.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Heavy-Handed Politics

"€œGod willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world
without the United States and Zionism."€ -- Iran President Ahmadi-Nejad

Friday, March 28, 2008

Appeasing the Islamists

By Paul Belien

Adolf Hitler realized the importance of having a good press. In Nazi Germany with its press censorship, it was easy for Hitler to have a good press. However, during the 1930s the Nazis also tried to control the media in the neighboring European countries that Hitler was planning to invade. The Nazis bullied the democratically elected governments in these countries to censor everything that resembled what today might be called "Naziphobia" — criticism of Nazism.

Interestingly, the bullied governments gave in to the Nazi intimidation rather than..... (read on)

Getting Mrs. Clinton
By Peggy Noonan

Declarations: Even many of her erstwhile supporters now understand the problem with her candidacy – and with her.

NATO Expansion Should Continue

The trans-Atlantic alliance is too important to be constrained by Russian intimidation. By Donald Rumsfeld

Read it here.

Joe Wilson's War - WSJ.com
Everyone else in the media is pounding Hillary Clinton for her tale, now shown to be fanciful, of dodging bullets on a Bosnian tarmac as first lady. But if you're looking for the best recent example of the lengths Mrs. Clinton will go to win the Democratic Presidential nod, consider that last week in Philadelphia she used Joe and Valerie Wilson as campaign props.

Was George Galloway not available?

Mr. Wilson and his wife are darlings of the antiwar crowd for their roles as...
(Read on)

Bush the Multilateralist - WSJ.com
John McCain gave a major foreign policy address in Los Angeles Wednesday, and if his intention was to convey a subtle message about what distinguishes him from the current White House occupant, he seems to have succeeded -- at least with the press.

The presumptive Republican nominee spoke of the need for a "new global compact" based on "mutual respect and trust," of adding "luster to America's image in the world," and of "paying a 'decent respect to the opinions of mankind.'" The media played it all up as an attempt to distance himself from the "unilateral" President Bush, although the Arizona Republican never used that word.

We fully understand why Mr. McCain feels the need to show that his Administration would not simply be a third Bush term. But with Mr. Bush's days in office nearing an end, it's worth blowing apart the myth of the "go it alone" Presidency. The truth is that, with a couple of exceptions, he's been the model of a modern multilateralist.
(Read on)



Bill Clinton made a significant admission in Corpus Christi, Texas this month - saying he had decided to pardon Puerto Rican terrorists back in 1999 "based on the stuff I was given by the staff."

But Ron Kolb, the citizen whose questioning prompted the ex-president's comment, rightly pointed out that the FBI and Justice Department had opposed the pardons. The clear conclusion is that it was Clinton's political staff who pushed for clemency - with the obvious goal of helping Hillary Clinton's bid to become a New York senator.

Bill still denies that was his motive, of course - but no one believes it. The lobbying by Hispanic politicians from New York on the issue had been years-long; the culmination was noted by the New Republic noted back in '99: "Two days before the president announced the clemency deal, New York City Councilman Jose Rivera personally presented Hillary with a packet on clemency, including a letter asking her to 'speak to the president and ask him to consider granting executive clemency' to the prisoners."

The FALN, a terrorist group devoted to independence for Puerto Rico, bombed the Fraunces Tavern here in New York City in 1975, killing four and injuring 54 others.

It also.... (Read more)


The 'Traditional Muslim Behavior' Defense
From the Arab News:

Shoura Council Chairman Dr. Saleh Bin-Humaid has urged US authorities to review the case of Homaidan Al-Turki, a 37-year-old Saudi student who was found guilty in a Colorado state court of 12 counts of sexually assaulting his Indonesian maid. . . .
Al-Turki, a former Ph.D. student at the University of Colorado, maintains that he did not sexually assault the woman, whose identity has not been disclosed due to the nature of the alleged crime, and has accused US officials of persecuting him for "traditional Muslim behavior." . . .
Al-Turki, who had been a graduate student in Colorado for nine years, was sentenced in August 2006 to 20 years for the rape charges and eight years for theft of the maid's wages.

James Taranto from the Best of the Web, Wall Street Journal so aptly notes: "If you're trying to improve the image of Islam in the West, invoking 'traditional Muslim behavior' to defend a rapist is probably not a good idea."

Some defense, eh?

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Larry Elder: OK, Sen. Obama, Let's Have the Race 'Talk'

In his Big Speech defending his 20-year membership in a church headed by a racist, anti-Semitic, sexist, conspiracy-believing pastor, Democratic candidate Barack Obama says America needs a frank "talk" about race.

