members of Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based terrorist organization, have already entered the United States across our southwest border,” declares “A Line in the Sand,” a 2006 report by the House Homeland Security Investigations Subcommittee, then-chaired by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas).

Even more disturbing are the uninvited terrorists and terror suspects that were arrested after entering America through our permeable underbelly:

– Mahmoud Youssef Kourani pleaded guilty in March 2005 to providing material support to terrorists. First, Kourani secured a visa by bribing a Mexican diplomat in Beirut. He and another Middle Easterner then hired a Mexican guide to escort them into America. Finally, Kourani settled in Dearborn, Michigan’s Lebanese-immigrant community, and raised cash for Hezbollah.

– Miguel Alfonso Salinas was caught in New Mexico near the international border in 2006. As The Washington Examiner reported, one week of FBI interrogation exposed Salinas as an Egyptian named Ayman Sulmane Kamal. Evidently, he remains in federal custody.

– Then-National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell said that in FY 2006 and FY 2007, at least 30 potentially dangerous Iraqis were found trying to penetrate America via Mexico. As McConnell told the El Paso Times: “There are numerous situations where people are alive today because we caught them.”

– The Department of Homeland Security issued an April 14 intelligence alert regarding a possible border-crossing attempt by a Somali named Mohamed Ali. He is a suspected member of Al-Shabaab, a Somali-based al-Qaida ally tied to the deadly attack on American GIs in 1993’s notorious “Blackhawk Down” incident in Mogadishu.

– Captured in Brownsville, Texas, Ahmed Muhammed Dhakane pleaded not guilty on May 14 to federal charges that he “ran a large-scale smuggling enterprise” designed to sneak East Africans through Mexico into Texas, including “several AIAI-affiliated Somalis into the United States.” Al-Ittihad Al-Islami is yet another Muslim-extremist organization.

– Daniel Joseph Maldonado also has Somali ties. He was picked up in Somalia in 2007 during terrorist training. He was returned to Houston for prosecution. As Rice University’s Joan Neuhas Schaan told KHOU-TV: “They had plans for him to come back to the United States and recruit female suicide bombers.”

All this involves only the bad guys who the authorities nailed. Those who have stayed undetected after crossing the border to murder Americans remain, by definition, invisible.

Obama Courts Latinos by Suing Arizona

Obama Courts Latinos by Suing Arizona

June 27th, 2010

By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann

Obama Suing Arizona

Why is President Obama suing to invalidate the Arizona law on illegal immigration? Why is he incurring the enmity of even his own Democratic Congressmen from the Phoenix and Tucson areas by trying to kill a law that two-thirds of Arizona and a similar proportion of America as a whole supports?

The answer: It is a desperate, last ditch attempt to rebuild his sagging popularity with America’s Hispanic voters.

Furious at Obama for failing to keep his election year promise to promote comprehensive immigration reform when he had a super-majority at his disposal, they are deserting the president and his party in droves. Unemployment, a sagging economy, and their sharp disagreement with Obama over social issues don’t help the president’s cause any.

So Obama has seized on the Arizona immigration law as a symbolic target, hoping to accomplish in a lawsuit the political task of rebuilding his base.

