BACKGROUND & CHARACTER
JUDGES & COURTS
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.
“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.”
“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)
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
Lee Cary is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Retired Pastor — 77 year old narrow-minded Conservative Christian.
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.
George Soros Takes Aim at Israel
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.”