George Will: Conservatives Really Are More Compassionate

Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

Truth Telling is a Damn Hard Thing To Do

Dick Morris has written a column, "HILLARY'S LIST OF LIES, published in The Hill referring to a recent USA Today/Gallup survey that he says "clearly explains why Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is losing. Asked whether the candidates were 'honest and trustworthy,' Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won with 67 percent, with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) right behind him at 63. Hillary scored only 44 percent, the lowest rating for any candidate for any attribute in the poll."

He says "Hillary simply cannot tell the truth" and then lists the following examples:

Admitted Lies

• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)

• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)

• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)

• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)


Whoppers She Won't Confess To

• She didn't know about the FALN pardons.

• She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.

• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.

• She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.

• She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.

• She opposed NAFTA at the time.

• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.

• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.

• She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.

• The billing records showed up on their own.

• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.

• She was always a Yankees fan.

• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).

• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

You can read the article here.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Walter E. Williams: Is Obama Ready For America?
Some pundits ask whether America is ready for Obama. The much more important question is whether Obama is ready for America and even more important is whether black people can afford Obama.

Thomas Sowell: The Audacity of Rhetoric
It is painful to watch defenders of Barack Obama tying themselves into knots trying to evade the obvious.

Brent Bozell III: Obama's Clintonesque Speech
Embracing Wright is not a distraction. It is a disqualification.

Hillary Mis-Remembers
By Rich Galen

Here's what happened: Hillary Clinton pulled an Al Gore the other day and allowed as to how something had happened to her in Bosnia which, in fact, had not. I have often said that Al Gore and I have something in common: If we invent a story up and keep telling it, after a while we think it actually happened. Now, it seems, we can add Hillary to our little club of Self-Delusional Dopes...

Pelosi is a moron....

Bush ‘Squandered’ Opportunity to Shore Up Social Security, Pelosi Says
- President Bush has been pressing for Social Security reform since his first presidential campaign in 2000, but congressional Democrats have rebuffed him again and again. On Tuesday, however, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blamed Bush for failing to shore up the programs...

Police Call Church Music ‘Disorderly’
A Michigan church filed a federal lawsuit after police officers, led by a local prosecutor, entered the sanctuary at least twice without a warrant, alleging the church’s music was too loud. In one instance, they threatened to arrest church musicians for disorderly conduct. The case could have national ramifications in establishing what local governments can do in regulating churches...

Obama’s Pastor Slurs Italians in Latest Magazine
- Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor emeritus of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago where Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been a member for two decades, slurred Italians in a piece published in the most recent issue of the church's magazine. “The Italians for the a eulogy of the late scholar Asa Hilliard in the November/December 2007 issue...

World Tribune — Israelis stop 14 transfers of 'dangerous substances' to West Bank
TEL AVIV — Israel's military reported a sharp increase in shipments of material required for the production of explosives. Over the last three weeks, Israeli military and police reported foiling 14 attempts to transfer substances deemed dangerous. More.

Saudis pledge action to stabilize oil market

ABU DHABI -- Saudi Arabia has agreed to ensure global supplies of crude oil. The kingdom's statement was issued in wake of the visit by U.S. Vice President Richard Cheney to Saudi Arabia. The Supreme Council of Petroleum and Mineral Affairs, chaired by King Abdullah, said Riyad would help ensure oil...(click here for more)


Obama's Fiscal Agenda Now Tops $300 Billion, Almost 36 Percent Higher than Clinton's - National Taxpayers Union Foundation

U.S. States Suffer as They Become Biggest Corporate Taxers in the World
Tax Foundation

Fighting Recession with Panic
The American

The Real Gas Threat - from OPEC

Americans worried about gas prices should look overseas to the supply-controlling cartel. Here's a peek inside.

Too Little, Too Late - Media Discover Mercury in Fluorescent Bulbs

By Nathan Burchfiel

Journalists' beloved 'eco-friendly' lights now considered more dangerous than originally thought, after government mandate required their use. Read more at Business & Media Institute.

Obama Releases Tax Returns, Calls on Clinton to Follow Suit

According to the Reuters news article, "In 2005 their joint income was more than $1.6 million and in 2006 it was nearly $1 million."

What was it that Mrs. Barack H. Obama said? They had a hard time finding the money to pay for piano lessons?

Hmmmm. No wonder our country suffers from runaway spending when we have people like this in office "watching over" the taxpayers money.

Or, as Cal Thomas said : “Government... now resembles an irresponsible parent, spending the children’s wages and inheritance as if there were no tomorrow.”

Update: Today, Byron York covers the piano lesson hardship suffered by the Obama's at National Review. Read "Michelle and Barack: The Tax Returns" here.

