Europe’s turn to the right

"The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain" Professor Higgins so deftly teaches Eliza Doolittle in the musical "My Fair Lady." But, Sunday, it did not rain in Spain, it poured as the left as we would say in America, "Got its proverbial butt kicked." Barack Obama, are you paying attention?

The Spanish newspaper, ABC after Sunday's parliamentary elections read, "Zapatero, the absent leader." The Prime Minister of Spain went into hiding realizing that Sunday's election was to be a big win for the right. Sunday's election in Spain was a stunning defeat for the left, El Partido Socialista Obrera Española, (PSOE). The Partido Popular, (PP), the party of the right picked up 23 seats led by its leader, Mariano Rajoy.

Zapatero has been a disaster for the Spanish economy. He was elected in 2004 after the Madrid bombings by Al-Queda when the then President José Aznar tried to cover up and blame the bombings on ETA, (a Basque separatist group.) If you want to know about Stimulus plans, look no further than Spain. Like Obama, Zapatero is a big believer in Keynesian economics and that the government is the answer to society's ills. Zapatero's stimulus package was 8 billion euros or 11 billion dollars. For a country slightly bigger than the state of Oregon, that is a lot of money. Spain doesn't have a Bush to blame for its economic woes like Obama does. The success of Zapatero's stimulus plan can be found in its unemployment number. Spain boasts the highest unemployment rate in the European Union recently reaching an astounding 20%, double that of any other country in the Union. Spain's unemployment is a frequent topic of Informe Semanal, Spain's 60 minutes. The unemployment graph looks like one of Al Gore's graphs on global warming. According to the Economist, Spain's real GDP is forecasted to decline by 4.9% in 2009. In a previous debate and in a last ditch effort to woo support for his fledgling party, Zapatero offered laptops for every schoolchild at a cost of $2,800 per pupil, tax-breaks for new car buyers, and other populist ideas. Of course, like Obama, he had no idea where the money would come from. Sunday, the voters of Spain showed its displeasure by voting back in the PP. I am going to venture a guess that in 2012, Spain's leftist party, El Partido Socialista Obrera Española, (PSOE) will lose Spain's general elections.

Spain, however, was not the only country where the left was defeated. European discontent with leftist policies has been growing throughout Europe. Sunday was the culmination of four days of elections throughout the continent. Most Americans are asleep when it comes to politics in the European Union, but the left in the United States should take notice. The entire continent of Europe was given a wake-up call after four days of elections. Europeans are fed up with company bailouts, fiscal stimulus, and other policies promoted by the left. During the Bush administration, center-right candidates were already being elected across the continent; France - Nicolas Sarkozy, Germany – Angela Merkel, Italy – Silvio Berlusconi and Sweden Fredrik Reinfeldt. Not since World War 2, has the left been so battered and bruised in Europe. The British Labor party suffered its worst defeat since 1918. Europe's parliamentary elections were a repudiation of these leftist policies.

The European Union's 27 countries are mired in onerous taxes, burdensome labor laws, high unemployment, and immigration problems. The European electorate believed that the EU has been headed down the wrong path. This was also reflected in the low turnout. Only 43% of the electorate voted; the lowest turnout in the EU's 30 year history. France, Germany, Spain and Italy were the biggest winners for the right. The elections strengthened the incumbent parties of President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy. One of the trends has also been a noticeable rejection of further European integration into the European Union. This is why Barack Obama was completely out of touch with the EU when he suggested that Turkey be part of the European Union, and French President Sarkozy told him to butt out of EU's affairs.

