Yesterday's Syrian Raid will be a thing of the past in an Obama presidency

Oh how soon we forget.

According to media sources, a senior Al Qaeda leader was killed by a U.S. forces in Syria.

Naturally, Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama and his crew are furious. That shouldn't be surprising.

We've seen tepid, emasculated responses from Democratic presidents in the past (see: Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton), so it should come as no surprise that 1.) Obama would rather engage terrorist fomenters in "dialogue;" 2.) this is a portent of an Obama foreign policy.

So what does this mean?

We'll be back to square one with Obama; we'll be relegated to pre-Bush days when the previous administration allowed ourselves to bullied by Islamic fundamentalists and when forced to retaliate, offered nothing more than a token military gesture.

Furthermore, in an Obama presidency where dialogue in the only option, terrorist groups like Al Qaeda will be allowed to reconstitute, once again becoming a threat not only in the Middle East, but to our national security.

Again.

We're weakening ourselves again. This is like a bad dream, replayed over and over again. We've been down this road before under Bill Clinton, where a liberal administration consternated over political and legal ramifications of staving off the terrorist threat. We're already experienced the feeling of retreating, with our tail between our legs, and the feeling of not hitting back HARD against aggression and violence against Americans and its interests.

Couple that with the near-certainty of Obama closing Guantanamo Bay and stopping military tribunals against terrorists, as well as the eradication of the Patriot Act; I think we can guarantee that we'll see attacks increase.

Say what you will about George Bush, but he kept us safe. Terrorists, domestic and international, were cut off at the pass. They weren't allowed to develop nor implement their plots.

Not your grandpa's Democratic party anymore

If my grandpa was alive, I have reservations that he would be a Democrat. Grandpa Twin Cities Conservative (Todd Anthony) was born and raised in Ely, Minnesota.

You see, after my grandpa returned from serving three years in the Pacific during WWII, he went to work in one of the mines on the Iron Range. If you've been to Ely or any of the surrounding communities, you probably know to which I refer. It's a region in Northern Minnesota comprised of bands of iron ore.

Traditionally, that area of Minnesota has been a Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party stronghold; it's voted almost exclusively Democrat in past elections.

More than likely, ol' Gramps would be disgusted at what the Democratic party has morphed into. Rather than represent the voice of the people, particularly that of the WORKING CLASS, it has evolved into a clique that represents the wishes of the latte liberal sect.

Nothing represents the latte liberal mentality more than what Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama said to a group of San Francisco liberals: "It's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to . . . religion . . . as a way to explain their frustrations."

The only similarities between the Democratic Party of today and that of yesteryear would be its Socialist elements. Instead, the Democratic Party listens to the voice of the diplomats, the academics, and the fringe groups. Furthermore, these groups are often represented by the left-wing elitist:

"Like the 'new class', liberal elites are often understood to be university/college educated professionals, often considered to wield immense cultural power in the media, academy, and school system. They use this cultural power to influence politics beyond their numerical significance, advocating fringe interests to the detriment of 'mainstream' opinion. Their political arguments are allegedly self-serving and frivolous, aimed at restricting public choice."

These latte liberals share no ideals with Democrats like Grandpa. To be perfectly candid, my grandpa was bigotted. He disliked minorities (or anyone different from him for that matter), he disliked laziness, he LOVED America, he saved money, he worked hard, and he was VERY religious.

Tell me how ANY of the above mentioned characteristics mirror that of the latte liberal?

They don't.

For example, how does a trendy cause, such as global warming, which is supported by the tofu class, benefit WORKING CLASS Democrats (or working class AMERICANS) for that matter? It doesn't. Instead, because global warming apologists place such an emphasis on alternative energy and opposition to this country's natural resources, it does not allow us to cultivate our domestic energy supply, whether it's oil, coal, nuclear power, etc. In the case of oil, coupled with the almost daily increase in demand from countries like China and India, we cannot place our OWN oil in the world supply, bringing demand down, and thus lowering the cost of gasoline. Add to this the environmentalists' refusal to allow the construction of new refineries in this country.

What does this mean? Well, in addition to the aforementioned increased cost of gasoline, it also drives the prices of our monthly energy bills, whether it's at home or work. People need to come up with funds to pay for higher gasoline and higher utilies, so they cut back in other areas, such as travelling, going out to eat, going to movies, buying clothes, buying food, etc.

Speaking of food, the Left's insistence that end result of oil increases "global warming" has led to a worldwide movement to embrace ethanol. What ethanol does ultimately, as well as increased sugar cane production for automobile consumption, is drive up the price of food.

