The Axis of Idiots

Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the runner-in-chief.

Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the U.S.S. Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You've accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You're a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam, is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can't win militarily in Iraq. You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa. Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You're not a Marine, sir. You wouldn't amount to a good pimple on a real Marine's butt. You're a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John.

Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See Dick run.

Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from Abu Ghraib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraqi's torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news, Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrated another beheading for you. If you truly supported our troops, you'd show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a communist victory there. You're a bloated, drunken old fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al., ad nauseam: Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we'll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer. It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum.

American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture an d mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.

You are America's "AXIS OF IDIOTS." Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don't ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.

Yes, I' m questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

Score Obama Zero for Three

In 2004, the Democrat's nominee for President, Sen. John Kerry declared at their convention "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty." In the course of the contest between Kerry and Bush, Kerry and the Democrats set up the John Kerry Test for Presidential Qualification, which Bush could only fail, and one which only John Kerry could pass. There were three points to that test:

One: To be qualified to be president, a candidate must have military service. Kerry had it.
Two: Active duty service in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Coast Guard, in a war zone, Kerry had it in Vietnam, and it trumped Bush's National Guard service in the states.
Three: Active duty service in actual combat trumps service that did not see combat. Kerry had it, Bush did not.

So according to Democrat reasoning, it was beyond doubt or argument that Kerry was qualified to be President and Bush was not. There should be no question about this fact. Now, in 2008, it's evident that the Democrats have long since forgotten all about the John Kerry Test, rather nominating Obama, who fails to meet any of the three points of the John Kerry Test, for President. If it was important, then, why not now? Is this not hypocrisy at best and deception at worst? But the evidence shows the Democrats do this regularly.

My Reply to a Liberal Columnist

Editor:

Lisa Pampuch's column of 9/16 reveals that she suffers from an advanced case of LMDD (Liberal Myopic Degenerative Disorder), for what else can be concluded after she says that Barrack Obama will give America a better future? I believe that an objective evaluation of evidence shows that Mr. Obama is 180 degrees away from Ms. Pampuch's ideal truth-teller. And I would challenge her to deny each of the following points for her "hero", specifically:

1. Obama continues to hide the fact that he is a member supporter of the far leftwing Democratic Socialists of America. Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the "champions" of "Chicago's democratic left" and a long-time socialist activist. Obama's stint as a "community organizer" in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored. Obama has never renounced ANY of his socialist leanings.

2. Obama supports the Black Liberation Theology of his former mentor but still friend Rev. Jeremiah Wright, which upon careful examination, is more Marxist than Christian, and reflects the movement's class dialectic that remains unabashedly race-based. Wright's racist rages against white America is well documented.

3. Obama is the documented candidate of choice for the Nation of Islam, the Black Panthers, the Communist Party USA, the Socialist Party USA, and other leftwing anti-America organizations, as well as the political regime of Iran. If the Communist Party USA is happy with Obama, which they are, then clearly he is not someone who is willing to advance American interests anywhere -- and therefore should not be given the keys to the White House.

4. Obama is anti-US Military. Just four years ago, Sen. John Kerry strode onstage at the Democrat National Convention and declared, "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty." In the course of the contest between Kerry and Bush, John Kerry and the Democrats set up the John Kerry Test for Presidential Qualification, one which George W. Bush could only fail, and one which only John Kerry could pass. There are three points to the test: One: To be qualified to be president, a candidate must have military service. Two: Active duty service in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Coast Guard, in a war zone, trumps National Guard service in the states. Three: Active duty service in actual combat trumps service that did not see combat. It appears that Democrats have long since forgotten all about the John Kerry Test, rather nominating Obama, who fails to meet any of the three points of the John Kerry Test, for president. Obama has never been anywhere near the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, or National Guard, in war or in peace.He has no active duty service, no reserve service, no military service of any kind. He has never served in a war zone and he has never been in combat. He fails the John Kerry Test in every respect.

5. Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever. He is so pro-abortion he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons." His pro-abortion record is undisputed.

6. Obama will raise taxes, embrace illegal immigrants, increase gun control, increase welfare payments and move America further towards a fully-blown Socialist State of Big Brother control.
The fact is Ms. Pampuch, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance. He has no real identity.
He is a puppet controlled by his liberal masters. That Ms. Pampuch, is not putting the country first.

New Obama Words

Obamamania: a psychological-induced frenzy that typically effects young liberals of voting age as well as old liberal feminists and the news media, producing in the individual a false sense of political optimism and security without any factual concrete evidence to back-up the euphoria.

Obamaphobia: a inert fear of Hillary Clinton and any other politician or Fox News commentator who is against Obama. Often hits with hot flashes and high body temperature.

Obamacide: what will happen to American government and America if Obama is elected: the swing into full-blown socialism.

Obamaphile: a Democrat-Socialist who worships Obama, even though their candidate has no resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.
Obamaocrat: a Democrat-Socialist who has moved spiritually into the next level of political karma, really believing that Obama is the political savior who not only will bring utopian "change" but will be the great uniter of political and social factions within America, even though no politician has ever been able to accomplish this feat in the history of the world.

