Extremes

When the political extremes agree, danger lies ahead. Today the two extremes agree on two issues: they are against American military intervention and they are in favor of not only limiting free trade agreements, but even re-negotiating some existing agreements in order to limit their scope.
There has traditionally been a suspicion of trade. This was the appeal of Ross Perot in 1992. Today the trade issue on the left is concerned with the appeasement of labor unions, a diminishing but still powerful force in the Democrat Party.
Anti-war sentiment is a staple of the left’s ideology. The unpopularity of the war in Iraq has also riled up many on the right. Most importantly, the left will again use this sentiment as their avenue to overwhelming power and there are those on the right who ware aiding in this effort.
Pat Buchanan has just published a book that declares WWII a mistake and an unnecessary war. His thesis is that Britain lost their empire and the west lost the war. But, had America not intervened the British would have lost their country. And, though Europe would probably have been united as today, it would not have been an open democratic society. On June 26, 1948 the Berlin Airlift began as America intervened with massive economic aid in order to stop the communists from taking advantage of war torn Europe. It is beyond imagination to conceive what the world would be like without American power during this time.
This is also what the far left said about Vietnam and now says about Iraq. In 1996
leftist and Vietnam protester Michael Lind wrote Vietnam the Necessary War in which he looked back at the causes of the war and concluded that it had to be fought in the context of the Cold War. (He is currently
demonstrating against the war in Iraq—he
apparently does not learn his own lessons.)
If the political extremes are successful in electing Obama, the whole country loses.
The power of the Presidency will be greatly curtailed as who in the future would risk such opprobrium and punishment. The defense of the nation will be seen as too great an undertaking and for sure America’s enemies will understand and take advantage of this situation. Most of all truth as an objective entity will succumb to situational veracity, because in order to make the case they must convince voters that George W. Bush lied his way to war, Dick Cheney really is Darth Vadar, that John McCain wants to stay in Iraq 100 years, and that a McCain administration would be nothing more than a Bush third term. In truth, none of that is true, but the left is counting on lies told often enough becoming the truth.
Peter Schweizer wrote in the DC Examiner an article titled “Conservatives more honest than liberals?” in which he quotes the 60’s Chicago leftist, Saul Alinsky, who both Hillary R. Clinton and Barak H. Obama cite as a principle influence on their lives and their politics. (Alinsky was the subject of Hillary’s famous college thesis.) Alinsky said about truth and effective politicians, “...[he] doesn’t have a fixed truth; truth to him is relative and changing. He is the political relativist.” Situational ethics and relative truth essentially means there is no objective truth; truth is what you need to reach your goal or the ends justify the means. It isn’t just that “you can’t handle the truth,” it is that truth in the traditional sense does not exist. The latest effort from the right is Scott Mc McClellan's hit piece on the administration. It gives impetus to those with “Impeach Him” signs in their yards and to readers of Vincent Bugliosi’s latest book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. This is not only extreme, it is dangerous

 

Wright's Philosphy is Obama's philosophy

I don't know why everyone-Joan Walsh at salon.com and John McCain and everyone first has to add the disclaimer that they do not believe Obama shares the view poiint of his pastor and mentor-the man who brought him to Jesus. Of course he does or he would not have stayed 20 years nor would he expose his children to such bigotry, hatred, anit-Americanism and down right lies. Do you think he takes his daughters to church and the goes home and says the Reverend was wrong. Obama is to practical a man to give himself that much trouble at home. When asked about Tony Rezko Obama said that he had no idea about Mr. Rezko's activities otherwise he would not have associated with him- that's almost the same answer he gave about Wright. So-he's not only in tune with those two, but also with the unrepentent terrorist Bill Ayres. If he did not reputdiate them we cannot have him and therefore them in the White House-for those who have regretted the image of the country in the world-give that some thought. If he did not know about any of the three-then he's just not smart enough to be a Senator let alone a President.

