Symposium: more foreign policy gaffes and political correctness gone wild

Todd Anthony and CodLiverOilGuy (CLOG) discuss yet another foreign policy gaffe from our Dear Leader; or is this yet another calculated scheme to neuter us? We also discuss America's role in the End Times.

Todd: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/07/ap-obama-to-delete-references-to-islamic-extremism-from-national-security-policy/

More foreign policy goodness from our Dear Leader…this is yet another example of DL’s 1.) incompetence; 2.) calculated, shrewd maneuvering to either neuter us or make us vulnerable, thus precipitating what I believe to be a move towards martial law.

CLOG: This is going to cost American lives, no doubt whatsoever. Our enemies are not PC and are spitting and laughing at our stupidity even now. We are helping their war effort and making it easier for them to kill us. By blurring the definition of our enemy, we build in automatic military hesitation. Their mission becomes fuzzier and it is harder for them to plan and execute effectively. By adding so much gray, they have to add extra contingencies, also diluting their effectiveness. Why have the best military in the world and then hobble it with PC stupidity?

Is it not amazing how much damage this one man can do? Yesterday he neutered our long standing and effective nuclear policy. Today he puts a hand of friendship out to people who have openly vowed to wipe us from the face of the earth, weakening the cause of liberty and justice in the world. Tomorrow what new havoc will be visited upon us by DL?

It is even more amazing that the electorate put him into power without considering the havoc his ideology can cause. As a nation we really have lost our mojo and our wisdom. We really all need to go back to the rural life where the consequences of each decision are carefully weighed since a wrong decision can cause great misery or even death for you or your family. By being so careless and so shallow (Keeping our gas tank full and our mortgage paid is really the end-goal of all of our lives? Really?) we have voted our doom into office and his name is Barack Obama. At this rate America will be a shell of its former self in only 1019 days. In a best case scenario we will have gas and a roof, but we will be enslaved by an all-consuming, intrusive government. In the worst case scenario there will be no gas and we will be starving in the cold. We made a bad decision and we will pay dearly for it.

Todd: And that question I have is: when will we (“we” being Americans, liberals, independents, etc.) STOP 1.) putting faith in humankind, as we did with THIS GUY; STOP 2.) believing that soothing words will assuage tyrants, madmen, and murderers.

I seethe at the hubris of this man…who does he think he has that he can play LITERALLY with the safety and welfare of the American populace.

CLOG: Ever since the Fall, humanity has been self-centered. We want to determine our own destiny and be our own god. Every person is born this way. In order to be a god, you have to believe in your own innate goodness (or rightness) and have to believe that others are basically good too. The self-centeredness is a fatal flaw in that you are not looking at yourself or others realistically; your self-centeredness demands you ignore your self-centeredness since it is a flaw and gods do not have flaws. So almost everyone works under some form of this delusion. Marxism takes the delusion and applies it to government, that .gov will make everything OK; we just have to follow obediently. Humans always have to believe in a leader. Realistic humans (Christians) realize that our ultimate leader is GOD. Everyone gets stuck at the leader and so have no choice but to believe in them and hope everything will turn out OK in their lifetime. My mother is completely stuck in this rut and no amount of facts will dislodge her because she has no other place to go to place her belief.

Tyrants are very aware of the human need for a leader and that most of the population wants desperately to believe in them. So they clean up their act and appear to be benevolent to stoke everyone’s belief. Once in power, the picture changes dramatically, but then people are stuck and will remain believing even in the face of great suffering or evidence of heinous crimes. Nazi Germany is a prime example.

Most people do not want to admit their faults and even fewer their sins and fewer still become humble before God and serve Him. Jesus taught the latter path and it is the very hardest for humans to follow, hence the narrow gate analogy He used. It is only as each INDIVIDUAL is transformed, that any society has any chance. Socializing transformation corrupts those doing the socialization and impoverishes or even destroys the general population since there is no way to attain ‘equality’ or ‘social justice’ for everyone using this path.

Until the population is 100% Christian (another 1000 plus years at least), people will continue to try to rule using human nature and cause continued grief and destruction. In the meantime, after every destruction and desolation caused by tyranny, we have to institute education to make the young aware of the failed paths from history and more importantly why they failed so they do not make the same mistake. As a society, around the globe, we mostly fail at this task and continue to make the same mistakes over and over and over.

Liberals will never stop trying to transform society via socialization because they believe they have the answer and they will not deviate from their faith. Humanism is a religion that denies being a religion. After the coming great destruction of our society and way of life, I hope we can teach our young the dangers of this thought pattern. So far we have been doing the opposite and our society is crumbling but those doing the crumbling ignore the havoc they wreak and live in their ideological towers, towers that cannot be touched by misery, the wailing of children, or even death itself.

As to your later email comment about how Christians can also be liberals (in fact they are the majority of the Christian community IMO), I think they confuse faith in socialism with faith in God. Much of the socialistic message is about justice for the down-trodden and certainly Jesus was an advocate for the poor and dispossessed. I think they get caught up in the programs to help the poor and doing good works, thinking they are working toward the same ends as Jesus, and do not study the heart of the Gospel or Jesus message that repentance is key and all else is secondary or even meaningless. Without forswearing self-centeredness, nothing real can be achieved. As liberalism has grown in our society, the social message has become prime, burying the gospel message, and people lap it up because it is an easy path to follow and doesn’t require you to give up your self-centeredness. I think the narrow gate is mostly ignored by liberal Christians.

Todd: But how long will we continue to fall for this idiotic, liberal way of reacting to tyrants; when we will ever learn? How many Neville Chamberlain moments does this world require before we finally realize that EVIL PEOPLE exist, and that by pandering to said evil people, they only take advantage of us (at best)?

CLOG: We will always fall into the same trap. Though we record and even study history, we NEVER (maybe I’ll grant a seldom here since there may have been one society that learned somewhere in time) learn from it. History is dully repetitive on this point. Humans are incredibly stubborn in wanting to cling to their self-centeredness and the sin and evil overcome the societies – always. It is an eternal cycle and demonstrates conclusively the brokenness of our nature. Of course, most won’t admit that and so the cycle repeats.

This is why Jesus has to return. At one coming point in history (soon, I hope), this behavior will lead to the complete destruction of the planet and our extinction if He does not step in. We will cling to our selfishness even at the cost of our entire species.

We are a stupid, stupid people.

Todd: “This is why Jesus has to return. At one coming point in history (soon, I hope), this behavior will lead to the complete destruction of the planet and our extinction if He does not step in. We will cling to our selfishness even at the cost of our entire species. ”

After reading an article where BO is basically telling Israel the terms of a peace plan (what they CAN and CANNOT accept), I wonder if the above scenario could be hastened by something our DL would precipitate (oh I don’t know…invasion perhaps?)…

CLOG: Oh, DL is playing his role, all right. One glaring omission from Bible prophecy is any mention of the USA. We do not play a significant role in the End Times. Many authors say this can’t be so and contort the Bible to fit us in but I don’t buy it. We aren’t there more than likely because we have declined from superpower status and are no longer a major player on the world stage. DL’s actions are hastening our demise and when our stabilizing influence is lost on the world as we collapse, that is when (IMO) major wars and destabilizations break out. As you suggest, this will probably begin with Israel and Iran and DL’s pressures will insure that Israel will probably have to go it alone, may botch the attack, and then all of her Muslim neighbors will have the perfect excuse to attack her. They certainly have nothing to fear from Obama who has hinted his support of Muslim aims and no love lost with Israel.

As far as history rewriting, the victor always rewrites history to make themselves look good. Much of history is completely lost too due to book burnings and looting and such.