“Which works best? Inflaming old hatreds and feeding paranoia among the next generation? Or teaching children that what they have in common is greater than their differences? The answer is obvious, but some people—both black and white—are deeply invested in preserving rather than healing wounds.”
—Kathleen Parker

“A man generally has two reasons for doing a thing. One that sounds good, and a real one.” —J. P. Morgan

“Everything that deceives can be said to enchant.” —Plato

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Chuck Norris: Guns, God and Gays
Reading the news this past week, one easily could conclude we have lost our minds, as well as any remaining connection with our Founding Fathers. There were three stories that thrice prove we are heading down three wrong roads.

What? Tibetans? What in God's name is a Tibetan?

Dennis Prager: Why Do Palestinians Get Much More Attention than Tibetans?
In a more moral world, public opinion would be far more preoccupied with Tibetans than with Palestinians, and would be as harsh on China as it is on Israel......

A New French Strategy

By George Friedman
Stratfor Geopolitical Intelligence Report

French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced the week of March 16 that France is cutting its nuclear arsenal to less than 300 warheads, which he said was less than half the number France had during the Cold War. Meanwhile, plans are under way in Paris to return to full membership in NATO; Sarkozy will travel to London the week of March 23 to discuss reintegration.

Sarkozy spoke while attending the launch of France’s newest nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine in Cherbourg. During his speech, he added that, at present, none of France’s nuclear weapons is aimed at anyone. During the same appearance he said, “All those who threaten to attack our vital interests expose themselves to a severe riposte by France.” This was said in the context of discussions of Iran, which he said was among those countries in the process of developing nuclear weapons. France is simultaneously calling attention to its nuclear capability and adopting an increasingly hostile posture toward Iran. While the media focus is on Sarkozy, it seems to us that this issue goes deeper than personalities. Processes are under way that are shifting French foreign policy.

The shift is not a dramatic one yet; there is more continuity than discontinuity in French foreign policy. Like all French leaders for the last half-century, Sarkozy is focusing on his country’s strategic independence, particularly on its nuclear capability. At the same time, France is aligning itself more closely with the U.S. view of Iran, and, to some extent, with the U.S. view of the Middle East. In doing so, France is creating stresses within the European Union and reshaping its relationship with Germany. These small changes have broad implications that need to be understood.

Foreign Policy Since 1871

Since 1871, France has had two foreign policies. The year 1871 saw German unification. Prior to 1871, the fragmentation of Germany into numerous ministates secured France’s eastern frontier; France concerned itself with the rest of Atlantic Europe, particularly Spain and England. German unification redefined French geopolitics by creating a major power to its east. This major power was insecure because it was caught between France, Russia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. German insecurity made it a threat to France. A united Germany had to deal with the causes of that insecurity, and France was one of those causes. German unification effectively coincided with the defeat of France by Prussia, and drove home the significance of a unified Germany.

From German unification and the Franco-Prussian war until 1945, the essence of French foreign policy consisted of managing Germany. That meant France had to change its relationship with its historic rival, the United Kingdom, and keep Russia aligned with the Anglo-French alliance. For more than 80 years, French foreign policy could be boiled down to containing Germany. The strategy proved successful, assuming one accepts the losses incurred in World War I and five years of occupation during World War II. In the end, France survived.

This set in place France’s second post-1871 strategy, which evolved over the 1950s until its institutionalization by Charles de Gaulle. This postwar strategy consisted of two parts. The first part involved embedding France into multinational institutions, particularly the European Economic Community (EEC) — which evolved into the European Union — and NATO. The second part involved using these institutions to preserve French sovereignty and independence. Put differently, France’s strategy was to participate in multinational structures while using them for its own ends, or at least defining a limited relationship with the structures.

France’s overriding concern was to avoid getting caught in a third world war after having been devastated by the first two world wars. Preventing this outcome meant exploiting German disunification, effectively ending France’s primordial fear of Germany. It did this in two ways. The first involved drawing close to West Germany economically, creating a system of relationships that would make Franco-German conflict impossible. The second involved blocking the Soviet threat by participating in NATO.

France’s problem was that the deeper that it went into European institutions and NATO, the more tenuous its sovereignty became. It needed the economic and military relationship with Germany, but it had to retain its room for maneuver. More precisely, it wanted to draw closer to Germany and take advantage of a collective security scheme, but not become a client state of the United States. It therefore belonged to NATO, but pulled out of the alliance’s integrated military command structure in 1966. NATO’s military structure made certain responses to a Soviet invasion automatic. France refused to allow its response to be automatic, but remained committed to collective defense.