-- meadow18
[Read meadow18's

The Company You Keep

Mama always told me choose your friends wisely because you're known by the company you keep. We should begin to look at the Presidential candidates in these terms in order to anticipate who could be staffing their government and who would be reflecting the rest of us in the White House and representing America to the rest of the world. The following are some quotes from a sermon delivererd at Howard University on January 15, 2006 by Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., the spiritual advisor and pastor of candidate Barak Obama.
"We've got more black men in prison than there are in college...Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body."
Mr. Obama has also used the statement about black men in prison-it is incorrect. The statement about black women is insulting, racisr, sexist, and ignores all the accomplished black women beginning with Condoleeza Rise.,
"America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."
Among ther things, this ignores the U.S. economic boycott of apartheid South Africa that eventually freed Mandella.
"We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. . . . We care nothing about human life if the end justifies the means. . . ."
"We started the AIDS virus . . . We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty. . . ."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120545277093135111.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
This man has been Obama's preacher for more than 20 years. He married Barak and Michelle and baptized their children. We have seen his views reflected in the attitude toward America of Michelle Obama and it simply cannot be that the Senator does not share them as well. You can read similar views on any radical Islamist web site and Osama couldn't have said it better.

Lt. Gov. Bolling on Governor Kaine's Budget Mess-up

RICHMOND - Governor Tim Kaine released his revised budget forecast for the 2008 fiscal year and the 2008-2010 biennium. Because of declining revenue projections, the Governor has proposed making additional withdrawals from the Commonwealth’s Revenue Stabilization Fund (Rainy Day Fund) and scaling back previously proposed spending initiatives. In response to the Governor’s actions, Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling issued the following statement:
“When Governor Kaine released his proposed budget in December of 2007, I expressed concern over the huge increase in spending that he had proposed for the upcoming biennium, as well as the manner in which he proposed to balance the state budget. I warned at the time that the Governor’s revenue projections would ultimately have to be revised and that reductions in his proposed spending initiatives would have to be made. Unfortunately, those warnings have come true, and we are now left with a budgetary mess.
“I am confident that the members of the General Assembly will do what has to be done to bring the state budget into balance without raising taxes. However, to do this we will have to make many difficult budget decisions in the coming days, including significant reductions in the Governor’s proposed spending initiatives, as well as the adoption of a realistic revenue projection for the upcoming biennium. Unfortunately, we are placed in this position because of the Governor’s failure to bring us a realistic and structurally sound budget to begin with.
“This will not be an easy task, but we remain committed to balancing the budget without raising taxes, adopting a budget that directs as many resources as possible to the Commonwealth’s highest priorities, and scales back spending in other areas. We ask for the patience and support of the people of Virginia as we begin making these difficult decisions.”
According to earlier reports in the Washinton Post, Kaine also plans to take money out of the transportation fund to make up the deficit, which he failed to acknowledge two years ago. Promises for such funding and improvemnts in Northern Virginia and the Tidewater by the governor during his campaign and since were apparently meaningless.

Budget Wonderland

Publication:The Oklahoman; Date:Feb 6, 2008; Section:Opinion; Page Number:10
OUR VIEWS
Federal spending avoids budget realities

SOMETIMES, Washington becomes Wonderland, with Alice and the Mad Hatter. Up is down, down is up. Someone’s always losing their head.

Money is spent like it grows on trees. Those elected to steward billions of taxpayer dollars go through it like there’s no tomorrow. There’s no shortage of illustrations. Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn’s list of wasteful spending earmarks will spin heads and turn stomachs.

Another example is this week’s convergence of President Bush’s fiscal 2009 budget and the economic stimulus package under consideration in Congress. The $3.1 trillion budget would add $407 billion to the federal debt, chiefly because of falling tax revenues in a slowing economy, increases in military spending — and about $160 billion to pay for the stimulus package.

That’s right, the cost of the stimulus stew now simmering on Capitol Hill — a hash of tax rebates, small-business incentives and other ingredients — would be added to the national debt.

We don’t lay all the blame on the green eyeshades at the White House. There’s no indication Congress has an alternative plan to pay for the stimulus package. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is part of Washington’s spending culture.

