I've been trying to convince people that all this talk by the Democrats about being more sensitive towards the rights of women, blacks, gays, and other minorities is flat out nonsense . They just pretend to care simply because they want the minority vote.
The wonderful thing about this election is that the Democrats are FINALLY exposing their true colors for all to see. First of all, they snub one of their own prominent members for the presidential nomination, and then snub her again for the VP nomination. Then when the Republicans nominte a female VP, the Democrats attack her with many of the same sexist epithets they normally denounce (with no liberal feminist group coming to her rescue, not that Sarah Palin needs it or wants it lol).
Looking back, remember that the first woman to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court was nominated by a REPUBLICAN, and the only African-American currently sitting on the high court was also nominted by a REPUBLICAN.
So America finally gets to witness, first hand, the utter hypocrisy of the Democrats and how they end up betraying the very minority groups whose rights they claim to support. Believe it or not, I actually in a way feel sorry for Barack Obama, as a recent article I cite below points out that such racist betrayal by many whites in his own party might be what ends up costing him the election.
Although I sure hope that Obama loses the election, he shouldn't lose because of the color of his skin, but because he'd be a flat out horrible president who, among other things, would raise our taxes and place America's security at risk.
As Obama himself would say, a pig can be black, white, green, purple, or blue, but it's still a pig!
http://news. aol. com/article/racial-views-may-cost-obama-election/181935?icid=100214839x1209710216x1200549293
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
A Gay Man's Case Against Gay Marriage
Yup, that's what the headline says.
You aren't that drunk or hallucinated yet lol
I'll say it very clearly: I AM A GAY MAN, AND I OPPOSE GAY "MARRIAGE.
" Now, promise me that before you brand me a traitor or accuse me of being a gay "Uncle Tom," at least listen to what I have to say, fair enough?
First of all, if you’re really in love with someone, why the hell do you need a piece of paper to prove that? All it means is that when the relationship sours, your partner gets to take half of what you’ve worked so hard to earn (especially if you’re in a community property state like CA- just ask Jessica Simpson).
Most of my str8 friends tell me that society is actually doing gays a favor by not allowing us to get legally married and be forced to suffer the same misery lol
Regardless of how much of a hypocrite I might seem, I think that our state Supreme Court decision earlier this year was completely WRONG. I have actually read the decision in its entirety (from a legal persepctive and not a "gay" perspective) and it is filled with errors and misapplications of precedent, a clear example of overzealous judges overstepping their bounds and succumbing to cultural whims rather than using proper restraint and following the law. Californians have an opportunity on election day, as voters in a democracy (imagine that), to overturn the decision and I sure hope that we do. Either way, there is no way the decision will stand if, heaven forbid, it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In California, same sex couples can register with the state as domestic partners and receive almost all of the benefits a legally married couple get without it actually being called marriage. Even in other states, all it takes is a visit to an attorney to draft some forms (i.e. power of attorney, living will, etc.) and it’s almost just as if you were husband and wife. When I lived in Arizona, I knew a lesbian attorney whose entire practice consisted of providing these services to same-sex couples.
I do not believe this relegates us to second class citizens, as long as civil unions and domestic partnerships are available. By demanding marriage rights, gays and lesbians are claiming entitlement to something that was simply never intended for them, not due to bigotry or prejudice, but rather the nature of marriage itself as an institution.
As I like to (and need to) frequently remind so many of fellow gay men, "It’s not about you!"
To compare, I am sure that a lot of str8 men would love to be allowed to go into the ladies’ restroom, but they aren’t because any ladies restroom, since its opening, was intended for ladies only. As long as the men have their own restroom, even if they would rather go into the ladies room, this certainly doesn’t make men second class citizens or constitute "separate but equal." No one would dare proffer such a silly argument. It’s just simple common sense that a ladies restroom is for ladies only, just as it is simple common sense (not "homophobia") that marriage as an institution was always intended, and should always be intended, for ONE man and ONE woman. As a gay man, this does not make me feel inferior whatsoever, in the same way that it does not make me feel inferior that I am not allowed to purchase a home in a 55+ retirement community, or be hired to model female bikinis (sorry to disappoint all of you), or have to stand in the long line everytime I go through customs at a European airport. Oh, and how dare the manager at McDonald’s tell me I’m not allowed anymore to play in the children’s play area and jump in the ball pit.
I am going to hire the ACLU and sue!
*Oh, and contrary to popular belief, Sarah Palin did NOT oppose domestic partner benefits for Alaska state employees. I exchanged e-mails last night with a lady who actually works for the state of Alaska, and she says that her gay and lesbian colleagues have always received such benefits. It never ceases to amaze me, especially in this particular campaign, how the media blurs the line between perception and reality, and how so many of us are still falling for it hookline and sinker. I’m working on a blog posting this weekend on that very subject.
This ought to generate some lively conversation, can’t wait to hear your thoughts =)
You aren't that drunk or hallucinated yet lol
I'll say it very clearly: I AM A GAY MAN, AND I OPPOSE GAY "MARRIAGE.
" Now, promise me that before you brand me a traitor or accuse me of being a gay "Uncle Tom," at least listen to what I have to say, fair enough?
First of all, if you’re really in love with someone, why the hell do you need a piece of paper to prove that? All it means is that when the relationship sours, your partner gets to take half of what you’ve worked so hard to earn (especially if you’re in a community property state like CA- just ask Jessica Simpson).
Most of my str8 friends tell me that society is actually doing gays a favor by not allowing us to get legally married and be forced to suffer the same misery lol
Regardless of how much of a hypocrite I might seem, I think that our state Supreme Court decision earlier this year was completely WRONG. I have actually read the decision in its entirety (from a legal persepctive and not a "gay" perspective) and it is filled with errors and misapplications of precedent, a clear example of overzealous judges overstepping their bounds and succumbing to cultural whims rather than using proper restraint and following the law. Californians have an opportunity on election day, as voters in a democracy (imagine that), to overturn the decision and I sure hope that we do. Either way, there is no way the decision will stand if, heaven forbid, it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In California, same sex couples can register with the state as domestic partners and receive almost all of the benefits a legally married couple get without it actually being called marriage. Even in other states, all it takes is a visit to an attorney to draft some forms (i.e. power of attorney, living will, etc.) and it’s almost just as if you were husband and wife. When I lived in Arizona, I knew a lesbian attorney whose entire practice consisted of providing these services to same-sex couples.
I do not believe this relegates us to second class citizens, as long as civil unions and domestic partnerships are available. By demanding marriage rights, gays and lesbians are claiming entitlement to something that was simply never intended for them, not due to bigotry or prejudice, but rather the nature of marriage itself as an institution.
As I like to (and need to) frequently remind so many of fellow gay men, "It’s not about you!"
To compare, I am sure that a lot of str8 men would love to be allowed to go into the ladies’ restroom, but they aren’t because any ladies restroom, since its opening, was intended for ladies only. As long as the men have their own restroom, even if they would rather go into the ladies room, this certainly doesn’t make men second class citizens or constitute "separate but equal." No one would dare proffer such a silly argument. It’s just simple common sense that a ladies restroom is for ladies only, just as it is simple common sense (not "homophobia") that marriage as an institution was always intended, and should always be intended, for ONE man and ONE woman. As a gay man, this does not make me feel inferior whatsoever, in the same way that it does not make me feel inferior that I am not allowed to purchase a home in a 55+ retirement community, or be hired to model female bikinis (sorry to disappoint all of you), or have to stand in the long line everytime I go through customs at a European airport. Oh, and how dare the manager at McDonald’s tell me I’m not allowed anymore to play in the children’s play area and jump in the ball pit.
I am going to hire the ACLU and sue!
*Oh, and contrary to popular belief, Sarah Palin did NOT oppose domestic partner benefits for Alaska state employees. I exchanged e-mails last night with a lady who actually works for the state of Alaska, and she says that her gay and lesbian colleagues have always received such benefits. It never ceases to amaze me, especially in this particular campaign, how the media blurs the line between perception and reality, and how so many of us are still falling for it hookline and sinker. I’m working on a blog posting this weekend on that very subject.