While Europe is moving to the right, the United States continues full speed ahead on its pathway to the left. In the latest move, Democrats are now trying to push through a bill that will pay $3,500 to people who junk old cars to buy so-called energy efficient new cars ordered by the new Chrysler CEO Barack Obama. Who comes up with these hair-brain schemes? When you can't get consumers to buy, you try and get the government to create the demand. Since when has government ever been able to create a sustainable demand? It can't. This idea will hurt the poor more than anyone else. Demand is created by the private sector not the government. Time and time again, policies such as these have proven to be ineffective, but we still continue to enact them. Let's say I have a brain tumor that I needed removed. I am transported to the operating room and I have in front of me a brain surgeon and a nurse. An argument ensues between the brain surgeon and me. Because of the argument I opt to forego the brain surgeon, and I ask the nurse to do the operation instead. That is what we have done. We have the nurse in charge of the country, not the brain surgeon. Sooner or later, the electorate wakes from its slumber after realizing who they elected. Europe is beginning to wake up. How long will it take us to realize that we have a cadre of "boobs" running this country? How long will it take for us to wake up? Only time will tell.

From Reuters (video below)

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown faces a grilling from opposition leader David Cameron in the wake of woeful results in local and European elections.

This was Brown's first appearance in the House of Commons since the ruling Labour Party's disastrous showing in European and local elections.

Brown faced tough criticism from the Conservative Party leader Cameron who claimed the Prime Minister is "a man with no democratic legitimacy" having succeeded Tony Blair as PM without a general election.

Brown responded saying that Cameron has "no plans for government and he doesn't deserve to be in government".

The Prime Minister has faced repeated calls for an early general election, in the wake of a parliament-wide scandal over expenses, and the resignations of several cabinet ministers.

Last weekend, the Labour Party plunged to its worst result in a century, polling under 16 percent in national elections to European Parliament.

Brown must call an election before mid-2010.

Can anyone say, "Jon Voight for President?"

Brokaw compares Israel to the NAZIs

The only word for this is "Unbelievable."

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Powerline states the following:

Much has been made of President Obama's "on the other hand" transition, in his speech yesterday, from the Holocaust to the travails of the Palestinians. Some thought that he implied a kind of equivalence. But the appalling Tom Brokaw reminded us that it could have been worse when he asked Obama about his visit to Buchenwald on the Today Show this morning:

BROKAW: What can the Israelis learn from your visit to Buchenwald? And what should they be thinking about their treatment of Palestinians?
Unbelievable. Obama, to his credit, squelched the analogy:

OBAMA: Well, look, there's no equivalency here.

A First in Barack Obama's Poll numbers

Rasmussen, the most accurate of the polling organizations shows Obama's approval ratings and disapproval ratings to be equal - a first.

The President’s ratings have slipped since General Motors filed for bankruptcy to initiate a new government bailout and takeover. Just 26% of Americans believe the GM bailout was a good idea and nearly as many support a boycott of GM products. It remains to be seen whether the dip in the President’s numbers is a temporary reaction to recent news or something more substantive.

continue reading here.

Obama’s message to Islam

"Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and see them, belittle them and lie and wait for them in every strategy of war." (The Koran Sura 9 Verse 5)

Note: The majority of Muslims in Western countries are not radicalized because they are not influenced by the propaganda of the Middle East, however this does not mean we should not monitor the Mosques in the United States for radicalization. We do have enemies within who also want to destroy us. As in NAZI Germany, there were some who came to the realization that anti-Semitism and hate were wrong. I believe this to be true in today's Islamic world also.

Obama continued his trek across the great nations of the world, this time to tell the Muslims of the world that we are nice people. I listened to the entire speech from Cairo University to hear any pearls of great wisdom that might have come forth from the messiah. Some of the speech was good as when Barack Obama spoke of the contributions of Islam to the world. I would probably give him a C- on content. His speech was very similar to many of the same empty platitudes in many of Bush's speeches when he spoke of the Middle East. After Barack Obama failed in his attempt to cajole Europe into cooperation with the U.S., and after he failed with Latin America, he was now off to appease the likes of Hamas. I sincerely believe that Obama wants to change the course of foreign relations with the Islamic world through public policy and suasion, but first he would have to change the mindset of a culture that still believes in vengeance from the 15^th century when the Spanish kicked the Moors out of Spain. President after president has tried to establish peace in the region all with no success – why would Obama be any different? I initially thought that because of Obama's Islamic roots, he would be able to reach out to the Islamic world in a way no other leader in the Western world has, but his speech was filled with the same naiveté that has been the essence of every president before him.