Obamasized: the effect that Obama's rhetoric has upon Obamaphiles, specifically turning off and shutting down any ability to think independently about the truthfulness of what the candidate has said and continues to spew out. This is similar to a drug-induced stupor.

Obamation: the process by which Obama will change the US economy, bring world peace, solve the energy crisis, and persuade world dictators that their politics are wrong. Of course, this process is highly theoretical and totally unproven, as well as being vague and ambigious.

Obamanation: what the US absolutely does not need.

Obamatron: the final terminal state of an Obamaphile, where the brain totally shuts down all rational thinking, and the individual becomes a zombie, with a constant dribble from the nose and mouth.

Obamabate: self-induced sexual excitement thinking about Obama. One liberal media type has publically shown signs of this malady indicating that he gets a "thrill down his leg" upon hearing Obama speak.

Obamanomics: the provenly false Kenysian economic philosophy that raising personal and corporate taxes will improve the economy. In reality, the "goose" laying the golden eggs is chocked to death, and profit incentives are reduced while government entitlements increase.

Hypocrite Obama

“Barack Obama likes to portray himself as a centrist politician who wants to unite the country, but occasionally his postpartisan mask slips. That was the case at Saturday night’s Saddleback Church forum, when Mr. Obama chose to demean Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated. Mr. McCain said, ‘with all due respect’ the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy. Mr. Obama took a lower road, replying first that ‘that’s a good one,’ and then adding that ‘I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas... I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution.’ The Democrat added that he also wouldn’t have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job. So let’s see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General’s office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation’s second most prominent court. Since his ‘elevation’ to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist. Meanwhile, as he bids to be America’s Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn’t yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a ‘community organizer’ and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas’s judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama’s Presidential rèsumè by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas’s rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama’s story look like easy street.

Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat’s answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn’t expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn’t merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing clichè that the Court’s black conservative isn’t up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are. So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama’s advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won’t let slip what he really believes.” —The Wall Street Journal

The West's Islamist Infiltrators

The commentary below by Daniel Pipes illustrates the daunting challenge we in the West face in dealing with the threat of Islamist infiltration of our government and intelligence agencies.


If government officials are deemed as too aggressive in doing background checks of Muslims who seek such positions, they are met with the predictable cry of “discrimination” and “Islamophobia.”

If they are not aggressive or thorough enough in their background checks, radical Islamists slip through and gain access to classified intelligence information that could compromise critical anti-terrorism investigations – putting us at greater risk.

But the blame for this situation does not lie with Americans who are concerned about national security and demand exhaustive background checks of Muslims, and the “victims” are not Muslims who claim they are being discriminated against or treated unfairly.

The blame lies first with those millions of Muslims who are intent on waging jihad against us, whether through violent means or cultural subversion. The blame lies secondly with those Muslims who reflexively cry “discrimination” but do nothing to isolate or stop the Muslims intent on waging jihad.

And the victims are the American people, who, every time they have to take off their shoes to go through airport security…who every time they have to pay more for goods and services because of the increased costs due to the threat of terrorism…who every time they fear for the safety of loved ones who are traveling…are starkly reminded of the cost we are paying for this jihadist assault on our safety, security and values.

So let us never forget. We are in this war against Islamic terrorism, in all its manifestations, because Islamists have declared jihad against us. They are the aggressors, and we have every right to do what we must to protect and defend ourselves, and to do so without apology. And that includes keeping a keen and watchful eye on Muslims who seek positions in our government and intelligence agencies.

The West's Islamist Infiltrators

By Daniel Pipes
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/

Aafia Siddiqui, 36, is a Pakistani mother of three, an alumna of MIT, and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Brandeis University. She is also accused of working for Al-Qaeda and was charged last week in New York City with attempting to kill American soldiers.


Her arrest serves to remind how invisibly most Islamist infiltration proceeds. In particular, an estimated forty Al-Qaeda sympathizers or operatives have sought to penetrate U.S. intelligence agencies.

Such a well-placed infiltrator can wreck great damage explains a former CIA chief of counterintelligence, Michael Sulick: "In the war on terrorism, intelligence has replaced the Cold War's tanks and fighter planes as the primary weapon against an unseen enemy." Islamist moles, he argues, "could inflict far more damage to national security than Soviet spies," for the U.S. and Soviet Union never actually fought each other, whereas now, "our nation is at war."

Here are some American cases of attempted infiltration since 2001 that have been made public:

The Air Force discharged Sadeq Naji Ahmed, a Yemeni immigrant, when his superiors learned of his pro-Al-Qaeda statements. Ahmed subsequently became a baggage screener at Detroit's Metro Airport, which terminated him for hiding his earlier discharge from the Air Force. He was convicted of making false statements and sentenced to eighteen months in jail.

The Chicago Police Department fired Patricia Eng-Hussain just three days into her training on learning that her husband, Mohammad Azam Hussain, was arrested for being an active member of Mohajir Qaumi Movement-Haqiqi (MQM-H), a Pakistani terrorist group.

The Chicago Police Department also fired Arif Sulejmanovski, a supervising janitor at its 25th District station after it learned his name was on a federal terrorist watch list of international terrorism suspects.