This ought to generate some lively conversation, can’t wait to hear your thoughts =)
Thursday, September 18, 2008
The Jewish Case For John McCain
This is what "Jews for McCain" say on their MySpace profile. It's definitely worth reading:
Quote from Obama's Book- "The Audacity of Hope" : "I WILL STAND WITH THE MUSLIMS SHOULD THE POLITICAL WINDS SHIFT IN AN UGLY DIRECTION. " - BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
Jewish Americans for McCain '08 consider Israel's protection a priority. Senator McCain has stated many times that he would protect Israel and not tolerate any attacks. With Iran's threats of building nuclear bombs, Senator McCain has made it clear that if he is elected President, he will allow Israel to protect themselves and will assist them in the fight against these Islamic extremists planning on mass murder. On the other hand, Senator Obama has already stated that he would not tolerate Israel fighting Iran back and believes that America should "stand back and provide and example of peace". To create peace, you must fight off the ones planning on destroying it! Sitting back and allowing Israel to be wiped off the map, is not the peaceful thing to do. Senator Obama is all words, no action. All of a sudden when he needed the Jewish vote, he starts saying he supports Israel. Yet, he still admitted that he would meet with Iranian leaders, while both Senator Clinton and Senator McCain said they would not meet with them until their threats had stopped. In additon, Senator Obama still has not claimed that he would engage in full protection of Israel! He has only stated "I support Israel" after his advisors told him that he needed the Jewish vote. Well, Actions speak louder than words and we cannot let Israel be destroyed by sitting back and doing nothing. We are not racist, nor are we against Obama because we believe that he is "muslim". However, we are accusing him of not taking action to help Israel because of his radical liberal beliefs of staying out of war. Sitting back is the same thing as allowing Israel to be destroyed. It is allowing a second Holocaust to happen. Israel was created so that the Jews could feel secure and know that no Holocaust would ever happen again.
NEVER AGAIN. Never again should the Jews be mass murdered. You cannot be a good commander in chief if you do not protect your important allies!
Senator Obama does not have the experience to lead this nation as commander in chief, while McCain does. Foreign policy is Senator Obama's weakest point and now is not the time to be taking risks on some young idealistic rookie. While many Jews are democrats (including the ones who created this page and Senator Joe Lieberman), we understand that Israel's safety is imperative right now and voting for Senator McCain ensures us of this. In addition, it pleases the democratic Jews to know that Senator McCain is more of a liberal Republican (so much that many conservative Republicans do not like him). His close friendships with many democrats (such as the Clintons) proves this. While, most of us Jewish Democrats wanted Senator Clinton to be President in '08 and admit that she was our first choice, we understand that there is only one candidate right now who will fight for Israel's safety. The fact that there is a democratic majority in Congress also keeps our minds at peace knowing that they will not allow McCain to make any extreme Republican changes. This is not just a group for Jewish Americans, this is a group for those who support Israel. You do not need to be a religious Jew, you may just appreciate your heritage, your family, your people and that is why you are supporting Israel. You don't need to be Jewish at all to want to stand up for one of America's most important allies. This is not only defending Israel, but it is defending the United States in the long run. By not tolerating any attack on Israel from these Islamic extremists, you are not tolerating terrorism. PLEASE VOTE MCCAIN '08 TO PROTECT ISRAEL!!!!!
The Jewish Connecticut Democratic senator Joe Lieberman, decided to endorse McCain because he considers him "the most capable to be commander in chief on day one of his administration, and the most capable of uniting the country so that we can prevail against Islamic extremism," a Lieberman aide said earlier.
From Israel National News:
Why should strongly traditional Democratic Jews change and vote for the Republican John McCain? Because he is the best candidate, with a pro-Israel bias and a proven track record, with military experience and knowledge. In other words, he is the real thing. Not a bunch of buzz words like "change" and "hope". McCain has a solid foundation and groundwork to build upon. He is the genuine real deal. Not a bunch of rhetoric, but solid substance.
Throughout his 25 years as a US Congressman and Senator, John McCain has clearly demonstrated a breadth and depth of support on critical issues; not only with his words, but with his actions. He is no newcomer to these issues, nor even to the Jewish state. Sen. McCain has visited Israel many times, dating back to his days as a Naval officer and as recently as March 2008.
Sen. McCain has consistently and publicly advocated for critical and necessary legislation, even when it was less popular. Early in his political career, during 1985, Sen. McCain sponsored legislation urging Egypt to honor the Camp David Accords - Egypt’s historic peace agreement with Israel, in which Israel gave up land equivalent geographically to three times the total land mass of Israel in exchange for peace.
During 1987, he supported Senate Resolution 205, signed into law by President Reagan, which called for the overturn of the United Nation’s infamous proclamation equating “Zionism with Racism” sponsored by the Arab League of Nations.
During 1991, when Israel showed considerable restraint by not retaliating against Saddam Hussein as SCUD missiles rained down upon civilians under siege, Sen. McCain supported the resolution recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself and America’s promise to help Israel maintain its safety, security and freedom.
Sen. McCain also stood up to leaders and political pressure within his own political party to tie together loans and funding to Israel.
During 2000, Sen. McCain strongly advocated the renewal of the Iran-Syria Sanctions Act.
Sen. McCain enjoys an excellent relationship with many Israeli elected leaders and officials, including but not limited to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister (and former Prime Minister) Ehud Barak.
Sen. McCain understands and can discuss fluently the history of Israel ’s wars, the geography of the borders, and the moral values at the very core of the strategic alliance between the US and Israel.
But it is perhaps Sen. McCain’s grasp and great understanding of the serious threat of the spread of radical Islam that has made him such a staunch supporter and ally of Israel.
Sen. McCain clearly stands apart from his opponent Barack Hussein Obama. His clarity is evident in both actions and words. Responding to the rants and raves of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, McCain made his position clear: “I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran, we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.”
According to the former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), “John McCain has proven that we can trust him to do what is right for the country, not only when it is easy, but when it is hard; to do what is necessary, not only when it is popular, but when it is not; and to tell us the truth, not only when it is easy to hear, but when it is not.... He will push all of us to work together to solve our biggest problems, and defeat our most dangerous enemies.”
Time and time again, McCain proves both with actions and words his strong support for Israel. And not just when it is convenient and politically correct to do so,(like Obama).
One can clearly see McCain’s proven track record shows he is the best candidate for America ’s Commander-in-Chief and President of the United States. McCain is the real deal for leadership in turbulent times. A true blue friend and staunch supporter of the American Jewish community and Israel.
Quote from Obama's Book- "The Audacity of Hope" : "I WILL STAND WITH THE MUSLIMS SHOULD THE POLITICAL WINDS SHIFT IN AN UGLY DIRECTION. " - BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
Jewish Americans for McCain '08 consider Israel's protection a priority. Senator McCain has stated many times that he would protect Israel and not tolerate any attacks. With Iran's threats of building nuclear bombs, Senator McCain has made it clear that if he is elected President, he will allow Israel to protect themselves and will assist them in the fight against these Islamic extremists planning on mass murder. On the other hand, Senator Obama has already stated that he would not tolerate Israel fighting Iran back and believes that America should "stand back and provide and example of peace". To create peace, you must fight off the ones planning on destroying it! Sitting back and allowing Israel to be wiped off the map, is not the peaceful thing to do. Senator Obama is all words, no action. All of a sudden when he needed the Jewish vote, he starts saying he supports Israel. Yet, he still admitted that he would meet with Iranian leaders, while both Senator Clinton and Senator McCain said they would not meet with them until their threats had stopped. In additon, Senator Obama still has not claimed that he would engage in full protection of Israel! He has only stated "I support Israel" after his advisors told him that he needed the Jewish vote. Well, Actions speak louder than words and we cannot let Israel be destroyed by sitting back and doing nothing. We are not racist, nor are we against Obama because we believe that he is "muslim". However, we are accusing him of not taking action to help Israel because of his radical liberal beliefs of staying out of war. Sitting back is the same thing as allowing Israel to be destroyed. It is allowing a second Holocaust to happen. Israel was created so that the Jews could feel secure and know that no Holocaust would ever happen again.
NEVER AGAIN. Never again should the Jews be mass murdered. You cannot be a good commander in chief if you do not protect your important allies!