Symposium topic: Obama's neutering of America

Todd and CodLiverOilGuy (CLOG) discuss the Obama's latest foreign policy maneuvers: declaring that the United States would not retaliate against a nation from where a chemical or biological was initiated, as well as Obama's decision to reduce our missile stockpile.

Todd: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/06/wh-tacitly-accepts-missile-defense-limits-of-russians-on-start/

I wonder; can this guy do ANYTHING right on foreign policy? It’s one concession after another; yet another emasculation…

This HAS to be a concerted effort to neuter us, don’t you think?

Furthermore, this is par for the course with this guy…just yesterday, the White House basically states that we won’t retaliate in the event of a chemical or biological attack. Why don’t we just 1.) tell the terrorists that we give up; 2.) hand our b*lls to them right now?

CLOG:

The redefining of our nuclear policy has me furious. You said it 100% about handing our sack over to our enemies and surrendering. Much of the deterrent power of nuclear weapons is never knowing what it will take to have one launched against you so you do little or nothing to risk it. The system is proven and works fantastically. Now DL wants to scrap that and DEFINE when we will use them and that in some situations we probably will NOT use them. Talk about setting us up for a terrorist attack.

This has to be a well-thought out move on DL’s part. I cannot see anyone being this stupid. Our military must have gone apoplectic upon hearing this. Does this border on treason? It’s one thing to leave our southern border unguarded and letting illegals flow back and forth. It is quite another to let our guard down and open us up to a chem or bio attack. This is absolutely irresponsible.

As to START, it’s more of the same. Why are we giving the Ruskies an advantage after decades of research and billions invested in our nuclear arsenal? We cannot change the FACT that we live in a nuclear armed world and we must do EVERYTHING we can to make sure these weapons are never used in anger. By backing down, DL is INCREASING the chances of their use. It is 1020 days until this clown is gone. By his irresponsible actions, we might see one or more major terror events on our soil before then and we can place the blame squarely on his shoulders as the result of these poor decisions.

Todd: Exactly; you said it…here’s what we can glean from this man’s actions:

He thinks that because, in his mind, he’s smarter than George Bush, he’s going to be able to assuage our enemies with soothing words.
He thinks that, because he is now president, our enemies no longer hate us.

THUS, he’s essentially left us open to an emboldened jihadist, as well as a more brazen Russia and China. MOREVER, our allies presumably doubt whether they can count on us. I absolutely believe this is a calculated maneuver on Dear Leader’s part. He’s doing this intentionally, in a long series of moves to strip us of our superpower status.

And this is just on the foreign policy front; he’s neutering, or at best, making us irrelevant, right before our very eyes. His goal is to make us ordinary, on the world stage. While many people are having eye-opening experiences because of this man’s plots, many more still drink the O-ADE and cling to the “HopenChange” bullshit.

I’ve said this several times, but if we’re attacked, I absolutely think DL and the Acolytes need to be held legally accountable (as you mentioned: TREASON).

From Hot Air:

“Put simply, this is a big non-sequitur, a fixing of what wasn’t broken in the first place, much like the Obama focus on the START treaty over real threats like Iran and North Korea. It’s almost literally a move from left field, playing on the progressive turf in a game that no one else bothered to play. Only a Leftist would do this thinking it was a move to the middle, and it shows just how out of touch this administration is with the mainstream of American thought.”

It’s not just being “out-of-touch,” it’s being intentionally negligent when it comes to our national defense.

CLOG: < the O-ADE > I like this phrase. I might be borrowing it in the future.

I agree with you, the HA author is being too nice. These are calculated political moves to weaken our country and somehow by becoming weaker we are now more ‘equal’ and the world will love us. That is just royal BS and no such thing will happen. As soon as we show weakness, we will be stomped on. The world is jealous of our EARNED superpower status (again, DL thinks that status was not obtained legitimately but on the backs of the poor) and they will use any opportunity to bring us down. Neville Chamberlain is currently remembered as the biggest appeaser in history. I wonder if he will be replaced by DL because of his actions.

Also note that in addition to crippling us on the foreign affairs stage, he will next be crippling us with crap and poop. If he cannot get the bill through Congress, he may bypass them, and use the EPA’s regulatory powers to begin imposing CO2 controls on our energy providers, driving prices through the roof. Again, the exact wrong thing to do in the early days of GD2. I swear he is trying to institute the feudal system in America. We threw one royal off our shores that tried this in the Revolutionary War? Has another crept into the WH and we have to do it once more?

Todd: Guy, that’s exactly point…we’ve been there, done that (see: Revolutionary War), not we’re anxious to re-institute another tyranny? What the hell has happened to this country? I can tell you actually: 50% of its citizens are fat and jiggly and are content with the rest of us footing THEIR bill, so they can collect welfare and watch satellite TV.

As for “crap and poop,” while that would be another completely depressing piece of legislation, I would think that would be easier to repeal than Health Care, especially if the EPA circumvents Congress and merely enacts by FIAT.

“Has another crept into the WH and we have to do it once more?”

I’m absolutely convinced this is the case…this is all intentional, criminal neglect on his part; he’s setting us up for an attack, economic crisis, etc, so he can declare martial law.

Todd: <50% of its citizens are fat and jiggly and are content with the rest of us footing THEIR bill, so they can collect welfare and watch satellite TV.> LOL. You paint a GREAT picture here but one that is unfortunately very true. It is also interesting that the most obesity in this country can be found in its poorest states. In the past this would have been a source of great shame but no longer. America has lowered the bar and no longer asks her citizens to be responsible or bear their fair share. Uncle Sugar indeed has corrupted all too many with easy money and soothing words…and, of course, 200 channels of hi-def TV!

I agree that regulations can be repealed easier than HC but they can still do an immense amount of damage over the next 3 years. Way too many segments of our economy are not healthy and cannot afford these higher costs. It is all the more a bitter brew to drink because GW is a complete sham.

I agree that DL may be angling for martial law, provoking the citizenry to extremes so he can shut down what is left of our democratic process. He is playing with fire though. There are too many Americans that will not roll over and once he has made his move, they will make theirs. I do not believe DL has LEO or military support (at least long term), though I wonder if he will try to work around this by asking for UN troops. I hope and pray those desperate times and measures ever occur.

How about we prosecute Leftist politicians for failing to protect American lives?

Only in the current political climate could jackass liberal Congressman, see Pat Leahy, Dennis Kucinich, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc., ponder bringing criminal charges against former Bush administration officials on trumped torture charges.

Only now, with a near unsurmountable liberal majority in Congress, enabled by the most liberal President in the history of the United States, could we actually return to a pre-9/11, Clinton-like mindset.

According to Mackubin Owens of the National Review:

What makes the Leahy-Whitehouse show trials most appalling -- and hypocritical -- is that Congress was briefed on the enhanced interrogation methods in September 2002. At the time, according to the Washington Post, members of Congress from both parties -- including current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi -- wanted to ensure that the interrogations were tough enough to get the necessary intelligence from the captured terrorists. As the Post reported, "there was no objecting, no hand-wringing," and according to a U.S. official present during the briefings, "the attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.'" But of course, according to a source looking back on that period, "the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic."

What's further disgusting is that so many of these jackass Congressman, as Owens states in the article, KNEW AND APPROVED of these tactics, as long as it prevented further American deaths. Now, as the specter of 9/11 slowly fades away, we've come full-circle; we're returned to a pre-9/11 mentality.

In this writer's opinion, with the aforementioned return, and nauseating naivety our president and the Left has displayed, it's not a question of IF, but WHEN we'll be attacked by terrorists, er, "man-made disaster" causers, as another Leftist Obama-appointed flunkie, in this case Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, is wont to refer.