France was concerned with maximizing its autonomy, but it had a deeper fear as well. The defense of Western Europe was predicated on U.S. intervention. The doctrine of massive response held that, in the event of a Soviet invasion that could not be contained conventionally, the United States would use nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union. The U.S. position was thus to initiate a nuclear war that would potentially see America’s cities decimated, all in order to protect Europe.

The French problem, however, was that Paris would not know whether Washington would honor this commitment until after the initiation of hostilities. From the French point of view, it would be irrational for the United States to invite its own devastation to protect Europe. Therefore, the American commitment was at best untestable. At worst, it was an implausible and transparent attempt to jeopardize Europe so as to deter a Soviet attack without the United States risking anything fundamental.

An Independent Deterrent

The need to protect French sovereignty intersected with what Paris saw as a genuine requirement to maintain a military capability outside the framework of NATO, all the while remaining part of NATO and the EEC. France wanted NATO to function. It wanted to be close to Germany. And it wanted a set of options outside the context of NATO that would guarantee that France would not be reoccupied, this time by the Soviets.

The decision to construct an independent French nuclear deterrent was based on this reasoning. As de Gaulle put it, France wanted to retain the ability to tear off an arm if the Soviets attacked France through Germany. It was unsure whether the United States would act to deter the Soviet Union, but even a small nuclear force in the hands of a power likely to suffer occupation — and thus a force very likely to be used — would deter the Soviets. Therefore, the French developed (and retain) the nuclear force that Sarkozy decided to cut but not eliminate.

This issue remained at the heart of U.S.-French tensions both during and after the Cold War. The American view was that the United States and all of Western Europe (plus some Mediterranean countries) had a vested interest in resisting the Soviets, and they could do so most effectively by joining in multilateral economic and military organizations allowing them to operate in concert. The Americans viewed the French reluctance to follow suit as France seeking a free ride. From the American point of view, the U.S. bore the brunt of the cost of defending Europe, as well as underwriting Europe’s economic recovery in the early years. France benefited from both, and would benefit as long as the United States defended Germany. Paris wanted the benefits of the American presence without committing itself to burden-sharing. Put another way, how could the Americans be certain that, in the event of war, France would protect Germany, Italy or Turkey? Perhaps Paris would remain alo of unless France were attacked.

The French mistrust of the credibility of U.S. commitment to Europe collided with American mistrust of French reasons for being part of NATO without committing itself to collaborate automatically in NATO’s response to the Soviets. France was comfortable with this ambiguity. It needed it. It needed to integrate economically with the Germans, to be part of NATO, but to retain its own options for national defense. If this meant increasing American distrust, and even a sense of betrayal, this was something France must tolerate to achieve its strategic goals.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, France entered a new strategic phase. The French responded to the Soviet collapse and to German reunification by maintaining and extending its core policy. It remained ambiguously part of NATO, participating as it saw fit. It really concentrated on transforming the European Union into a multinational federation, with its own integrated foreign policy and defense policy.

This position appears paradoxical. On the one hand, France wanted to maintain its national sovereignty and freedom of action. On the other, it wanted to be a counterbalance to the United States and to draw ever closer to Germany — permanently eliminating the historic danger from its eastern neighbor, however distant the German threat might appear under current circumstances. France could not resist the United States alone. It could do so only in the context of a European federation, which would of course include the critical French relationship with Germany.

Independence vs. Europe

France therefore had to choose between a wholly independent foreign policy and federation with Europe. It tried to have its cake and eat it too. It supported the principle of federation, and within this federation it sought a particularly close relationship with Germany. But its view of this new federation was that while, in a formal sense, France would abandon a degree of sovereignty, in practical terms — so long as France could be the senior partner to Germany — the French would dominate a European federation. In effect, federation would open the door to a Europe directed, if not dominated, by Paris.

This is why Central Europe revolted against French President Jacques Chirac on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The Central Europeans were not particularly enthusiastic about the war, but they were far less enthusiastic about Chirac’s actions. From their point of view, he was using the Iraq issue to create a European bloc, led by France in opposition to the United States. For a country such as Poland that had relied on French (and British) guarantees prior to World War II, the idea that France should lead a Europe in opposition to the United States was unacceptable. Chirac gave a famous press conference in which he condemned the Central European rejection of French opposition to the invasion as representing nations that were “not well brought up.” This was the moment in which French frustration welled over.

France was not going to get the federation it hoped for. Too many countries of Europe wanted to retain their freedom of action, this time from France. They were not opposed to economic union, but the creation of a federation with a joint foreign and defense policy was not enthusiastically greeted by smaller European countries (and some not-so-small countries such as Britain, Spain and Italy). As anti-federationism grew, it swept forward to include France as well, which rejected the European constitution in a plebiscite.