This is the first time Obama stressed his middle name Hussein. The inflection in his voice went higher as he pronounced his middle name Barack Hussein Obama. It is somewhat ironic that there was so much ado about using his middle name during the presidential campaign. During the campaign, there were emails floating around (much of it false) about Barack Obama's Muslim roots. There were people claiming that Barack was a Muslim while the campaign denied it. Most conservatives said they did not use Obama's middle name because he was Muslim but because it was his middle name. I disagree. I do believe Republicans used his middle name in the hope of causing a reaction among the electorate about his Muslim roots. But, so what! I would have stated the reason I used his middle name. I did not want anyone elected who had any Muslim ties as our president. That would be like electing a person of Japanese or German descent during World War 2. It was undeniable before the election and it is undeniable now that Barack's Islamic ties go way back. He may call himself a Christian, but to the Muslim world he will always be a Muslim since he was a Muslim at birth. In fact, Islam considers a Christian who was born a Muslim an apostate worthy of death. Barack Obama has already demonstrated that he goes out of his way to appease Islam to the detriment of Israel. He did not even visit Israel on this trip. This was a snub to our greatest ally in the region. But, I digress.

As Obama begins his speech, he says that he will speak the truth by quoting the Koran, "As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." In fact, the Koran teaches Muslims not to tell the truth if it advances the cause of Islam. The principle of taqiyya allows lying for the purpose of spreading the cause of Islam. In Islam, there is no lie about America or Israel that is too great. Some examples of taqiyya include:

• For ritual purposes, Jews use the blood of Muslim (and Christian) children in Matzoh and Purim pastries. Jews and Israelis are literally "vampires" and "bloodsuckers."
  
• Israel is sending AIDS-infected prostitutes to spread the disease by seducing and infecting innocent young Muslim boys.
  
• The Jews build "ovens" to bake Palestinians. (1)
  

Taqiyya pervades Islamic life so much so that lying is a part of the culture. This is why Muslims in the Islamic world believed that Jews in the twin towers were informed by Israel before the attack so they could make a quick exit. It is why the Islamic world was so surprised that the United States took down Sadaam Hussein so quickly when the Iraqi information minister Mohammad Saeed said Iraq was winning and America was losing. In December 13, 2004, the Iranian Sahar 1, a TV station broadcasted a series entitled, "Zahara's Blue Eyes." This series asserts that Israelis steal the organs of a Palestinian girl and transplant them in an Israeli girl. (1) This is the typical propaganda that is disseminated throughout the entire Islamic world. This is no different than the Nazi propaganda like the film Triumph of the will by Leni Riefenstahl exhibiting the Germans as the superior Aryan race and other NAZI propaganda pieces that showed Jews as vermin. How do you fight that? You don't fight it by denying the reality of it.

Obama continues the myth that only a few are the extremists wanting to engage war on the West. As I have shown above, the majority of the Islamic world is anti-Semitic. While most may not engage in the suicide bombings or slamming airplanes into buildings, most are sympathetic to the cause. This is why after 9/11 thousands were seen cheering in the streets in Islamic countries. This is why there were virtually no Islamic leaders condemning the attacks. Most Germans during World War 2 did not participate in the killing of Jews, but anti-Semitism was ubiquitous throughout the Third Reich and most participated in the evil treatment of the Jews.

Obama's flowery rhetoric begins with all the contributions of Islam. He ends the portion of the speech by stating, "Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality." What religion was he talking about? It couldn't be Islam.

The Mutawa (Saudi religious police) broke into homes and smashed hi-fis. If they found alcohol, they hauled men off to jail and beat them there. They prohibited the sale of children's dolls – dolls became contraband, like whiskey, because they were human images. Suddenly, the only dolls for sale were shapeless figures with no faces, like the one owned by Aisha, the Prophet Mohammed's child wife, in the seventh century but this was 1979. Inside the Kingdom – Carmen Bin Ladin (2)

Women are second class citizens if that, but yet somehow Obama believes Islam offers equality. Islam believes that Israelis are infidels, and Israel does not have the right to exist, yet Obama believes Islam offers religious tolerance. Does Obama really believe this or is he just practicing taqiyya.

