Updates: Drudge poll on debate
McCain 67% 174,595
Obama 31% 19,866
Neither 2% 5,967
Michelle Malkin’s poll on who won the debate.
I wish they’d taken all the clips where he presumed he was already president. They could have both been stronger on what to do about the economy, although i liked what McCain said - and my jaw just about hit the floor - when he said that we need to protect our borders (which is one of our economic problems!)
—————
Spending restraint has to be a vital part; spending got out of control. -McCain
Obama so far doesn’t know what he’s talking about. (me)
“I have to make this point, Jim…er uh…John” - Obama
McCain has opposed the president on torture of prisoners, on global warming, the American people know me very well. I have a partner who’s a maverick who’s with me now.
Much has been said about the lessons of Vietnam. What are the lessons of Iraq?
Mccain: You cannot have a failed strategy that causes you to lose a conflict. We went into Baghdad and everyone celebrated. And then it was mishandled. I went to Iraq in 2003 and came back and said we needed a change in strategy.
We came up with a great general and a strategy that succeeded. We are winning in Iraq.
Now that we will succeed - the consquences of defeat increased Iranian influence, increased sectarian violence…there was a lot at stake there. Thanks to General Patreaus -
Obama claims he opposed the war. He says the problem is we shouldn’t have gone there in the first place. We hadn’t finished the job in Afghanistan. We hadn’t caught bin Laden, we hadn’t put Al Q to rest, I thought it was going to be a distraction. We’ve spent over 600 billion, soon to be a trillion, we have lost over 4,000 lives, we have over 30,000 wounded, Al Q has resurged stronger than since 2001.
They have a 79 billion surplus at a time when we have a great deal of stress. We are borrowing money from overseas to support basic functions of our government.
I will not as president to keep people safe, to use the military but we didn’t.
McCain: The next president of the United States will not make the determination whether or not we should have gone to Iraq.
He still says he would oppose the surge. Incredibly, Obama didn’t go to Iraq for 900 days - he is the chairperson over Nato - Afghanistan.
Obama: McCain is right the violence has been reduced they have done a brilliant job; that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of four years of mismanagement of the war. The war started in 2003. At the time it started, you said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You said there was no history of violence between the sunni and shia. Who is best equipped as the next president to use our military and be prepared for the next conflict?
McCain: I’m afraid he doesn’t undrstand the difference between a tactic and a strategy.
A strategy of going into an area, clearing and holding and the people of the country come alive with you, they inform on the bad guys, peace comes. That same strategy will be used in Afghanistan by this great general.
Obama: Let’s talk about the troop funding issue. McCain cut - opposed funding for troops in legislation that had a timetable. I opposed a mission that had no timetable and gave a blank check to George Bush. I understand the difference between tactics and strategy.
Was this wise? We have seen Afghanistan worsen; deteriorate. McCain, in the rush to go to Iraq, we have been successful in Afghanistan. They’ve reconstituted themselves. Gates acknowledges it needs to end there. We need to give Iraq back its country. We need to end this war responsibly, reduce our combat troops, and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so we can capture and kill Bin Laden…
Commanders in Afghanistan acknowledge
McCain: Admiral Mullin suggests that Obama’s approach is dangerous. Bin laden and Patreaus have said Iraq is the central battleground. The successes are fragile. Obama’s original plan is we would have been out last spring without the surge giving them an opportunity to succeed.
Afghanistan: having resolved Iraq, we move to Afgahnistan. Do you think more troops should be sent to Afghanistan how many and when?
Obama: as quickly as possible. The commanders on the ground say it’s getting worse. Al Q and Taliban are feeling emboldened. We can’t separate Afghanistan from Iraq. I would send two or three additional brigades. Nobody had anything to do with 9/11 in Iraq before we went in - we have 4 times as many troops there as Afghanistan. That is a strategic mistake. Gates acknowledged the place we have to deal with these folks is…Pakistan, –we have to press the Afghan government to make sure they’re working for their people. We have to deal with a poppy trade, we have to deal with Pakistan. Al Q and Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan. Under George Bush, we’ve given them 10 billion in the last 7 years - they haven’t gotten rid of the safe havens.
McCain: I won’t repeat the mistake - after we washed our hands of the region. A lot of the difficulties we’re facing today go back to then. If you’re going to aim a gun at somebody, you better be prepared to pull the trigger on Pakistan, or withdraw funding from Pakistan, as Obama is prepared to do.