Senator Obama does not have the experience to lead this nation as commander in chief, while McCain does. Foreign policy is Senator Obama's weakest point and now is not the time to be taking risks on some young idealistic rookie. While many Jews are democrats (including the ones who created this page and Senator Joe Lieberman), we understand that Israel's safety is imperative right now and voting for Senator McCain ensures us of this. In addition, it pleases the democratic Jews to know that Senator McCain is more of a liberal Republican (so much that many conservative Republicans do not like him). His close friendships with many democrats (such as the Clintons) proves this. While, most of us Jewish Democrats wanted Senator Clinton to be President in '08 and admit that she was our first choice, we understand that there is only one candidate right now who will fight for Israel's safety. The fact that there is a democratic majority in Congress also keeps our minds at peace knowing that they will not allow McCain to make any extreme Republican changes. This is not just a group for Jewish Americans, this is a group for those who support Israel. You do not need to be a religious Jew, you may just appreciate your heritage, your family, your people and that is why you are supporting Israel. You don't need to be Jewish at all to want to stand up for one of America's most important allies. This is not only defending Israel, but it is defending the United States in the long run. By not tolerating any attack on Israel from these Islamic extremists, you are not tolerating terrorism. PLEASE VOTE MCCAIN '08 TO PROTECT ISRAEL!!!!!
The Jewish Connecticut Democratic senator Joe Lieberman, decided to endorse McCain because he considers him "the most capable to be commander in chief on day one of his administration, and the most capable of uniting the country so that we can prevail against Islamic extremism," a Lieberman aide said earlier.
From Israel National News:
Why should strongly traditional Democratic Jews change and vote for the Republican John McCain? Because he is the best candidate, with a pro-Israel bias and a proven track record, with military experience and knowledge. In other words, he is the real thing. Not a bunch of buzz words like "change" and "hope". McCain has a solid foundation and groundwork to build upon. He is the genuine real deal. Not a bunch of rhetoric, but solid substance.
Throughout his 25 years as a US Congressman and Senator, John McCain has clearly demonstrated a breadth and depth of support on critical issues; not only with his words, but with his actions. He is no newcomer to these issues, nor even to the Jewish state. Sen. McCain has visited Israel many times, dating back to his days as a Naval officer and as recently as March 2008.
Sen. McCain has consistently and publicly advocated for critical and necessary legislation, even when it was less popular. Early in his political career, during 1985, Sen. McCain sponsored legislation urging Egypt to honor the Camp David Accords - Egypt’s historic peace agreement with Israel, in which Israel gave up land equivalent geographically to three times the total land mass of Israel in exchange for peace.
During 1987, he supported Senate Resolution 205, signed into law by President Reagan, which called for the overturn of the United Nation’s infamous proclamation equating “Zionism with Racism” sponsored by the Arab League of Nations.
During 1991, when Israel showed considerable restraint by not retaliating against Saddam Hussein as SCUD missiles rained down upon civilians under siege, Sen. McCain supported the resolution recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself and America’s promise to help Israel maintain its safety, security and freedom.
Sen. McCain also stood up to leaders and political pressure within his own political party to tie together loans and funding to Israel.
During 2000, Sen. McCain strongly advocated the renewal of the Iran-Syria Sanctions Act.
Sen. McCain enjoys an excellent relationship with many Israeli elected leaders and officials, including but not limited to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister (and former Prime Minister) Ehud Barak.
Sen. McCain understands and can discuss fluently the history of Israel ’s wars, the geography of the borders, and the moral values at the very core of the strategic alliance between the US and Israel.
But it is perhaps Sen. McCain’s grasp and great understanding of the serious threat of the spread of radical Islam that has made him such a staunch supporter and ally of Israel.
Sen. McCain clearly stands apart from his opponent Barack Hussein Obama. His clarity is evident in both actions and words. Responding to the rants and raves of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, McCain made his position clear: “I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran, we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.”
According to the former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), “John McCain has proven that we can trust him to do what is right for the country, not only when it is easy, but when it is hard; to do what is necessary, not only when it is popular, but when it is not; and to tell us the truth, not only when it is easy to hear, but when it is not.... He will push all of us to work together to solve our biggest problems, and defeat our most dangerous enemies.”
Time and time again, McCain proves both with actions and words his strong support for Israel. And not just when it is convenient and politically correct to do so,(like Obama).
One can clearly see McCain’s proven track record shows he is the best candidate for America ’s Commander-in-Chief and President of the United States. McCain is the real deal for leadership in turbulent times. A true blue friend and staunch supporter of the American Jewish community and Israel.
Those Desert Folks Are Mighty Smart!
I was in Palm Springs this past weekend, and came across two very well written Letters to the Editor in the local paper. Thought I'd share them with all of you:
Obama's link to Ayers
Why is the media ignoring Barack Obama's connection to a radical professor who once engaged in terrorist activity?
Long before I ever heard the name Barack Obama, I knew the name William Ayers. Ayers was a rich kid turned domestic terrorist.
He helped found the radical Weather Underground and was responsible for bombings of the Capitol Building, the Pentagon and a police station.
Ayers' followers would go on to commit murder during a bank robbery.
Like many rich kids, Ayers was able to escape prosecution for his violent acts.
Since the 1980s, Ayers has been an education professor devoting his time to an extremist education philosophy that seeks to infuse radical Marxist worldview into America's K-12 curriculum.
Obama has been a friend and associate of Ayers for years. The two have served together on the board of a left-wing foundation, and Ayers chose Obama to work on one of his education “reform” organizations. Sen. Obama's political career literally began at a meet-and-greet in Ayers' living room.
Here we have a clear case of a presidential candidate who has close associations with a hateful extremist, yet the media refuse to look at the story.
John Miller
Palm Desert
A Woman of Substance
As a woman, and a proud Republican, I am insulted by some of your contributors' letters such as “don't be fooled, women.” There are still those out there, some women I believe to be bitter, and many men who still have us in a “box,“ telling us what to do, think, and who to vote for.
Dan Quayle was weak and George W. has not proven to be anyone's favorite. How about Bill Clinton and Monica?
Is that OK? It must be that he didn't inhale.
We keep hearing how old John McCain is, Joe Biden is tried and tired. Obama is a wonderful speaker, self assured, but empty.
Considering all of his talent he'd sell better on a soap opera than as leader of this great nation. I was inspired by John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin, and now that I've heard her, even more.
Get out of the box girls, don't be fooled by rhetoric!
Once again I'm proud to be voting Republican, and for candidates with real substance.
Alice Broich
Cathedral City
Obama's link to Ayers
Why is the media ignoring Barack Obama's connection to a radical professor who once engaged in terrorist activity?
Long before I ever heard the name Barack Obama, I knew the name William Ayers. Ayers was a rich kid turned domestic terrorist.
He helped found the radical Weather Underground and was responsible for bombings of the Capitol Building, the Pentagon and a police station.
Ayers' followers would go on to commit murder during a bank robbery.
Like many rich kids, Ayers was able to escape prosecution for his violent acts.
Since the 1980s, Ayers has been an education professor devoting his time to an extremist education philosophy that seeks to infuse radical Marxist worldview into America's K-12 curriculum.
Obama has been a friend and associate of Ayers for years. The two have served together on the board of a left-wing foundation, and Ayers chose Obama to work on one of his education “reform” organizations. Sen. Obama's political career literally began at a meet-and-greet in Ayers' living room.
Here we have a clear case of a presidential candidate who has close associations with a hateful extremist, yet the media refuse to look at the story.
John Miller
Palm Desert
A Woman of Substance
As a woman, and a proud Republican, I am insulted by some of your contributors' letters such as “don't be fooled, women.” There are still those out there, some women I believe to be bitter, and many men who still have us in a “box,“ telling us what to do, think, and who to vote for.
Dan Quayle was weak and George W. has not proven to be anyone's favorite. How about Bill Clinton and Monica?
Is that OK? It must be that he didn't inhale.
We keep hearing how old John McCain is, Joe Biden is tried and tired. Obama is a wonderful speaker, self assured, but empty.
Considering all of his talent he'd sell better on a soap opera than as leader of this great nation. I was inspired by John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin, and now that I've heard her, even more.
Get out of the box girls, don't be fooled by rhetoric!
Once again I'm proud to be voting Republican, and for candidates with real substance.
Alice Broich
Cathedral City
BIDEN: Paying Higher Taxes Is "Patriotic"
Are you kidding me????
Read for yourself and have vomit bag on hand . . .
http://news. yahoo. com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_el_pr/biden_taxes_3
Read for yourself and have vomit bag on hand . . .
http://news. yahoo. com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_el_pr/biden_taxes_3
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
McCain Offers REAL Change
Conservatism would offer political change
John F. McLaughlin • Special to The Desert Sun • September 13, 2008
There's been much talk lately about introducing political change in Washington. Yet, upon examination, most of what is being called “change” looks just like more and larger doses of the same. I suggest that, in today's political environment, it is conservatism that offers real political change.