This moment was the existential crisis that created the Sarkozy presidency. Sarkozy has raised two questions that have been fundamental to France. The first is France’s relationship to Germany. France has been obsessed with Germany since 1871, at first hostile, later nearly married, but always obsessed. The second question relates to France’s relationship to the United States. Chirac represented postwar Gaullism’s view in its most extreme form: Convert European institutions into a French-dominated multinational force to balance U.S. power. This attempt collapsed, so Sarkozy had to define the relationship France might have with the United States if France could not counterbalance the United States.

The Mediterranean Union

The questions of Germany and of the United States were addressed in the French idea of a Mediterranean Union. Since German unification in 1871, France has obsessed about the north German plain. But France is also a Mediterranean power, with long-term interests in North Africa and the Middle East in such countries as Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Lebanon and Syria. Where Germany is entirely a northern European power, France is not. Therefore, Chirac proposed that, in addition to being a member of the European Union, France should create a separate and distinct Mediterranean Europe. The latter grouping would include the rest of th e Mediterranean basin, extending as far as Turkey and Israel. It would exclude non-Mediterranean powers such as Germany and Britain, however.

France had no intention of withdrawing from the European Union, but saw the Mediterranean Union as a supplemental relationship, and argued that it would allow EU expansion without actually admitting new EU members. The Germans saw this as a French attempt to become Europe’s strategic pivot, leading both unions and serving as the only member that was both a northern European and a Mediterranean power. The Germans did not like this scenario one bit. The French then backed off, but did not abandon the idea.

If the French are going to be a Mediterranean power, they must also be a Middle Eastern power. If they are playing in the Middle East, they must redefine their relationship with the United States. Sarkozy has done that by drawing systematically closer to American views on Iran, Syria and Lebanon. In other words, to pursue this new course, the French have drawn away from the Germans and closer to the Americans.

This is all very early in the game, and the moves so far are very small. But the French have slightly backed off from their German obsession and their fear of the United States. The collapse of European federationism has set off a reconsideration of France’s global role, a reconsideration that will — if continued — radically redefine France’s core relationships. What the French are doing is what they have done for years: They are looking for maximum freedom of action for France without undue risk. Though France has long pursued its interests with consistency, its current moves are different. It appears to be pulling away from Germany and seeking power in the Mediterranean. And that means working with the Americans.

Lifting Caps on Foreign Worker Visas Bad Idea, Critics Say
Two new bills in Congress would provide emergency increases in the number of H-1B visas for skilled workers from foreign countries, but immigration-reduction advocates said raising the caps is “irresponsible” and hurts American workers. Others insist that skilled workers are needed and will benefit the U.S. economy...

Los Angeles Times:
Man accused in teen's slaying is in US illegally

Houston Chronicle:
Umbilical Cord Blood Can Save Lives

Fox News/AP:
U.S. Ship Fires on Motorboat in Gulf of Suez; 1 Dead

How many skeletons in the closet does this man have?

First he admits to having extra marital affairs and now according to Fox News/AP:
N.Y. Gov. Paterson Admits Cocaine, Marijuana Use

Remember when our elected officials used to be people of good moral character?

Oh, yeh. I don't remember that so well either.

Fierce clashes break out in Basra

Boston Globe:
Boston Police Slammed Over Warrantless Searches for Guns
Opposition from residents is strong; Invited into homes without warrants.

Hillary admits to embellishing misspeaking .....

Boston Globe:
Hillary 'Misspeaks': Faulty Recall on Bosnia Trip

When Campaigns Go Bad
By Rich Galen

Anyone who has been in politics for any length of time has been involved in a campaign which, for no good reason, suddenly goes bad. If you don't believe me; ask Sen. Barack H. Obama...

Deepening Democratic Dilemma
By Robert D. Novak

Barack Obama’s speech last week, hastily prepared to extinguish the firestorm over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, won critical praise for style and substance but failed politically. In rejecting the racist views of his longtime spiritual mentor but not disowning him, Obama has unwittingly enhanced his image as the African-American candidate -- not just a remarkable candidate who happens to be black. That poses a racial dilemma for unelected super-delegates, who as professional politicians will pick the winner since neither Obama nor Clinton can win enough elected delegates to be nominated…

Olmert Orders Deportation of Illegal Aliens From Africa
– Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has ordered an end to the “tsunami” of Africans who are sneaking into Israel from Egypt in growing numbers, almost daily...