The stimulus isn’t the only problem. Bush proposes a 4.9 percent increase in domestic discretionary spending, mostly for defense, homeland security and veterans. Other programs are basically frozen, at less than 1 percent growth. The gorilla in the room is entitlement spending — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — whose long-term growth will dwarf projected deficits of $390 billion in 2012 and $788 billion in 2018. Bush’s budget almost certainly is dead on arrival with the Democrat-controlled Congress. Democrats aren’t more frugal, they just have different spending priorities. The insult to injury will come when Democrats argue the growing deficit, including the tab for the Bush-backed stimulus deal, argues for letting Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire. Ah, Wonderland.

Book Review "American Creation"

In his usual inimitable style Joseph Ellis lays out history for us so vividly that we see how it is repeating itself in our own world today. In his new book "American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic", Ellis writes that Thomas Paine was a “...revolutionary presence in the radical camp.” John Adams was radical in that he knew complete separation was inevitable and he believe, rightly, that the moderates, who were still hoping for reconciliation with Britain even into 1776, would eventually agree. But, Paine, who was speaking of democracy (a hated concept at the time) saw the “...American Revolution as the opening shot in a radical transformation of political institutions throughout the world.” At the end of Common Sense, published in January, 1776 Paine wrote, “The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind...We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”
Paine decried the fact that the Founders did not deal with slavery. But, perhaps Paine would have seen the Civil War as another step in his idea of political evolution. Certainly, Woodrow Wilson and his League of Nations followed by FDR and the United Nations would qualify. It is undeniable that this strain of the idealism of popular sovereignty world-wide is an essential part of the idea of America. It is, after all, that idea that has propelled millions to our shores. This idealism has often been denigrated, but it persists as an integral part of the fabric our of nation.
I highly recommend this book for Ellis’ keen historical insights.

Terrorism and the First Amendment

Saudi billionaire banker Khalid Salim Ben Mahfouz successfully sued in the London court system Israeli-American Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld for libel over her book "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It," which was written, published, and distributed in the United States. The British judge, when he learned that ex-CIA Director James Woosley was involved in the production of the book, imposed a $225,000 fine, an obligation to apologize to Bin Mahfouz, and required that Dr. Ehrenfeld assure that no more of her books would be sold in Britain. The books that were bought in London, were purchased over the internet, and this judgment makes the American responsible for transactions on the Web.
Since Dr. Ehrenfeld could not afford to appear or defend herself in the London court, she appealed the decision to the New York Court of Appeals. This court ruled that it does not have the authority to protect American citizens on U.S. soil from suits filed in foreign countries.
In response to this situation, the bi-partisan "Libel Terrorism Protection Act" ( S.6687/A.9652), was introduced two weeks ago in the New York Assembly and Senate by Assembly Members, Rory Lancman (D) and Senator Dean Skelos (R). This bill would protect New York authors and journalists who expose terrorism and terror funding from libel lawsuits filed in foreign courts. The law would declare such suits unenforceable in New York unless the law in the foreign country provides the same free speech protection that is guaranteed by the First Amendment in the United States.
British courts have been the system of choice for the over forty such suits that have been filed since 9/11 because they posit that an author is guilty and must prove innocence. This is a nearly impossible task, particularly from long distance.

There is a call for the U.S. Congress to legislate a national response to this threat to the First Amendment, because it involves terrorists and their backers using western legal processes to create the same effect their own governments normally apply to any sort of defiance or protest. (www.standupamericausa.com) This brings up some questions about the role of our legal system and the protections our laws should afford in the War on Terror.
1. Given that several of our Supreme Court Justices believe international legal systems should inform the decisions they render on U.S. law, what would their opinions and recommendations be concerning a legal response to these suits.
2. Does this attempt to punish American citizens with the legal systems of other countries pose a significant obstacle to the prosecution of the war and the tactics used to do so?
3. Does this situation have anything to tell us about the possible chaos that could develop if Guantanamo is closed and anyone picked up off any battle field is required to be charged and prosecuted in the U.S. Court system, according to the Democrat Party platform?
3. How do these suits affect non-fiction about Islamists and the War on Terror?
4. How does this impact on the decision by Republicans not to join the World Court, which is a policy opposed by the Left. Do we want George W. Bush hauled into court in the Hague and tried for war crimes and is that the plan of the Democrats.
Just thinking!