Thursday, July 31, 2008
Current mood: amused
Category: News and Politics
The mood in talk radio, the blogosphere, and printed news media have shown one thing in common. They all share the same sentiment that Barack Obama is an arrogant pompous son-of-gun.
Even David Letterman on the Late Night Show have noticed it. Here is Letterman's "Top Ten Signs Barack Obama is Overconfident."
10. Proposed bill to change Oklahoma to "Oklobama"
9. Offered Bush 20 bucks for the "Mission Accomplished" banner
8. Asked guy at Staples, "Which chair will work best in an oval-shaped office?"
7. The affair with Barbara Walters
6. Having head measured for Mount Rushmore
5. Guy sits around eating soup all day
4. He's voting for Nader
3. Offered McCain a job in gift shop at Obama Presidential Library
2. Announced his running mate will be Andy Dick
1. Been cruising for chicks with John Edwards
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Current mood: cynical
Category: News and Politics
This really blows my mind and I want every freaking Libertard to understand this. So, LISTEN UP! Democrats do not want to drill for oil. PERIOD! You get "the war is lost" Senator Harry Reid and "you're my bitch" Speaker Pelosi ramrod Congress to a standstill. For the past several weeks, President Bush is putting the heat on Congress to get approval to start drilling on the outer continental shelf. Senator Reid killed the debate and Pelosi gave a statement:
"The President knows, as his own Administration has stated, that the impact of any new drilling will be insignificant - promising savings of only pennies per gallon many years down the road. Americans know that thanks to the two oilmen in the White House, consumers are now paying $4 a gallon for gas. But what Americans should realize is that what the President is calling for is drilling as close as three miles off of America's pristine beaches and in other protected areas."
"The President has failed in his economic policy, and now he wants to say, 'but for drilling in protected areas offshore, our economy would be thriving and the price of gas would be lower.' That hoax is unworthy of the serious debate we must have to relieve the pain of consumers at the pump and to promote energy independence."
"Today, the New Direction Congress will vote on legislation to bring down gas prices by taking crucial steps to curb excessive speculation in the energy futures market. The President himself could lower prices by drawing down a small portion of our government oil stockpile, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The New Direction Congress will continue to bring forth responsible proposals to increase supply, reduce prices, protect consumers, and transition America to a clean, renewable energy independent future."
Well, let's get this one straight. No one is going to drill 3 miles off any coast and drilling will not save us only pennies per gallon at the gas pump. Is she on drugs? I guess she has been taking too much LSD during the hippy craze. She calls it a hoax. I call her do nothing plan negligence as she denies her fiduciary responsibility to the oath of her office. Her plan is "BS!" It is a laugh that she calls her Congress the "New Direction." Her plan is to increase solar and wind energy (notice nothing mentioned about nuclear) and put regulations on speculators, which can be done by the SEC and other regulators in Wall Street without Washington's help. She wants to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserves. I guess no one told her that tapping into the reserves will only have a 3-day window of relief at the pump. She was the one who begged President Bush not to stockpile surplus into the Reserves in hopes that decreasing our demands (purchases), will increase world supply, and decrease gas price at the pump. Instead, we saw the price of oil peaked to $147.00 per barrel. Good job, Pelosi!
Democrats' intent is to socialize the oil industry and to allow the price of gas to escalate in order to decrease consumption. This idiotic notion is the same to say to a fat person that the only way to lose the weight is to lock him or her in a house with no food and starve. This is the Democrats game plan from day one and we can thank a couple of Liberal Congresswomen by letting the cat out of the bag.
But this is not the only extraordinary idiotic scheme dreamed by a politician. Barack Obama gave his solution to the gas and oil crisis. He said,
"We could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could save just as much."
That's just great, Barack. I'm so irrate by the stupidity by the Democrats' solution. By their inactions, the very people they try to protect (the lower and middle class) are getting killed at the gas pumps and these politicians don't give a crap!
I have stated that this election season will be all about energy. I have said this summer of last year. This small reprieve at the gas pump as of late is only a teaser. The market is not stable enough to sustain a downward trend of the price of oil; unless, there is a significant and physical action in drilling.
Here is the video of Barack's stupid comment in Missouri today. What a freaking idiot!
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Current mood: cheerful
Category: News and Politics
Are we currently seeing a bubble in oil prices? Ever since President Bush waived the executive ban on offshore drilling, the price of oil has plummeted by $25.00. Oil speculators are now opening their eyes that the oil commodities market is not as hot as it was for the past year. The speculators and private investors are seeing that the government is serious to become independent on foreign oil.
As of today, oil has hit a 7-week low on demand worries. After the close of today's market, the oil price tumbled $2.00 a barrel. It seems that recorded prices are eroding the world's thirst for the black Texas tea, which sparked another dramatic sell-off. What a difference in a two-week period when oil was trading as high as $147.27 on July 11, just before the president rescinded that executive order.
One of the factors is that US drivers logged fewer miles in May compared to the same period last year. That is the biggest drop ever for the historically busy summer driving month. And since the US is the world's thirstiest consumer, we have seen a drop in consumption of a barrel to oil compared to the same month a year ago.
A friend of mine, who is an economist, told me that there is a certain threshold or resistance level price that programmed computers will dump oil contracts, which will trigger a sell-off and that price is around $120.00. Therefore, it is very likely we are going to see a complete burst in the oil market once we reach that magic number.
The good news for us is that the retail price of gas fell below the $4-a gallon mark. National average for regular gas is $3.941 per gallon.
But this doesn't mean we can sit on our laurels. While conservation is good, the price of gas remains high. The Democrat Congress has prevented to bring the oil drilling debate on the floor of both chambers of Congress. House Speaker Pelosi and Majority Senator Harry Reid are deliberately sabotaging the lifestyle of the American people. I thought they were for the little people and the less fortunate? It seems they don't care about the low and middle class people and how they are coping the difficulties of these still high energy prices.