I propose that instead of prosecuting the Bush administration for war-crimes (how is that possible when an enemy 1.) doesn't fight for a country that signed the Geneva Convention, 2.) attacks civilians.?), when we're attacked by Al Qaeda again, we prosecute these jackass Congressman for not doing all they could to protect American citizens, but instead, were more willing to pander to jackass far-Left anti-war groups?

Nauseating Naivity

Is anyone else not just disturbed but physically sickened by the latest "apologies" from Barry Obama?

Mere hours after North Korea once again violates UN sanctions by launching a missile, our president states that he wants to not only reduce nuclear arms around the world, but that he wants to cut missile defense, the very defense that would protect us from a North Korean, or Iranian missile, for that matter.

What sort of message does this sound to those who wish to do Americans harm? It hearkens back to the Bill Clinton administration, where our country, people, and interests were assault constantly by those who knew that we lacked the stones to mount a formidable response.

It's in Obama's mind that our best response to rogue regimes and terrorism is dialogue, conciliation, and compromise. Unbelievable naivety.

One thing that always makes me chuckle about liberals is their collective lack of long-term memory. In their minds, George W. Bush CAUSED terrorism, but yet they fail to remember that his predecessor, the aforementioned Clinton, left a national security disaster at the feet of W., including, but not limited to, 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings, first World Trade Center bombing, feeble attempts to apprehend Osama bin Laden, Khober Towers attack, the U.S. Cole, etc.

And to add insult to injury, Obama has the unmitigated gall to state that not only does he want to return to the golden age of American-Muslim relations (of a time, 20-30 years ago) but that under Bush, our nation has been at war with Islam.

My god, the naivety of this man.

Does Barry Obama forget that we liberated two Islamic nations from two repressive regimes that did not allow basic human rights? Has he forgotten the billions in AIDS relief to African nations, many of which are predominantly Muslim? Has he forgotten the billions that went to Indonesia (a Muslim country) after the 2004 tsunami?

Yet in this man's mind, we should apologize for defending ourselves against militant Islam.

Unbelievable.

Andrew McCarthy of the National Review sums this naive thinking best:

"There is nothing less civilized than rewarding evil and thus guaranteeing more of it. High-minded as it is commonly made to sound, it is not civilized to appease evil, to treat it with “dignity and respect,” to rationalize its root causes, to equivocate about whether evil really is evil, and, when all else fails, to ignore it — to purge the very mention of its name — in the vain hope that it will just go away. Evil doesn’t do nuance. It finds you, it tests you, and you either fight it or you’re part of the problem."

If this man continues this dangerous course, we'll be back to square one, then ultimately looking again for a "unilateralist cowboy."

Obama: Truth equals Smears

We've heard this refrain from Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama on more than one occasion. According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Obama stated that Republican nominee John McCain is "gambling that he can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance. They'd rather try to tear our campaign down than lift this country up. It's what you do when you're out of touch, out of ideas, and running out of time."

When the Republicans uncover potentially damaging information pertaning to the "Chosen One," the Obama camp instantly cries "smear" or "racist." We've heard it previously from Obama and his minions. Any effort to expose Obama for the socialist radical that he is, is met with either threats of litigation or baseless accusations.

Nor does it help when the overwhelmingly libeal Mainstream Media propagates the notion that attacks on Obama are racially-tinged. Yet, they're trying their DAMNEDEST to ensure that the American public doesn't learn who the real Obama is before the election. Carol Platt Liebau states the following (in a "what John McCain SHOULD be saying about Obama" treatise):

Barack Obama has multiple ties to those responsible for the present economic crisis?:

Franklin Raines, the immediate past CEO of Fannie Mae – who has collected a $90 million golden parachute while driving Fannie into the ground – has advised Obama on housing issues.

Jim Johnson, yet another former Fannie Mae CEO, resigned from Obama’s vice presidential search team when it was revealed he had received a sweetheart home mortgage deal.

Despite serving in the Senate for only four years, Obama himself has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac largesse in the entire Congress, ahead even of former presidential candidate John Kerry, who’s spent two decades in the Senate?

Obama’s long-time political ally, radical group ACORN, played a key role in pressuring banks to offer loans to those who were unlikely to be able to pay them back. ACORN has taken credit for pressuring banks to accept undocumented income as a basis for offering loans, for offering loans without using credit scores, and for making 100% financed loans available to low-income people.

There is more, of course. Do voters know:

That, in apparent defiance of federal election law, the Obama campaign refuses to identify individual donors who have provided almost half the funds for his campaign, including obvious fakes like “Mr. Good Will” and “Mr. Doodad Pro”? And that 11,500 donations to his campaign – totaling almost $34 million – may have come from overseas? Or that two Palestinians living in a Hamas-controlled refugee camp spent $31,300 in Obama’s online store? Who are all these people, and why won’t the Obama campaign obey the law and identify them?

Repeatedly, we’ve heard the media denounce the “rumors” about Barack Obama that are, supposedly, circulated on the internet exclusively by the bigoted and the ignorant.

Yet, as Liebau states above, the mainstream media, in an effort to defend ITS candidate, has proffered the notion that any accusations are based on race and hatred. Notice what they did when fellow Democrats raised legitimate points about Obama's lack of experience, voting record, political affiliations, etc.

He did it with both Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as Geraldine Ferraro. It's an easy game to play if you're a minority. Furthermore, Obama has on occasion, warned voters that Republicans are so narrow-minded that they "will try to make voters afraid of him, and suggested they would use his race to scare up votes for John McCain.

Yep, it's all about race in this country. Rather than speak freely of someone's LACK of qualifications, we're forced to play nice in order to NOT offend someone. Obama KNOWS this; he knows that if someone brings forth a legitimate claim against him, because he's black, he can employ the race card.

Liberal Star-Tribune states that no verbal gaffes occurred in last night's VP debate; I beg to differ

According to the liberal Minneapolis Star Tribune, last night's debate between vice presidential candidates Sarah Palin and Joe Biden was polite, pointed, and contained no verbal gaffes.

Really?

According to Townhall's Amanda Carpenter, who cites Republican candidate John's McCain's bloggist, Biden lied FOURTEEN times.

Note the following:

On the foreign policy front, Biden challenged Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin when she said Barack Obama’s pledge to meet with any foreign leaders, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, without precondition “goes beyond naivete and goes beyond poor judgment.”

Biden lectured Palin, “That's just simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad.” During the YouTube Democratic primary debate last July Obama was asked if he would meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea without “precondition” during his first year in office.

“I would,” he replied.

Biden appeared to attack Obama for making that very statement in August 2007. While Biden was challenging Obama for the Democratic nomination for president Biden said he would not support such a pledge. “Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected president?” he said in an appearance at the National Press Club. “Absolutely positively no."

Five of the lies Biden told were related to tax and energy votes. During the debate Biden adamantly claimed McCain voted the same way as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama did on a vote to raise taxes on those making $42,000 a year. The legislative record shows McCain was not present in the Senate for either of those votes and is recorded as “not voting.”

The RNC also takes issue with Biden’s assessment Palin supports a “windfall profits tax” and Biden’s claim McCain voted against alternative energy 23 times. The independent Factcheck.org has previously stated when Obama and other Democrats made similar charges about the 23 votes “they’re overstating the case.”

The other lies detailed by Goldfarb were related to Biden’s characterization of McCain’s healthcare plan, stances on bank deregulation and the $700 billion financial bailout that recently passed the Senate.

Yet, we're not going to hear that from the Mainstream Media, are we?