The new president of Pakistan has his hands full. This area on the border hasn’t been governed since Alexander the Great. Yes, Obama calls for new troops, but it has to be a new strategy. We’re going to have to help the Pakistanis and it’s going to be tough. We need the cooperation of the people in those areas.
That bombing in the hotel in Islamabad - Al Q doesn’t want the government in Pakistan to cooperate with us. We will employe a strategy - from 32k to 52k - it’s not the addition of troops that will succeed.
I know how to work with them. I would not going to publicly state that we’re going to attack them.
Obama: If pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out. I think it’s the right strategy; presidents have to be prudent. McCain is also right this is difficult. It’s not an easy situation. We have a choice: we allow our troops to absorb the blows if Pakistan is unwilling to cooperate, or we have to start making some decisions. The problem with the previous strategy, we alienated the population - a 20th century mindset - he’s a dictator but our dictator - in the meantime they weren’t going after Al Q. That’s going to change when I’m president of the United States.
McCain - everyone who was around then they knew it was a failed state - with Mussharaf. Back in 1983 when I was a new congressman - ronald Reagan wanted to send marines into Lebanon. I voted against that because I was afraid they couldn’t make peace - nearly 300 marines lost their lives. I supported us going into Bosnia when a number of my own party was against it. It was the right thing to do. I supported Kosovo. Ethnic cleansing and genocide was happening there.
I have a record being involved in these national security issues. I’ll tell you, I had a townhall meeting and a woman stood up and said “I want you to do me an honor of wearing my dead son’s bracelet”. I said I will wear his bracelet with honor. She said Senator McCain, do everything in your power to see that my son’s death was not in vain. We don’t want defeat. The war that I was in; we had an army - but they were defeated. I know how hard it is for an army to recover from that.
We won’t come home in defeat and dishonor.
Obama: “I have a bracelet, too.”
Obama’s bracelet belongs to Sgt. Ryan David Jopek who was killed in Iraq by a roadside bomb, Aug. 2, 2006. I see rumors on the internet that Obama doesn’t know the name or details about the bracelet; but I clearly heard him say the name, although he stuttered before spitting it out. He doesn’t do well without a teleprompter, we all have seen that.
But the key point is…he had to look at HIS NOTES for the name of the soldier!!!
—-
You know I’m noticing that Obama keeps acting like he’s already president…and McCain isn’t jumping to that conclusion in his rhetoric. “I as president”, blah blah blah, says Obama.
Well he isn’t president YET, and he should stop presuming that he will be.
hhahahaha McCain mentioned Obama’s presidential seal! bwahahaha
I think McCain wins this round, LOL
I can’t watch much more of this. Obama looks like he’s wearing makeup and he makes me want to puke with his pompous ass.
Also…Pokiston and Toleeebon…the pronunciation of the terms Obama is using is quite interesting.
Said Cao @ 11:33 am Comments (4) | Permalink
Because his image is totally manufactured~the image is a man that has never existed.
It’s been airbrushed and photoshopped and the media watchdogs have completely omitted fact-checking certain periods in his life that are questionable at best.
Read the whole article by Tony Blankly at Townhall.com
Said Cao @ 11:32 am Comments (0) | Permalink
Paul Murdoch channels Allahpundit - Alec Rawls
Two years ago Allahpundit (who works for Michelle Malkin) made a very strange judgment. He accepted that the original Crescent of Embrace design for the Flight 93 memorial pointed roughly to Mecca (to be exact, it points within 2 degrees of Mecca), but said that worrying about the orientation of the crescent reeked of “truther-iness.”
“A good rule of thumb,” said Allah:
if you need a protractor to properly express your outrage, you’ve probably gone too far.
Orientation on Mecca may sound esoteric, but it is certainly not esoteric to Muslims, who are supposed to face Mecca five times a day for prayer, and often carry special compasses for that purpose.
In particular, a crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca is called a mihrab, and is the central feature around which every mosque is built. (Some mihrabs are pointed arch shaped, but the archetypical mihrab is crescent shaped.) This isn’t merely suspicious, like learning to fly airliners without learning how to land. It is the discovered enemy objective: to stab a terrorist memorial mosque into the heartland of America.
How can anyone be surprised? As our blogburst logo shows, the original crescent design was a bare naked crescent and star flag. For Allah to dismiss ADDITIONAL Islamic symbol shapes as coincidence is like seeing the second airplane fly into the Trade Center and saying: “Well now it HAS to be an accident.”