Mohammad Alavi, an engineer at the Palo Verde nuclear power plant, was arrested as he arrived on a flight from Iran, accused of taking computer access codes and software to Iran that provide details on the plant's control rooms and plant layout. He subsequently pleaded guilty to transporting stolen property.

Nada Nadim Prouty, a Lebanese immigrant who worked for both the FBI and CIA, pleaded guilty to charges of: fraudulently obtaining U.S. citizenship; accessing a federal computer system to unlawfully query information about her relatives and the terrorist organization Hizballah; and engaging in conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Waheeda Tehseen, a Pakistani immigrant who filled a sensitive toxicologist position with the Environmental Protection Agency, pleaded guilty to fraud and was deported. World Net Daily explains that "investigators suspect espionage is probable, as she produced highly sensitive health-hazard documents for toxic compounds and chemical pesticides. Tehseen also was an expert in parasitology as it relates to public water systems."

Weiss Rasool, 31, a Fairfax County police sergeant and Afghan immigrant, pleaded guilty for checking police databases without authorization, thereby jeopardizing at least one federal terrorism investigation.

Nadire P. Zenelaj, 32, a 911 emergency operator of Albanian origins, was charged with 232 felony counts of computer trespass for illegally searching New York State databases, including at least one person on the FBI's terrorist watch list.

Three other cases are less clear. The Transportation Security Administration fired Bassam Khalaf, 21, a Texan of Christian Palestinian origins, as an airport baggage screener because lyrics on his music CD, Terror Alert, applaud the 9/11 attacks. FBI Special Agent Gamal Abdel-Hafiz "showed a pattern of pro-Islamist behavior," according to author Paul Sperry, that may have helped acquit Sami Al-Arian of terrorism charges. The Pentagon cleared Hesham Islam, an Egyptian immigrant, former U.S. Navy commander, and special assistant to the deputy secretary of defense, but major questions remain about his biography and his outlook.

Other Western countries too - Australia, Canada, Israel, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom - have been subject to infiltration efforts. (For details, see my weblog entry, "Islamists Penetrate Western Security.")

This record prompts one to wonder what catastrophe must occur before government agencies, some of which have banished the words "Islam" and "jihad," seriously confront their internal threat?

Westerners are indebted to Muslim agents like Fred Ghussin and "Kamil Pasha" who have been critical to fighting terrorism. That said, I stand by my 2003 statement that "There is no escaping the unfortunate fact that Muslim government employees in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps need to be watched for connections to terrorism."

4 Political Cartoons I'd Love to See

HOW ABOUT:

- An Obama puppet, being juggled by strings attached to puppet masters labeled Abortionists, Socialists, Communists, Muslims, CAIR, ACLU, Labor Unions, and the other radicals who control the Democrat Party. Obama's 143 days of "experience" shows that he is at best a puppet being controlled by masters other than his own convictions.

- A galley slave ship (named the Demonstrative Democrat) with the oarsmen/slaves labeled "American Taxpayers" and the whip crackers labeled "Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Kerry, Kennedy, etc., yelling to the slaves "just row harder and we'll get to utopia faster..." but like all slave masters, always thinking of lining their own political pockets while lying to the people on a consistent basis.

- Obama dressed as the Pied Piper, playing his pipes of "change" as he lures the naive into the river (symbolizing America) of economic and political destruction. "What fools ye mortals be..." wrote Shakespear, and how true this is as Obama leads a mass of fools.

- The Obama facade: a smooth well-polished front, but when examined in depth, absolutely nothing behind it. Obama has virtually no experience in goverment when compared to the likes of McCain. The Democrats have truly picked a "flea-weight" as their "Champion".

What Constitutes a Contemporary Liberal?

What, in the broadest terms, constitutes a contemporary liberal -- and why?

Liberals are almost uniformly defined by their hypocrisy and dissociation from reality. For example, the wealthiest U.S. senators -- among them Kerry, Kennedy, Corzine, Kohl, Rockefeller, Feinstein, and Rhode Island RINO Lincoln Chaffee -- fancy themselves as defenders of the poor, but they have no idea of what it's like to live without a bloated trust fund. Liberals speak of unity, but they appeal to the worst in human nature by dividing Americans into dependent constituencies. Just who are these liberal constituencies? They support freedom of thought, unless your thoughts don't comport with theirs. They feign tolerance while practicing intolerance. They resist open discussion and debate of their views, yet seek to silence dissenters. They insist that they care more about protecting habitat than those who hunt and fish. They protest for nature conservation while advocating homosexuality. They denounce capital punishment for the most heinous of criminals, while ardently supporting the killing of the most innocent among us -- children prior to birth. They hate private-gun ownership, but they wink and nod when it comes to WMD in the hands of tyrants. They advocate for big government but want to restrain free enterprise.