Webster's dictionary defines a conservative as “one who opposes hasty changes in the political, religious or civil institutions of the country.” Modern conservatism now means more than that.
Conservatives today seek positive objectives rooted in important principles of governance.
(1) All humans are born equal under the law but cannot be assured of equal outcomes in life;
(2) Humans derive inherent and inalienable rights from their Creator — not from men — and among those are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit (but not necessarily the attainment) of happiness; and
(3) Humans establish governments to protect those rights from enemies foreign and domestic — not to create new “rights.”
Based upon those principles and after a struggle lasting some 13 years, the Founding Fathers established a unique Constitution for the U.S. government. The original document began with the words “we the people” and ended with 10 amendments limiting the power of the central government.
The original Constitution contained numerous flaws — most of which were corrected over the next 150 years (and not without bloodshed). The resulting great “American experiment” of a free people living in a federal republic of sovereign states has proved successful beyond all historical measures. However, another concept of governance — the ages-old idea of central government control — threatens that American experiment.
People, alarmed at a record of continuing failure — particularly in the last 50 years — of more and ever-larger programs seeking centralized “collective” solutions to societal problems, now form the modern “conservative” movement.
Conservatives believe that only individuals — millions of them — unshackled by overreaching federal or state governments make choices best for themselves and their families. Their ingenuity, entrepreneurship and hard labor reap benefits not only for themselves but for society as a whole — results not producible by government bureaucrats.
In essence, conservatives believe in individual freedom (including the freedom to make bad decisions) with as little government control as possible.
Conservatives are NOT “anti-government.” They recognize government must maintain order, provide national security from foreign and domestic threats, and administer justice — including preserving individual rights. However, in stark contrast to liberals today, conservatives believe government (including an activist judiciary) cannot coercively solve societal problems. Only individuals can solve problems if government just gets out of the way.
Such freedom ensures boundless opportunities but not equal outcomes. Individuals and businesses enjoy differing levels of success — clearly providing the incentive to do better.
Liberals see inequality in the free enterprise system and demand that it be rectified — by punishing achievers. They use government coercion via taxation or regulation to redistribute wealth inconsistent with a free society, seeking “equality” by making everyone equally miserable.
While cloaking their actions in noble intentions, they diminish incentives to succeed, promote widespread dependency on a government bureaucracy they seek to control, and destroy civility as different segments of society fight over ever-increasing government largesse.
History shows entrepreneurial capitalism promotes wealth and prosperity. Big government policies advocated by the current “liberal” or “progressive” derivatives of socialism fail every time they're tried. The socialist credo “from each according to his ability — to each according to his need” repeatedly destroys the human spirit. The only individuals who do well under such systems become those who decide from whom to take and to whom to give. Such individuals cannot call themselves “conservative.”
John F. McLaughlin • Special to The Desert Sun • September 13, 2008
There's been much talk lately about introducing political change in Washington. Yet, upon examination, most of what is being called “change” looks just like more and larger doses of the same. I suggest that, in today's political environment, it is conservatism that offers real political change.
Webster's dictionary defines a conservative as “one who opposes hasty changes in the political, religious or civil institutions of the country.” Modern conservatism now means more than that.
Conservatives today seek positive objectives rooted in important principles of governance.
(1) All humans are born equal under the law but cannot be assured of equal outcomes in life;
(2) Humans derive inherent and inalienable rights from their Creator — not from men — and among those are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit (but not necessarily the attainment) of happiness; and
(3) Humans establish governments to protect those rights from enemies foreign and domestic — not to create new “rights.”
Based upon those principles and after a struggle lasting some 13 years, the Founding Fathers established a unique Constitution for the U.S. government. The original document began with the words “we the people” and ended with 10 amendments limiting the power of the central government.
The original Constitution contained numerous flaws — most of which were corrected over the next 150 years (and not without bloodshed). The resulting great “American experiment” of a free people living in a federal republic of sovereign states has proved successful beyond all historical measures. However, another concept of governance — the ages-old idea of central government control — threatens that American experiment.
People, alarmed at a record of continuing failure — particularly in the last 50 years — of more and ever-larger programs seeking centralized “collective” solutions to societal problems, now form the modern “conservative” movement.
Conservatives believe that only individuals — millions of them — unshackled by overreaching federal or state governments make choices best for themselves and their families. Their ingenuity, entrepreneurship and hard labor reap benefits not only for themselves but for society as a whole — results not producible by government bureaucrats.
In essence, conservatives believe in individual freedom (including the freedom to make bad decisions) with as little government control as possible.
Conservatives are NOT “anti-government.” They recognize government must maintain order, provide national security from foreign and domestic threats, and administer justice — including preserving individual rights. However, in stark contrast to liberals today, conservatives believe government (including an activist judiciary) cannot coercively solve societal problems. Only individuals can solve problems if government just gets out of the way.
Such freedom ensures boundless opportunities but not equal outcomes. Individuals and businesses enjoy differing levels of success — clearly providing the incentive to do better.
Liberals see inequality in the free enterprise system and demand that it be rectified — by punishing achievers. They use government coercion via taxation or regulation to redistribute wealth inconsistent with a free society, seeking “equality” by making everyone equally miserable.
While cloaking their actions in noble intentions, they diminish incentives to succeed, promote widespread dependency on a government bureaucracy they seek to control, and destroy civility as different segments of society fight over ever-increasing government largesse.
History shows entrepreneurial capitalism promotes wealth and prosperity. Big government policies advocated by the current “liberal” or “progressive” derivatives of socialism fail every time they're tried. The socialist credo “from each according to his ability — to each according to his need” repeatedly destroys the human spirit. The only individuals who do well under such systems become those who decide from whom to take and to whom to give. Such individuals cannot call themselves “conservative.”
Sarah Palin vs. The Feminists
I offered my own little spoof on this issue in a "Top 10" list. If you haven't seen it yet, let me know and I'll send you a copy. Meanwhile, Cathy Young's recent column in the Wall Street Journal that sheds further light on the issue. The bottom line is that a woman like Sarah Palin threatens to turn the liberal feminist movement upside down, as she is a living and breathing refutation of the very core principles and foundation of the movement, thus threatening to expose its real agenda.
As a result we are witnessing quite a political revival, as women throughout the nation, who have long aligned themselves with the feminist movement, are beginning to question whether groups like NOW are truly dedicated to advancing women's rights, or are just another liberal advocacy group more concerned with a political agenda, regardless of the effect on American women. The nomination of Sarah Palin as VP, and the nasty feminist response, threatens to expose liberal feminism for what it really is. As you'd reasonably expect, the leaders of this movement are raging mad.
Ayn Rand, were she alive today, would classify the bitter feminist opposition to Palin as textbook egalitarianism. Here is the full text of Cathy Young's column. Talk about hitting the nail right on the head!!!
Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin
By CATHY YOUNG
Left-wing feminists have a hard time dealing with strong, successful conservative women in politics such as Margaret Thatcher. Sarah Palin seems to have truly unhinged more than a few, eliciting a stream of vicious, often misogynist invective.
On Salon. com last week, Cintra Wilson branded her a "Christian Stepford Wife" and a "Republican blow-up doll." Wendy Doniger, religion professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, added on the Washington Post blog, "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."
You'd think that, whether or not they agree with her politics, feminists would at least applaud Mrs. Palin as a living example of one of their core principles: a woman's right to have a career and a family. Yet some feminists unabashedly suggest that her decision to seek the vice presidency makes her a bad and selfish mother. Others argue that she is bad for working mothers because she's just too good at having it all.
In the Boston Globe on Friday, columnist Ellen Goodman frets that Mrs. Palin is a "supermom" whose supporters "think a woman can have it all as long as she can do it all . . . by herself." In fact, Sarah Palin is doing it with the help of her husband Todd, who is currently on leave from his job as an oil worker. But Ms. Goodman's problem is that "she doesn't need anything from anyone outside the family. She isn't lobbying for, say, maternity leave, equal pay, or universal pre-K."
This also galls Katherine Marsh, writing in the latest issue of The New Republic. Mrs. Palin admits to having "an incredible support system -- a husband with flexible jobs rather than a competing career . . . and a host of nearby grandparents, aunts, and uncles." Yet, Ms. Marsh charges, she does not endorse government policies to help less-advantaged working mothers -- for instance, by promoting day-care centers.