Every time a Republican or a Blue Dog Democrat wants to raise the issue, it is turned down or manipulated in a way to defer the debate at a later date. That is politics and it is hurting the American people. And this is the Democrat Majority who promised ethical standards in Congress and a promise that the Democrats have a plan to lower the gas price? Reid, Pelosi, and the Liberals in Congress are full of it.
With the unstable oil market, what can bring down the price one day can reverse itself. Let's not get too excited with the good news. A hurricane, disruption in refineries, or militants destroying pipelines overseas can easily escalate the price of oil. Therefore, it is still important that we drill for ourselves in our own backyard, in order that, we don't have to worry with unnecessary fluctuation in the market.
It is best that America control its own destiny and does not be subjected by shenanigans by foreign countries that are not crazy about us. Instead of spending $700 billion on foreign oil a year by countries that want us harmed, it seems smarter that we keep that money here and drill to our hearts content.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Current mood: giggly
Category: News and Politics
Well, you can forget the Gallop Poll putting Obama 9 points ahead of McCain. If anyone cares, a survey was done to see what impact Obama had during his magical mystery tour to Europe and the Middle East and the result is what Obamas camp wanted - a big 9 point lead. Well, the honeymoon is over and the Obama camp is getting nervous because it is during this time the Democrat Presidential Nominee held double digit leading months prior to the General Election.
Not even 48 hours after the Gallop Poll came out, the Rasmussen Survey gave a very revealing poll. Please note that this survey was done after reports came out Obama declined to visit the injured soldiers in Germany because he couldn't bring along his press corp. It turns out that Barack Obama 9 point jump is fading away. Right now, Obama holds a 3 point lead over McCain. It seems the photo opportunity to look presidential abroad didn't seem to fool the American people. I call it a waste of a trip. Unless, Obama is intending to run for Chancellor of Germany or President of the European Union.
From the Rasmussen Report website:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that Barack Obama's Berlin bounce is fading. Obama now attracts 45% of the vote while John McCain earns 42%. When "leaners" are included, it's Obama 48% and McCain 45%. Both Obama and McCain are viewed favorably by 56% of voters.
Following his speech in Berlin, Obama enjoyed two very strong nights of polling on Thursday and Friday. His lead grew to six-points for results released on Saturday (see recent daily results ). However, polling on Saturday and Sunday showed the candidates much closer with single-day results similar to polling from before the Berlin speech.
Tracking Polls are released at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time each day. Tracking results are based upon nightly telephone interviews with 1,000 Likely Voters and reported on a three-day rolling average basis.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Current mood: cynical
Category: News and Politics
There is no one in history that has commanded the attention of the mainstream media like Barack Obama. Not since John Kerry gaffes on flip-flopping issue, the mainstream media had tried to turn the other cheek with Obama.
Because Barack Obama has been coined by critics as a flip-flopper, it is incorrect. By definition, a flip-flopper only holds one position at a time, but Barack Obama is completely unique as a politician.
It seems that Obama has mastered the art of holding two positions at the same time. Crazy how it sounds, but it is completely true.
- Obama supports and against banning handguns,
- Obama supports and against campaign finance
- Obama supports and against withdrawing from Iraq.
- Obama supports and against raising taxes
- Obama supports and against NAFTA
As you can see, he holds two positions at the same time. That is so unfounded. He is worst that a flip-flopper. I like how some call him "Both Ways Barack." It is a very clever and true description of an arrogant self-centered "SOB." I can't believe that he wants it both ways and get away with it.
It would make you question his true integrity. It is only wanting to win the presidency, but he wants to win it at any cost. If you fall into the Obama kool-aid drinking bandwagon and not see this, then you are stupid enough to be fooled by anything.
Oh, by the way, I have a bridge I want to offer to sell to you. Jeez!
Current mood: ecstatic
Category: News and Politics
It is appalling that our own news media is so unpatriotic and deceitful in the matter how they report the news. I waited for two weeks before writing this blog, in order to give the MSM a chance to report the good news. Alas, I was wrong.
We won the war in Iraq! We won the war in Iraq! Iraq is becoming a sovereign Democratic country! Our troops will be coming home soon!
As you may be wondering, you may not know this great news because the American mainstream media refuses to accept it. Could Bush have actually achieved "mission accomplished?" Even though the Bush Administration and Pentagon are playing conservatively in their analysis for fears that their good fortune may backfire, the only thing harping by the liberal left is that our troops must come home. You know what? They will very soon.
I'm an optimist. As long this trend continues, I believe Iraq will sustain a functioning Democratic country, to be able to police itself, and to be able to defend itself from its enemies. We all know the successes of the "surge," but we didn't know what extent it brought. Believe it or not, I got the great news from The London Sunday Times two weeks ago. It seems my news about the war has to come by a British newspaper. The London Times called it "the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror."
The reporter from the London Times, Marie Colvin, who had been embedded with the Iraqi troops, said the following:
1. Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister, who has also led a crackdown on the Shi!ite Mahdi Army in Basra and Baghdad in recent months, claimed yesterday (July 5) that his government had "defeated" terrorism. Maliki said, "They were intending to besiege Baghdad and control it, but thanks to the will of the tribes, security forces, army and all Iraqis, we defeated them."
2. The number of foreign fighters coming over the border from Syria to bolster Al-Qaeda's numbers is thought to have declined to as few as 20 a month, compared with 120 a month at its peak.
3. Brigadier General Abdullah Abdul, a senior Iraqi commander, said: "We've limited their movements with checkpoints. They are doing small attacks and trying big ones, but they're mostly not succeeding."