Liberals constantly assert their First Amendment rights, except, of course, when it comes to religion. Here, they firmly impose the doctrines of secular atheism on everyone else. They believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than marijuana smoke. They believe that one nut accused of bombing an Alabama abortion clinic deserves far more law-enforcement attention than Jihadi cells planning the 9/11 attacks. They call 9/11 victims "Hitlerian" while calling their murderers "oppressed." They hate SUVs, unless imported and driven by soccer moms. They believe trial lawyers save lives and doctors kill people. They believe the solution to racism is to treat people differently on the basis of their skin color. They deride moral clarity because they can't survive its scrutiny. They promote peace but foment division and hate -- ad infinitum.

Why do liberals believe what they believe -- and act the way they act? Psychopathology dictates, or frames, worldview, and worldview manifests in such things as political affiliation. Liberal pathology is very transparent and, thus, well defined.

Generally, liberals tend to be mentally rigid and closed-minded because they are insecure, the result of low self-esteem associated, predominantly, with fatherless households or critically dysfunctional families in which they were not adequately affirmed. (For Leftist over-achievers like Bill Clinton, see narcissistic boderline personality disorder.) They exhibit fear, anger, and aggression -- the behavioral consequences of arrested emotional development associated with childhood trauma (primarily rejection by a significant family member of origin as noted above).

Liberals display pessimism, disgust, and contempt for much the same reason. They focus on loss prevention because they have suffered significant loss. They fear death because they have little or no meaningful connection with their Heavenly Father -- often the result of the disconnect with their earthly fathers. They often come from socially and/or economically deprived homes, but those who are inheritance-welfare trust-babies (see Kennedy, et al.) manifest similar expectations about being helpless without external sustenance. Liberals reject individual responsibility and social stability because these were not modeled for them as children -- the generational implications of pathology.

Sound familiar -- apparently the profs at Cal-Berkeley and Maryland attributed their own pathological traits to their opposition. It's called projection -- or, yes indeed, hypocrisy.

While the aforementioned environmental and behavioral factors are not universally causal in the emergence of a liberal worldview, they certainly are predominant. Close examination of the early childhood of most liberals will reveal they were "victims" of many of these circumstances, which is, in part, the basis for their "victim mentality."

Of course, there are many conservatives who were raised by a single parent or in critically dysfunctional and impoverished homes. However, somewhere along the way, they were lifted out of their misery by the grace of God -- often in the form of a significant mentor who modeled hope and responsibility for them. As a result, they have the courage to internalize their locus of responsibility, unlike liberals, who externalize responsibility for problems and solutions, holding others (read "conservatives") to blame for their ills, and bestowing upon the state the duty for arbitrating proper conduct -- even proper thought.

On a final note, it's no coincidence that conservative political bases tend to be suburban or rural, while liberal political bases tend to be urban (see http://PatriotPost.US/map.asp). The social, cultural and economic blight in many urban settings are the catalysts for producing generations of liberals. Many urbanites no longer have a connection with "the land" (self-sufficiency) and, thus, tend to be largely dependent on the state for all manner of their welfare, protection and sustenance -- "It Takes a Village" after all.

source:
From Patriot Post Vol. 05 No. 08; Published 25 February 2005

Tolerant Liberals? Hardly.

Today's liberals are always ready to pound their chests with their virtue of tolerance. But the facts show time and time again that liberals are really not tolerant at all, especially when it comes to being "tolerant" towards any one who does not agree with them especially in secularism, evolution, or politics.

Liberals are hypocrites, mouthing one thing and practicing another. When are thinking Americans going to wake-up and see that liberal "tolerance" is truly an OXYMORON?

Justice, American-Style

Finally, after 15 years of stalling in the legal system, over international objections, a foreign-born killer of American citizens was executed in Texas. Would this be allowed to happen in the administration of "citizen of the world" Barack Obama? Answer: NO.

Mexican-born Jose Medellin, who confessed to and was convicted of participating in the rape and murder of two Houston teenagers in 1993, was executed August 5 after a four-hour delay while the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a final appeal based on the alleged denial of his right to contact the Mexican consulate for legal assistance under a 1963 treaty known as the Vienna Convention.

The slime-ball liberal socialists did everything in their power to let this convicted killer live. Fortunately, Texas appears to be the only state that has the guts to follow American law.

In 1993, Medellin confessed to participating in the rape and murder of Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, who were sodomized and strangled with their own shoelaces. Medellin bragged about keeping one girl's Mickey Mouse watch as a souvenir of the crime. He and four others were convicted of capital murder and sent to Texas' death row.

The International Court of Justice, formerly the World Court, ruled in 2004 that U.S. courts should review the convictions of Medellin and 50 other Mexican-born prisoners on death row because of the alleged treaty violation. The ICJ ordered — yes, ordered — the U.S. to "provide, by means of its own choosing, review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Medellin and the others."

Texas authorities argued that Medellin never sought Mexican consular protections until four years after he was arrested. By then, he had already been tried for capital murder and rape, convicted and condemned. The Texas Criminal Court of Appeals upheld the conviction on the grounds that Medellin hadn't complained of any violation of his consular rights under the treaty, and therefore had waived them.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court gave the final word on Medellin's appeal. Writing the 6-3 majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts, whose confirmation Sen. Obama voted against, said that a Texas court, or any American court, is not under any obligation to obey and be subservient to any foreign court.