Why would we? From a corrupt group that has refused to report on any of Obama's shortcomings, whether its his associations with Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers, or his gangland-like tactics in Missouri, Virginia and Chicago to usurp our First Amendment rights, or his daily verbal gaffes on the economy, terrorism, and foreign reports, we're saturated with endless glowing reports of their "Chosen One" at every turn.

Liberal Lies: Bush created terrorism

In this edition of "Liberal Lies" I examine the Leftist notion that President George W. Bush CREATED terrorism in his tenure.

Often, sensible Americans hear liberals repeat the same tired Daily Kos-like talking points: Bush is a war criminal, the Iraq War is illegal, Bush created terrorism etc. While NONE of the three are true, I shall refute the idea that Bush created Islamic terrorism.

One of the hallmark of Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama's "change rhetoric" is his pledge, if elected president, to restore America's standing around the global.

Did anyone else just throw up in his or her mouth? What a joke.

First of all, does anyone give a rat's ass what the pretentious socialists in Europe think? Second, world "opinion" is convuleted and warped by messages from sham institutions like the United Nations that it matters NOT what we do; world opinion will not change.

Obama's "pledge" is typical of the "Blame America" crowd. Regardless of the futility and lack of action committed by DEMOCRATIC presidents, it all comes back to the Left's collective, conflagrative hatred of all things George Bush. Furthermore, Obama's message is shameful pandering at its best, and its worst; guess who suffers in the end?

That's right, you and me.

Does anyone remember an eight period during the 1990's called the Clinton Administration? If so, do you remember what transpired during that time period?

If not, let me refresh your memory:

1. 2000 USS Cole bombing
2. Khobar Towers
3. US Embassies bombed in Kenya and Tanzania
4. 1993 World Trade Center attack

National Review's Byron York states, "When it comes to Bill Clinton’s record on terrorism, there’s no need to invent fictional scenarios to show how ineffective he was; the truth is bad enough. "

York's report is fascinating in that he notes that terrorists were essentially given carte blanche to attack us at will. Due to misguided efforts to label terrorism as a law enforcement issue (note that Obama is now doing the same thing), Clinton essentially created a barrier between the FBI and the CIA, the same barrier that allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur.

"From the start, Clinton approached the investigation as a law-enforcement issue. In doing so, he effectively cut out some of the government’s most important intelligence agencies. For example, the evidence gathered by FBI agents and prosecutors came under the protection of laws mandating grand-jury secrecy — which meant that the law-enforcement side of the investigation could not tell the intelligence side of the investigation what was going on. 'Nobody outside the prosecutorial team and maybe the FBI had access,' says James Woolsey, who was CIA director at the time. 'It was all under grand-jury secrecy.'"

According to the Department of Justice, Clinton was offered Al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden on THREE separate occasions, but turned them down.

"The main reasons were legal: there was no evidence that could be brought against Bin Laden in an American court. But former senior intelligence sources accuse the administration of a lack of commitment to the fight against terrorism."

And look what happened: the Bush Administration was left holding the bag on September 11th, 2001, when an Al Qaeda attacked destroyed the World Trade Center, parts of the Pentagon, and brought down a jetliner in Pennsylvania.

Note the following "legacy" of Clinton's regarding the very real war on terror:

1993- A humanitarian operation in Somalia is transformed into a military strike, where Clinton refuses to authorize the availability of armor for proper support. When the ill-supported operation leads to American casualties, Clinton overrides military requests and refuses to allow a properly outfitted military counter-strike. Within a few months, he withdraws American forces, sending the message that a "bloody nose" is the only thing necessary for the United States to back down.

1995-1996 - Clinton institutes "Citizenship USA" which pressures the US Department of Justice's Immigration and Naturalization Service to naturalize some 1,000,000 new immigrants, even though many had incomplete background checks. This allowed for criminals and terrorists to enter America. Whistleblowers to these activities and the large scale selling of Green Cards, were physically threatened and terminated.

August 20, 1998 - The Clinton Administration demonstrates a perfunctory response toward terrorism after the assault on two U.S. embassies in Africa. On Aug. 7, 1998. The U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, were bombed by terrorists, leaving 258 people dead and more than 5,000 injured. Some 1,000 were permanently blinded by flying glass.

The U.S. Launches cruise missiles, striking an empty terrorism training complex in Afghanistan and destroying a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in Khartoum, Sudan. Both targets were claimed to have been financed by Osama bin Laden, but many feel that the ill-planned strike was simply done to deflect legal problems President Clinton was having with Monica Lewinsky.

The Afghanistan training facility attack fails to get Bin Laden because the Clinton Administration gives Pakistani Intelligence prior notice of their intentions. Pakistani Intelligence had long been known to have elements sympathetic to Al Quaida. They proceeded to give Bin Laden warning and he escaped. There was no follow-up and Bin Laden was again buoyed by our meek approach to the growing terrorist menace.

1999 - The Clinton Administration decides to show the Islamic world that America is more than willing to kill European Christians to court their favor. He provokes war on the Serbs, our only historic friend in the European Balkans. Clinton gives the Serbs the choice of either accepting The Ramboouillet Accords... or being destroyed from the air. He supports the Islamist, Al Qaeda allied Kosovo Liberation Army (responsible for running the drug and prostitution trade in Europe). He authorizes the bombing of Serb civilian targets such as bridges, hospitals and heating plants, which leads to the death of over 5,000 Serb civilians. This action sets the stage for creating a radical Islamic base in the "belly" of Europe.

October 12, 2000 - Terrorism strikes and almost sinks the Destroyer USS Cole in Yemen. President Bill Clinton does nothing. Reinforces the perception that the United States lacks the will to either defend itself or battle terrorism in spite of considerable loss of life. There was no follow-up.

Two relevant points exist: Clinton did NOTHING to squelch this threat during his administration, and Al Qaeda had begun planning for this operation years prior, DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.

Compare the aforementioned terror attacks during the Clinton Administration to that under the Bush Administration. That's right; none have occurred. In fact, we're fighting terrorists in other parts of the globe rather than here on American soil. In fact, if the Iraq War did anything, it allowed terrorists to come out of hiding and expose them.

The problem with Clinton was that, like so many naive liberals, the issue of terrorism could be resolved through dialogue. Furthermore, terrorist were emboldened due to the lack of effective retaliatory measures employed on our part. They knew that if they attacked us, we might talk a good game, but we eventually mete out half-assed justice.

Say what you will about President Bush; we have not incurred a terrorist attack under his watch. Despite the Left's objections to the Patriot Act, waterboarding, or other such hot button issues, they've worked.

Democrats and their special interests: A relevant argument

Here in liberal Minnesota, we're bombarded with an endless string of Norm Coleman and Stuart Smalley, er, Al Franken attacks ads, especially the ones whereby Smalley, er, Franken castigates Coleman for accepting money for "big oil."

Yawn. Big deal.

Here's one thing you have to love about Democrats. They know how to push our buttons. Because of the global warming lie and the subsequent mistruth that 1.) the resultant gasoline is polluting our skies and causing global warming; 2.) big oil is engaging in price gouging and raking in "record profits."

What they hope is that mass public will simply their insane notions at face-value, without engaging in any exculpatory investigation. If the public would peruse the sites of anything BUT the Mainstream Media (including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post), they might realize that a good deal of contrarian information exists.

For example, according to John Hawkins, did you know that for every $1 spent by "Big Oil," they recoup $.08?

Unsurprisingly, given the outrageously high cost of gas and the Left's penchant for pointing the fickle finger of blame at big corporations, we've heard a lot about how big oil is gouging consumers.