4. Operation Lion's Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the Americans' 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects.
5. American and Iraqi leaders believe that while it would be premature to write off Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni group has lost control of its last urban base in Mosul and its remnants have been largely driven into the countryside to the south.
6. Major-General Mark Hertling, American commander in the northern city of Mosul said: "I think we're at the irreversible point." A huge operation is being implemented to crush the 1,200 terrorist fighters who remained. This number dwindled from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000.
It wasn't too long ago when Iraq was a quagmire with not direction. Then in 2006, General David Petraeus provided his game plan on counterinsurgency warfare. Telling President Bush that he needed more troops, the president gave him the "surge." The result brought a most unlikely and unforeseen events in the long history of American warfare and that is the destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq. Even though Maliki wants a major US troop withdrawal by December 30, 2010, I think the commanders on the ground will make that decision since Maliki has no military experience. None-the-less, we should be seeing a good portion of our military back home to the states.
Another great expectation that came to as a surprise, State Department reported that Prime Minister Maliki's parliament has achieved 15 of the 18 political benchmarks. This was one of the complaints of the Democrats in the US Congress blaming the surge will do nothing in the reconciliation process in Iraq. Boy, they were wrong!
15 out of 18 benchmarks is a major improvement from a year ago and this is great news. It is a shame that ABC, NBC, and CBS didn't have the guts to broadcast this. Til this day, the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 are still silent and refusing to report of the successes in Iraq.
Wow, that is a 180-degree turnaround in two years. This shows that due diligence and having the conviction to be committed to stay the course is the only way to achieve success. It is a shame that apart from certain US newspapers, cable news, and some foreign press that the MSM is clueless not seeing what is obviously a monumental historical story as something uneventful. Instead, they are more concern getting Barack Obama elected to the White House.
Update: This week's Rasmussen polling reports 53% of American voters believe that we are winning the war in terrorism. Only 16% now think the terrorists are winning and 27% says it is a stalemate. In contrast from July 2007, only 36% thought we were winning and 36% believed the terrorists are winning.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Current mood: blessed
Category: News and Politics
This is a very creative piece that brings a humorous satire that describes Barack Obama as the chosen one. The author Gerald Baker is brilliant and clever as he created a manuscript that mocks Obama as the proclaimed "messiah."
I would call this "The Discovery of the Lost Books According to Barack." Now, that's priceless. LOL
From The Times
July 25, 2008
He ventured forth to bring light to the world
The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers
And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.
The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.
When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: "Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?"
In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.
And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.
He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the
Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.
And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.
From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.
And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.
And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.
From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered "Hosanna" and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.
In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.
As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.
And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.
The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.
And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.
Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.
And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.
Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.
But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.
And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.
Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.
On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.
And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: "Yes, We Can."
Friday, July 25, 2008
Category: News and Politics
The Obama cancelled of a planned visit to a U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, to meet the injured US troops. The visit was to follow Obama's wasteful speech in front of 200,000 Germans yesterday in Berlin.
The Obama camp stated that they canceled the event because the Pentagon ruled it was a campaign event.
The Obama campaign's chief spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said: "The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign."
I call it shameless. Obama would rather entertain 200,000 Germans than visit those who deserves the respect and attention like our military soldiers. Just like a liberal. They can't stand the military. This shows the poor judgement by Obama, who claims to represent as a world citizen. Obamas priorities are so backward, and he's the democrat candidate for presidency. Heck, he should stay in Germany & run for public office since they love him there.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Current mood: disgusted
Category: News and Politics
I am getting sick and tired of Barack Obamas gaffes. I just want to scream each time he opens his mouth when there isn't a Teleprompter in front of him.
Barack Obama and his merry band of kool-aide drinkers are visiting the holy site of Israel. Today during his visit, the democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama walked on hallow grounds of Israel's Holocaust Memorial. While wearing a white skullcap, he laid a wreath in memory of the six million Jews who died and saying, "Ultimately, this is a place of hope."
What?? I had to analysis what this jackass just said. He equates the slaughter of six million Jews as a place for hope. Is this his pro-Hamas side coming out? Well, Obama flip-flop by telling at a AIPAC conference in Washington that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided"; then in 24 hours, Obama recanted his statement by saying, "Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties (Israel and Palestine) to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations." It makes one wonder of his sincerity and authenticity.
To be fair and unbiased, the transcript of Obamas quote stated: "So despite this record of monumental tragedy this ultimately is a place of hope because it reminds us of our obligations and responsibilities hopefully to raise a better future for our children and our grandchildren."
Please explain what the hell he said! The Holocaust was not a choice that the Jewish people intended to participate. It wasn't a voluntary act like joining the military. It was an immoral injustice to the human race. Obamas audacity to use his bumper slogan "hope" anywhere in his speech is uncalled for and disgusting. I don't think the Holocaust memorial is intended to reflect "hope" to raise a better future of the children of Israel; unless, Obama feels antipathy to the Jewish people.
This is almost as close to Obamas stupidity when he confuses Memorial Day with Veterans Day. Remember what he said on Memorial Day? He said, "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."
I wish the debates start really soon to get this all out in the open because I am getting nauseated every time Obama opens his mouth.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Current mood: tested
Category: News and Politics
It has been my talking point that no one knows who is the real Barack Obama. His journey on his "mystic magical mystery tour" to Iraq and Afghanistan with his merry band of delinquents has proven to be a propaganda photo opportunity. This leaves credence that one can question his authenticity and character.
It is character and judgement that truly define a person to lead this country. I have read the Federalist Papers, a series of essays that lead the foundation to the United States Constitution, and the one word that pop up often is the word "character." It doesn't matter what issues nor the political beliefs of the individual seeking the highest job of the land, but it is what that person was that determined his fitness for office. Not many will get to know all the policies and issues that Obama or McCain represents, but people will know the character of that person that will determine who will run this country.