"(T)he 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."

How does that benefit Working Class Americans?

It doesn't.

Something to consider also is that the latte liberal school relies on white guilt and support for "freedom fighters" (such as Hamas and the PLO). Futhermore, this mentality is prevalent in its opposition to our nation's military. It starts at the top; note the following comment from Obama:

"We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

How does that support the military?

It doesn't. Instead, it fuels hatred in Muslim countries, for example, that our troops are only there to rob and rape them. Furthermore, Islamic fundamentalists have used civilians as human shields, often hiding in houses and mosques. IF they want to fight dirty, our military should fight dirty as well.

I thought we learned our lesson after former Democratic president Bill Clinton failed to truly combat Islamic terrorism.

Ultimately, Obama's presidential bid has served as an opiate for many people in this country. Unfortunately, it's also proved that people often can't truly think objectively. His message of wealth redistribution, hope, and change has an intoxicating essence to it.

What we'll soon learn is that working class American will be the ones to suffer under his portending presidency.

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.

Liberal Lies: Barry Obama and his "change" rhetoric

Anyone else getting sick of the lies spewed forth from Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama?

He and his Democratic cronies in Congress are planning change, make no mistake...but their idea of change is to continue to radically alter the landscape of this country in the following facets: religion, thought, speech, energy, business, and ultimately...our way of life.

They're planning change; they're planning to unite. But their idea of "change" and "unification" isn't for all Americans. Rather, they're planning to change American so the fringe groups on the Left: the environmentalists, the open border crowd, and the anti-war goons are granted a ideal, romantic, socialist utopia.

Barry Obama: robbin' the hood.

I was exercising and while I was watching TV, I saw a bit of Obama's speech from Coors' capital, Golden, Colorado. Naturally, the rhetoric was merely a recital of the lines his predecessors have used (Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, Marx, Lenin, etc.). To paraphrase, it's time to rob the rich and give to the poor.

Furthermore, what's ironic is that for a party supposedly represents the people, the Democrats have officially become the enemy of the state. Rather that support drilling EVERYWHERE, developing Coal to Liquid technology, oil shale, etc., the g-damn Democrats are pushing their bullshit Global Warming lies to serve dual purposes.

First, thanks to boneheads like Al Gore, the United Nations, and other anti-American economy forces, Americans have been inundated and subsequently indoctrinated with the climate change message. In other words, due to amount of gasoline we're using, we're creating more greenhouse gases, raising the temperature globally, and thus melting icebergs and killing polar bears.

Yawn.

Did you know that the icebergs have returned to their "pre-global warming" levels? Did you also know that many scientists/climatologists/meteorologists believe that we may be in for mini ice-age by 2030? Did you also know that there have been periods BEFORE humankind, where carbon dioxide, reputedly a "greenhouse gas" was at levels three/four times higher than what we're experiencing now? Did you know that carbon dioxide is actually an essential life-force, used by plants for photosynthesis? Unfortunately, once again thanks to the liberals and their lust for ethanol and other biofuels, we're destroying whole forests, again useful for photosynthesize, to plant corn and sugar cane.

Second, the Democrats are essentially looking to lock away our coastal regions (within 50 miles of our coasts) from drilling, thus forcing us to embrace the joke that is alternative energy (pray for wind). When a goddamn liberal touts wind and solar energy, ask them for cost-feasibility studies. Prepare for glassy-eyed stares, because they do NOT exist.

We're on the precipice, people. Watch your civil liberties vanish; prepare yourself for jail time if you wish to speak against homosexuality (see HR 1592, currently making its way through the U.S. Senate). We need a Republican president to VETO that bill. Brace yourself for thought control and increased regulation (see: big brother). Develop thick skin, because you will be accused of short-sightedness, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, if you refuse to embrace homosexuality.

Close your eyes and imagine the catcalls of racist if you decry the religion of peace, Islam. Prepare yourself to be indoctrinated that Islamic fundamentalists have every right to kill innocent Jews and Crusaders because "we started it. (see: blame America first crowd)"

Try hearing a message that contradicts that of the Left. It will disappear if they re-enact the Fairness Doctrine. In other words, we'll be essentially forced to listen to Air America, Al Franken-type liberal radio pundits, in addition to the endless, corrupt, leftist vitriol propagated on CBS, ABC, and NBC.

This is "change" as defined by one Barry Obama. He's got EVERYONE hoodwinked.

Just wait and see.