However, when you take a look at the actual numbers in California, for example, you find that the "Distribution Costs, Marketing Costs and Profits" for the oil companies make up only 8 cents per gallon of gas.

That doesn't sound like gouging, does it? But if you believe it does, what would you say about the 70 cents per gallon in taxes that's paid by California consumers? Additionally, as Karl Rove has pointed out,

(Oil companies) make about 8.3 cents in gross profit per dollar of sales....Electronics make 14.5 cents per dollar and computer equipment makers take in 13.7 cents per dollar, according to the Census Bureau. Microsoft's margin is 27.5 cents per dollar of sales.

Sure, these oil companies are huge and therefore, even an 8.3% profit adds up to billions of dollars, but when you look at the relatively small percentage that they're putting in their pockets as compared to the humongous share that the government is raking in, it's pretty clear that it's the government, not the oil companies, that is gouging consumers.

Of course Democrats don't want you to know that. Instead they'd rather throw a number in your face, for example $1 billion in profits; well, 1.) "Big Oil" is arguably the biggest industry in the world; 2.) those "billions in profits" are going towards Average Joe's 401k or pension, it's not merely going to Texas Tycoon.

Now we're hearing that Republican-enabled greed fueled the potential economic calamity, greed perpetuated by Wall Street during the Bush Adminstration.

Here we go again.

Much has been written about the Carter and Clinton Administrations' efforts to put minorities into homes (see: Community Reinvestment Act of 1977). What it did essentially was force mortgage lenders to overlook shady credit histories and low incomes in order to make minorities homeowners. In fact, it was "community activists" such as Barry Obama, in efforts to "assuage" banks, threatened to label those who financial institutions who adhered to strict lending standards, RACIST.

Furthermore, under the "special interests" banner, note the following from Townhall's Terry Paulson:

What was our champion of change and hope doing about the problem? Nothing! Records from the Federal Election Commission reveal a possible reason for Obama’s silence. In his three complete years in the Senate, he’s the second largest recipient of Freddie-and--Fannie-connected campaign contributions. It took Sen. Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate banking committee, eleven years to receive $165,400 in contributions from GSE PACs and individuals. Obama received $126,349 in just three years.

And now these same hypocritical sons of bitches are pinning the cost of this damn $700 billion bailout on homeowners who bought homes the RIGHT way: through hard work, saving money, sensibility, and good faith.

Liberal Lies: The Housing Crisis

In this installment of "Liberal Lies," the Twin Cities Conservative examines the notion that the housing crisis was resultant of Wall Street, poor decisions from the Republicans, and was set in motion during the Bush Administration.

EHHHHH (buzzer sound)...wrong answer.

Now we're hearing, from self-righteous SOB's like Senator Chris Dodd (D-CO), that the housing crisis was preventable and occurred under President George Bush's watch.

EHHHHH (buzzer sound)...wrong answer

Syndicated Cal Thomas, in his article in today's online Townhall.com, states, "It was pressure from the Carter and Clinton administrations that forced Fannie and Freddie to grant more high-risk loans to people who otherwise would never qualify."

Furthermore, Thomas adds:

"Democrats would love to blame the Bush administration for a disaster they mostly helped to create. But, according to the White House, as early as April 2001, the administration warned that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was 'a potential problem," because 'financial trouble of a large (government-sponsored enterprise) could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity.' As recently as June of this year, President Bush asked Congress to take the necessary measures to address growing foreclosures. 'We need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,' he said. In July, Congress passed reform legislation, but it was too late."

Further compounding the problem is Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama and his colleagues in the United States' role in helping create the subprime mess. It was Obama's role as a lawyer within the "left-of-center" Public Research Interest Group, which ultimately forced banks to provide loans to minorities under the threat of racism.

Ultimately, it was Obama and a Democratic Congress that created laws and regulations, which planted the seeds of the subprime housing industry. Columnist Jerry Bowyer states:

"Obama spent his pre-elected career working right in the middle of the complex of law firms and activist groups which use law and regulations to push banks into vastly increasing their lending to Subprime borrowers right in the middle of the golden age of the expansion of the Subprime industry. "

Finally, there was the role of community organizations and civil rights law firms that, according to columnist Bowyer, threatened to cry "racism" if banks did not lend to minorities:

"(T)here simply was no such thing as a developed Subprime mortgage industry until the US congress created it by ordering banks to issue loans to people who were not credit worthy. Community activist groups (such as the Public Interest Research Group and Acorn) and civil rights law firms (such as Miner, Barnhill & Galland) had make their living by accusing banks of racism when the banks hesitated to approve loan requests from minority citizens with poor credit scores.

These "champions of minority rights" worked diligently to pass the Community Reinvestment Act, a law which forces banks to provide home loans to minority neighborhoods, regardless of their credit history, risk factor, neighborhood location, crime, etc. Bowyer states the following:

"The Community Reinvestment Act was created as a result. Initially the act was used, not to get banks to lend to minority households, but to get them to cut checks to ‘community groups’. Left of center activist agencies, which had pushed for the act in the first place, used it as a shakedown tool. So long as the banks kept paying off to the activists, the activists would hold off on sending complaints to the bank regulators’ CRA files.

Eventually, under Clinton, the CRA was renewed and, not surprisingly, made more punitive. Banks were required to make Subprime mortgage loans now too, or else suffer a low CRA rating and be punished accordingly. The Fed played it’s part. The Home Mortgage Disclosure rules created an unfunded mandate for banks to track and publicly disclose the race and gender of it’s mortgage clients. Now the shakedown artists had an easy source of complaints and a club with which to beat the banks into submission. The bankers complied and the Subprime mortgagage market was born."

And now guess who gets to suffer? The taxpayers, as a mis-guided Bush Administration, and a completely "off-it's-rocker" Democratically-controlled Congress are looking to pass a $700 billion bailout bill that rewards Wall Street, banks, and CEO's for bad behavior, while eliminating culpability from Leftist community groups and elected officials, which essentially lobbied for regulations that created the subprime mess.

Barry Obama: Robbin' the Hood

I don't know about you, but the Twin Cities Conservative is getting a proverbial "kick" out of Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama's economic plan.

What is it? Well, undoubtedly you've heard the phrases "redistribution of wealth" and "economic justice" being bandied about. This basically entails stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, or as Obama's vice presidential minion, Joe Biden stated on ABC's Good Morning, "We want to take money and put it in the pockets of the middle class people…"

Okay, that should merely affirm what we know about the Obama camp: that they have designs on planting the seeds of Socialism in this country. Note the following from this article, courtesy of Investors Business Daily:

"'Economic justice' simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism."

Furthermore, according to Townhall.com's Austin Hill:

"Now, Obama and Biden have constructed a campaign that promises to simply take things away from people who have achieved them, and give things to people who have not achieved them. This is “change” that America cannot afford - - neither in terms of monetary, or human capital."This is the type of "change" Obama has in mind: he doesn't want to make average Joe American's life any better, but instead he wants to give those who haven't worked hard "treasure" that other Americans have earned.

How is that fair?

It's not; for the record, there are deserving people in this country; people who can use a helping hand. But don't you think most honest, sensible Americans would rather have a job than merely an entitlement? If Obama wants to mete out "economic justice," why not, IF he's elected President, require those sucking on the goverment teat, to work?

He won't, because he knows that as long as people are receiving FREE MONEY from the government, a basic tenet of the Democratic Party, that constitutes what is essentially a guaranteed vote.

The problem is that these entitlements are like crack cocaine to those who ABUSE them. They are hooked.

Robin Hood, Barry Obama is not.

Liberal Lies: Barry Obama's work as a community activist

I came across an email forward, while slamming Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin as a hick and trophy wife, touted Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama's record as a community activist.