"(N)ot all international law obligations automatically constitute binding federal law enforceable in the United State courts," Roberts wrote. He noted that giving "the judgments of an international tribunal a higher status than that enjoyed by many of our most fundamental constitutional protections" was never a consideration of those who wrote the U.S. Constitution.

Ted Cruz, solicitor general of Texas, applauded the high court's decision. "The United States Constitution vests sovereignty in the Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, the president, the 50 states, and ultimately, in We the People," he said. "Had Medellin prevailed, American sovereignty and independence would have been gravely undermined."

The type of justices a President Obama might nominate would defer to the ICJ and welcome the intrusion of foreign law and foreign entities into U.S. jurisprudence.

In a speech in South Africa recently, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that if judges can consult law review articles and such in the U.S., "why not the analysis of a question similar to the one we confront contained in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the German Constitutional Court or the European Court of Human Rights?"

Justice Stephen Breyer, another citizen of the world, recently said: "We see all the time . . . how the world really — it's trite but it's true — is growing together. The challenge (will be) whether our Constitution . . . fits into the governing documents of other nations."

Whether our Constitution fits?

For our part, we think that the Constitution and our laws belong to the American people, to be changed through and by our elected legislatures. And we think that those who assault, rape and murder American citizens should be tried in American courts under American laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court rightly decided that Medellin received full due process under American law for the rape and murder of these young Americans. But one or two Obama appointees to the Supreme Court and we could have a situation where the American criminal justice system becomes subject to an international veto. The very control that our Fore Fathers chose to separate our new country from English chains.

source: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=303002151310508

Fireamrs Refresher Course

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~ Thomas Jefferson

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

11. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

"Killers and Traitors"

"It's not often that the U.S. Supreme Court is asked by a state and the federal government to reconsider a case it has just handed down because it missed key evidence. But that is what is happening now in Kennedy v. Louisiana. In that case, the court ruled in late June 2008 that Louisiana could not execute someone convicted of violently raping a child. Dividing along familiar 5-4 lines, the court held, speaking through Justice Anthony Kennedy, that the death penalty must be reserved for killers and traitors. To apply it to others, including the most reprehensible violators of young children, would constitute a "cruel and unusual punishment" violating the Constitution's Eighth Amendment."

It's nice to know how the death penalty will now be used according to the Court's majority vote, specifically for "traitors". That logically means that Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Kerry, Frank, Dean, and all the other Democrat-Socialists (including mayor Newsom of San Francisco) are ELIGIBLE for it, because all of them are TRAITORS to the Constitution of the US. I can hardly wait until the elimination process begins! (Don't I wish...)

source: http://www.centerforajustsociety.org/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3726

1984 Has Finally Arrived in 2008 America

George Orwell's book "1984" while written in 1948, protrayed a world of mind and thought control by the government's "Big Brother".  Majority rule was stamped out, and the government declared what can be thought.

Fast forward to 2008 America.  The impossibility of this happening in America is now becoming reality, now with the state of Colorado, led by their Democrat-Socialist legislators and governor, are poised to dump onto the citizens of Colorado, via Senate Bill 200.  California already fell into this Pandora's Box with its passage of SB777, see my article: http://california95020.blogspot.com/2008/07/youve-got-to-be-kidding.html

 

This homosexual pushed and sponsored bill in Colorado, conceived and vastly over-written piece of legislation is designed to forcibly normalize all varieties of sexual orientation.  This pushed to the forfront the liberal's agenda to end all discrimination, for all reasons, in all places, erroneously equating perverse sexual orientation and practices with normalicy. With SB200, there is no longer two "sexes"; rather a brave new world with a myriad of "sexual orientations" is entered, a world in which there must be no sexual discrimination, upon pain of the substantial civil and criminal penalities contained in the bill.

The passage of this bill will indeed open wide the door of Pandora's Box for sociatal confussion. In the bill, "sexual orientation"is defined as "a person's orientation toward heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender status or another person's perception thereof."  This latter term includes cross-dressers, men who self-identify as women, women who self-identify as men, and people who are in the process of deciding exactly what they are.

Therefore, areas that specifically identified entrance based upon sex (e.g. restrooms) are now open to ANYONE.  In addition, a refusal to do business with someone based upon a sincerely held religious belief that homosexuality is wrong according to God's Law, would violate human law.  That threatens the religious liberties of every Christian, Jew or Muslim business owner who operates a business on faith-based principles. Colorado, in addition to civil fines and penalities, would under this bill prosecute small business owners under criminal law, and violators could spend up to one year in jail for tying to live according to their faith.

Thus the fruit of a secular American society continues to blossom forth with its spots of moral cancer. Once again, the tic on the flea on the tail of the dog is given the ability to wag the dog.  And once again, the political party that fully agrees with this abomination is the Democrats, showing again their true color as secular, progressive, socialistic, communists, void of all moral values.       

The Wake of the Red Witch

Pelosi, the Red Communist Witch is totally out of control, and thinks she is a political goddess. She consistently displays her disregard for the will of the majority of Americans, and her latest mandate of dismissing Congress for vacation while the nation suffers high energy prices is inexcusable. But, what can Americans expect from a Democrat Socialist who leans towards full-blown communism?