I don't think our forefather really cared much where candidates stood on issues. I don't think they cared about if they spoke eloquently or boast their experiences. Look at every presidential campaign. Every campaign used the bumper slogan "change." Every campaign manager tries to mold their candidate to look competent, talk with experience, and demonstrate consistency. These tactics have been used for generations. It's good to have a candidate like Gerald Ford, as an example, who is competent, but without character, it can be a disaster, for instance, like Bill Clinton. When we talk about experience, there are many presidents having little or no experience entering into the White House, but it takes character to sustain them as they learn the ropes to become a great president. When we talk about consistency, it is almost synonymous to the word "character" of a person who is true.
As you can see, it is all about CHARACTER, stupid!
It brings me to this point. Remember that idiot General Wesley Clark making a crude comment about McCain POW experience not being a criterion to be commander in chief. That was a cheap shot. Even though, being in a POW camp may not necessarily be a credential to be president, but understand the character of John McCain. He has been tortured on a daily base. McCain was force to sign his guilt of his atrocities, but didn't. He suffered broken bones in many parts of his body. He didn't accept help from his father, who is a high-ranking admiral, to be release from Hanoi Hilton, but rather, McCain stayed with his troops. McCain didn't allow his men to give up life, but instead gave them hope. These are all examples of a character of a person. It has been with him since his childhood. It is the value learned that he was raised up to be. These are the qualities that you can trust. He will not waver or contradict himself. He will not abandon his principles nor his responsibility to the American people. These are the qualities that will make John McCain a great president.
This is a stark contrast to Barack Obama, who never had a real job besides a community organizer. Obama is a typical politician that represents the candidate of change, who changes so often that it has gotten old in a hurry. People! We are in a new environment post 9-11. The terrorist is our enemy. They have started a war with this country. Even after the successful conclusion from Iraq and Afghanistan, we will continue with this war for the foreseeable future. As a famous German military theorist once said, "War is a contest of character," I can see only one presidential candidate with that kind of indiscriminate character that this country needs. I can see only one candidate with the physical ability, determination, resolution, and moral courage to lead this country to liberty and prosperity. I can only see only one candidate who is a real man's man and in wartime, we cannot afford a person experience as a community organizer to be commander in chief. We as a country cannot afford anything less.
Therefore, I rather vote for a president with conviction like John McCain than Obama, who keeps redefining himself.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Current mood: groggy
Category: News and Politics
10. John McCain supports nuclear power while Barack Obama supports wind and sun energy. It is worth to note that it's not surprising that Obamas speeches are full of hot air.
9. Obama is willing to meet with hostile leaders of hostile nations of Iran, Venezuela, and Syria without preconditions. McCain, on the other hand, has no time dealing with losers.
8. While Obama made up his mind way before the surge began that it won't work and our military must withdraw from Iraq, he is figuring out how to assess the surge success while he is there. McCain was primarily responsible in demanding more troops in Iraq (the surge), which helped us in winning the war.
7. McCain has demonstrated that he can work across the isle (McCain-Lieberman Bill, McCain Kennedy Bill, McCain-Feingold Bill) to get the job done. Obama has a 94% Liberal voting record and is considered the most liberal Senator in Congress. Obama will not work with Republicans in passing clean legislation as demonstrated in supporting against drilling for oil.
6. Obama is out of touch with middle America by assuming their frustrations has cause many to "cling to their guns, and Bible." Because of that, Obama wants restrictive gun control. McCain, on the other hand, supports the Second Amendment.
5. Obama married a very angry lawyer who became proud of her country for the first time in her life and call's America a very mean country. McCain's wife is a beer heiress who has done humanitarian work all over the world. Did I mean she is a beer heiress? LOL.
4. Obama may not be as old as John McCain, but Obamas little experience and suspect intelligence makes him a liability. From stating that there are 57 states to stating that if President, Obama will be in constant touch with world leaders for the next 8 to 10 years, Obamas miscues make us wonder in his ability to lead this country. At least, McCain doesn't act like a babbling idiot without a Teleprompter as a guide.
3. McCain is endorsed by real men like Sylvester Stallone, Clint Eastwood, and the Terminator Arnold Schwarzenegger. On the flip side, Obama is supported by Oprah, Tom Hanks, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Susan Sarandon.
2. Obama supports higher tax for a government trying to run a nanny state because he wants to treat each American like babies. McCain trust the American people to be responsible for spending their less-taxed money however they wish.
1. Barack Obama spent 20 years sitting in the pews of his church while Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger bad-mouthed the United States of America, and still had the gall to tell the American people he didn't know that they acted that way. Meanwhile, John McCain spent five years being tortured in the Hanoi Hilton, in constant restraints, and refused help by his father, a high-ranking admiral, to walk out ahead of his fellow POWs. That is what I call a man with conviction.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Current mood: tested
Category: News and Politics
I just returned home from Arizona on a little "R&R" and I couldn't believe I actually came across some liberal idiots at a well-known bookstore in the heart on the campus of Arizona State University. I came across a couple college kids, must be taking summer class, sitting around having Starbucks coffee and talking about the war in Iraq. I guess they haven't been getting the news lately, or high on weed, but they are still talking that we shouldn't have gone to war over there.
In my amazement, they caught me smirking and cringing in utter disgust. One of the kids asked me, "Dude, you got to be a pro-war murderer?" I said you are blinded by your ignorance. I came over and gave them a history lesson that wasn't provided by their history professor.
I told them that the war in Iraq was a necessary war to get rid a dictator that was a menace to society. A dictator that harbored terrorists. A dictator that paid terrorist families who blew themselves up. A dictator that went to war against Iran. A dictator that invaded another country like Kuwait for their oil. A dictator that used WMD against his own people (Kurds). A dictator that starved his own people (UN's Oil for Food Scandal).