Yuck, I think I just threw up in my mouth. Here's an excerpt from the email, highlighting Obama's "work:"

• If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.
• If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.

Typical Leftist dreck...wouldn't you say? Need we mention the many shortcomings of Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama? Whether it's his "work" as a community activist and the pressure he placed on mortgage lenders to give money to at-risk potential home-buyers, or his ties to ACORN. Furthermore, how long did Obama work as a "community organizer?" A day? Two? (veiled sarcasm).

Noted author Michelle Malkin states, "Let me clarify something. Nobody is mocking community organizers in church basements and community centers across the country working to improve their neighbors’ lives. What deserves ridicule is the notion that Barack Obama’s brief stint as a South Side rabble-rouser for tax-subsidized, partisan non-profits qualifies as executive experience you can believe in."

Furthermore, she goes on to say, "What deserves derision is “community organizing” that relies of a community of homeless people and ex-cons to organize for the purpose of registering dead people and shaking down corporations and using the race card as a bludgeon."

What about Obama's extensive ties to ACORN? According to SperoNews:

Obama has had extensive experience as a community organizer. In the 80s, he was the lead organizer of the Developing Communities Project, a campaign funded by Chicago’s south-side Catholic churches and formed on the organizing principles of Saul Alinsky. He spent another four years building an organization in Roseland and the nearby Altgeld Gardens public housing complex.

ACORN is another community-organizing network with Alinskyian roots. Before going off to law school in the early 90s, Obama directed ACORN’s partner organization, Project Vote. Meeting with ACORN leaders in November, he reminded them of this, saying, “I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”
ACORN, an acronym for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, considers itself the nation’s largest community organization. Its Political Action Committee, ACORN Votes, announced its endorsement of Senator Obama’s run for the US presidency in February 2008.

Is that something to be proud of? Check this out, courtesy of Malkin:

ACORN Watch: 1,100 suspicious voter cards in NM

By Michelle Malkin • September 17, 2008 06:19 PM

The friends of Barack Obama.

ACORN Watch: The community organizing fraud continues

By Michelle Malkin • September 15, 2008 11:21 AM

Stealing elections.

ACORN Watch, Pt II: Obama hid $800,000 payment to ACORN through “Citizen Services, Inc.”

By Michelle Malkin • August 22, 2008 11:46 AM

Follow the money. Connect the dots.

ACORN Watch, Pt I of the day: More voter fraudsters in Milwaukee

By Michelle Malkin • August 22, 2008 10:49 AM

Fraud-a-palooza.

ACORN Watch: Voter fraud and mortgage scams on your dime

By Michelle Malkin • August 7, 2008 12:41 PM

Obama’s old friends.

ACORN Watch: New whistleblower affidavits

By Michelle Malkin • July 31, 2008 04:20 PM

Your tax dollars at work.

And what about his role in the subprime mortgage mess? Author Jerry Bowyer reports that "(Obama)" went to work for the New York branch of the Public Interest Research Group. PIRG is one of those left of center activist groups who, among other things, uses the legitimate concept of 'fair housing' to force banks into making bad loans. PIRG has actively lobbied for a stronger (yes, you guessed it) Community Reinvestment Act."

What's the Community Reinvestment Act? Bowyer responds that it is "a law which compels banks to make home loans in minority neighborhoods to people who were poor credit risks."

Yes, brilliant work as a "Community Organizer."

How much of this do you know? Answer: you don't. The corrupt liberal Mainstream Media has done its damnedest to cover up Obama's indiscretions, whether it's his, ahem, "work" as a community activist, or his ties to dirtbags like Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, or Bill Ayers.

They don't want you to know this. Instead, in thinly disguised attempts to reshape and distort the news, they want you to believe that this "community organizer" who while purporting to be a Washington Outsider and self-proclaimed change agent, is the "Chosen One" sent by the Almighty Himself to save this country (or "change" this country if keeping to the "Obamasiah" theme).

Is Barry Obama an American Citizen?

Here's a story the corrupt liberal Mainstream Media won't report (courtesty of the HillaryProject website):

"Clinton supporter sues Obama on grounds he is constitutionally ineligble for Presidency"

One of the highlights from the story, other than Democratic presidential candidate Barry Obama's status as an American citizen by birth, is that his Hawaiian birth certificate has been confirmed by three sources as being a forged document.

Thank you Mainstream Media (note: sarcasm). Thank you for doing your best to keep Obama's skeletons in the closet, for doing your best to stifle reports that he cavorted with racists, terrorists, dirty politicans (Chicago is about as dirty a town as they come) and fraudelent real estate moguls (Tony Rezko).

Here's the complete story:

By: Jeffrey Schreiber

A prominent Philadelphia attorney and Hillary Clinton supporter filed suit yesterday afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission.

The action seeks an injunction preventing the senator from continuing his candidacy and a court order enjoining the DNC from nominating him next week, all on grounds that Sen. Obama is constitutionally ineligible to run for and hold the office of President of the United States.

Phillip Berg, the filing attorney, is a former gubernatorial and senatorial candidate, former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County, former member of the Democratic State Committee, and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. According to Berg, he filed the suit--just days before the DNC is to hold its nominating convention in Denver--for the health of the Democratic Party. "I filed this action at this time," Berg stated, "to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated.".

Berg cited a number of unanswered questions regarding the Illinois senator's background, and in today's lawsuit maintained that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls "dual loyalties" due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia.

Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator's use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts, the issue of "multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries" remains on the table.

In the lawsuit, Berg states that Sen. Obama was born in Kenya, and not in Hawaii as the senator maintains. Before giving birth, according to the lawsuit, Obama's mother traveled to Kenya with his father but was prevented from flying back to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy, "apparently a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight." As Sen. Obama's own paternal grandmother, half-brother and half-sister have also claimed, Berg maintains that Stanley Ann Dunham--Obama's mother--gave birth to little Barack in Kenya and subsequently flew to Hawaii to register the birth.

The Left's Global Warming Crusade: Blood on their Hands

So it's really the Left that has blood on their hands...

It's their deranged view that the world is in danger, and that we must all make tremendous sacrifices to save her, even at the cost of our livelihood, our jobs, our houses, our security, and even our lives, just so we can reduce carbon emissions.

Do you remember Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stating that she was trying to "save the planet?" Her and others of her ilk have made it their top priority to "save the planet" while placing the welfare of humankind on the back burner.

We've heard the Left screaming about President Bush's "illegal" invasion of Iraq. despite our incessant efforts to solve the Saddam problem diplomatically; subsequently he's a war criminal in their eyes.

But it's truly the Left that has blood on their hands.

Their global warming "push" truly goes hand in hand with their stance on abortion and ultimately population control. In fact, is it any wonder that Democratic presidential candidate Barry Hussein Obama refused to support the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act when he was a state senator?

Here's the common denominator:

The Left simply does not value human life...well, they do, but it's actually the lives of terrorists, murderers, and rapists to whom they place value, while utterly disregarding the well-being of innocent victims and completely innocent babies.

Furthermore, this almost-psychopathic view towards all things oil (including gasoline) has led to high food prices and subsequent GLOBAL POVERTY. How so, ask the mindless Left?

This unhealthy, macabre obsession with ethanol has driven up oil prices. Consider this from The Economist:

"But the rise in prices is also the self-inflicted result of America's reckless ethanol subsidies. This year biofuels will take a third of America's (record) maize harvest. That affects food markets directly: fill up an SUV's fuel tank with ethanol and you have used enough maize to feed a person for a year. And it affects them indirectly, as farmers switch to maize from other crops. The 30m tonnes of extra maize going to ethanol this year amounts to half the fall in the world's overall grain stocks."

