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 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.

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.

What Liberals Will NOT Tell You about the Iraq War

I came across this article in Commentary Magazine. Unfortunately, for sanctimonious liberals, it reveals (as if those with commonsense didn't already know) that your glorious leader, Bill Clinton, warned anyone who would listen about the threat posed by one Saddam Hussein.

"It is too often forgotten, not least by historians, that George W. Bush did not invent the idea of deposing the Iraqi tyrant. For years before he came on the scene, removing Saddam Hussein had been a priority embraced by the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton and by Clinton’s most vocal supporters in the Senate:

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons. . . . Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

These were the words of President Clinton on the night of December 16, 1998 as he announced a four-day bombing campaign over Iraq. Only six weeks earlier, Clinton had signed the Iraq Liberation Act authorizing Saddam’s overthrow—an initiative supported unanimously in the Senate and by a margin of 360 to 38 in the House. “Iraqis deserve and desire freedom,” Clinton had declared. On the evening the bombs began to drop, Vice President Al Gore told CNN’s Larry King:

You allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons. How many people is he going to kill with such weapons? . . . We are not going to allow him to succeed. [emphasis added]

What these and other such statements remind us is that, by the time George Bush entered the White House in January 2001, the United States was already at war with Iraq, and in fact had been at war for a decade, ever since the first Gulf war in the early 1990’s. (This was literally the case, the end of hostilities in 1991 being merely a cease-fire and not a formal surrender followed by a peace treaty.) Not only that, but the diplomatic and military framework Bush inherited for neutralizing the Middle East’s most fearsome dictator had been approved by the United Nations. It consisted of (a) regular UN inspections to track and dispose of weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) remaining in Saddam’s arsenal since the first Gulf war; (b) UN-monitored sanctions to prevent Saddam from acquiring the means to make more WMD’s; and (c) the creation of so-called “no-fly zones” over large sections of southern and northern Iraq to deter Saddam from sending the remnants of his air force against resisting Kurds and Shiite Muslims."

Liberals who scream that George Bush, Dick Cheney, et al. are war criminals, seem to forget the following:

1. Saddam violated several UN resolutions calling for full transparency of his weapons program, with military force the ultimate consequence.

2. Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, who also were both Democratic presidential candidates, looked at the same intelligence that the Bush Administration looked at; they ALL drew the same conclusion.

3. Bill Clinton referred to predatory, rogue nations looking to acquire WMD as an "unholy axis." Yet, Bush has taken endless heat over the term, "axis of evil."

I hate to break it you (actually I don't; anything to wipe that smug, latte-creamed, smile off your elitist face), but your accusations of an illegal war are wholly and absurdly ungrounded.