And what about that time-honored tradition of "Honor Killings"?

Even some on the left were not exactly impressed with Obama's speech. Peter Daou from the Huffington Post writes:

With women being stoned, raped, abused, battered, mutilated, and slaughtered on a daily basis across the globe, violence that is so often perpetrated in the name of religion, the most our president can speak about is protecting their right to wear the hijab? I would have been much more heartened if the preponderance of the speech had been about how in the 21st century, we CANNOT tolerate the pervasive abuse of our mothers and sisters and daughters

The most disturbing part of Obama's speech was when he said,

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo

First, what right minded American is going to want to travel to an Islamic country knowing that many Islamic fundamentalists will attempt to kidnap him, kill him by suicide bombers or behead him only for the video later to be shown on Youtube? It sounds like a safe atmosphere to me. Because Obama says it is safe, does not make it so. Then we will bring Muslim students to the United States to learn our technology, return to their country, and use this technology against us. Of course, there is no war on terror, it is the overseas contingency operation, and in his speech there is no terror, it is violent extremism. I guess anything is possible.

I know there are many - Muslim and non-Muslim - who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort - that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur.

Yeah – I guess the skepticism comes in when every other president has failed in the peace process, and Hamas has in its charter the destruction of Israel, yet Obama still wants to dialogue. So what does this charter of Hamas actually state? The following are just a few of the articles of the charter:

• Article six makes clear that the group's ultimate goal is nothing less than to destroy Israel and replace it with an Arab-Muslim fundamentalist state. It boasts that Hamas is "working to unfurl the banner of Allah over every center of Palestine."
  
• Article seven quotes one of the most well-known, genocidal, prophetic verses from the Islamic Hadith, or oral tradition, that carries the same weight in the Muslim faith as the Koran: "The day will come when Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them, to the degree that the Jew will hide behind the rocks and trees, which will cry out to the Muslim and tell him, Servant of Allah, a Jew is hiding behind me. Come and kill him!"
  
• Article eleven forbids any Palestinian peace negotiations or treaties with Israel: "Palestine is Islamic land assigned to the Muslims to the end of time. It may not be renounced or conceded, whether in whole or in part."
  
• Article Thirteen amplifies this, stating there is "no solution to the Palestinian problem except through Jihad. (3)
  

Barack Obama talked of the unbreakable bond between Israel and the United States, and the horrors of the holocaust – all true. It is well known that Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust, but this denial is commonplace in the Islamic world. This is part of the propaganda that is disseminated throughout the Islamic world, and the belief that the Holocaust never happened is what the average Muslim on the street believes. The two anti-Semitic books The Protocols of Zion and Hitler's Mein Kampf continue to be bestsellers in the Muslim World. The grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseni was known as the "Führer of the Arab world" who fomented violence in the Middle East during World War 2, and he ingratiated himself with Adolf Hitler and became an 'honorary Aryan." He was the most influential Arab in Palestine of his time and committed to the killing of the Jews. (4) Nothing has changed. The anti-Semitism in the Islamic world continues today as it did during the period of Nazi Germany.

In spite of all this, Obama continues to insist on a two-state solution. The Jerusalem post stated the following:

Obama didn't really need to tell Israelis to acknowledge "Palestine's" right to exist since every government since Yitzhak Rabin's has been explicit that the Jewish state does not want to rule over another people. The real question is whether a violently fragmented Palestinian polity is capable of making the necessary compromises required to close a deal.

The fact remains that Palestine has been offered a separate state previously but has rejected the two state solution because Palestine did not believe in the right of Israel to exist.

Once again, Obama continues to give the impression to the world that the United States has tortured – this to a culture that beheads.

When I heard this part in the speech, I said to myself, "I don't know what it is, but it doesn't ring true" – I was right. Here is what Obama said,

Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." … And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library Click here for the truth.