I don't think the evidence could be any clearer; the Left, for years has claimed it represents the poor, the working class, minorities, NON-Christians, etc. But the philosophical change in the Democrat orthodoxy is oh so evident: rather than purport to care about the under-nourished or misfortunate, it's true god are the special interests, namely on the anti-war and environmental front.

The Liberals' War: freedom of thought, speech, and expression under attack

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

Have you seen this bill currently making its way through the United States Congress?

The history behind the bill is interesting: it originally started out as the "Matthew Shepherd Act," named after the young Wyoming homosexual of the same name, who was murdered because of his sexual orientation.

"On March 20, 2007, the Matthew Shepard Act (HR 1592) was introduced as federal bipartisan legislation in the U.S. Congress, sponsored by Democrat John Conyers with 171 co-sponsors. Matthew's parents, Judy and Dennis, were present at the introduction ceremony. The bill passed the House of Representatives on May 3, 2007. Similar legislation passed in the Senate on September 27, 2007^[27] (S 1105), but President Bush has indicated he may veto the legislation if it reaches his desk.^[28]

On December 10, 2007, congressional powers had failed to get a bipartisan bill passed, which would update the hate crimes legislation, also attached to the Department of Defense Authorization bill. However, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, says "she is still committed to getting the Matthew Shepard Act passed." Pelosi plans on trying to get the bill passed early in 2008. "
I lived in Fort Collins, Colorado, where I was attending graduate school at the time of Shepherd's murder. A brother of my roommate was good friend's with Shepherd at time, so while I witnessed such a tragedy in terms of location, I also witnessed tragedy on a more personal level."

This sort of legislation is already making headway in Canada and has been implemented in Sweden as well. Even worse, a Canadian court has rules that certain scriptures contained in the Bible can be considered "hate speech."

Unbelievable. While Muslims exhort their fellow terrorists to kill anyone that draws a cartoon negatively depicting Mohammed with a bomb on his head, the Western World is shamelessly pandering to those who can easily a fatwah, rather than those in a religion (see: Christianity) who are taught to turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor.

But, as the liberals are wont to do, it's getting out of hand. It's evolved from targeting senseless violence against intolerant people to now targeting dissenting voices, who believe that "alternative lifestyles" are an abomination, a sin, an affront to God, etc. Doesn't the First Amendment protect dissenting voices?

We've heard and seen the liberals stamping their feet because they believe the Bush Administration, in its effort to protect the American citizenry, conduct warrantless wiretapping on international calls. We've heard them cry that the government is eavesdropping on all of our phone calls.

Does anyone REALLY think that's happening? Perhaps I should, does anyone with a semblance of common sense really believe the government is eavesdropping on calls, for example, between my fiance and me, or even worse, my MOTHER and me.

No, I don't think so.

Ironically, the Left, the champions of the nanny state, wish to control every facet of our lives, whether it's curbing fast food intake, rummaging through our garbage, and meting out economic justice (i.e. redistributing wealth).

The Leninists actually have the audacity to accuse the Bush Administration of curbing our basic civil rights. Yet, right before our eyes, they're attempting to control our very lives.

13 Iraq War Protestors arrested in Wisconsin: Indicative of the movement's "collective intelligence"

I spied this article, courtesy of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Evidently, 13 boneheads attempted to enter the Fort McCoy military installation in Western Wisconsin, illegally.

So when in doubt, commit a crime by attempting to breach security at a United States military establishment. For all the clamoring the Leftinistra does regarding its superiority to us redneck hillbillies on the Right, they're really not very bright. Perhaps, it's a naivety.

For the past five plus years, the American populace has endured the tirades and lies from the Left about the Iraq War. Just yesterday, on my journey home to the western suburbs from St. Paul, a small group of protesters gathered on an overpass above I-94 and displayed various anti-war signs and banners, for example, "Stop 'Iraqnam' now."

How did this country transition from serving as a bastion of freedom and democracy, with an active global agenda of spreading freedoms, to virtually celebrating, condoning, and pardoning virtually indefensible actions from those like Saddam Hussein, Josef Stalin, Osama bin Laden, all in the name of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS)?

Furthermore, in their naivety, the Left is 1.) hedging their bets that we will lose not only in Iraq, but in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well; 2.) believes that Bush and the neo-cons have provoked Muslim terror, and that if we only disengage from places like the Middle East, we can "coexist" peacefully with each other.

This sort of civil disobedience is emblematic of the Left's agenda: commit a crime, yell the loudest, stomp one's feet, and ultimately remind others of a small child.

More problematic is that the Democratic presidential candidate Barry Hussein Obama, is a flag-bearer for these sorts of fringe groups. These groups, which, despite Obama's futile attempt to morph towards the Center, adore him. A very real possibility exists that Hussein Obama will take power as the next American president.

How, as a former community activist, will Hussein Obama embrace his Leftist brethren?

The bottom line is this: if Hussein Obama becomes our next president, we are in BIG, I repeat, BIG trouble.

Here's the complete article:

13 arrested at Fort McCoy

Associated Press

August 11, 2008

FORT MCCOY, Wis. - Thirteen people protesting the Iraq war were arrested for trying to enter the Fort McCoy military installation in western Wisconsin.

The protesters delivered a letter seeking an end to the war Sunday afternoon and asked to enter the fort to talk with soldiers. They were denied access and asked to leave.

The 13 people were arrested after going beyond secured boundaries.

Fort McCoy spokeswoman Linda Fournier says the demonstrators have a right to express their opinion, but not to breach security.

The protesters were cited for trespassing, fingerprinted and escorted off the base. Authorities told them if they attempted to re-enter they would be taken into federal custody.

___

Information from: WKBT-TV, http://www.wkbt.com

Wake Up United States: We're Dying a Slow Death Thanks to the Environmentalists

Fellow Twin Cities Conservative, CodLiverOilGuy, forwarded this article to me today: it sounds like our Democratically-controlled Congress, when they're not sidestepping the issue of oil and taking a FIVE-week vacation, are contemplating the passage of the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty (known as LOST).

Here's the crux of the legislation:

"Can you imagine gifting the United Nations with $50 trill in Arctic oil taxes? This is what the U.S. Senate proposes to do if it ratifies LOST."

"A dangerous scramble for the oil and gas reserves between Russia and the West can be avoided and, more to the point, the U.S. will lose its entire future commercial and energy security by signing onto LOST. Meanwhile, Democrat leaders in both houses of Congress have already rejected President Bush’s July 14 effort to end a 25-year moratorium on drilling in most coastal waters."

What the hell are we doing to this country? More specifically, what the HELL are the Democrats doing to this country regarding energy, nevermind the shoving of progressive values down our throat, the pandering and cheerleading to terrorism, etc?

Tyrant of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), at the beginning of the month, despotically adjourned Congress, shutting off the lights and the C-SPAN cameras, in an effort to avoid voting on the issue of off-shore and ANWR drilling. She's saving the planet, she says. What a crock of shit.

Furthermore, I caught this article, courtesy of Townhall's Amanda Carpenter, whereby supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Barry Hussein Obama clamored for $10 a gallon gasoline.

"Ed Frank, vice president of public affairs for Americans for Prosperity, spoke to Obama supporters during an event organized on Capitol Hill by liberally-leaning MoveOn.org. According to an email MoveOn emailed to supporters the event was designed to 'highlight the GOP’s extensive ties to Big Oil.'

There, AFP members handed MoveOn supporters a mock $8 bill and said “this is what Al Gore wants you to pay for gas.”