Taiwan’s New Leader Seeks ‘Peace Treaty’ With China
– In a development that could ease tensions in northeast Asia, Taiwanese voters at the weekend brought to an end eight years of political dominance by independence-leaning forces, while failing to pass a referendum on Taiwanese membership of the United Nations...

Monday, March 24, 2008



“[Barack Obama’s] whiny wife, Michelle, says that her husband’s election as president would be the first reason to have ‘pride’ in America, and complains that this country is ‘downright mean’ and that she’s having difficulty finding money for their daughters’ piano lessons and summer camp. Between them, Mr. and Mrs. Obama earn $480,000 a year (not including book royalties from ‘The Audacity Of Hype,’ but they’re whining about how tough they have it to couples who earn 48 grand—or less. Yes, we can. But not on a lousy half-million bucks a year. God has blessed America, and blessed the Obamas in America, and even blessed the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose bashing of his own country would be far less lucrative anywhere else on the planet. The ‘racist’ here is not Geraldine Ferraro but the Rev. Wright, whose appeals to racial bitterness are supposed to be everything President Obama will transcend. Right now, it sounds more like the same-old same-old. ’God Bless America Land that I love.’ Take it away, Michelle.” —Mark Steyn

WHAT IF.........?

“Barack Obama’s speech last week, hastily prepared to extinguish the firestorm over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, won critical praise for style and substance but failed politically. By elevating the question of race in America, the front-running Democratic presidential candidate has deepened the dilemma created by his campaign’s success against the party establishment’s anointed choice, Hillary Clinton. In rejecting the racist views of his longtime spiritual mentor but not disowning him, Obama has unwittingly enhanced his image as the African-American candidate—not just a remarkable candidate who happens to be black. That poses a racial dilemma for unelected super-delegates, who as professional politicians will pick the winner since neither Obama nor Clinton can win enough elected delegates to be nominated. Super-delegates, though they were inclined to Clinton no longer than three months ago, now flinch at rejecting Obama. They fear antagonizing African-Americans, who have become the hard-core Democratic base. But what if national polls continue their post-Wright trend and show Obama trailing both Clinton and Republican John McCain in popular support?” —Robert Novak


“Did Senator Barack Obama’s speech in Philadelphia convince people that he is still a viable candidate to be President of the United States, despite the adverse reactions to statements by his pastor, Jeremiah Wright? The polls and the primaries will answer that question. The great unasked question for Senator Obama is the question that was asked about President Nixon during the Watergate scandal; What did he know and when did he know it? Although Senator Obama would now have us believe that he is shocked, shocked, at what Jeremiah Wright said, that he was not in the church when pastor Wright said those things from the pulpit, this still leaves the question of why he disinvited Wright from the event at which he announced his candidacy for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination a year ago. Either Barack Obama or his staff must have known then that Jeremiah Wright was not someone whom they wanted to expose to the media and to the media scrutiny to which that could lead... Someone once said that a con man’s job is not to convince skeptics but to enable people to continue to believe what they already want to believe. Accordingly, Obama’s Philadelphia speech—a theatrical masterpiece—will probably reassure most Democrats and some other Obama supporters. They will undoubtedly say that we should now ‘move on,’ even though many Democrats have still not yet moved on from George W. Bush’s 2000 election victory. Like the Soviet show trials during their 1930s purges, Obama’s speech was not supposed to convince critics but to reassure supporters and fellow-travelers, in order to keep the ‘useful idiots’ useful.” —Thomas Sowell


“The denial of annual [pay] increases, [Chief Justice John] Roberts wrote, ‘has left federal trial judges—the backbone of our system of justice—earning about the same as (and in some cases less than) first-year lawyers at firms in major cities, where many of the judges are located.’ The cost of rectifying this would be less than 0.004% of the federal budget. The cost of not doing so will be a decrease in the quality of an increasingly important judiciary—and a change in its perspective. Fifty years ago, about 65 percent of the federal judiciary came from the private sector—from the practicing bar—and 35 percent from the public sector. Today 60 percent come from government jobs, less than 40 percent from private practice. This tends to produce a judiciary that is not only more important than ever but also is more of an extension of the bureaucracy than a check on it... The enlargement of the judiciary’s role by the regulatory state requires compensation of the judiciary commensurate with its ever-expanding importance. That importance, although regrettable, is a fact, and so is this: You get the quality—and the perspective—you pay for.” —George Will

Carol Platt Liebau: Barack Obama's Big Mistake -- and How He Fixes It
It was a fateful decision ? and a significant strategic mistake. Battered by the controversy over the remarks of his mentor and pastor, Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama delivered a speech designed to switch the national conversation from Wright to race.

