Obama Thinks Arab-American Families are Being Rounded-Up?
March 4, 2008
What?
I’m unable to get to or link to YouTube right now, but here’s a direct quote from one of Obama’s recent TV commercials.
“If there is an Arab-American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney, it threatens my civil liberties. It is that fundamental belief, I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, it is that fundamental belief that makes this country work.”
Lance Fairchok at American Thinker has more.
This despicable image of innocent families imprisoned and the ethnic cleansing it suggests is a theme the radical left nurtures. It is by design intended to portray an unjust and intolerant people, it was no error, no misstatement. It elicits moral outrage with false assumptions, endlessly repeating those assumptions until believed. It is behind the exaggeration of everything the U.S. does in the war on terror or against Islamic extremism. It is behind the hysteria over the Patriot Act.
As divorced from truth as it is, it is found everywhere in the propaganda of the left, from the Bush-Hitler signs, to the fabrications of American military wrongdoing in the press, to the invented Islamophobia in our populace. It is the motivation behind Michael Moore, Code Pink, MoveOn.Org and George Soros. It is unfortunately the message the media aids and abets.
This moral contrariness gives us American “progressives” embracing dictators and terrorists such as Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Iran’s Ahmedinejhad and Syria’s Bashar al Assad. It finds equivalence between defending America and Al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorism. It believes malevolent evil can actually be stopped with dialogue and compromise. It gravitates to a miserable “better red than dead” nihilism that allows no pride or faith in America. It excuses our enemies and indicts everything American. It is the impenitent legacy of the Carter and Clinton administrations. It is illogical and irrational and a road to failure and catastrophe.
Obama may make it through the Democrat convention, but there’s a lot of policy and issues that he’ll have a tough time defending in the general election.
Obama Shows Weakness in Foreign Policy
March 1, 2008
Obama has made it clear, he thinks we should talk with Castro, al-Asad, Ahmadinejad and Kim il-sung. Heck, he’d meet with them personally and might even invite them to the White House for a sit down chat.
Obama has made this point over and over again.
“The American people aren’t looking for more of a do-nothing Cuba policy that has failed to secure the release of dissidents, failed to bring democracy to the island, and failed to advance freedom for fifty years, because they know we need to pursue new opportunities to achieve liberty for the Cuban people. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will offer the clearest contrast to John McCain’s call for four more years of George Bush’s policies, because I want to fundamentally change our foreign policy to secure the American people and restore our standing in the world.”
“Very early in this campaign, I said I would meet not just with our friends but also with our enemies, not just with leaders we like but leaders we don’t,” Obama said. “Washington, when I said this, they said, ‘Oh, you can’t do that.’ I said, ‘Watch me; I will.’”
Okay, isn’t that nice. The President of the United States needs to understand that you can not give these dictators R-E-S-P-E-C-T. You can’t chat with them since it elevates them to a position of higher power within their own repressed countries; the repressed population only sees what the dictator wants them to see.
President Bush responded.
“Sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro, for example, lends the status of the office and the status of our country to him. He gains a lot from it by saying, ‘Look at me. I’m now recognized by the president of the United States.’”
If you think Obama’s position is off the mark, you’re not alone, but it gets worse. How do you think Obama would treat our allies when it comes to foreign policy? Well he’s flat out said that NAFTA is not working and that we should threaten to pull out of the agreement.
Not only should we threaten to pull out, we should use hammer diplomacy. Quoted from CBC News:
“I will make sure that we renegotiate in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about, and I think actually Senator Clinton’s answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced.
“And that is not what has been happening so far. That is something that I have been consistent about.”
Also note that Clinton thinks we need to ditch NAFTA. From CBC News:
Clinton was asked if she would notify Canada and Mexico that the U.S. would pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement within six months of her presidency.
“No. I will say, we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it,” Clinton said. “And we renegotiate it on terms that are favourable to all of America.”
What’s wrong with Obama? It’s simple, he wants to invite dictators and terrorists to the Oval Office to chat but wants to use a hammer on one of our strongest allies in the war on terror.
For Conservatives - Race Not an Issue
February 12, 2008
But it certainly always is for liberals and most Democrats.
Rendell: Race Factor Could Hurt Obama
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Gov. Ed Rendell, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most visible supporters, said some white Pennsylvanians are likely to vote against her rival Barack Obama because he is black.“You’ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate,” Rendell told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in remarks that appeared in Tuesday’s paper.
Bill Clinton must have made a call: “Hey Ed, since I can’t attack Obama anymore, I’m going to need to to remind everyone that Obama is black. And while your doing that, why not let people know that whites probably won’t vote for him either.”
If that isn’t racism, I’m not sure what is.
I won’t vote for Obama specifically because he’s a liberal populist. I can list many reasons I do not think he is qualified to represent me as president, and not one of them has to do with race. The white folk in Pennsylvania should be outraged.
Everyone is Reagan - but we just want a Conservative
February 6, 2008
Jed Babbin writing for HumanEvents.com. (My emphasis added and the full article is here.)
Tomorrow, both McCain and Romney will address the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC. (Huckabee will appear on Saturday morning). The speech McCain will give could be the best opportunity McCain will have to reach out to conservatives and bring them into the fold before the September 1-4 St. Paul, Minnesota Republican convention.
One source told me last night that McCain is planning an all-out push at CPAC. At 3 pm tomorrow, McCain is scheduled to address the crowd expected to number over 6,000 activists. And McCain plans a very special introduction.
According to my source, McCain has prepared a video featuring President Ronald Reagan to make the introduction. If McCain uses this video, it is very likely to backfire badly. This is the group before which Ronald Reagan said in 1975 that, “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.”
Stop this. Just please stop all of this talk about Reagan.
McCain, Romney and Huckabee, all taking their turns comparing themselves to Reagan is flat out annoying. We are not looking for another Reagan, simply a conservative.
No Health Insurance? Hillary to Penalize
February 4, 2008
Nice. What’s next for the DNC and liberals? They want to force people to have health insurance. Can someone tell me what section of the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the job of forcing us to buy health insurance?
In Health Debate, Clinton Remains Vague on Penalties
By KEVIN SACKSenator Hillary Rodham Clinton inched closer Sunday to explaining how she would enforce her proposal that everyone have health insurance, but declined to specify — as she has throughout the campaign — how she would penalize those who refuse.
Mrs. Clinton, who did not answer Senator Barack Obama’s question on the topic in a debate last Thursday, was pressed repeatedly to do so Sunday by George Stephanopoulos on the ABC program “This Week.” When Mr. Stephanopoulos asked a third time whether she would garnish people’s wages, Mrs. Clinton responded, “George, we will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it’s that or it’s some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments.”
What’s next? Are they going to penalize me for the Pepsi that I just got out of the vending machine simply because I did not want diet?
I guaranty you that if this plan sees the light of day, somehow it will not be fair for the poor Americans to be forced to buy health insurance. Therefore, if you’re in the bottom 20 percent of wage earners, you’ll be exempt from the mandate, but still get all the benefits. More entitlements. Yeah!
Can someone give me one example where the federal government forces you to by a product or service? The only one that I can think of is flood insurance - if you live in a flood plain.