An older man dressed in an Obama shirt said, 'This is too cheap! This is too cheap!' Waving the eight dollar bill he said, “Let’s get it up to ten! Let’s get it up to ten bucks.'"

Can someone tell me how the hell this country is looking to elect MORE Democrats in the fall, including arguably the most liberal Democratic candidate ever? They want to tax "windfall profits" on big oil, thereby giving a $1000 energy rebate check to everyone; doesn't that almost ensure higher gas prices, for example, across the board? Obama wants to mete economic justice; in other words, he's vying to redistribute the wealth from people, in his estimation, do not deserve it.

On top of that, he's looking, if president, to tax this country out of a potential recession/depression, while endorsing alternative energy, sources of energy not currently viable enough to even support a reduced standard of living in America.

If we ONLY use alternative energy now, we WILL collapse. The development of alternative energy is highly-dependent on a cheap-oil driven economic structure which is in the process of collapsing. $10 gasoline will only make it collapse faster. What the Obama-bots fail to realize is that our food supply is also dependent upon this same cheap-oil economy. By hastening its collapse, they are taking food from our dinner plates.

I guess on the bright side, the greenies will starve with the rest of us.

Star Tribune: McCain is "Swift-Boating" Barry Obama

The Leftist media's "Messiah," that's Barry Hussein Obama, is facing some tough talk from Republican presidential candidate, John McCain.

And rightfully so...

And now the Left is crying "foul." The Minneapolis Star Tribune, no stranger to liberal media politics, asks, "Is John McCain's attempt to tie Barack Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in an attack ad this week the "Swift Boating" of Obama?"

We're all sorry, Leftist trash, but you "Swift-boated" President Bush for the last years, especially on warrentless wiretapping and the Iraq War.

"But in striking an aggressive pose, McCain is in danger of letting the caricature of an angry, petulant candidate take seed -- not so much because he is one, but because it stands in stark contrast to Obama's carefully cultivated, well, celebrity, and McCain's own promises to run a respectful campaign."

The statement coalesces perfectly with the pie-in-the-sky mentality perpetuated by Obama's "change/unification" message: "why can't we all just get along?" The Left possesses the inane notion that if we all just lay down our arms and engage in "dialogue," the world's ills will work itself out.

Unfortunately, this is the real world, and McCain is asking tough questions to REAL-LIFE issues. Take for example the issue of energy: McCain has pushed for Congress to lift its off-shore oil drilling ban, cultivate nuclear power, develop clean coal solutions, and implement oil shale. Obama's response? Push for more alternative energy solutions, despite that 1.) the implementation of said "alternative" power is costly (installing solar panels on houses, for example, isn't cheap; neither is buying "environmentally-friendly" light bulbs, as well); 2.) alternative energy is unproven at best, risky at worst. It has no track of being a viable energy solution for a country that relies on REAL energy to propel its economy.

If anything, McCain is exposing the fact that Obama is 1.) completely disassociated with working class individuals; 2.) is bought and paid for by the radical Left, namely anti-war and environmental fringe groups.

"'The campaign is making him seem angrier than he is and therefore it's a disservice to him,' said John Weaver, McCain's former senior strategist, who left the campaign in a shake-up last year."

Message to arrogant, boneheaded, out-of-touch liberals: these are angry times, and people are angry: angry at the notion that putting gas in our vehicles prohibits us from "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," illegal aliens, welcomed by the Left, consuming our tax dollars for education and health costs, high taxes and admittedly at waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are the realities.

Somehow Barry Obama has hoodwinked a significant portion of people in this country to his message of "change." Whether it's unwavering view that the surge in Iraq served no purpose, or his plan to implement "economic justice," or that dialogue will keep us safe from Islamic terrorists, the Left is intoxicated with the Barry message.

The ingrates on the Left

Travelling home from work on Leftist invention MASS TRANSIT, I peered out my window and spied an idiot sitting in his rusted out Chevy Blazer (if you live in Minnesota, you understand the concept of "rust"); said Blazer was absolutely covered with bumper stickers of varying liberal wisdom.

I believe the phrase, "liberal wisdom" is paradoxical in meaning.

The bumper stickers consisted of typical statements discussing the intelligence of President George Bush, the "war on the environment," "coexisting" with patrons of other religions, etc. One in particular caught my eye:

"Civil Rights: Don't Leave Home Without It."

A couple of thoughts come to mind at such "brilliance."

First, as Terrence Jeffrey so aptly states in his article, "This has been President Bush's primary aim ever since Sept. 11, 2001. And no matter what else Bush's critics say about him, there is one thing they cannot say: He allowed Islamic terrorists to hit our homeland again. In the almost seven years since Sept. 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists have failed to carry out a single attack inside our country."

Juxtapose that with the terrorist acts that occurred under the watch of President Bill Clinton: the 2000 USS Cole bombing, the 1998 dual embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the 1993 WTC bombing, the Khobar Tower bombings, etc. After each attack, our response was weak and ineffectual at best. Furthermore, when opportunity existed to either kill or capture Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno waffled, too concerned with 1.) how the world would view us; and 2.) the legal ramifications of either killing or capturing the terrorist leader.

Global opinion...we're hearing some of that familiar rhetoric now as Democratic presidential candidate Barry Hussein Obama returns to the United States after his "tour" (think "rock star" which is how the public and the American press treated him) of Europe, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Barry wants to correct our image in the world after eight years of a Bush Administration not giving a damn, and rightfully so, of world opinion.

As stated in a recent BBC article, "'In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common,' he continued. 'In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe's role in our security and our future.'"

Look what world opinion did for us in the 1990's: between Clinton's philandering, and his emasculated responses to Islamic terror, terrorists reviled us for our immorality; moreover, they knew that any military retaliation to bombings, killings, etc, would be met with tepidness at best, further emboldening the terrorists.

So look where that has led us: to bitching and moaning from the Left that President Bush, in his efforts to prevent any further terrorist attacks in this country, has usurped the United States Constitution. The Leftist intelligensia has decried him for stealing their first amendment rights., for eavesdropping on all of our phone calls, for "spying" on us.

It's almost laughable...but it isn't when you see how liberals and their Democratic enablers are looking to restrict free speech through their reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine. As the Heritage Foundation notes, "Legislation currently is before Congress that would reinstate a federal communications policy known as the 'fairness doctrine.'"

Note the following regarding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine:

"The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was tested and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). Although the Court then ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered. Just five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another case that the doctrine 'inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate' (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241). In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). This ruling set the stage for the FCC's action in 1987. An attempt by Congress to reinstate the rule by statute was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and later attempts failed even to pass Congress."

And now Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic cronies in Congress, rather than address real issues like opening up off-shore areas for drilling, wish to suppress our First Amendment Rights. As "Current FCC Chairman James Quello, has stated that, 'The fairness doctrine doesn't belong in a country that's dedicated to freedom of the press and freedom of speech.'"

The article makes the following points in its treatise:

Faulty Premise #1: The "scarce" amount of spectrum space requires oversight by federal regulators.

Reality: Although the spectrum is limited, the number of broadcasters in America has continuously increased.

Faulty Premise #2: "Fairness" or "fair access" is best determined by FCC authorities.

Reality: FCC bureaucrats can neither determine what is "fair" nor enforce it.

Faulty Premise #3: The fairness doctrine guarantees that more opinions will be aired.

Reality: Arbitrary enforcement of the fairness doctrine will diminish vigorous debate.

Once again, and doesn't history demonstrate this repeatedly, Liberals have displayed their hypocrisy and complete utter denial of the truth. God help us if Barry Hussein wins the presidency.