Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The respected Israeli newspaper Ha’artez reports that according to a “senior Israeli government source, the reports reaching Israel indicate that Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate’s stance on Iran as ‘utterly immature’ and comprised of ‘formulations empty of all content.’”
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., met with Sarkozy in July and they are said to have discussed Iran at length.
French authorities are said to be concerned that the international community doesn’t take the Iranian threat seriously enough. French intelligence has concluded that Iran has already obtained up to 40% of the enriched uranium it needs for a bomb, the newspaper reports, and will have obtained the rest next summer.
“According to the reports reaching Israel, Sarkozy told Obama at that meeting that if the new American president elected in November changed his country’s policy toward Iran, that would be ‘very problematic,’” Ha’aretz reports. “Until now, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have tried to maintain a united front on Iran. But according to the senior Israeli source, Sarkozy fears that Obama might ‘arrogantly’ ignore the other members of this front and open a direct dialogue with Iran without preconditions.”
Ok, so let me get this straight… the FRENCH think Obama is an appeaser, weak, and arrogant?!?!?!? The FRENCH?!?!?!?
You know you have a problem when the French are telling you that someone is not hardline enough!
By Thomas Sowell
Monday, October 27, 2008
Although Senator Barack Obama has been allied with a succession of far left individuals over the years, that is only half the story. There are, after all, some honest and decent people on the left. But these have not been the ones that Obama has been allied with-- allied, not merely "associated" with.
ACORN is not just an organization on the left. In addition to the voter frauds that ACORN has been involved in over the years, it is an organization with a history of thuggery, including going to bankers' homes to harass them and their families, in order to force banks to lend to people with low credit ratings.
Nor was Barack Obama's relationship with ACORN just a matter of once being their attorney long ago. More recently, he has directed hundreds of thousands of dollars their way. Money talks-- and what it says is more important than a politician's rhetoric in an election year.
Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger are not just people with left-wing opinions. They are reckless demagogues preaching hatred of the lowest sort-- and both are recipients of money from Obama.
Bill Ayers is not just "an education professor" who has some left-wing views. He is a confessed and unrepentant terrorist, who more recently has put his message of resentment into the schools-- an effort using money from a foundation that Obama headed.
Nor has the help all been one way. During the last debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, Senator McCain mentioned that Senator Obama's political campaign began in Bill Ayers' home. Obama immediately denied it and McCain had no real follow-up.
It was not this year's political campaign that Obama began in Bill Ayers' home but an earlier campaign for the Illinois state legislature. Barack Obama can match Bill Clinton in slickness at parsing words to evade accusations.
That is one way to get to the White House. But slickness with words is not going to help a president deal with either domestic economic crises or the looming dangers of a nuclear Iran.
People who think that talking points on this or that problem constitute "the real issues" that we should be talking about, instead of Obama's track record, ignore a very fundamental fact about representative government.
Representative government exists, in the first place, because we the voters cannot possibly have all the information necessary to make rational decisions on all the things that the government does. We cannot rule through polls or referendums. We must trust someone to represent us, especially as President of the United States.
Once we recognize this basic fact of representative government, then the question of how trustworthy a candidate is becomes a more urgent question than any of the so-called "real issues."
A candidate who spends two decades promoting polarization and then runs as a healer and uniter, rather than a divider, forfeits all trust by that fact alone.
If Ronald Reagan had attempted to run for President of the United States as a liberal, the media would have been all over him. His support for Barry Goldwater would have been in the headlines and in editorial denunciations across the country.
No way would he have been able to get away with using soothing words to suggest that he and Barry Goldwater were like ships that passed in the night.
If Barack Obama had run as what he has always been, rather than as what he has never been, then we could simply cast our votes based on whether or not we agree with what he has always stood for.
Some people take solace from the fact that Senator Obama has verbally shifted position on some issues, like drilling for oil or gun control, since this is supposed to show that he is "pragmatic" rather than ideological.
But political zig-zags show no such moderation as some seem to assume. Lenin zig-zagged and so did Hitler. Zig-zags may show no more than that someone is playing the public for fools.
Some people who see the fraud in what Obama is saying are amazed that others do not. But Obama knows what con men have long known, that their job is not to convince skeptics but to enable the gullible to continue to believe what they want to believe. He does that very well.
For more information about the National Black Republican Association please visit http://www.NBRA.Info/
Friday, October 24, 2008
Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.
I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.
First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.
McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.
Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.
McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.
Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.
The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.
Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the last year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?
Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts, but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?
There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?
And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.
The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.
Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
I have read all of the emails from Law Enforcement & Military personnel about Barack Hussein Obama's rudeness and what seems to be disgust for basically anyone in uniform. Well, it's my turn to add to the list of emailers and here it is:
So members of the Calhoun County Sheriff's Department, Michigan State Police, (me included) and other local agencies inside Calhoun County are working with Secret Service in the security of Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama's bus arrives in Battle Creek and pulls into the stadium area. Before Mr. Obama exits the bus, he has the Secret Service get off and tell all Law Enforcement personnel in uniform that they now have to stand behind the bus so Mr. Obama is not seen with anyone in a Law Enforcement uniform before he gets off or while in the public view. So, everyone from Michigan State Police, Sheriff's Departments and other agencies look at each other for a brief second, go and stand behind the bus out of sight so Mr. Obama does not have to see, or been seen with, what to him is 'undesirables' since he refuses to be seen, or even acknowledge Military or Law Enforcement personnel in uniform.
Note: I suspect this is where the original email stopped and that what is below was added by someone else.
And he wants to be our commander-in-chief!
At a time of war and terrorism in our world, this presidential candidate who is being protected by various branches of the military & law enforcement at the tax payers expense, refuses to acknowledge, be seen with, have in his photographed background, any type of Military or Law Enforcement in uniform.
But this is not in the headlines or in the news or on TV. The TV news doesn't show us marching around behind the bus. In the future, look and see if you can see a single soldier or police officer in uniform when you see Obama. Why? I wonder what the story or media frenzy would be if it was Muslims, blacks, whites, Jews, or any other race, gender, religion, and/or occupation, that Mr. Obama refused to be seen with or have around him.
Why would I make this up? Everyone in Law Enforcement knows we have traditionally had more funding under Democrats.
Just food for thought leading up to November 4th.
Michigan Tactical Officer's Association
Michigan State Police
Executive Board Member
Here's where the original author talks about the email. Notice that he does not disavow the original, just the add-on. In other words, he stands by the basic story as true.
Let me give you some background of this email.
I sent it out to my close co-workers and to the Michigan Tactical Officer's Association Board Members only. From there, it was sent all over this earth without my knowledge. I do NOT work for the Michigan State Police. I work for another agency. The MTOA nor myself make a habit of sending out emails like this. It was basically sent to my friends and one of them sent it out to someone else who sent it out to someone else and so on.
I also WAS NOT THERE. I had spoken with Law Enforcement personnel that their agency was involved with Mr. Obama's security prior to sending it out. My message starts at the "To all" section. I did not go on the ranting portion calling Mr. Obama names either.
If I offended you, I apologize. That is all the information I have on the visit to Battle Creek.