I needed to remind them that President Bush inherited a worrisome Iraq problem from Bill Clinton and from his own father. Saddam had systematically undermined the measures the U.N. Security Council put in place after the Gulf War to contain his regime. I also need to remind them twice that the war in Iraq started because Saddam Hussein violated the final ultimatum UN Security Council Resolution 1441. These kids had no idea that Saddam had to show the burden of proof that he got rid of his WMD in order that he can retain his power in Iraq. Since Saddam refused to disclose those information and block UN inspectors from doing their job, we had no other choice, but to lead a coalition and oust Saddam butt from power.
These kids said why didn't we give strict sanctions against Saddam or start a coup. I told them that sanctions against Saddam didn't work and provided them the "Oil for Food Scandal" example. I told them that US and British planes were being shot at on a daily base around the "no-fly" zone over northern and southern Iraq. Shooting our planes is not something that Pentagon wants to hear nor hostage taken if one of our planes got shot down.
But the most important defining moment is when Saddam refusing to cooperate and ignored the final ultimatum by the UN. Let's included that Saddam was a threat to the US interest before 9/11. He went to war against Iran and Kuwait and fired missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel. Saddam funded and harbored terrorists. He used WMD against Iran and the Kurds.
I did remind these college kids that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 because I knew that it was on the back of their minds. I told them that Bush goal was to take out as many different terrorist groups that had safe haven in Iraq. It was the Presidents job to prevent another attack by allowing the theater of battle to occur in Iraq than in the USA.
One kid said that we didn't do enough before we jumped the gun. I said that we didn't rush into war. By working with the UN, we have tried formal diplomatic censure, weapons' inspectors, economic sanctions, and endless resolutions, but that didn't stop Saddam from being defiant. Leaving Saddam in power was a greater risk because of his routine attacks on US and British planes over the "no-fly" zones, his perpetual goal to attain and amass WMD, his goal to take out Israel, and his continual desire to take over Kuwait.
Another kid talked about Saddam didn't have WMD, which was typical rhetoric provided by the MSM. My answer to that was something not reported in full detail by the MSM. After the fall of the Saddam regime, intelligence officials did find chemical and biological weapons' programs structured so that Iraq could produce stockpiles in three to five weeks. They also found that Saddam was intent on having a nuclear weapon. The CIA was wrong in saying just before the war that his nuclear program was active; but Iraq appears to have been in a position to make a nuclear weapon in less than a year if it purchased fissile material from a supplier such as North Korea.
Therefore, by knowing that Saddam had the intent to restart his nuclear ambition and having to endure a 9/11, the President was obligated in the best interest of the USA to take him out. Of course the chance for Saddam to attack the US is very slim, but deploying WMD against us via proxy such as one of many terrorist groups Saddam support is very likely.
The risk of leaving Saddam in power outweighed the risk of war is debatable. But one thing for certain, what would happen if everything occurred differently? In the 90's we experience five major acts of terrorism in the US and our interest abroad. To think to have a "nuclear happy" Saddam in power is unimaginable. Today, we haven't experienced a terrorist attack since 9/11. If we had a terrorist attack here in the US, I wonder what type of environment we would be in? As I told one of the kids, "this war was not a war of choice, but a war of necessity."
After making that comment, I just walked out of the bookstore without buying my White Chocolate Mocha Venti. Grr! LOL. I hope I made sense to these kids without confusing their ideological Liberal rhetoric.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Category: News and Politics
Barack Obama has come out for a government surveillance bill he once opposed. He's expressed support for funding religious programs with tax dollars. He reversed his stance on accepting public financing. He reversed his view of the D.C. gun ban. And he hinted that he will "refine" his position on Iraq, only to push back against himself this week and reiterate his Iraq withdrawal plan.
I am not saying this means his repositioning is wholly foolish. I am saying that his timing is foolish. He waited until it appeared politically expedient. Now, Obama is acting more of the centrist. But by coming this late in the process, his shift appears to be purely political.
I wonder what today's antiwar Democratics will say and how they will decide how much slack it can offer Obama when he returns from Iraq. I am curious what new flip-flop stance he will take after seeing the success of the surge.
Not giving any excuse, Obama would have been braver and honest if he shifted to the center on many of his issues months ago. His campaign is done with haste and ad lib. While we are trying to get to know who the real Barack Obama is, he keeps redefining himself, and that is being very deceitful and disingenuine.
The question is "Who is this new Mr. Obama?" If Liberal Democrats are unable to answer that, I guess Obama needs to commit and stop redefining himself. If they are unable to answer that question, Conservative Republicans will.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Category: News and Politics
Like Obama & many of his devoted followers claiming to be Patriotic, I call all of you hypocrite.
Teddy Roosevelt said it best:
"PATRIOTISM MEANS TO STAND BY THE COUNTRY. IT DOES NOT MEAN TO STAND BY THE PRESIDENT."
Therefore, to say you are Patriotic, you support what is good for this country. To be Patriotic, we must accept the militarys role in protecting the freedom and liberty here and our interest abroad. To define a game plan that we have no knowledge in making a valid judgement is wrong & ignorant.
As Abe Lincoln said:
"BETTER TO REMAIN SILENT AND BE THOUGHT A FOOL THAN TO SPEAK OUT AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT."
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Current mood: optimistic
Category: News and Politics
From a liberal publication, there is no doubt and nowhere to hide, Obama is in trouble.