Prior to the speech, a video was released by an Al-Queda recruiter authenticated by U.S. counterterrorism officials warning of Al-Queda operatives who intend to bring biological weapon via tunnels under the Mexican border. Will we close the Mexican borders? Heck no, but we will bring over Muslims on student exchange programs. Any bets that Al-Queda operatives will become exchange students? Just keep repeating "There is no war on terror." Maybe if we say it long enough, it will become true. It reminds me of Captain Jean-Luc Picard of Star Trek, Next Generation fame. When something had to get done, Jean-Luc Picard would say, "Make it so." So, maybe if Obama waves his magic wand and utters the words, "Make it so" there will be no war on terror.

Obama could have spoken of the greatness of America, or the aid we have given to the Islamic world but he did not. What will ring truer to the Muslim world - the just released video from Al-Queda or Barack Obama's speech to the Middle East? My guess is the video. The speech was no different than the myriad of speeches Bush has given albeit not in the Islamic world. To please Islam, we would have to bow to its demands, the first of which would be to stop any and all support to Israel. Instead of trying to promote an impossible peace in the Middle East, the United States should be protecting our borders, strengthening our military, and using all means at our disposal to make sure we are not attacked again. But, Barack Obama will not do this. He believes like all the other misguided presidents that peace between Israel and the Islamic world is an actual possibility. The reality is that this enmity between these two people is basic sibling rivalry that dates back to the time of Abraham, and nothing Obama does will change that.

Side note: Notice the way Obama rolls his r as he says the word Koran.

Sources:

1. Because They Hate by Brigitte Gabriel
   
2. Inside the Kingdom by Carmen Bin Ladin
   
3. Israel My Glory – Hamas, the haters of Israel, David Dolan
   
4. Icon of Evil by David G Dalin and John F Rothman

Oh, The naiveté of it all

What does this mean? We are giving Tehran til the end of the year to come up with a Nuclear Weapon. Obama is continuing the footwork of Clinton and Bush

President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.
In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, he also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor.

Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons.
“What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations,” Obama said, adding that the international community also “has a very real interest” in preventing a nuclear arms race.

The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage with Washington.

Bill O’Reilly’s War of Words.

Two blogging sites I frequent quite often are Michelle Malkin's sites www.michellemalkin.com and www.hotair.com. On both of these sites, Michelle offers in depth analysis from a conservative perspective of the political world. They are both great sites.

The other night while watching "The O'Reilly factor", O'Reilly decided to dump on www.hotair.com by pointing to one derogatory remark on the Sotomayor pick. The comment read as follows, "Unqualified, militant and socialist, NEXT, please. The GOP has to block any of Hussein's extremist picks.". Bill was looking for reaction to the Sotomayor supreme court pick. He wanted to see how the right wing blogs were reacting to it. However, in the attempt, he managed to smear Michelle Malkin's Hotair.com site because of one comment by one its readers. He described it as a Hotair.com blog posting. It, of course, was not a blog posting, it was one comment out of the thousands of comments hotair receives a day. O'Reilly somehow feels that every comment posted to a blog site should be moderated. That would of course require endless hours of moderation, and most blog sites do not have nearly the staff required to monitor every comment that is posted to these websites.

Bill O'Reilly in his zeal to appear "fair and balanced" tries just a little too hard. He has gone after the far-left websites for not moderating their comments like the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post. There are loons from both the left and the right. If there is hateful speech in an actual blog posting, that is one thing, but if it is from a commenter, that is another thing all together. Blog postings are contributors to the sites who actually write op-ed pieces. Commentors post their own views from one of the blog postings they see, and it would be virtually impossible to moderate every comment posted to the site. Michelle Malkin states in her comment section that any commentor who fails to abide by "its terms of use" may lose their commenting privilege, but again it would be impossible to monitor every comment that is posted. To comment on Bill O'Reilly's blog, you have to be a premium member (a paying member.) A hotair reader actually signed up for premium membership on O'Reilly's site to see the comments on his site and it appears that O'Reilly fails his priestly duties by not monitoring the comments on his site too which you can view here. O'Reilly apparently doesn't understand the difference between comments and blog postings.