She serves on the executive committee of the socialist-leaning Progressive Caucus, a bloc of about 60 votes or nearly 30 percent of the minority vote in the lower chamber.

Until 1999, the website of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America. Following an expose of the link between the two organizations in WorldNetDaily, the Progressive Caucus established its own website under the auspices of Congress. Another officer of the Progressive Caucus, and one of its guiding lights, is avowed socialist Rep. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent.

The Democratic Socialists of America's chief organizing goal is to work within the Democratic Party and remove the stigma attached to "socialism" in the eyes of most Americans.

"Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work," explains an organizing document of the DSA. "The Democratic Party is something the public understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical subculture and help integrate you to the milieu of the young liberals."

Nevertheless, the goal of the Democratic Socialists of America has never been deeply hidden. Prior to the cleanup of its website in 1999, the DSA included a song list featuring "The Internationale," the worldwide anthem of communism and socialism. Another song on the site was "Red Revolution" sung to the tune of "Red Robin." The lyrics went: "When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there'll be no more lootin' when we start shootin' that Wall Street throng. ..." Another song removed after WorldNetDaily's expose was "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?" The lyrics went: "Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, We'll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie."

And for all practical purposes, it appears America is sleeping!

source: http://www.tldm.org/news5/pelosi.htm

What Costs More Per Year than the Iraq War?

I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have included the URL's for verification of the following facts: This should be the major issue in this year's Presidential election, not the Iraq war.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year. http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare and Social Services by the American taxpayers. http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two-and-a-half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border. Homeland Security Report. http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.' http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States'. http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

Total cost is a whooping... $338.3 BILLION A YEAR!!! And remember, the Democrat/Socialists are doing NOTHING to reduce these costs to us taxpayers.

Obama's Pickpocket Platform

Like his brethren at the Democratic Socialists of America, Obama's entire campaign is built upon the platform of pickpocket politics, (aka socialism via democratic process.) And like Karl Marx, who recognized that democracy is the new road to socialism, Obama promises to take from each according to his ability; and give to each according to his need.

It's not an original idea of course, or even a truly progressive notion. Socialism is a temporary stop on the road to communism, and both of these failed economic/political systems are actually regressive and oppressive in nature. But hey, who cares about the facts anymore?

Obama and his ilk have repeatedly stated that the economy and society should be run democratically to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

This is the sea change Obama has in mind. Sounds neat, huh?

I took this quote from the introduction to What is Democratic Socialism? posted on the Democratic Socialists of America web site. If you take the time to read the entire pdf document issued by this organization, then compare it to the Obama campaign platform, you will find it impossible to continue denying Obama's real idea of change. Socialism.

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism

Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.

During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.

It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.

Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism. In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.

In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).

Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.

It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.

Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.

Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.
Among his proposed "investments":

• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.
• "Free" college tuition.
• "Universal national service" (a la Havana).
• "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").
• "Free" job training (even for criminals).
• "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).
• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.
• More subsidized public housing.
• A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."
• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.

That's just for starters — first-term stuff. Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.

You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he's the most liberal member in Congress.

But could he really be "more left," as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)?

Obama's voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes. His career path — and those who guided it — leads to the same unsettling conclusion.

The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed.
A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities."

As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.

"They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."

After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago.

His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America.

The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters.

After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" — on a large scale.

While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky's "agitation" tactics.

(A video-streamed bio on Obama's Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" — terms right out of Alinsky's rule book.)

Amid all this, Obama reunited with his late father's communist tribe in Kenya, the Luo, during trips to Africa. As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Harvard-educated economist, grew to challenge the ruling pro-Western government for not being socialist enough. In an eight-page scholarly paper published in 1965, he argued for eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses "owned by Asians and Europeans."

His ideas for communist-style expropriation didn't stop there. He also proposed massive taxes on the rich to "redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all."

"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed," Obama Sr. wrote. "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development."

Taxes and "investment" . . . the fruit truly does not fall far from the vine. (Voters might also be interested to know that Obama, the supposed straight shooter, does not once mention his father's communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory.) In Kenya's recent civil unrest, Obama privately phoned the leader of the opposition Luo tribe, Raila Odinga, to voice his support. Odinga is so committed to communism he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.

With his African identity sewn up, Obama returned to Chicago and fell under the spell of an Afrocentric pastor. It was a natural attraction. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called "black liberation theology" and has supported the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere.

Obama joined Wright's militant church, pledging allegiance to a system of "black values" that demonizes white "middle classness" and other mainstream pursuits. (Obama in his first book, published in 1995, calls such values "sensible." There's no mention of them in his new book.)
With the large church behind him, Obama decided to run for political office, where he could organize for "change" more effectively. "As an elected official," he said, "I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer."
He could also exercise real, top-down power, the kind that grass-roots activists lack. Alinsky would be proud.

Throughout his career, Obama has worked closely with a network of stone-cold socialists and full-blown communists striving for "economic justice."

He's been traveling in an orbit of collectivism that runs from Nairobi to Honolulu, and on through Chicago to Washington.

Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist.

Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate "outsider" (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a "breath of fresh air" to Washington.

The few who have drilled down on his radical roots have tended to downplay or pooh-pooh them. Even skeptics have failed to connect the dots for fear of being called the dreaded "r" word.
But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.

Both a historic banking crisis and 1970s-style stagflation loom over the economy. Democrats, who already control Congress, now threaten to filibuster-proof the Senate in what could be a watershed election for them — at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

A perfect storm of statism is forming, and our economic freedoms are at serious risk.

Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that's made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster.

source: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551

What Change?

Dear Editor, Times-Dispatch:

Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day, and on July 4 I celebrate America 's. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.

On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba, and a few months later, I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress. I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, so when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said, 'Praise the Lord.' And when the young leader said, 'I will be for change and I'll bring you change,' everyone yelled, 'Viva Fidel!'

But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent, the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education, it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans.

And now I'm back to the beginning of my story. Luckily, we in America would never fall for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America ? Would we?

Manuel Alvarez, Jr. From Richmond Times-Dispatch, Monday, July 7, 2008

Whistling Past the Graveyard

Last week, columnist Paul Weyrich reported that there is credible evidence that Osama bin Laden has acquired twenty suitcase-sized nuclear bombs from Chechen rebels in the former Soviet Union and smuggled them into the United States by way of the Mexican border. If that is true, the al Qaeda kingpin has laid the groundwork for an “American Hiroshima” plan that he intends to carry out in the very near future. Once bin Laden gives the signal, his henchmen will proceed to detonate their explosives in a number of separate U.S. cities, leaving them in irreparable ruins and killing tens of millions of people in the process.

In other words, while the Left, ever since 9/11, has argued passionately against sealing the southern U.S. border on grounds that such an initiative would constitute “racism,” “xenophobia,” a violation of “human rights,” a repudiation of “American values,” and a “threat to the environment,” bin Laden has quietly and happily exploited our national insanity and set the stage, from his cave somewhere in the remote mountains of Pakistan, for the cataclysmic end of the most powerful nation in world history.

If bin Laden indeed has been able to set in motion this nightmare scenario, he succeeded for one very simple reason: America’s military might has been offset by a weakness of spirit that has become a hallmark of the modern Western world. It is a frailty that derives entirely from the leftist worldview that has infected America over the past half-century. This view identifies Western (especially American) culture as a uniquely evil, exploitative player in the story of mankind, and depicts all acts of barbarism against the U.S. as wholly understandable reactions to American transgressions. It is a mindset that has gradually, incrementally, and inexorably made its “long march through the institutions,” -- the schools, the seminaries and churches, the media, the entertainment industry, the courts, and the political sphere -- just as the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci prescribed in the 1920s.

Gramsci understood that by poisoning the culture from within, and by so degrading and undermining the culture’s faith in itself, the American people could be compelled to believe, to their very marrow, that their heritage was in fact unworthy of defending against those who would destroy it under the banner of so-called “multiculturalism.” Gramsci and his successors were patient enough to allow this time-consuming process to unfold, knowing that the American way of life could be bled to death ever-so-slowly, almost imperceptibly, without the firing of a single shot until the time was just right. The fact that the person who ultimately may fire that shot is a seventh-century-style savage whose fanatical “religious” worldview bears no resemblance whatsoever to the ideals of Gramsci and his fellow Marxists, is not as strange as one might think. As bin Laden himself declared in a fatwa issued on Al-Jazeera Television just before American and British troops entered Iraq in March 2003: “The interests of Muslims and the interests of the socialists coincide in the war against the crusaders.”

source: FrontPageMagazine.com 7/25/08

One World? Obama's on a Different Planet

SEN. BARACK OBAMA said in an interview the day after his Berlin speech that it "allowed me to send a message to the American people that the judgments I have made and the judgments I will make are ones that are going to result in them being safer."

If that is what the senator thought he was doing, he still has a lot to learn about both foreign policy and the views of the American people. Although well received in the Tiergarten, the Obama speech actually reveals an even more naive view of the world than we had previously been treated to in the United States. In addition, although most of the speech was substantively as content-free as his other campaign pronouncements, when substance did slip in, it was truly radical, from an American perspective.

These troubling comments were not widely reported in the generally adulatory media coverage given the speech, but they nonetheless deserve intense scrutiny. It remains to be seen whether these glimpses into Obama's thinking will have any impact on the presidential campaign, but clearly they were not casual remarks. This speech, intended to generate the enormous publicity it in fact received, reflects his campaign's carefully calibrated political thinking. Accordingly, there should be no evading the implications of his statements. Consider just the following two examples.

First, urging greater U.S.-European cooperation, Obama said, "The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together." Having earlier proclaimed himself "a fellow citizen of the world" with his German hosts, Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved "that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."

Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because "the world stood as one." The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator's own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik -- "eastern politics," a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance -- continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. president who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative.

But there are larger implications to Obama's rediscovery of the "one world" concept, first announced in the U.S. by Wendell Willkie, the failed Republican 1940 presidential nominee, and subsequently buried by the Cold War's realities.