Allahpundit seems to have forgotten the defining quality of the 9-11 truth morons. It isn’t that their claims seem esoteric or even outlandish. It is that their claims are FALSE, and in most cases are revealed by the simplest fact-checking to be blatantly dishonest as well. The truthers are self-conscious purveyors of malicious disinformation, a la Michael Moore.
In contrast, everything we are saying about the flight 93 memorial is TRUE, and is easily verified to be true just by examining the official design drawings.
● The plans specify 44 translucent memorial blocks to be emplaced along the flight path, matching the number of passengers, crew AND terrorists. Just open up the design drawings and count. (The flight path symbolically breaks our harmonious circle according to architect Paul Murdoch, turning it into a giant crescent. Go figure.)
● The 93 foot Tower of Voices will be topped with yet another Islamic shaped crescent. Just look:
The symbolic lives of the 40 heroes literally dangle down below the symbolic Islamic heavens, projected against the sky above. Not a lot of different possible meanings here.
● The 9/11 date is to be inscribed on a separate section of Memorial Wall that is centered on the bisector of the giant crescent, which is the exact position of the star on an Islamic flag. The date goes to the terrorists.
● Etcetera ad nauseum, and architect Paul Murdoch proves that all of it is intentional by repeating every Islamic and terrorist memorializing feature in the Tower of Voices part of the memorial. (2 minute animation showing the repeated Mecca orientations here.)
How many airplanes have to hit the Flight 93 memorial before a few of our heavy hitters can admit that MAYBE it is not just an accident? Can we at least agree that the Park Service should be exposed for lying through their teeth about these facts?
If we could get word out to the public just about the Mecca orientation of the crescent, Murdoch’s plot would probably be kaput, especially given the numerous denials the Memorial Project has issued in the last year and a half. But getting even the most basic facts out is terribly difficult when it isn’t just the mainstream media that won’t report the facts, but even people like Michelle Malkin are remaining silent, after taking a leading role in raising the initial alarm.
The loss of her powerful voice is hard enough, but there is also the seeming implication. Even the most internet savvy conservatives–the people we most need to reach to have any hope of stopping this–presume that if Michelle is not still objecting to the Flight 93 memorial, it must be okay now.
It is NOT okay. It is a thorough-going memorial to the terrorists. As Tom Burnett Sr. (father of Flight 93 hero Tom Burnett Jr.) keeps urging, we have to “do something,” as his son got up and did something. We have to stop this re-hijacked Flight 93 before it reaches its destination.
If Michelle is going to hand such an important portfolio to Allah, doesn’t he have an obligation to check a few facts before smearing fellow conservatives as truther-like? Allah and Michelle are good friends and much beloved for their excellent judgment and hard work. There is no anger here. Just an appeal for both to take another look. Paul Murdoch has even provided a fitting pretext, if any is needed.
In an interview two weeks ago, Murdoch re-labeled the tips of his crescent structure the same way that Allah proposed two years ago, yielding a more extended crescent that no longer points to Mecca. Murdoch is channeling you Allah, but where you were merely ignorant, he is being deceptive.
Where are the breaks in the circle?
In 2006, Allah posted a graphic from Alec Rawls that used orientation lines to show how the defining points of the Mecca-oriented crescent are unchanged in the Circle of Embrace redesign:
Original Crescent of Embrace design, left, points to Mecca. The flight path can be seen coming down from the upper left corner of the image, breaking the circle at the upper crescent tip.
Every particle of that original Crescent of Embrace design remains completely intact in the Circle of Embrace redesign. The original crescent tips are still there, yielding the same Mecca oriented crescent. Allah, however, suggested that the orientation of the crescent HAD been changed:
In blue: Allahpundit’s proposed orientation lines for the Circle of Embrace redesign.
If you don’t know that the theme of the whole design is the flight path breaking the circle at the original upper crescent tip, and you don’t notice that there is still a gap in the circle at the original upper crescent tip, you can get Allah’s altered orientation for the Circle redesign, no longer pointing to Mecca.
Murdoch, of course, knows the theme of his own design (being the first one to articulate it publicly). Still, pretending that the breaks in the circle have been changed is a useful dodge, and Murdoch employed it the other week.
Asked if the circle in the Circle of Embrace redesign depicts a broken circle, as critics claim, Murdoch said that the circle breaks when it reaches the sacred ground:
The edge of the sacred ground “breaks” the circular perimeter of the bowl to give it the prominence it deserves as the focal point of the entire park and the final resting place of the 40 heroes.