There is a need for The O'Reilly factor, because he does offer a different perspective than the typical media outlets that are in the tank for Obama, but he needs to get his facts straight. O'Reilly does some good reporting like his exposé on the corruption of the far-left organization ACORN, but then he comes out of left-field when he supports the new car emission standards of Obama while in the same breath tells his audience that he has the sensibilities of the middle class. I wonder if Bill O'Reilly will have a difficult time in paying the extra $1,300 dollars per vehicle (for a smaller vehicle) as the rest of the middle class will? If he continues to put out misinformation in his zeal to appear "fair and balanced", he may lose credibility and go the way of the New York Times.

Bill O'Reilly always says that he has open invitations for various guests. I am waiting to see him invite Michelle to the show. She can hold her own.

Update: The commenter who published the quotes from Bill O'Reilly's site account has been terminated. Is Bill O'Reilly following the same pattern of which he accuses the left?

Soaking the rich – part 564

California keeps raising its taxes thinking in its delusional liberal mind that somehow this will extricate the state from its ills. New York was jealous of California, so after California raised its tax rate, New York raised its tax rate. New York is now going to attempt to impose a 2% millionaire tax on "New Yorkers" who earn more than 200,000 dollars a year. The top tax rate will be 8.97% in the State and New York City will be 12.62%. Of course, the result will be predictable. There will be less tax revenue flowing into state coffers, because those who have the wherewithal to earn the money also have the wherewithal to leave the state.

My brother in liberal Oregon sent me an email that was sent to all teachers from the Oregon Education Association, (OEA). It reads like a joke (or one would think) or it appears like one of those endless and incessant forward chain spam letters of which we are all too familiar that we receive from some friend or colleague who believes against all hope in the veracity of the chain. But no, the sad part is its true - this is how liberals actually think. When faced with reason, liberals just look the other way.

Here is the email he received (Pay close attention to the 2^nd question. This banner also headlines the OEA's homepage. Its the first thing you see when entering the OEA's website.

Save Our Schools S.O.S Mission No. 3 Download an S.O.S campaign sign and put it in your superhero car! Drive around your community and help spread the message far and wide. We need to Save Our Schools! If you're asked: "Are our schools really in trouble?" You can say: "Yes, this once-in-a-lifetime economic crisis means we may not have enough money for a full school year / to keep teachers on the job / to support valuable programs for our kids." If you're asked: "How can we save our schools?" You can say: "Contact your legislator! Tell them to ask corporations and the wealthy to pay their fair share to help protect our schools and vulnerable Oregonians!"(italics mine)

I do have a question. What is my fair share - 50%, 60%, 90%? Why don't we just endorse our entire paychecks to the government?

The gloves are off – Obama vs. Cheney

me

"To the very end of our administration, we kept Al-Queda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets, instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again." Dick Cheney.

Dick Cheney was scheduled to speak weeks in advance at the American Enterprise Institute this morning in defense of the Bush Administration's policies war on terror. But after the Senate in a 90-6 vote refused to grant Obama the funds to close Guantanamo, because he remains clueless as to what to do with the prisoners, Obama decided to make a guest appearance and make a speech at the American Enterprise Institute also. I could imagine what must have been going through his mind, "Why did the senate reject my closing of Guantanamo? Don't they know I campaigned on this? Yes I know I don't know what to do with the terrorists? But why would they reject me? I am the messiah. I know, I will go and speak in front of the American Enterprise Institute before Cheney speaks, this way it will look like Cheney is giving a rebuttal to my speech." Obama still gave no specific plan as to what to do with the detainees, but he did manage to once again malign Bush's policies for keeping us safe. – give me a break.

Now, I have to hand it to Barack Obama. When he fails in his policies, he appears in front of the cameras to try and defend his position. If former President Bush had done this, we may not have had this buffoon who appears to have just graduated from Daniel Ortega's school of Marxism trying to defend the indefensible. I wish there were more voices out there than just Dick Cheney's voice. But at least, Dick is giving powerful and cogent arguments that even the far-left has a hard time refuting. Obama may have given his speech first, but he was sure on the defense.