Newsweek: Obama's Lead Slips
Posted by TOM BEVAN
Newsweek turned heads with a poll two weeks ago touting a massive 15-point lead for Obama. Their newest survey has heads turning in the other direction, showing Obama's lead dwindling to just 3 points over McCain:
Obama 44 (-7)
McCain 41 (+5)
Undecided 15 (+2)
In the Newsweek poll, Obama's support among Republicans and Democrats was basically unchanged, but his support among Independents dropped 14 points, to 34% from 48% two weeks ago.
McCain increased his support among Republicans by five points (to 83% from 78%) and among Independents by five points (to 41% from 36%).
Slicing the data by race and gender, Obama lost nine points among white voters (dropping from 45% to 36%) and nine points among women (dropping from 54% two weeks ago to 45% in the most recent poll).
Overall, Obama's lead in the RCP National Average is now 4.8%.
For a so-called messiah winning the Democrat nomination, Obama can only must a single digit lead over McCain. Obama is going to have his ass served on a silver plate. LOL
Friday, July 11, 2008
I believe that McCain will do well in getting many of the Democrat and Independent women voters, who once voted for Hillary Clinton. The best example is this past week when Obama and Hillary went out on the stump together. The main mission is to tell the people that funds are needed to help settle Hillary’s debt. Instead, Obama complete his rhetorical speech and stepped off the stage. Then, he immediately came back and hastily told the crowd that the campaign needs the peoples help to Hillary get out of her debt. Well, I really don’t know how one can rephrase that statement without looking like a fool and embarrassing Hillary. This is the type of man Obama made himself to be. He is a racist, bigot, and anti-feminist. This messiah of a man is going to help the women in America. Yeah, right!
Obama and McCain spoke to the same group of mostly women in western Wisconsin. Obama went after McCain saying, “McCain opposed a Senate measure to lengthen the time that workers have to file pay discrimination lawsuits.” This attack is expected because Obama doesn’t have a strong commitment on women’s issues.
McCain said that his plans to cut income, business and estate taxes would help women while Democrat Barack Obama's proposals would only erect new economic obstacles for them. McCain went in depth that his tax cut plans would be helpful to women because many of them own small businesses.
McCain said, “Yesterday in New York, Senator Obama went on at great length about how much he cares about women's issues," McCain said at a town-hall forum in Hudson, where women vastly outnumbered men. "I believe him. But when you cut through all the smooth rhetoric, Senator Obama's policies would make it harder for women to start new businesses, harder for women to create or find new jobs, harder for women to manage the family budget, and harder for women and their families to meet their tax burden."
In regards to challenge the accusations from Obama, McCain told the audience that he has a record of supporting equal pay for women from support of women in the military to all kinds of laws that provide employment to women. His reason to opposed the Senate bill to lengthen the time that workers have to file discrimination lawsuits is because he didn't want "open-ended litigation by trial lawyers."
We are starting to see a change in the environment during this election season. McCain is showing good signs that he can maintain the 25% of loyal Hillary voters, who hate Obama, and many Democrats and Independent women as well. It is too early to claim victory, but as long Obama keeps putting his foot in his mouth, McCain can be that dark horse no one expects to come out ahead.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Current mood: annoyed
Category: News and Politics
Another Barack Obama gaffe. Here, Obama is demonstrating his unpatriotic views about America. His arrogance and stupidity to state that we must learn another language because other countries are learning English is unfounded.
Doesn't he know that almost every school is teaching their students a wide range of languages like Spanish, French, German, and Italian? In the past few months, I have seen more advertisements on Rosetta Stone, the Worlds 1 Language Learning Software, on television. In face, I just came back from the mall and I saw a kiosk selling this particular software.
To say that he is embarrassed to call himself an American because we don't speak another language is another way he is showing his inexperience and ignorance about American way of life. Obama is an idiot to say that the only thing we know how to say is "Merci Beaucoup" when we travel aboard.
Obama statements are reckless and he is showing his true elitism that he is above the fray. I am getting sick listening to him talking down to us like we are low lives.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Current mood: surprised
Category: News and Politics
Thank you, America! You spoke up and you have weakened the No-Drill Congress to fold their idiotic stupidity. Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians have protested, blogged, and wrote to their respective Senator and Congressman to tell them there is a crisis. With the 9% approval rating, these self-absorbed politicians finally understand that their political career rest on the vital votes of the American people.
We have seen the other day that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pleaded to President Bush to release the oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to bring down the price of gas. Wow, how about that? She finally understood the term supply and demand. It is true that you can teach an old dog new tricks. LOL. Because the Democrats pressured Bush to reluctantly agreed to halt shipments of 70,000 barrels of oil a day into the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, the Democrats are now pleading to open them up to help lower the price of gas. It seems that the Democrats need to see it first hand that by stopping the stock pile of crude oil to these government reserves will not bring down the price of gas. Duh! We have tapped into these reserves at least three times in the past to stabilize oil markets and lower gas prices, but because of the Democrats' fool-hearty assumptions, they just screwed themselves to the wall. Because of limited supplies, to release these reserves will be a temporary band-aid. In the long term, the price of oil/gas will still remain high.
I'm glad to hear that the response from Bush is to repeatedly reject the use of oil from the government reserve, which is 97 percent full and currently holds about 702 million barrels of oil. The total reserves have enough to replace imports for two months. These reserves are intended to be use for a major disruption of oil supplies. Besides the three other times in the past when we had to tap into the emergency stockpile was due to the threatened or actual supply interruption like the global crisis before the Gulf War, hurricane Katrina/Rita, and during the extreme winter freeze in 2000.
The idea is not stressing to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, but to show Congress that there needs to be an influx of supply of oil to decrease the demand (price) at the gas pump. We are starting to see more and more Democrats caving into the hostilities of their constituents. Democrat Majority Whip Senator Dick Durbin says that he is open to drilling and responsible production. Even, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is in full support in these measures.