The Sacred Ground is the yellow-colored area in the graphics above. By acknowledging only the break at the sacred ground, Murdoch is suggesting that the tips of the crescent come up to yellow area on both sides, just as Allah drew.
The Park service website, however, goes on to identify another break as well, the original break at the upper tip of the original crescent design, where the flight path crosses the circle:
The trees surrounding this “circle of embrace” are missing in two places; first, where the flight path of the plane went overhead (which is the location of the planned memorial overlook and visitor center), and second, where the plane crashed at the Sacred Ground (depicted by a ceremonial gate and pathway into the Sacred Ground). In summary, the memorial is shaped in a circular fashion, and the circle is symbolically “broken” or missing trees in two places, depicting the flight path of the plane, and the crash site…
In his interview, Murdoch does not just fail to mention the symbolic breaking of the circle at the original upper crescent tip, but offers an alternative description of the Entry Portal structure:
The entrance moves through the circular edge along the flight path, so as visitors enter they will be aligned with United Flight 93 through their own experience.
Sorry Murdoch, and Allah, but this passage through the original upper crescent tip does not just show the path of Flight 93. It explicitly symbolizes the flight path smashing our harmonious circle and turning it into the giant (Islamic shaped) crescent.
Entry Portal walkway follows the flight path through the Entry Portal walls, symbolizing the breaking of the circle, according to the Park Service itself.
Allah’s blue orientation lines are WRONG. The crescent is the unbroken part of the circle, which was not altered in the so-called redesign. All they did was add an extra arc of trees that explicitly represents a broken off part of the circle. Can Allah please post a correction?
It points to Washington
What made Allah throw up his hands was our further claim that the asymmetric crescent of memorial groves at the back of the full Crescent of Embrace points to the White House. But this too is TRUE, and if you look at Murdoch’s plan, there is very clear reason for it.
Murdoch constantly provides proof that his possible Islamic and terrorist memorializing structure are intentional, often by repetition. The purpose of the White House orientation is to prove that his drawing of only 38 Memorial Groves, instead of the advertised 40, is not a mistake.
The giant crescent represents the symbolic Islamic heavens. Since the crescent of Memorial Groves is part of the full crescent, Murdoch cannot actually memorialize the 40 infidels there and still have a proper mosque. Thus Murdoch has to PROVE that the 38 groves are intended to memorialize someone else.
Notice that the 38 groves can be seen as a set of 19 nested crescents, ranging in length from 38 groves down to two. That is one for each 9/11 hijacker. How can this intent be proved? First, Murdoch proves intent by repetition. The Tower of Voices is also surrounded by a set of 19 nested crescents:
Paul Murdoch’s detail view of the Tower of Voices. Click for larger image.
The nested crescents of memorial groves establish the precedent that arcs of trees as short as two are to be counted as crescents. Using this rule, there are 19 nested crescents in the Tower array.
That is not enough proof for Murdoch, who provides redundant proof of intent for ALL of his Islamic and terrorist memorializing features. To provide additional proof that the 38 groves are to be seen as 19 nested crescents, Murdoch takes advantage of the fact that crescents have orientation, via either the bisector of the crescent, or by a line across the crescent tips. He positions his crescent of groves so that a line across the tips of any of the 19 nested crescents points to the White House:
19 nested crescents, all pointing to the target that the Flight 93 terrorists were trying to destroy.
The White House sits at about the “i” in Washington in this Yahoo map. The other possible target of Flight 93, the Capitol Building, is also nearby, but Higher resolution analysis suggests that the crescent tip line points closer to the White House.
Repeated symbolic damnation
Does anyone want to think that all this is coincidence too: the two missing groves, the White House orientation, the second set of 19 nested crescents in the Tower array? “Wow. A dozen airplanes flying into the Trade Towers. That’s really got to be an accident now. That many airplanes just couldn’t be on purpose!”
No, what they can’t be is an accident. Paul Murdoch is dead serious about proving that he has designed a proper terrorist memorial mosque. THAT is why the Memorial Groves point to the White House. And it isn’t just the Memorial Groves. EVERY depiction of the 40 heroes has an opposite hidden meaning, proved by repetition.
Those 40 wind chimes, one for each of the heroes, all literally dangling down below the symbolic Islamic heavens projected in the sky above? That’s symbolic damnation.