Mrs. Palin's marriage actually makes her a terrific role model. One of the best choices a woman can make if she wants a career and a family is to pick a partner who will be able to take on equal or primary responsibility for child-rearing. Our culture still harbors a lingering perception that such men are less than manly -- and who better to smash that stereotype than "First Dude" Todd Palin?
Nevertheless, when Sarah Palin offered a tribute to her husband in her Republican National Convention speech, New York Times columnist Judith Warner read this as a message that she is "subordinate to a great man." Perhaps the message was a brilliant reversal of the old saw that behind every man is a great woman: Here, the great woman is out in front and the great man provides the support. Isn't that real feminism?
Not to Ms. Marsh, who insists that feminism must demand support for women from the government. In this worldview, advocating more federal subsidies for institutional day care is pro-woman; advocating tax breaks or regulatory reform that would help home-based care providers -- preferred by most working parents -- is not. Trying to legislate away the gender gap in earnings (which no self-respecting economist today blames primarily on discrimination) is feminist. Expanding opportunities for part-time and flexible jobs is "the Republican Party line."
I disagree with Sarah Palin on a number of issues, including abortion rights. But when the feminist establishment treats not only pro-life feminism but small-government, individualist feminism as heresy, it writes off multitudes of women.
Of course, being a feminist role model is not part of the vice president's job description, and there are legitimate questions about Mrs. Palin's qualifications. And yet, like millions of American women -- and men -- I find her can-do feminism infinitely more liberated than the what-can-the-government-do-for-me brand espoused by the sisterhood.
Ms. Young, a contributing editor at Reason magazine, is author of "Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces To Achieve True Equality" (Free Press, 1999).
As a result we are witnessing quite a political revival, as women throughout the nation, who have long aligned themselves with the feminist movement, are beginning to question whether groups like NOW are truly dedicated to advancing women's rights, or are just another liberal advocacy group more concerned with a political agenda, regardless of the effect on American women. The nomination of Sarah Palin as VP, and the nasty feminist response, threatens to expose liberal feminism for what it really is. As you'd reasonably expect, the leaders of this movement are raging mad.
Ayn Rand, were she alive today, would classify the bitter feminist opposition to Palin as textbook egalitarianism. Here is the full text of Cathy Young's column. Talk about hitting the nail right on the head!!!
Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin
By CATHY YOUNG
Left-wing feminists have a hard time dealing with strong, successful conservative women in politics such as Margaret Thatcher. Sarah Palin seems to have truly unhinged more than a few, eliciting a stream of vicious, often misogynist invective.
On Salon. com last week, Cintra Wilson branded her a "Christian Stepford Wife" and a "Republican blow-up doll." Wendy Doniger, religion professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, added on the Washington Post blog, "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."
You'd think that, whether or not they agree with her politics, feminists would at least applaud Mrs. Palin as a living example of one of their core principles: a woman's right to have a career and a family. Yet some feminists unabashedly suggest that her decision to seek the vice presidency makes her a bad and selfish mother. Others argue that she is bad for working mothers because she's just too good at having it all.
In the Boston Globe on Friday, columnist Ellen Goodman frets that Mrs. Palin is a "supermom" whose supporters "think a woman can have it all as long as she can do it all . . . by herself." In fact, Sarah Palin is doing it with the help of her husband Todd, who is currently on leave from his job as an oil worker. But Ms. Goodman's problem is that "she doesn't need anything from anyone outside the family. She isn't lobbying for, say, maternity leave, equal pay, or universal pre-K."
This also galls Katherine Marsh, writing in the latest issue of The New Republic. Mrs. Palin admits to having "an incredible support system -- a husband with flexible jobs rather than a competing career . . . and a host of nearby grandparents, aunts, and uncles." Yet, Ms. Marsh charges, she does not endorse government policies to help less-advantaged working mothers -- for instance, by promoting day-care centers.
Mrs. Palin's marriage actually makes her a terrific role model. One of the best choices a woman can make if she wants a career and a family is to pick a partner who will be able to take on equal or primary responsibility for child-rearing. Our culture still harbors a lingering perception that such men are less than manly -- and who better to smash that stereotype than "First Dude" Todd Palin?
Nevertheless, when Sarah Palin offered a tribute to her husband in her Republican National Convention speech, New York Times columnist Judith Warner read this as a message that she is "subordinate to a great man." Perhaps the message was a brilliant reversal of the old saw that behind every man is a great woman: Here, the great woman is out in front and the great man provides the support. Isn't that real feminism?
Not to Ms. Marsh, who insists that feminism must demand support for women from the government. In this worldview, advocating more federal subsidies for institutional day care is pro-woman; advocating tax breaks or regulatory reform that would help home-based care providers -- preferred by most working parents -- is not. Trying to legislate away the gender gap in earnings (which no self-respecting economist today blames primarily on discrimination) is feminist. Expanding opportunities for part-time and flexible jobs is "the Republican Party line."
I disagree with Sarah Palin on a number of issues, including abortion rights. But when the feminist establishment treats not only pro-life feminism but small-government, individualist feminism as heresy, it writes off multitudes of women.
Of course, being a feminist role model is not part of the vice president's job description, and there are legitimate questions about Mrs. Palin's qualifications. And yet, like millions of American women -- and men -- I find her can-do feminism infinitely more liberated than the what-can-the-government-do-for-me brand espoused by the sisterhood.
Ms. Young, a contributing editor at Reason magazine, is author of "Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces To Achieve True Equality" (Free Press, 1999).
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
McCain's Comments to AIPAC
If your stomach is still churning as much as mine after reading Obama's comments, perhaps a few of John McCain's remaks at the very same AIPAC conference will provide a somewhat effective remedy:
"Sheer survival in the face of Israel's many trials would have been impressive enough. But Israel has achieved much more than that these past sixty years. Israel has endured, and thrived, and her people have built a nation that is an inspiration to free nations everywhere."
"When we join in saying `never again,' that is not a wish, a request, or a plea to the enemies of Israel. It is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, aganst any enemy who dares to test us"
*This is clearly a much stronger and uncompromising stance than Barack Obama even pretends to have.
"The Iranian president has called for Israel be `wiped off the map' and suggested that Israel's Jewish population should return to Europe. He calls Israel a `stinking corpse' that is `on its way to annihilation.' "
"A sponsor of both Hamas and Hezbollah, the leadership of Iran has repeatedly used violence to undermine Israel and the Middle East peace process."
*As usual, McCain is a "straight shooter." He refuses to downplay or "sugar coat" the reality of how evil the Iranian regime really is.
"It's hard to see what a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting another."
"Should the [UN] Security Council continue to delay in [imposing further sanctions against Iran], the United States must lead like-minded countries in imposing multilateral sanctions outside the UN framework . . . a severe limit on Iranian imports of gasoline would create immediate pressure on Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to change course, and to cease in the pursuit of nuclear weapons."
*Again, I doubt that such pressure would really make Iran change its ways, but it's definitely a positive sign when McCain is not afraid to bypass the often incompetent UN Security Council when it won't do its job. If we keep the sanctions coming, it might just make the Iranian people's lives so miserable under the already unpopular Islamofacist regime that they will unite together, overthrow their corrupt government, depose their moronic president, and send the mullahs running for their lives. Since the Iranians are used to public hangings, I'm sure that if incited enough, they'll know exactly how to rid themselves of the Ayatollah for good!
McCain added that he was one of three U.S. Senators (and it shouldn't even need saying that Barack Obama was NOT one of the other two) that called for "designation of the Revolutionary Guard, [Iran's military unit] as a terrosist organization responsible for killing American troops in Iraq."
"Holding Iran's influence in check, and holding a terrorist organization accountable, sends exactly the right message- to Iran, to the region, and to the world."
Holding terrorists accountable? Imagine that, Barack.
"[The Iranians] are a great and civilized people, with little sympathy for the terrorists their leaders finance, and no wish to threaten other nations with nuclear weapons."
"[The Palestinian people] are badly served by the terrorist-led group in charge of Gaza. This is a group that still refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, refuses to denounce violence, and refuses to acknowledge prior peace commitments."
McCain clearly shows much more understanding of these problems than his opponent, and knows exactly what will constitute the ultimate solution to them. Who caused the downfall of communism in the late 80's and early 90's? The PEOPLE in those countries themselves, who decided that enough was enough. Radical islamicism is the modern-day threat to freedom, liberty and peace, and it isn't at all far fetched to suggest that it can be defeated in the same way.