It is funny how Liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill can be so blinded at times. Harry Reid said not to long ago that oil, gas, and coals are making us physically sick and that alternative energy is the only way out. Then you have Nancy Pelosi saying that we cannot drill our way out from this oil crisis. Now the Liberals are saying that energy companies are producing oil and gas from only about a quarter of the 91.5 million acres currently leased from the government.
Well, wouldn't you think that if the US Government can guarantee that the land leased to private companies could produce oil, wouldn't these companies drill in these lands? This rhetoric is so old and is going too tiresome for the American people to tolerate.
With an unstable price of gas, I hope now that the Republican's effort in opening up new regions for explorations, which have been stymied by Democrats in the past, will push onward for the will of the American people.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Also, the no drill Democrats are the ones to be blamed on the sky rocket gas prices. They promised that they had a sure fire way to lower the gas price back in 2006 and look what happened? They lied through their teeth. Instead of lowering the price of gas, the price nearly doubled at the gas pump. The current national average of gas is $4.15/gallon. It was half that two years ago (National average $2.25/gallon in 2006). This is one of the main reasons they got 9% approval rating. So far, I haven't seen any legislation that supports any action to lower the price of gas and oil. Democrats want to increase the taxes on gas and allow the price to rise in order that we change our habits or dependence on gas. Can you imagine that idiotic solution? I don't think runaway gas prices will speed up production in alternative energy technology. We have been waiting for newer alternative energy for 20 years. So far, we have hybrid cars, carbon tax-credit ideology, and less than 10% ethanol used at the gas pump. If they haven't produced any viable alternative form of energy in 20 years, I hardly think we will see any type of alternative energy in the next 10 years.
So, for those die-hard Democrats, I wonder how you are going to defend this pathetic approval rating of this Democratic Congress? I am elated to know that I was right when I predicted years ago that this new Democrat Majority would be an utter failure.
I would like to ask a question to Democrats. By putting Obama as commander-in-chief, do you think we would be any better off? Honestly, I don't think so. With Congress with the lowest ever recorded approval rating and with Obama as president, we would see the Democrats’ approval rating dipping into the negative.
Highlights from the Rasmussen Polls:
The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent rating has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job.
Voters not affiliated with either party are the most critical of Congressional performance. Just 3% of those voters give Congress positive ratings.
The majority of voters (62%) say Congress has not passed any legislation to improve life in America.
Most voters (72%) think most members of Congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers.
Another survey found that 64% of voters also believe that the world would be a better place if more countries were similar to the United States.
Monday, July 7, 2008
"The Bill of Rights" for Dummies Current mood: exhausted Category: News and Politics
(This is an oldie, but a goodie. In fact, I post this email that was sent to me by an ultra-conservative friend years ago. I just want to revive this masterpiece to show how looney some Liberals can be. In addition, there are many Conservatives, especially in Congress, are forgetting their core values. I just want to remind those who have lost their way that they need to reevaluate their core Conservative value system because it seems today's society has gone too Liberal)
An Old one but, unfortunately the conditions exist
NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION
This is probably the best e-mail I've seen in a long, long time. The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President one day…
'We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.'
ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them , but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone — not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes .
ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care..
ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job.. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!)
ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from! (Lastly….)
ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!! GET OVER IT !!!
If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States speak out because if you do not , you know who will
Friday, July 4, 2008
Current mood: enlightened
Since September 2007, we lost a great opera male tenor Luciano Pavarotti. His voice will be ever ingrained in our memories. I thought there would never be another person like Pavarotti ever again until an English cell phone salesman auditioned in a British version of American Idol.
I brought chills down my spine and my eyes swelled with emotion. Could it be a reincarnation? You be the judge of it.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Current mood: mad
Category: News and Politics
Do you remember my past blog about my Jewish friend Caleb and his wonderful family? That time, it was having a great time celebrating Passover with his entire clan. I had the opportunity to talk politics with them and asked, "why are many Jewish people vote Democrats?"
Well, I spend a very pleasant dinner with them this past weekend. Again, after dinner, the women stayed in the kitchen while the men retired in the living room. This time we already knew who is the definite nominee from both Democrat and Republican party and I was already prepared to do some persuading.
The last time I was there I was able to open their minds that Jewish people didn't have to follow the stereotype manta that they had to vote Democrat. But during my second encounter, I was able to see the concern that Obama would be weak in protecting Israel and may see the end of Israel's sovereignty, which I personally see as possible. Okay, my purpose was to spread this seed that its okay to break away from the stereotype group and vote Republican. LOL.
They sat at first entertained and then some had to go onto the computer and click on the internet to see what I said was true. I told them that Obamas vision is to win the presidency at any cost. Whether by going to the center and contradict his initial ideology or pandering toward certain groups, Obama had certain complexity that is hard to avoid.
For instance, I had to remind the group of Obama associations with several friends who are anti-Semitic. There is a former spokesman and pro-Palestinian activist name Khalidi. Then we have the famous Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his "G.D." America slogan. To round out the three is Louis Farrakhan, a renown racist. All three did not sway Obamas opinion about them. In fact, since these three friends of Obama proved themselves to vilify Israel, Obama showed an appeased resignation and indifference.
Instead, Obama honored Khalidi at a dinner, even though the Palestinian activist remarked Israel was an apartheid state. Obama held onto Wright til the very end before he "threw him under a bus" because Wright said that Israel invented an "ethnic bomb," but Obama never renounces his Reverend. Then Obama ignored the plea from Jewish organizations to avoid attending the Million Man March with Farrakhan. Also, Obama took his sweet time to denounce his church for honoring Farrakhan. I also added that Obama flip-flopped his views about the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist organization. I proved to the group that what Obama recently supported that the Iranian National Guard is a terrorist group was said out of political expediency. I asked Caleb to Google the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, which classify the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist group, and tell the group how Obama voted. Well, Obama voted against the Amendment.