So too with the 40 blocks inscribed with the 40 names. All four of the “extra” translucent blocks on the flight path are located within the symbolic Islamic heavens. The three inscribed with the 9/11 date are inscribed as placed the star on the Islamic crescent and star flag, while the 44th sits at the upper crescent tip (where the flight path breaks the circle).
In contrast, the 40 blocks inscribed with the names of the heroes are all further down the flight path, down below the Islamic star and hence symbolically cast out of the symbolic Islamic heavens, which again implies damnation.
All of this has a very clear purpose. If the memorial actually honored the 40 infidels it could not be a proper mosque. According to the Koran (9.18), mosques are not to be defiled by infidel presence. Depictions of victory over the infidel are of course allowed.
Allahpundit is not the only one who thinks that TOO MANY suspicious features somehow imply coincidence. The Memorial Project says the exact same thing. They know that the Mecca orientation claim is accurate. They know that ALL of our factual claims are accurate and admit it in private conversation, but have decided that the very outlandishness of all somehow implies that it has to be coincidence.
Flight 93 is supposed to be the symbol of our woken vigilance. We are supposed to be alert now to the nature of the Islamic terrorists who are waging war against us: that they hide amongst us, pretending to be trustworthy friends. Have the truthers actually succeeded in stripping the nation of that lesson, making us loathe to witness evidence of conspiracy?
9/11 was one of the most elaborate conspiracies in history (by al Qaeda, not by the Bush administration). We can’t just unlearn that lesson, and be blind to evidence of conspiracy in hopes of staying as far as possible from those who present phony evidence of conspiracy.
To make sense, one must follow the evidence wherever it leads. That is what the truthers DON’T do. The problem isn’t that they are pushing conspiracy theories, it is that they aren’t honest. Ignoring the facts in an anti-conspiracy direction does not make one opposite to the truthers, but makes one similar, as Allah darn well ought to know.
To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.
Said Cao @ 4:56 am Comments (1) | Permalink
Dear Senator Obama;
I pay Federal Taxes. Those taxes pay your salary. Your job is United States Senator. I hope I’ve not lost you yet in this important discussion.
The job description for the position of US Senator is to participant in the discussions and decisions on the matters of the people. I am included as one of those. As a reminder, I am a net tax payer into the US Treasury.
Might I be so presumputious as to ask why you haven’t headed to Washington, DC to perform you paid job? Regardless of whether you want to look like you’re a hurt little puppy dog, following the Alpha Dog around isn’t the issue. The issue is you are supposed to be doing your job. In this case, the people of Illinois thought enough of you to send you to that job, and I would ask, as one who pays part of your salary, that you might consider doing what is expected of you right now.
In my world, I cannot get away with telling my boss I’m just going off to a debate and to see if I can get a better job, and expect that he will still have payroll cut me a check each pay period. Frankly, I know how you get away with spending most of the time that I and my fellow net payers to the IRS have employed you dodging the work you were sent to do: You and your fellow politicians make the rules and I’m sure we can’t convince you to do the right thing as far as being loyal to us and actually working for for pay.
Your job calls you at the Capitol Building. You should go there. You should participate in the discussions. If you want to look Presidential, show us how you take working a job seriously, so long as it is the job you are chartered to do, by us, the taxpayers, net payers and not so net ones, for that matter. We need you to man up.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Citizen
Said xformed @ 9:20 pm Comments (0) | Permalink
I’ve seen where people were complaining that Congress hasn’t voted on the bailout yet, that “democrats” are dragging their feet.
But I don’t think we should make such a move so quickly, considering there will be no one to bailout the taxpayer.
It’s government meddling in this mess that brought us here, yet…what defies reason is the solution that is proposed is more of the same; they would be better off, as mentioned in the Heritage Foundation article linked above, to let any rescue package be guided by free market principles.
The bailout is not.
Said Cao @ 4:55 am Comments (1) | Permalink
See it at Nice Deb’s - or just go to the White House press release. It also appears on Glenn Beck’s website, which I received through email without a link.
Here’s the link to it at Glenn Beck’s website.
People, people, people! If you’re going to send something out like that, provide the link to the source!!!
Said Cao @ 9:19 am Comments (0) | Permalink
http://www.eielson.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123111092
Said Richard Nixon @ 8:13 am Comments (0) | Permalink
Said Cao @ 12:22 pm Comments (0) | Permalink
Through email I received this. We’ll see the fallout from the moonbat brigades shortly, since they can handle absolutely no criticism of the Obamessiah and were instructed to ‘get in peoples’ faces’.