McCain demonstrates similar acumen with regard to Hezbollah:
"Hezbollah fighters recently took up arms against their fellow Lebanese, starting the worst internal fighting since the civil war ended in 1990. In the process, they extracted an agreement in which Hezbollah and its allies can veto any cabinet decision. As the leader of Hezbollah often reminds us, this group's mission is the defeat of Israel. The international community needs to more fully empower our allies in Lebanon- not only with military aid but also with the resources to undermine Hezbollah's appeal . . . We simply cannot afford to cede Lebanon's future to Syria and Iran."
*McCain's position on terrorists and their State-sponsors is very clear: no negotiation, no compromise, no appeasement. He sees the Islamofacists for who they truly are- pure evil. He also possess a much deeper understanding of both past and current events in the Middle East than Barack Obama, as well as future implications of anything less than an uncompromising stance against terror. This final excerpt from John McCain's speech to AIPAC should leave absolutely no doubt who is more qualified to confront our terrorist enemies head-on as commander in chief:
"It's worth recalling that America's progress in Iraq is the direct result of the new strategy that Senator Obama opposed. It was the strategy he predicted would fail, when he voted to cut off funds for our forces in Iraq. He now says he intends to withdraw combat troops from Iraq- one to two brigades per month until they are all removed. He will do so regardless of the conditions in Iraq, regardless of the consequences for our national security, regardless of the consequences for Israel's security, and in disregard of the best advice of our commanders on the ground.
This course would surely result in a catastrophe. If our troops are ordered to make a forced retreat, we risk all-out civil war, genocide, and a failed state in the heart of the Middle East. Al Qaeda terrorists would rejoice in the defeat of the United States. Allowing a terrorist sanctuary would profoundly affect the security of the United States, Israel, and our other friends, and would invite further intervention from Iraq's neighbors, including an emboldened Iran. We must not let this happen. We must not lead the region to suffer chaos, terrorist violence, and a wider war.
My friends, as the people of Israel know better than most, the safety of free people can never be taken for granted. And in a world full of dangers, Israel and the United States must always stand together . . . If there are ties between America and Israel that critics of our alliance have never understood, perhaps that is because they do not fully understand the love of liberty and the pursuit of justice."
Amen to that, maverick, Amen!
"Sheer survival in the face of Israel's many trials would have been impressive enough. But Israel has achieved much more than that these past sixty years. Israel has endured, and thrived, and her people have built a nation that is an inspiration to free nations everywhere."
"When we join in saying `never again,' that is not a wish, a request, or a plea to the enemies of Israel. It is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, aganst any enemy who dares to test us"
*This is clearly a much stronger and uncompromising stance than Barack Obama even pretends to have.
"The Iranian president has called for Israel be `wiped off the map' and suggested that Israel's Jewish population should return to Europe. He calls Israel a `stinking corpse' that is `on its way to annihilation.' "
"A sponsor of both Hamas and Hezbollah, the leadership of Iran has repeatedly used violence to undermine Israel and the Middle East peace process."
*As usual, McCain is a "straight shooter." He refuses to downplay or "sugar coat" the reality of how evil the Iranian regime really is.
"It's hard to see what a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting another."
"Should the [UN] Security Council continue to delay in [imposing further sanctions against Iran], the United States must lead like-minded countries in imposing multilateral sanctions outside the UN framework . . . a severe limit on Iranian imports of gasoline would create immediate pressure on Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to change course, and to cease in the pursuit of nuclear weapons."
*Again, I doubt that such pressure would really make Iran change its ways, but it's definitely a positive sign when McCain is not afraid to bypass the often incompetent UN Security Council when it won't do its job. If we keep the sanctions coming, it might just make the Iranian people's lives so miserable under the already unpopular Islamofacist regime that they will unite together, overthrow their corrupt government, depose their moronic president, and send the mullahs running for their lives. Since the Iranians are used to public hangings, I'm sure that if incited enough, they'll know exactly how to rid themselves of the Ayatollah for good!
McCain added that he was one of three U.S. Senators (and it shouldn't even need saying that Barack Obama was NOT one of the other two) that called for "designation of the Revolutionary Guard, [Iran's military unit] as a terrosist organization responsible for killing American troops in Iraq."
"Holding Iran's influence in check, and holding a terrorist organization accountable, sends exactly the right message- to Iran, to the region, and to the world."
Holding terrorists accountable? Imagine that, Barack.
"[The Iranians] are a great and civilized people, with little sympathy for the terrorists their leaders finance, and no wish to threaten other nations with nuclear weapons."
"[The Palestinian people] are badly served by the terrorist-led group in charge of Gaza. This is a group that still refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, refuses to denounce violence, and refuses to acknowledge prior peace commitments."
McCain clearly shows much more understanding of these problems than his opponent, and knows exactly what will constitute the ultimate solution to them. Who caused the downfall of communism in the late 80's and early 90's? The PEOPLE in those countries themselves, who decided that enough was enough. Radical islamicism is the modern-day threat to freedom, liberty and peace, and it isn't at all far fetched to suggest that it can be defeated in the same way.
McCain demonstrates similar acumen with regard to Hezbollah:
"Hezbollah fighters recently took up arms against their fellow Lebanese, starting the worst internal fighting since the civil war ended in 1990. In the process, they extracted an agreement in which Hezbollah and its allies can veto any cabinet decision. As the leader of Hezbollah often reminds us, this group's mission is the defeat of Israel. The international community needs to more fully empower our allies in Lebanon- not only with military aid but also with the resources to undermine Hezbollah's appeal . . . We simply cannot afford to cede Lebanon's future to Syria and Iran."
*McCain's position on terrorists and their State-sponsors is very clear: no negotiation, no compromise, no appeasement. He sees the Islamofacists for who they truly are- pure evil. He also possess a much deeper understanding of both past and current events in the Middle East than Barack Obama, as well as future implications of anything less than an uncompromising stance against terror. This final excerpt from John McCain's speech to AIPAC should leave absolutely no doubt who is more qualified to confront our terrorist enemies head-on as commander in chief:
"It's worth recalling that America's progress in Iraq is the direct result of the new strategy that Senator Obama opposed. It was the strategy he predicted would fail, when he voted to cut off funds for our forces in Iraq. He now says he intends to withdraw combat troops from Iraq- one to two brigades per month until they are all removed. He will do so regardless of the conditions in Iraq, regardless of the consequences for our national security, regardless of the consequences for Israel's security, and in disregard of the best advice of our commanders on the ground.
This course would surely result in a catastrophe. If our troops are ordered to make a forced retreat, we risk all-out civil war, genocide, and a failed state in the heart of the Middle East. Al Qaeda terrorists would rejoice in the defeat of the United States. Allowing a terrorist sanctuary would profoundly affect the security of the United States, Israel, and our other friends, and would invite further intervention from Iraq's neighbors, including an emboldened Iran. We must not let this happen. We must not lead the region to suffer chaos, terrorist violence, and a wider war.
My friends, as the people of Israel know better than most, the safety of free people can never be taken for granted. And in a world full of dangers, Israel and the United States must always stand together . . . If there are ties between America and Israel that critics of our alliance have never understood, perhaps that is because they do not fully understand the love of liberty and the pursuit of justice."
Amen to that, maverick, Amen!
The Middle East: Barack Obama Just Doesn't Get It
A few months ago, AIPAC held its American Israel Public Affairs Committee Conference in Washington, DC. Both Barack Obama and John McCain accepted invitations to speak at the conference. Both speeches offer a helpful glimpse into each candidate's stance on Middle East issues, and hence the Middle East policy each one would pursue if elected president. Now more than ever, we need a president that will take an uncompromising "hardline" stance against Islamic terrorist groups, as well as state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran, Syria, and Lybia. We also need a president who is not afraid to look Lebanon in the eye and declare that it is completely and utterly acceptable that its government is, in effect, allowing the Hezbollah terrorists to run their country. In much the same way, our new president must make it crystal clear to PLO leader Abbas that there will be no U.S. sponsored peace talks until Abbas uses the full power and resources of the PLO to drive Hamas out of the Gaza Strip (even if it comes down to chasing these thugs into the Mediterranean Sea and making them swim for their lives). With that said, let's look at some highlights of both Obama's and McCain's speeches to the AIPAC conference. It's not difficult to tell which candidtate is sure to take the correct positions on these EXTREMELY crucial foreign policy issues.
We'll start with Barack Obama:
OBAMA: "When I was eleven years old, I learned of the long journey and steady determination of the Jewish people to preserve their identity through faith, family and culture."