At this time, I was able to get Caleb and couple of his younger cousins, who are going to vote for the first time this November, to actually side with me. At least they have the internet close by to make sure that my facts were correct. LOL. Now, it is time to convince the elders in the room.
I gave them this scenario. I told them that there are many Jewish people who are not going to support Obama. The main reason is that the security of Israel is in a dire crisis. I told them that Obama has flip-flopped and brought himself to center to appease voters. How can anybody trust a politician, who changes his mind out of political expediency? I referred to Reverend Jeremiah Wright describing Obama as a typical politician saying stuff what politician usually says. I have to tell the older men in the room if they remembered what happened in 1973 and the close annihilation of Israel. For those who wondered what happened in 1973, it was Israel on the verge in facing extermination. Prime minister Golda Meir had miscalculated Anwar Sadat's willingness to go to war and decided against a first strike against Egypt. The Arab nations attacked in October 1973, and within days Israel was facing defeat. The US government at the time behaved like the government we have today. They procrastinated and wallowed in their decision making. It was Nixon all by himself that went against everybody, including a Democrat Congress, and gave military aid to Israel. That saved Israel, but ruined Nixon's ability to run the country.
I had to remind them that it was a Republican President that stood up and protected Israel from extermination. I said that if Obama became president what is the chance that Israel would face a threat unlike any in 35 years. Israel was unable to defeat Hezbullah in 2006. Then Iran is willing and threatening to pursue to nuke Israel. By adding Hamas into the mix, Israel may be pushing to the brink of existence. With a thin resume like Obama, I reminded the group what assurances can you muster that Obama will be good on his word? There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that he would go beyond persuasion when it came down to Israel's survival. In fact, if the Jewish people believe that what happened in 1973 is irrelevant in today's world, then it is possible that Iran is merely shouting words more than action, and Hezbullah and Hamas lacks in organization to counter a deadly strike or incompetent to threaten Israel's survival. And that this is all a hype and Israel will survive and move along indefinitely in life. My answer is, "yeah, right!"
My final say was, "what would Jewish people imagine a world without Israel?" What would be the outcome in picking an inexperience president like Obama to be there during the moment of peril for Israel? My guess is that he would falter. The risk is too great that when Israel needs help the most, Obama will buckle and Israel will be crushed. I told the group that I wasn't trying to scare them, but the fact is clear. There are threats to destroy Israel. This is not the time to test the theory out on a man that is not vetted.
By the time I was finished, I was able to get the group to think twice in voting for Obama. I asked them not to believe what I say, but look at his voting record and what he has said during the primaries and now. It is very revealing and downright scary. I said, "do not vote for him because of making history in electing a black president." I said that it is time that society is acceptable in electing a black president, but not Barack Obama.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Let’s look by example. When Jimmy Carter took office in 1977, the infancy of terrorism began when we accepted the disposal of the Shah of Iran and allowing a radical “nut-job” cleric to run the show. This was the first time when we were actually attacked. The US embassy in Tehran is on US soil and it was ambushed by radical students that took 52 US diplomats as hostage. It took 444 days to win their release and that was credited by the next president Ronald Reagan.
When Ronald Reagan replaced Jimmy Carter as President of the USA, Reagan had his brief moments when he clashed with terrorism. It was Reagan that warned future presidents that this cancer called terrorism needs to be eradicated. During Reagan’s Administration, we have witnessed a West Berlin discotheque, killing an American soldier and wounding 50 others. At that time, the terrorists were Libyan Nationalist. These foreign terrorists went on to bomb the Pan Am 103 airliner in December 1988, killing 288 Americans, British, and others.
How can we forget during Clinton’s Administration and the series of terror attacks here and our interest abroad? During his first term as president, the terrorist, al-Qaeda, attacked the first World Trade Center bombing. That was to test of the will of America. Because of the soap opera that Bill Clinton was going through, terrorism had a field day with us. Besides the 1st WTC bombing, do you remember the Khobar tower bombing, the US embassy bombing in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole? Well, these all occurred during Bill Clintons 2 terms in office.
After Clinton left office, the terrorist wanted to test the will of an unknown governor turned president named George W. Bush. The terrorist got more than they offered. After 9/11, and the anthrax scare, George W Bush gave it back to them in full force. Now, al-Qaeda and the Taliban are weakening, but not completely out. I think it is okay to say that the terrorist has lost their “mojo,” and you can thank Bush for his unrelenting pursuit against these vagabonds. By pressuring these terrorists toward extinction, the USA hasn’t seen a major attack since 9/11.
Now, this election season, we have two candidates. One has the military and the experience to continue the fight where Bush left off and defeat terrorism. The other has no military experience nor the “chutzpah” to take on an unconventional enemy. Also, let’s add that this individual will treat terrorism like a police investigation. If we elect Barack Obama, there will a time when his will would be challenged. It doesn’t matter if Hamas endorses him. It doesn’t matter if a well-known American terrorist, Bill Ayers, is a good friend. It doesn’t matter if the Supreme Court gave terrorist rights like American citizens. Either Obama will appease and allow these terrorist thugs run amuck or we stand idle as non-interventionist. I wouldn’t be surprise if the terrorist would make a secret deal with a President Obama by allowing terrorism run wild throughout the world in exchange that the US won’t be attacked.
Well, I will stick with McCain as he says, “I rather lose the election than to lose a war!” I would pick a war veteran like McCain, who has experience the ugly dealings with the enemy first hand. We haven’t had a war veteran with honors take the role as Commander-in-Chief since Dwight Eisenhower. I think it seems appropriate that we have a true experience war veteran take the reigns during these dire times we face.