Robert D. Novak: Deepening Democratic Dilemma
By elevating the question of race in America, the front-running Democratic presidential candidate has deepened the dilemma created by his campaign's success against the party establishment's anointed choice, Hillary Clinton.....

Sunday, March 23, 2008



We're Owed

From American Thinker

I know nuttin' 'bout it.....

“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” —James Cone, whose words are cited on Rev. Wright’s church website

Here's James Taranto's take on this: “Could Obama really have been unaware for all these years that his spiritual mentor follows a racially adversarial theology, one that demands of God that he be ‘for us and against white people’ and that he participate ‘in the destruction of the white enemy’? It doesn’t exactly sound like the sort of change we can believe in.” —James Taranto

Hate That Dares Not Speak Its Name


The Mideast: When a poll reveals all but a fraction of Palestinians support the murder of eight innocent Jewish seminarians, it shows a people wedded to evil. It's a short trip from this hate to the kind Hitler espoused.

Read Full Article

Obama Merely Changes The Subject

From Investor's Business Daily.

Election '08: Rather than break ties with his demagogic, anti-American pastor, Barack Obama used a speech on race to excuse his behavior and sweep the controversy under the rug. Passing the buck is not very presidential.

Speaking in Philadelphia, steps away from where the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were enacted, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president delivered an address that used the words "race" or "races" 11 times, "racial" or "racially" 15 times, and "racism" or "racist" six times.

But Obama's recent troubles, which this much-hyped speech was supposed to put past him, are not about race relations. They're about one churchman who happens to be black, whose views from the pulpit are repugnant and from whom Obama doesn't seem to have the guts to distance himself.

Reacting to being linked with a bigoted conspiracy theorist by lecturing the nation on race is like disgraced... (Read all of it here.)

Obama's Real Faith


Campaign 2008: Those spreading rumors that Barack Hussein Obama is a 'closet Muslim' are off the mark. His religion has little to do with Islam and everything to do with a militantly Afrocentric movement that's no less troubling.

Read Full Article


“Barack Obama’s story that he never once heard his preacher trash whites and America in hundreds of sermons sounds like Bill Clinton claiming he never inhaled while smoking dope. The mushrooming church scandal has taken the shine off the golden boy of politics, a two-decade regular at ‘unashamedly black’ Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. With his phony defense, the Democrat front-runner has exposed himself as both a typical Beltway spinmeister and a hypocrite.

From the start of his presidential campaign, Obama has positioned himself as a straight shooter and a uniter—the very antidote to the sinister Clintonian politics of the past... ‘You know what I’m saying is true,’ he reassured voters. Yet his denial over Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s vitriol does not ring true. He’s suddenly shocked—shocked!—that his black nationalist church would spew anti-American venom. ‘I did not hear such incendiary language myself, personally,’ he insisted, ‘either in conversations with him or when I was in the pew.’

Back in February 2007, however, Obama knew Wright might be a political liability. His chief campaign strategist, David Axelrod, was so worried about his provocative statements that he urged Obama to withdraw a request that Wright deliver an invocation at his presidential campaign kickoff. Reluctantly, Obama ‘uninvited’ his long-time friend and mentor, according to Wright’s own account at the time, telling him ‘it’s best for you not to be out there in public.’... Here’s another whopper Obama tells concerning Wright: ‘He hasn’t been my political adviser, he’s been my pastor.’ Yet it turns out Wright quietly had a formal role in Obama’s campaign, and was only pushed out last week as a member of his spiritual advisory committee when the tapes hit the airwaves. Spinning harder, Obama claimed Wright’s remarks are not ‘reflective of the church.’ Yet the videos clearly show fellow members whooping and thumping in their applause of Wright’s hateful rants. These weren’t just a smattering of amens and hallelujahs. They were standing ovations.

Point is, these are the folks with whom the Obamas worship and socialize. Yet we’re expected to believe Obama never heard the same incendiary remarks from them, either? His plea of ignorance doesn’t wash.” —Investor’s Business Daily

Obama's Church

Investor's Business Daily wrote about BHO's (Barack Hussein Obama) Afrocentric church on January 15, 2008, and had this to say:
Since we first drew attention to Barack Obama's Afrocentric church a full 12 months ago, (Obama's Real Faith, 1/22/2007) other media have weighed in. And additional disturbing information has come to light.

In 1991, when Obama joined the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, he pledged allegiance to something called the Black Value System, which is a code of non-Biblical ethics written by blacks, for blacks.