Okay nice start. At least Obama is smart enough to at least give lip service to the struggles of the Jewish people, especially when speaking at an AIPAC conference. Let's now examine the rest of his speech to assess whether he's really learned anything at all.
OBAMA: "I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security . . . I have been proud to be a part of a strong, bipartisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats."
That is HIGHLY debatable. Obama has consistently voted to oppose troop surges in Iraq and even plans as president to begin complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops in Iraq, regardless of whether the job has been finished. As a result, the United States, Israel's most dependable ally, will appear weak and vulnerable. This is indeed a compromise to Israel's security, as it will embolden its enemies, particularly Iran, who want Israel "wiped off the map."
OBAMA: "As President, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security . . . We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism."
Okay, now we know that Obama either has no clue, or even worse, is secretly in cahoots with Hamas itself. Hamas is not a legitimate political party, but a morbidly evil terrorist organization. Its leaders hate for the sake of hate, and are always more than willing to commit atrocities even against their fellow Palestinians in order to achieve their objectives. Does Obama actually think that Hamas will EVER "renounce" terrorism? Furthermore, eliminating the threat of Hamas will not be achieved by merely "isolating" them. That is the same mistake the Bush administration made with the Taliban. To put it in terms that might be more familiar to Obama, you can isolate a pig, but it's still a pig!
OBAMA: "The United States and the international community must stand by Palestinians who are committed to cracking down on terror and carrying the burden of peacemaking."
This is ludicrous. If the Palestinians are truly "committed to cracking down on terror," why have they not shown any effort or willingness to forcefully take back the Gaza Strip from Hamas. Until the Palestinians at least make some attempt to do this, we have no reason to believe that they have any genuine desire for peace whatsoever. The fact that Obama is so easily manipulated regarding this issue is downright frightening.
OBAMA: "Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps - consistent with its security- to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements."
That's a very subtle and cogent way of accusing Israel of somehow being responsible for the violence it has suffered all of these years. Obama sounds more like a news anchor for Al-Jazeera than a legitimate U.S. presidential candidate. The whole "consistent with its security" disclaimer is a nice try, but I'm not buying it. Hopefully the people at AIPAC can see right through this little game and understand clearly that what Obama is really implying is that Israel is partly to blame for the cowardly attacks of terrorism it has fallen victim to. He might as well say that the 9/11 attacks were America's own fault for being "culturally insensitive" to Muslims (and I would not at all be surprised if deep down, that's how Obama really does feel). As long as rockets are being indiscriminantly fired at Israel from both Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north, Israel is under absolutely no obligation to "ease freedom of movement" or provide economic assistance to supporters of the terrorist groups who attack her. This will not "advance the cause of peace," but rather give terrorists open season on the country they so desperately want to destroy. Could you imagine how offended you would be, as an American, if someone suggested we should make such concessions to those who attack our country? Israel owes no concessions whatsoever to terrorists and their supporters, and for Barack Obama to even imply that such concessions would be in Israel's best interests demonstrates that either he has no knowledge about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or is secretly aligned with Israel's enemies.
OBAMA: "The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper."
That's a wonderful utopian proposal, but as long as there are terrorists in their midst, until the PLO uses its full resources and military might to show they are committed to destroying these terrorists once and for all, there's no way the Palestinians should have their land returned to them and get their own sovereignly recognized "state."
OBAMA: "Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran- it is precisely what has strengthened it."
This clearly shows Obama has no understanding whatsoever of the situation in Iraq, Iran, or any other locale in the Middle East. The man can't even get his facts right. ALL of our troops are in Iraq? Is Obama unaware of our troops stationed in Afghanistan hunting down the Taliban? How about the DMZ on the Korean peninsula? Do those troops not count either?
Talk about a textbook "foot in mouth" moment. Iran has NOT been strengthened. In my previous post, I shared a report in which Iran's own Commerce Director admits that Iran has been significantly weakened by the well-deserved draconian sanctions placed on that nation for its failure to heed multiple directives to abandon its nuclear programs. On the otherhand, Iran will actually be strengthened by premature U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. My position on the war in Iraq has always been that whether or not we should have invaded Iraq in the first place, we DID, and to run away our tails between our legs before achieving victory would greatly embolden Iran. It would imply that even if it takes several years, the U.S. will ultimately "give up" and surrender in the end. Given the fact that we are Israel's greatest ally, and Iran is Israel's greatest enemy, it is very clear that no matter how he attempts to portray himself, Barack Obama is no friend of Israel who has legitimate concern for its security (not surprising because he doesn't even show that much concern for the security of his own country).
OBAMA: "I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing- if, and only if- it can advance the interests of the United States."
Another 100% misnomer. As long as Iran operates as an Islamic theocracy, it will NEVER advance U.S. interests to sit down with its leaders.
OBAMA: (to Iran) "If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will me meaningful incentives- including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure."
IF, IF, IF, IF, IF. Does Barack Obama actually think that Iran would do anything of these things, especially ceasing threats to Israel? Once again, Obama does not understand how evil, dishonest, and manipulatuve that the Iranian regime truly is. If Barack Obama is elected president, Iran would have him in the palm of its hands. This islamofacist regime would LOVE a president who they can easily manipulate into thinking they have abandoned their nuclear ambitions (as Saddam Hussein attempted to do) and that they all of the sudden despise terrorism and love Israel. It's all part of the Arab culture (another thing Obama doesn't get): Lying is perfectly acceptable if its achieves your means, and agreements and promises are invalidated if they don't work for you. This is not a racist stereotype; it is simply the culture in the Arab world. I am sure any of you who have tried to do business with an Arab know exactly what I am talking about. It reminds me of a few years ago, when I stayed two nights in an Arab-owned hotel and they charged my credit card TEN times. In the area where I live, an Arab-owned towing company is facing numerous lawsuits, as well as a criminal investigation, for illegally towing cars and charging owners more than the maximum amount allowed by law to have their cars released. These examples are not isolated incidents, but reminiscent of the "values" of Arab culture. It is downright frightening that we are considering electing a president who would fall for this nonsense and place the national security of the United States, Israel, and the entire free world at risk!
OBAMA: "Jewish and African Americans have stood shoulder to shoulder. They took buses down south together. They marched together. They bled together . . . We must not allow the relationship between Jews and African Americans to suffer."
Downright nauseating, to say the least. Obama can't seem to stoop low enough with the propaganda he employs in an attempt to trick the Jews into thinking he is their friend. I'd say it's a pretty bold move for someone who refuses to renounce his ties to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who many feel, based on sheer anti-semitic rhetoric alone, outperforms even Adolf Hitler himself.
*Excuse me for a moment while I drink about ten bottles of Pepto-Bismol before I move on to my analysis of McCain's comments to AIPAC
We'll start with Barack Obama:
OBAMA: "When I was eleven years old, I learned of the long journey and steady determination of the Jewish people to preserve their identity through faith, family and culture."
Okay nice start. At least Obama is smart enough to at least give lip service to the struggles of the Jewish people, especially when speaking at an AIPAC conference. Let's now examine the rest of his speech to assess whether he's really learned anything at all.
OBAMA: "I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security . . . I have been proud to be a part of a strong, bipartisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats."
That is HIGHLY debatable. Obama has consistently voted to oppose troop surges in Iraq and even plans as president to begin complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops in Iraq, regardless of whether the job has been finished. As a result, the United States, Israel's most dependable ally, will appear weak and vulnerable. This is indeed a compromise to Israel's security, as it will embolden its enemies, particularly Iran, who want Israel "wiped off the map."
OBAMA: "As President, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security . . . We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism."
Okay, now we know that Obama either has no clue, or even worse, is secretly in cahoots with Hamas itself. Hamas is not a legitimate political party, but a morbidly evil terrorist organization. Its leaders hate for the sake of hate, and are always more than willing to commit atrocities even against their fellow Palestinians in order to achieve their objectives. Does Obama actually think that Hamas will EVER "renounce" terrorism? Furthermore, eliminating the threat of Hamas will not be achieved by merely "isolating" them. That is the same mistake the Bush administration made with the Taliban. To put it in terms that might be more familiar to Obama, you can isolate a pig, but it's still a pig!
OBAMA: "The United States and the international community must stand by Palestinians who are committed to cracking down on terror and carrying the burden of peacemaking."