Introduction
Jack Wheeler is a brilliant man who was the author of Reagan’s strategy to break the back of the Soviet Union with the star wars race and expose their inner weakness.
For years he wrote a weekly intelligence update that was extremely interesting and well structured and informed. He consults(ed) with several mega-corporations on global trends and the future, etc. I think he is in semi-retirement now.
He is a true patriot with a no-nonsense approach to everything. He is also a somewhat well known mountain climber and adventurer.
The O-Man
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.
He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya . Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.
What he isn’t, not a genetic drop of is ‘African American,’ the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships ..
He hasn’t a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.
Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.
It’s something Hillary doesn’t understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.
Thus Obama has become the white liberal’s Christ offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it.
The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to w orship him: Credo quid absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.
Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior.
His candidacy is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American.
~~~~~~~~
Emphasis mine.
Said Cao @ 8:31 pm Comments (0) | Permalink
This is a post at STACLU, Jay asked us to cross post it. Why, I’m not exactly sure….because he’s asking for feedback - which you should give on his post here at STACLU.
Original email I received:
Dear Jay
I probably have some agreement with you that the ACLU takes seperation of church and state way too far.I don’t see that a prayer at a graduation is any violation of a so-called seperation of church and state.Jay my problem arises when we look at some of the ultra conservative ideas to expand we have seen lately from the Bush Administration when it comes to shredding our Fourth Amendment and on those issues I’m thankful for the ACLU.In addition with our economy going into a tailspin in part because of the supply-side economics and sillly idea that the markets can regulate themselves of BUsh and MCCain.
What I”m trying to say Jay is that the GOP and far right wing pro corporate agenda of the right is almost as sickening as some on the hyper secular left that you talk about.Look we are in a mess Jay, and its not democrats its the 6 years of GOP policy from 2000-2006 so when you combine your rehetoric against the ACLU with rhetoric attacking Obama and complimenting Bush and McCain you have destroy your credibility.
TThere are many on the left who are not part of the secular left and would have some agreement with you but any effort to join the GOP team and group together absolutely destroys your credibility and doesn’t help our cause to fight for more relisgous liberties and unlike you something i cherish “civil liberties.Travis
My response:
I’m gonna guess that you are a conservative leaning libertarian. I could be wrong, with the way you talk about the “right wing” though. However, I proudly call myself a conservative, and embarrassingly call myself a Republican. It isn’t about party.
I don’t disagree with everything the ACLU does. I just think they are a fraud and dangerously misguided far to the left. I believe in civil liberties. I just think the ACLU take those liberties too far, to a dangerous level. Their advocacy of having child molesters live across the street from playgrounds and elementary schools is too far for me. Their advocacy that looking at child porn should be freedom of speech is too far. Their hypocrisy in fighting against listening in to phone calls to known terrorist over privacy issues while keeping a database of their member’s personal financial history is too far. Their attacks on free speech for Christians are too far, and on top of that hypocrisy they have restricted their own board member’s speech.
I don’t want to stop the defending of the bill of rights. I want to stop the perversion of the Constitution.
I also want to stop taxpayer funding paying the ACLU’s cases they convince left wing judges of, that the majority of American taxpayers don’t agree with.
I’m tired of these legal groups destroying the foundation of our Constitution. If homosexuals want equal rights, then convince enough people to amend the Constitution like they did for abolishing slavery. They only hurt their cause when they convince judges to push it on a population not ready to accept it.
Then they only get reactions from politicians ready to represent the will of the people who put Constitutional amendments to ban such things before the people. The people react, just as you would expect, and it makes everything that much harder. They hurt their own cause by going the route of the judiciary.
The ACLU is a partisan organization that should not receive any tax exemption as they do. They separate their organization into two so they can lobby and play the courts. They are evil.
Should I have said more? I’ll update this post if and when I get a response. In the meantime, chime in with your responses.
Said Cao @ 8:30 pm Comments (0) | Permalink
Barack Obama likes to lay the cause of the current financial meltdown at the feet of the current administration. The facts are very different.
An editorial in Investors Business Daily, titled “The Real Culprits in this Meltdown” says
Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the “trickle-down” economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.
But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street’s most revered institutions.
Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but “predatory.”
Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the ’90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.