Obama - too often – our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions

While I believe that Obama sincerely believes that waterboarding is torture, I also believe that it was political posturing when he came out to sign the executive order to close Guantanamo Bay with no strategy as to what to do with the prisoners. Was it not the left who said Bush went into Iraq with no exit strategy? It was also political posturing when Barack released the CIA memos in the guise of transparency while blacking out entire portions of these same memos which showed the efficacy of these enhanced interrogation methods. Barack Obama reminds me of Good Samaritans like Lisa Torti who lifts a co-worker out of a wrecked vehicle, fearing it would catch fire or "blow up." The co-worker then sues Torti because she causes injury to her spinal cord. A rash of these types of incidents required Good Samaritan Laws. Maybe we need laws to protect American CIA agents who use the law to protect American citizens, but then have to worry about politically-motivated administrations who take power with vengeance on their mind not against the terrorists but against the very Americans who kept the rest of us safe. It was political posturing when Obama was going to release photos of detainee abuse knowing full well that these photographs were taken by the military for the purpose of prosecuting certain individuals who did abuse to prisoners for the purpose of prosecution, some of whom are in jail now, and it was political posturing to change his mind not to release the photos when he saw the polls were against him.

Barack Obama said that Gitmo alienated us from the world, but yet the world refuses to take the detainees. This is a recruitment tool Obama says – says who? - The terrorists who are trying to kill us. In fact, just today, a terrorist plot was foiled by the New York FBI while Obama is giving a speech about closing Gitmo. If it were a recruitment tool, why are there continuing attacks against the United States? Barack Obama's rhetoric goes against the face of reality.

Obama - sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That is why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign. And that is why I ordered it closed within one year.

Where does he get this stuff? How would he even know that? So releasing the CIA memos somehow made us a stronger nation? He can't even come up with an argument that makes sense. So what again is the rational for closing Guantanamo? I have yet to see a valid argument. Are we going to put them in our prison population so they can radicalize the rest of the prison population? We already know this is happening. In fact, the New York plot that was just foiled was planned by four Muslims who converted to Islam in prison. Where is the press on that one? Are we going to provide them with ACLU attorneys who will make every effort to make sure they walk free on some technicality? We don't have to worry about disclosing secrets during trials, because Barack Obama has already showed a propensity for doing just that. Barack Obama tells us he will make sure that the detainees will be scrutinized and no prisoner will be let go who will kill Americans. He argues that Bush let 2/3rds of the detainees go under his watch. He is right. Bush did the same meticulous investigative work that Obama proposes yet we have confirmed that 61 of these detainees returned to the battlefield, some of whom have killed Americans again. If we know 61 have returned, there are probably many more we don't know of who have returned to the battlefield.

Obama's speech was the usual flowery rhetoric of which we have become accustomed, but which lacked specifics and the basic ingredient of common sense.

Then the person who was originally scheduled to give a speech at the American Enterprise Institute enters. It is so much easier to defend a position with sound reasoning than what Obama delivered.

I am glad Dick Cheney has come in defense of Bush's policies that were working. Since Cheney has come in defense of the Bush policies, his approval ratings are up 8 points according to a CNN poll. What is interesting is Bush was elected to a second term because the American people recognized his policies were working. Isn't it refreshing to see a politician say something like this?

Being the first vice president who had also served as secretary of defense, naturally my duties tended toward national security. I focused on those challenges day to day, mostly free from the usual political distractions. I had the advantage of being a vice president content with the responsibilities I had, and going about my work with no higher ambition. Today, I'm an even freer man. Your kind invitation brings me here as a private citizen – a career in politics behind me, no elections to win or lose, and no favor to seek.

Every time I have heard Cheney speak, his arguments have been forceful, on point, and reassuring. I can't say this about either Obama or gaff-prone Biden. Of course, now your tax dollars will have to go to build another bunker for the vice president since Biden disclosed where the Vice President goes when we are under attack. So, who do you really feel safer under?

When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer. The point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our President's understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history.