Read More

When Folks Stop Liking Barry

When Folks Stop Liking Barry

By Bruce Walker

President Obama’s image of leadership flounders in the Gulf of Mexico. While Governor Jindal displays the true qualities of leadership, our president is stuck in Saul Alinksy gear, demonizing a foreign corporation instead of actually doing anything constructive. Disgust at Obama’s genuine incompetence at this genuine ecological disaster stretches across party lines and the ideological spectrum.
Barry blames Bush for everything about our dismal economy. A partisan rubber-stamp Congress has given Obama the wild and wasteful expenditures which his childish, failed, quasi-Keynesian witches’ brew prophesies will spend us into prosperity. It hasn’t worked. Now, oddly, congressmen facing electoral apocalypse have stopped writing our wise leader a blank check against the federal treasury.
Wearing the hat of Commander in Chief, Obama explicitly sought a general in sync with his plan to end the war in Afghanistan. Then, when General McChrystal snickered too publicly at Obama’s cartoon leadership, the president replaced him with the old Bush team — the man Obama and his pals three years ago were calling “General Betray Us.” Does this cause a “willing suspension of disbelief” in Obama?  
The nomination of radical leftist women to the Supreme Court simply reinforces the image of Obama as a closet Marxist. His cabinet choices reinforce this image of radicalism. The American people, during Obama’s administration, profess to be conservative — and increasingly conservative according to Gallup, a poll that already shows that conservatives outnumber liberals in every single state of the Union.  
The Blagojevich trial, which has already hinted at Obama’s connection to the thoroughly seamy side of Chicago political corruption, may do more than hint at criminal misconduct in the future. Other creepy people, like Tony Rezko, keep popping up with common connections to Obama and Blago. How dirty is Obama? No one knows, but no Democrat could rise out of the cesspool of Chicago politics without some ethical problems.
The cumulative impact of these corrosives on Obama’s presidency is becoming very clear. Although polls differ in the precise measurement of unhappiness with Obama as president, the trends in all the polls are consistent, and the combined average of these various polls is clear and stark: Confidence in President Obama has fallen dramatically, and a plurality of Americans now disapprove of the job he has done as president. 
What, then, is preventing a total collapse of Obama? In a word, it is Obama’s likability. Before my conservative friends commit me to an asylum, we must be objective: Many millions more Americans like Obama than see him as an effective leader. He is (or is seen as) a loving father, a good husband, a sincere man who rose out of difficult circumstances into high office. Obama speaks well, he talks about sports, he is seen in every flattering photo-op which the servile leftist press can engineer. Americans like him.
Since television became king in politics, presidents who appeared “likable” to the camera — Eisenhower, JFK, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Obama — have had a huge advantage in connecting to the American people. Why? The reason is largely because Americans are naturally optimistic, friendly, and receptive people. We want to like our leader.
Likability, however, is a two-edged sword. When pettiness peaks its pointy head in a president — Jimmy Carter is the perfect example — then Americans sour on the man in the White House. Few Americans ever expected to “like” LBJ, Nixon, or George H.W. Bush. The national judgment on these politicians is more or less connected to their actual accomplishments or failures. When the American people saw Carter as a failure in governance and a more unpleasant person than they imagined, then he became toxic in politics. When Obama, already a catastrophe as a chief executive and policy innovator, loses his kismet with Americans, then his presidency will simply implode. Hillary Clinton might well challenge Obama just like Teddy Kennedy took on a Carter, who at times was almost running third in election polls (behind, or close to behind, maverick Republican John Anderson).
What might make average, otherwise only mildly political Americans begin to really dislike Barack Obama? If he shows a thin-skinned temper to questions or challenges. Anger comes off very badly on television. If Obama gets caught in a transparent lie, then that deceit could be a quick and deep stinger. If he appears condescending and arrogant, as he did on the infamous San Francisco tape when he was talking about people “clinging to their religion and guns,” then the people may see a different Obama.
Will one or more of those incidents occur before the public eye during his presidency? The more appropriate question is: When will Obama show his true character before the American people? Obama’s choreography is tight, but national and world events are wildly unpredictable. Who could have guessed that Obama would now be grappling with an oil spill? Who knows what the next time bomb will be?
In fact, the real time bomb is probably Obama himself. As Robin of Berkeley observed in her truly scary article, Barack Hussein Obama may well be have been a traumatized victim in his youth, perhaps of sexual abuse. If he is, then Obama will have personality disorders which simply cannot be cured (read Robin’s article for the details). If Robin is right, then at some point, the true, hopelessly sick Obama will show himself before a horrified nation. Average Americans will no longer like the president. They will, instead, be saddened and repelled — and they will emphatically expel Obama and his supporters from power or influence in our lives. When folks stop liking Barry, the party is over.
Bruce Walker is the author of two books: Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie and The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity.

Theater of the absurd

Theater of the absurd

By Mike Allen and Glenn Thursh – Politico   Sunday, June 27th, 2010

On Wednesday, the same day President Barack Obama ousted his humiliated Afghanistan commander, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs walked into the Oval Office with more grim news: The cap on the gushing oil in the Gulf had been dislodged.

“What?” Obama replied incredulously. “Well, why did it do that?” A remotely operated vehicle had knocked the cap right off, he was told, leaving oil rushing out as furiously as ever.

“Let me get this straight,” Obama later told senior adviser David Axelrod. “A robot knocked off the Top Hat? Come on, guys. Are you kidding me?”

Welcome to what one exhausted adviser calls the “theater of the absurd,” where a White House is whipsawed by wild, almost unimaginable events that threaten to reshape the public perception of the Obama presidency at every turn.

In the week leading up to the Gibbs visit, the president had delivered an Oval Office address that was panned by liberal pundits; forced BP to cough up $20 billion for claims from the oil disaster; and watched with delight as Joe Barton apologized to BP (a company with a 6 percent approval rating) — only to learn from a PDF copy of a Rolling Stone article that he would have to fire Gen. Stan McChrystal for popping off about Obama’s war cabinet. Oh, yeah, he then replaced him with Gen. David Petraeus — the mastermind of an Iraq surge Obama did not support, and the man many Republicans want to challenge Obama for the White House in 2012.

Full story: Theater of the absurd – Mike Allen and Glenn Thrush – POLITICO.com

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/27/theater-of-the-absurd/print/#ixzz0s4wE3icp

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers