Palin: Obama’s 3:00 AM call ‘went right to the answering machine’

Palin: Obama’s 3:00 AM call ‘went right to the answering machine’

Rick Moran

 

The administration has been behind the curve on this
crisis for two weeks and Sarah Palin recognizes it. From
CNN:

Sarah Palin, in her first comments on the uprising in Egypt, called
the situation President Barack Obama’s 3 a.m. phone call and said, “It seems the
call went right to the answering machine.”
Palin, the former GOP vice presidential candidate, spoke with Christian
Broadcasting Network’s David Brody after her speech Friday night at the Reagan
Ranch in Santa Barbara, California.
In the interview, the potential Republican presidential candidate said, “We
need to know what it is America stands for so we know who it is that America
will stand with. And we do not have all that information (from the
administration) yet.”
She told “The Brody File” she was “not real enthused about what it is that’s
being done on a national level and from (Washington) in regards to understanding
all the situation there in Egypt.”
Palin criticized the administration’s public response, saying “nobody yet has
explained to the American public yet what they know, and surely they know more
than the rest of us … who will be taking the place of (Egyptian President
Hosni) Mubarak.”

Palin is learning the art of Washington doublespeak. After correctly calling
out the president for his wishy washy response, she begs off taking a stand of
her own by accusing the president of not giving us enough information. Right
now, with events in Egypt murky and balanced on a knife’s edge, she avoided the
pitfall of backing the wrong horse while still zinging Obama but good.
Indeed, at this point, if we “support democracy” in Egypt we will have very
little choice regarding who the Egyptians themselves will bring into a
democratic government. Like the victory of Hamas at the polls, democratic
choices made in free elections are not always in our interests. If we want Egypt
to be free, it must be their idea of freedom, not ours. We can work to minimize
or eliminate any role for the Muslim Brotherhood, but in the end, that will be a
decision made by the Egyptians themselves.
If we are going to see Democratic movements succeed in the Middle East, we
better get used to the idea that we won’t always approve of the way democracy
evolves – even if a trojan horse like the Brotherhood is brought into the
process.

Page Printed from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/palin_obamas_300_am_call_went.html

at February 06, 2011 – 10:15:27 PM CST

// <![CDATA[//  

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

Ronald Reagan vs. Barack Obama; a matter of life and death

Ronald Reagan vs. Barack Obama; a matter of life and death

Phil Boehmke

 

Today we celebrate the Ronald Reagan Centennial. Revisionists on the left
have been busy reinterpreting and recasting the life of President Reagan in an
attempt to explain his continued popularity. Time magazine photo-shopped President Reagan with his hand on Barack Obama’s
shoulder for last week’s cover in a curious attempt to link the two polar
opposites.
The gulf that separates Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama cannot be bridged by
media hype and superficial comparisons. Perhaps no issue defines the differences
between President Reagan and Mr. Obama more closely than their views on
abortion. Last month Barack Obama marked the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade by
re-affirming his unyielding support of abortion. During his lack-luster career
in the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama revealed his extreme and radical pro-abortion
agenda.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak
against a bill that would have protected babies who survive late-term
labor-induced abortions…Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a
nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to
be a person who had the right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to
take place.” Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law
deemed a child who survived a late-term abortion had a right to live, “then this
would be an anti-abortion statute.” [1]
In stark contrast to Mr. Obama’s radical views on abortion, Ronald Reagan
as a Christian, believed in the sanctity of life and sought ways to educate and
convince pro-abortion supporters to consider the rights of the unborn. In The
Reagan Diaries the president relates that he had received a wire from a woman in
Peoria, Il in response to his State of the Union speech. The woman was unhappy
with his stance on abortion and felt that he wanted to take away her freedom of
choice. Rather than write a response, President Reagan called her on the
telephone and explained that “there were 2 people‘s rights involved in
abortion-the mother‘s & the unborn child.” After what he termed “a nice
visit,” the woman promised to give the matter further thought. Ronald Reagan
noted that “I think I made a friend.” [2]
During his presidency Ronald Reagan was impressed with the new ultra-sound
procedure and predicted that the new technology would have a powerful impact on
the abortion issue. In a meeting with leaders from the Right to Life movement he
viewed a short film which showed an ultra-sound of an actual abortion being
performed. President Reagan related that the Doctor who had performed the
abortion (and some 10,000 others) was so moved by the evidence that he joined
the pro-life movement. He wrote in his diary “The movie (28 minutes long) was
most impressive & how anyone could deny that the fetus is a living human
being is beyond me.” [3]
Of course President Reagan never met Barack Obama. Standing in stark and
bloody contrast to Ronald Reagan, Mr. Obama was never swayed by evidence which
would assert that a fetus is “a living human being.”
More than once, Obama heard Illinois nurse Jill Stanek testify before the
Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, relating the following story of an aborted
Down syndrome baby who survived a late-term induced-labor abortion and was
abandoned in the hospital’s Soiled Utility Room because the baby’s parents did
not want to hold him. “I couldn’t bear the thought of this child lying alone in
a Soiled Utility Room,” Stanek testified before Obama’s committee in the
Illinois Senate. “So I cradled him and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he
lived.” Stanek reported Obama was “unfazed” by the testimony. [4]
Ronald Reagan embraced life and had a confident and simple way of
expressing the importance of each life. On July 6, 1983 he wrote:
Nancy’s Birthday! Life would be miserable if there wasn’t a Nancy’s
birthday. What if she’d never been born. I don’t want to think about that.
[5]
On Ronald Reagan’s 100th Birthday if we pause to ask, what if he had never
been born? The response would clearly be, “I don’t want to think about that.”
The United States of America was truly blessed to have had President Ronald
Reagan at the helm for eight wonderful years.
[1] Jerome Corsi, The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of
Personality (New York: Threshold Editions, 2008), p. 238.
[2] Douglas Brinkley Editor, The Reagan Diaries (New York: HarperCollins,
2007), p. 217-8.
[3] Ibid., p. 296.
[4] Corsi, The Obama Nation, p. 238.
[5] Brinkley, The Reagan Diaries, p. 164.
February 6, 2010

Page
Printed from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/ronald_reagan_vs_barack_obama.html

at February 06, 2011 – 11:15:54 AM CST

// <![CDATA[//