This is ludicrous. If the Palestinians are truly "committed to cracking down on terror," why have they not shown any effort or willingness to forcefully take back the Gaza Strip from Hamas. Until the Palestinians at least make some attempt to do this, we have no reason to believe that they have any genuine desire for peace whatsoever. The fact that Obama is so easily manipulated regarding this issue is downright frightening.
OBAMA: "Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps - consistent with its security- to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements."
That's a very subtle and cogent way of accusing Israel of somehow being responsible for the violence it has suffered all of these years. Obama sounds more like a news anchor for Al-Jazeera than a legitimate U.S. presidential candidate. The whole "consistent with its security" disclaimer is a nice try, but I'm not buying it. Hopefully the people at AIPAC can see right through this little game and understand clearly that what Obama is really implying is that Israel is partly to blame for the cowardly attacks of terrorism it has fallen victim to. He might as well say that the 9/11 attacks were America's own fault for being "culturally insensitive" to Muslims (and I would not at all be surprised if deep down, that's how Obama really does feel). As long as rockets are being indiscriminantly fired at Israel from both Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north, Israel is under absolutely no obligation to "ease freedom of movement" or provide economic assistance to supporters of the terrorist groups who attack her. This will not "advance the cause of peace," but rather give terrorists open season on the country they so desperately want to destroy. Could you imagine how offended you would be, as an American, if someone suggested we should make such concessions to those who attack our country? Israel owes no concessions whatsoever to terrorists and their supporters, and for Barack Obama to even imply that such concessions would be in Israel's best interests demonstrates that either he has no knowledge about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or is secretly aligned with Israel's enemies.
OBAMA: "The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper."
That's a wonderful utopian proposal, but as long as there are terrorists in their midst, until the PLO uses its full resources and military might to show they are committed to destroying these terrorists once and for all, there's no way the Palestinians should have their land returned to them and get their own sovereignly recognized "state."
OBAMA: "Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran- it is precisely what has strengthened it."
This clearly shows Obama has no understanding whatsoever of the situation in Iraq, Iran, or any other locale in the Middle East. The man can't even get his facts right. ALL of our troops are in Iraq? Is Obama unaware of our troops stationed in Afghanistan hunting down the Taliban? How about the DMZ on the Korean peninsula? Do those troops not count either?
Talk about a textbook "foot in mouth" moment. Iran has NOT been strengthened. In my previous post, I shared a report in which Iran's own Commerce Director admits that Iran has been significantly weakened by the well-deserved draconian sanctions placed on that nation for its failure to heed multiple directives to abandon its nuclear programs. On the otherhand, Iran will actually be strengthened by premature U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. My position on the war in Iraq has always been that whether or not we should have invaded Iraq in the first place, we DID, and to run away our tails between our legs before achieving victory would greatly embolden Iran. It would imply that even if it takes several years, the U.S. will ultimately "give up" and surrender in the end. Given the fact that we are Israel's greatest ally, and Iran is Israel's greatest enemy, it is very clear that no matter how he attempts to portray himself, Barack Obama is no friend of Israel who has legitimate concern for its security (not surprising because he doesn't even show that much concern for the security of his own country).
OBAMA: "I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing- if, and only if- it can advance the interests of the United States."
Another 100% misnomer. As long as Iran operates as an Islamic theocracy, it will NEVER advance U.S. interests to sit down with its leaders.
OBAMA: (to Iran) "If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will me meaningful incentives- including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure."
IF, IF, IF, IF, IF. Does Barack Obama actually think that Iran would do anything of these things, especially ceasing threats to Israel? Once again, Obama does not understand how evil, dishonest, and manipulatuve that the Iranian regime truly is. If Barack Obama is elected president, Iran would have him in the palm of its hands. This islamofacist regime would LOVE a president who they can easily manipulate into thinking they have abandoned their nuclear ambitions (as Saddam Hussein attempted to do) and that they all of the sudden despise terrorism and love Israel. It's all part of the Arab culture (another thing Obama doesn't get): Lying is perfectly acceptable if its achieves your means, and agreements and promises are invalidated if they don't work for you. This is not a racist stereotype; it is simply the culture in the Arab world. I am sure any of you who have tried to do business with an Arab know exactly what I am talking about. It reminds me of a few years ago, when I stayed two nights in an Arab-owned hotel and they charged my credit card TEN times. In the area where I live, an Arab-owned towing company is facing numerous lawsuits, as well as a criminal investigation, for illegally towing cars and charging owners more than the maximum amount allowed by law to have their cars released. These examples are not isolated incidents, but reminiscent of the "values" of Arab culture. It is downright frightening that we are considering electing a president who would fall for this nonsense and place the national security of the United States, Israel, and the entire free world at risk!
OBAMA: "Jewish and African Americans have stood shoulder to shoulder. They took buses down south together. They marched together. They bled together . . . We must not allow the relationship between Jews and African Americans to suffer."
Downright nauseating, to say the least. Obama can't seem to stoop low enough with the propaganda he employs in an attempt to trick the Jews into thinking he is their friend. I'd say it's a pretty bold move for someone who refuses to renounce his ties to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who many feel, based on sheer anti-semitic rhetoric alone, outperforms even Adolf Hitler himself.
*Excuse me for a moment while I drink about ten bottles of Pepto-Bismol before I move on to my analysis of McCain's comments to AIPAC
Sanctions Against Iran: They're Working!
Iran: International Sanctions Hurt Our Economy
Straight from the AIPAC website
Iran's illicit nuclear work has drawn international condemnation.
International sanctions against Iran have significantly increased trade costs, the head of Iran's chamber of commerce said Tuesday, and internationl pressure has hurt the country's overall economy, Agence France Presse reported. "These costs do not only affect Iran's economy," Mohammad Nahavandian said. "It also means losing opportunities for the country's trade and economic partners... a lose-lose game." International financial institutions have cut business dealings with Iran as a way of pressuring the Islamic Republic to halt its illicit nuclear activity. U.S. pressure has also prompted a crackdown on Iranian business ties with the United Arab Emirates, Iran's largest trading partner. Iran faces further international pressure as a result of its continued pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability.
Straight from the AIPAC website
Iran's illicit nuclear work has drawn international condemnation.
International sanctions against Iran have significantly increased trade costs, the head of Iran's chamber of commerce said Tuesday, and internationl pressure has hurt the country's overall economy, Agence France Presse reported. "These costs do not only affect Iran's economy," Mohammad Nahavandian said. "It also means losing opportunities for the country's trade and economic partners... a lose-lose game." International financial institutions have cut business dealings with Iran as a way of pressuring the Islamic Republic to halt its illicit nuclear activity. U.S. pressure has also prompted a crackdown on Iranian business ties with the United Arab Emirates, Iran's largest trading partner. Iran faces further international pressure as a result of its continued pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability.
Lindsay Lohan Doesn't Like Sarah Palin
Lindsay Lohan (aka Lindsay Lohesbihan) apparently doesn't like Mrs. Palin, according to her lastest blog posting. Frankly, I'm quite surprised she was actually able to take time out from her champagne swigging, cocaine snorting, and snatch licking to actually write a few complete sentences. But according to news reports, here's what happened later on:
"In other Lohan news, the actress was heading into The Bowery Hotel in New York City Sunday night when she tripped over a metal barricade, TMZ reports. Lohan seems to have thought that a paparazzo tripped her — because she turned around and punched a photographer in the nose, the Web site says. Cops were called to the scene, but no charges were made."
I am sure Sarah Palin is just crushed not to receive an endorsement from this wonderful, upstanding citizen. But at least we can see that God has a sense of humor =)
"In other Lohan news, the actress was heading into The Bowery Hotel in New York City Sunday night when she tripped over a metal barricade, TMZ reports. Lohan seems to have thought that a paparazzo tripped her — because she turned around and punched a photographer in the nose, the Web site says. Cops were called to the scene, but no charges were made."
I am sure Sarah Palin is just crushed not to receive an endorsement from this wonderful, upstanding citizen. But at least we can see that God has a sense of humor =)
Sunday, September 14, 2008
OMG!!! They Want To Kill Kenny!
Okay we'll put the political banter aside for a moment. You all have to agree with me that this is awful! I thought that censorship in Russia ended when the Soviet empire collapsed. Oh well, at least this report is really funny in a Russian accent.
Hilary Clinton & Sarah Palin United As One!
Well not really. Only in the SNL sort of way. The Hilary impersonator wasn't that great, but regardless of your political slant, isn't the Palin impersonator absolutely perfect? I thought it actually WAS her at first lol
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)