This is so true. Obama does deserve an answer. For almost eight years, the Bush administration kept us safe, and Barack Obama is out there trying to tell us it's not true. He is trying to tell us, we were operating out of fear. He is trying to say what the Bush administration did was not effective. Why does he not go back to community organizing with the corrupt organization ACORN and the corrupt political machine of Chicago where he can bask in the anti-American rhetoric of Reverend Wright as he teaches his Liberation Theology and leave the war on terror or as Obama would say the Overseas Contingency Operationto the adults? He operates better there. Only an idiot would think to change the name to Overseas Contingency Operation.

That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad. In 1993, they bombed the World Trade Center, hoping to bring down the towers with a blast from below. The attacks continued in 1995, with the bombing of U.S. facilities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; the killing of servicemen at Khobar Towers in 1996; the attack on our embassies in East Africa in 1998; the murder of American sailors on the USS Cole in 2000; and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss we suffered on that day.

    Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were     getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first     attack     on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact – crime scene, arrests,     indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.

We know of the attacks before 9/11, and we know of the thwarted attacks after 9/11, but somehow the left doesn't feel Bush should be given credit for the almost eight years we had no attacks. And, the Bush administration is second guessed on preserving American life saying that information could have been retrieved by other means in lieu of waterboarding. Has this world gone completely insane?

Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and our job was to stop it. We didn't know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad. This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology, and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.

 

Who is A.Q.Khan you might ask? If you don't know, you should find out. This man presented the greatest threat to the proliferation of nuclear technology to terrorist groups than any other man. He was the founder of Pakistan's nuclear technology. He was involved with selling nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran and other rogue states. Anyone with money could purchase the technology from Khan. But no worry, let's not waterboard, let's just use the Army Field Manual and yell at the detainees.

To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks. We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists, and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to enemies of the United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists.

We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations … the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network … and the dismantling of Libya's nuclear program. It's required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan – and at every turn, the people of our military carried the heaviest burden. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.

 

There couldn't have been a more stark contrast between the two speeches. Dick Cheney is finally making the case to the American people and as Bill Sammon, the Washington Managing editor says, "Liberals will redouble their efforts to destroy Cheney." But Cheney is not Obama, he will not waver with the polls, he will continue and defend his position preventing at the same time history revisionism. Instead of vilifying the Bush administration, we should be thanking the administration for keeping us safe. If there is ever a nuclear attack on U.S. soil, life as we know it will change forever. Liberals will emerge from their theoretical utopian world that doesn't exist and say, "I wish we had done everything possible to prevent an attack including waterboarding" or maybe not. But, by then, it will be too late.

Let's just finish off the auto industry once and for all.

The car of the future



I am sure glad I have two relatively new cars purchased within the last couple of years, because I saved myself 1,300 dollars per vehicle.

Who thinks this increase in car prices Obama has pledged is not a tax on the little guy? Obama was only suppose to tax people who made $250,000 a year or more I thought. By the time it is all said and done with I can guarantee it will be more than 1,300 dollars. They always underestimate.

While the new fuel and emission standards for cars and trucks will save billions of barrels of oil, they are expected to cost consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle by the time the plan is complete in 2016. Obama said the fuel cost savings would offset the higher price of vehicles in three years.

Who thinks we will really save money in fuel costs? Who thinks this will have any impact on the environment? I don't

We will now all be driving around in lighter European style cars. Does it take a rocket scientist to figure out these cars will be less safe. If you doubt it, there have actually been studies on it here. Laura Ingraham said it best when she said paraphrased, "soon, we will all be driving around in clown cars." Does anyone remember the car Steve Urkel used to drive?

Now on to the next order of business - We have finished off the car industry. On to cap and trade to finish off the rest of the economy. Go Obama!!!

And while California is about ready to vote down six inane propositions in a tax revolt that is about to begin, the terminator is hob nobbing with the White House elite probably teaching them how to speak "Austrian". The terminator is with Obama and in a press conference the terminator (that was one ugly tie he was wearing) said that Obama thanked the terminator for being a leader in this new economy. HEY OBAMA HAVE YOU NOTICED THE MESS CALIFORNIA IS IN?

Remember liberals as you keep paying more for cars, more for energy, more for food just keep telling yourself, "Change is here. Change has finally arrived. I voted for change"