It encourages blacks to group together and separate from the larger American society by pooling their money, patronizing black-only businesses and backing black leaders. Such racial separatism is strangely at odds with the media's portrayal of Obama as a uniter who reaches across races.

The code also warns blacks to avoid the white "entrapment of black middle-classness," suggesting that settling for that kind of "competitive" success will rob blacks of their African identity and keep them "captive" to white culture.

In short, Obama's "unashamedly black" church preaches the politics of black nationalism. And its dashiki-wearing preacher — who married Obama and his wife and now acts as his personal spiritual adviser — is militantly Afrocentric. "We are an African people," the Rev. Jeremiah Wright reminds his flock, "and remain true to our native land, the mother continent."

Wright once traveled to Libya with black supremacist Louis Farrakhan to meet with terrorist leader Muammar Qaddafi. Last year at a Chicago gala, Wright honored his old pal Farrakhan, who's fond of calling whites "blue-eyed devils," for lifetime achievement.

It comes as little surprise then that Wright would think Israel a "racist" occupier of Palestinians, while describing the 9/11 attacks as a "wake-up call" to "white America" for ignoring the concerns of "people of color."

Wright makes the Rev. Jesse Jackson look almost moderate and patriotic. Yet this is whom Obama picked to baptize his daughters, plus to act as his "sounding board" during his presidential run.

Read the whole thing here.

“[T]here’s a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way.”

—Justice Anthony Kennedy during the hearings on the Second Amendment

ADF files appeal after court finds Christians "guilty" of praying

All-natural wonder drug decreases Parkinsons risk

"According to a study published in The American Journal of Epidemiology, drinking ¾ of a cup of black tea 23 times a month may decrease the risk of developing Parkinson's disease by 71 percent."

Read about it here.

This information should not be construed as medical advice or instruction. Readers should consult appropriate health professionals on matters relating to their health and well-being.

FDA Inspects Wrong Chinese Factory

The good news is that FDA officials were in China to look into the safety of a Chinese-made drug that's found in heparin, a blood thinner made by Baxter International, that's been linked to four deaths due to allergic reactions. The bad news? They actually evaluated the wrong factory.

The next time you reach for your prescription bottle, remember that it's been approved by the Keystone Kops.

The global economy is likely to be a dangerous economy. We need to hope and pray that our government is on its toes. If the FDA is going to allow the import of drugs from China, they need to watch both the Chinese and the U.S. drug manufacturers very, very closely. There's a great deal of money at stake, but patients within the American health care systems shouldn't become victims of a growing economy. -- Dr. William Douglass

Read more of Dr. Douglass's column, "
How will you be affected by the latest FDA mix-up?"

And with an ever increasing reliance on Chinese manufactured drugs comes an ever larger concern over the safety of our drugs.

Phyllis Schlafly, in an article "
China Trade: Patents, Poisons, Prescription Drugs," writes about the importance of, and the rapid growth of, its' pharmaceutical industry.

In her article she claims, "China is the world's biggest supplier of counterfeit, misbranded, substandard and unapproved pharmaceutical products to the United States. A dozen Chinese companies were producing Viagra until Pfizer finally won its patent protection lawsuit."

She also states:
China has picked biotech as the new engine to continue its economic phenomenon. The Chinese government is supporting biopharmaceutical enterprises politically and financially, helping the biopharmaceutical industry to grow by 31.2 percent annually from 2001 to 2005.

China is marketing itself as an international outsourcing hub for life sciences and has become the largest vaccine manufacturing country in the world, capable of producing 41 vaccines. China already has more than 400 biopharmaceutical companies of different ownerships and more than 20,000 biotech research scientists.

That number is increasing as the Chinese government is steadily repatriating its scientists who were trained in the United States. The hai gui, skilled Western-trained Chinese returnees who studied and worked in the U.S. for many years, acquiring academic and commercial experience, are now going back to China to take important positions at salaries that are one-third to one-fifth of U.S. salaries.

An estimated 80 percent of the active pharmaceutical ingredients used to make drugs sold in the United States are imported, and an estimated 40 percent of finished drugs are made in foreign countries. The Chinese drug agency does not even oversee the making of pharmaceutical raw materials, called intermediates, which are the building blocks for active pharmaceutical ingredients.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is slated to inspect only 13 of China's 714 drug firms, 1.8 percent, this year. U.S. drugmakers are inspected at least once every two years, but there is no such requirement about imports, and Government Accountability Office spokeswoman Marcia Crosse admitted that 13 years can pass before a foreign manufacturer is visited even once.

It makes the argument from the geniuses in our government that we shouldn't buy cheaper Canadian imported drugs because we cannot guarantee their safety just a tad silly. Wouldn't you say?