The successes Obama refers to in his speech -- the defeat of Nazism, the Berlin airlift and the collapse of communism -- were all gained by strong alliances defeating determined opponents of freedom, not by "one-worldism." Although the senator was trying to distinguish himself from perceptions of Bush administration policy within the Atlantic Alliance, he was in fact sketching out a post-alliance policy, perhaps one that would unfold in global organizations such as the United Nations. This is far-reaching indeed.

Second, Obama used the Berlin Wall metaphor to describe his foreign policy priorities as president: "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."

This is a confused, nearly incoherent compilation, to say the least, amalgamating tensions in the Atlantic Alliance with ancient historical conflicts. One hopes even Obama, inexperienced as he is, doesn't see all these "walls" as essentially the same in size and scope. But beyond the incoherence, there is a deeper problem, namely that "walls" exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict. The Berlin Wall itself was not built because of a failure of communication but because of the implacable hostility of communism toward freedom. The wall was a reflection of that reality, not an unfortunate mistake.

Tearing down the Berlin Wall was possible because one side -- our side -- defeated the other. Differences in levels of economic development, or the treatment of racial, immigration or religious questions, are not susceptible to the same analysis or solution. Even more basically, challenges to our very civilization, as the Cold War surely was, are not overcome by naively "tearing down walls" with our adversaries.

Throughout the Berlin speech, there were numerous policy pronouncements, all of them hazy and nonspecific, none of them new or different than what Obama has already said during the long American campaign. But the Berlin framework in which he wrapped these ideas for the first time is truly radical for a prospective American president. That he picked a foreign audience is perhaps not surprising, because they could be expected to welcome a less-assertive American view of its role in the world, at least at first glance. Even anti-American Europeans, however, are likely to regret a United States that sees itself as just one more nation in a "united" world.

The best we can hope for is that Obama's rhetoric was simply that, pandering to the audience before him, as politicians so often do. We shall see if this rhetoric follows him back to America, either because he continues to use it or because Sen. John McCain asks voters if this is really what they want from their next president.

source: John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Mr. Inexperience

If I only had 143 days of experience:

- Would you hire me to fix your car?
- Would you hire me to run your company?

If I only had 143 days experience would you hire me to run the country?

Something America NEEDS to think about. Just how much Senate experience does Barack Obama have in terms of actual work days? Not much.

From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working.

After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan.

143 days -This isn't taking into account the days he has missed.

In contrast, John McCain's 26 years in Congress, 22 years of military service including 1,966 days in captivity as a POW in Hanoi now seem more impressive than ever. At 71, John McCain may just be hitting his stride.

Think about IT! Bias aside, only a fool would vote for anybody with so little experience for the most important job in the free world. But then it appears that the Democrat Party is overflowing with fools.

An Analogy about the Democrats

An appropriate analogy to Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and all the other Democrat/Socialists:

Homer was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young layers (hens) called "pullets," and 10 roosters to fertilize the eggs. He kept records, and any rooster not performing went into the soup pot and was replaced. This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a distance which rooster was performing. Now he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report by just listening to the bells. Homer's favorite rooster, old "Butch", was a very fine specimen, but one morning he noticed old Butch's bell hadn't rung at all! When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, could run for cover. To Homer's amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one. Homer was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the County Fair and he became an overnight sensation among the judges. The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the No-Bell Piece Prize, but they also awarded him the Pullet Surprise Prize as well.

Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making. Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention?

Vote carefully this year...the bells "tied" to the Democrats are normally "in their beaks"-- not audible, while they're just waiting to screw you with higher taxes ,more give-away programs and greater government control over your life.

The Oncoming Obama Storm

While the mainstream media continues to portray Obama as the new black John F. Kennedy, and call him a political phenomenon of rare magnitude, the fact is that most of his followers have no idea of what he stands for except Platitudes of "Change" or that he says he will be a "Uniter". Like so many politicians, the details (no matter how impossible) on this will come after the election. And for many young Americans, such empty rhetoric makes them feel just like a surfer who might be ecstatic and euphoric while riding a tidal wave, but the real effect is what happens when it hits shore. The storm warnings are flying. Here are some things that Obama stands for:

(1) He voted against banning partial birth abortion.
(2) He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
(3) He supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government.
(4) In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing.
(5) He says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.
(6) He admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college.
(7) His religious convictions are very murky.
(8) He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
(9) He has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations.
(10) He opposed the Patriot Act.
(11) The first bill he signed that was passed was campaign finance reform.
(12) He voted No on prohibiting law suits against gun manufacturers.
(13) He supports universal health-care.
(14) He voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
(15) He supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
(16) He supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.
(17) He voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform.
(18) He voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
(19) He wants to make the minimum wage a "living wage".
(20) He voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes.
(21) He Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.
(22) He opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid.
(23) He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax
(24) He voted No on repealing the "Death" Tax
(25) He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.
(26) He has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.
(27) He is ranked as the most liberal senator in the Senate today.

If you are like many Americans that after examining what he stands for, are truly not in line with his record, it would be prudent to get off the wave or better yet, never get on, before it comes on shore and undermines the very foundations of this great country.