And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.
As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.
Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.
Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses.
In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.
But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America.
At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.
The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today’s nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
Read the whole article.
It is Barack Obama and his Democrat cronies who are really responsible. This video gives an idea of how connected to Fannie Mae Obama is:
In an article in To the Point News, Jack Kelly writes:
Fannie and Freddie went broke because they had bought billions of dollars worth of subprime mortgages, on which borrowers defaulted when the housing bubble popped. Fannie bought most of its bad mortgages from Countrywide Financial, whose CEO, Angelo Mozilo, gave sweetheart loans to senior executives of Fannie Mae.
Fannie and Freddie cooked their books so senior executives would be paid millions of dollars in bonuses to which they were not entitled. Inadequate regulation kept the book-cooking from being discovered until the crisis had become a catastrophe.
President Bush proposed regulatory reforms in 2003, but Congress took no action. In 2005, John McCain and three other GOP senators proposed a strong reform bill. It died when Democrats threatened a filibuster. When the bill was reintroduced in this Congress, Sen. Chris Dodd, the new Democratic chairman of Banking Committee, refused even to hold a hearing on it.
Democrats opposed reform in part because they feared it would mean fewer loans to poor people.
“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, told the New York Times when the Bush bill was introduced. “The more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Democrats and some Republicans opposed reform because Fannie and Freddie were very good at greasing palms. Fannie spent $170 million on lobbying since 1998, and $19.3 million on political contributions since 1990.
The principal recipient of Fannie Mae’s largesse was Sen. Dodd. Number two was Barack Hussein Obama.
Sen. Dodd was also the second largest recipient in the Senate of contributions from Countrywide’s PAC and its employees. The number one senator on Countrywide’s list?
Barack Hussein Obama.
Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines was forced to resign in December, 2004, because of “accounting irregularities.” The Washington Post reported July 16 the Obama campaign has called Mr. Raines “seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.”
Sen. Obama appointed Mr. Raines’ predecessor, James Johnson, as head of his vice presidential search committee, until he was also implicated in “accounting irregularities,” and it was revealed he’d received cut rate loans from Countrywide.
Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker, chairman of Sen. Obama’s finance committee, cooked the books to conceal losses from subprime mortgages at her now defunct Superior bank. The holding company her family owned collected $200 million in dividends on phony profits.
The trouble with crony capitalism isn’t capitalism. It’s the cronies.
This meltdown can be laid directly at the feet of Democrats. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and other Democrat cronies are responsible. It will be interesting to see how Obama spins his way out of this one.
UPDATE: In a speech today at Green Bay, Wisconsin, Sen John McCain stated:
There are certainly plenty of places to point fingers, and it may be hard to pinpoint the original event that set it all in motion. But let me give you an educated guess. The financial crisis we’re living through today started with the corruption and manipulation of our home mortgage system. At the center of the problem were the lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats who succeeded in persuading Congress and the administration to ignore the festering problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
These quasi-public corporations lead our housing system down a path where quick profit was placed before sound finance. They institutionalized a system that rewarded forcing mortgages on people who couldn’t afford them, while turning around and selling those bad mortgages to the banks that are now going bankrupt. Using money and influence, they prevented reforms that would have curbed their power and limited their ability to damage our economy. And now, as ever, the American taxpayers are left to pay the price for Washington’s failure.
Two years ago, I called for reform of this corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress did nothing. The Administration did nothing. Senator Obama did nothing, and actually profited from this system of abuse and scandal. While Fannie and Freddie were working to keep Congress away from their house of cards, Senator Obama was taking their money. He got more, in fact, than any other member of Congress, except for the Democratic chairmen of the committee that oversees them. And while Fannie Mae was betraying the public trust, somehow its former CEO had managed to gain my opponent’s trust to the point that Senator Obama actually put him in charge of his vice presidential search.
This CEO, Mr. Johnson, walked off with tens of millions of dollars in salary and bonuses for services rendered to Fannie Mae, even after authorities discovered accounting improprieties that padded his compensation. Another CEO for Fannie Mae, Mr. Raines, has been advising Senator Obama on housing policy. This even after Fannie Mae was found to have committed quote “extensive financial fraud” under his leadership. Like Mr. Johnson, Mr. Raines walked away with tens of millions of dollars.
Senator Obama may be taking their advice and he may be taking their money, but in a McCain-Palin administration, there will be no seat for these people at the policy-making table. They won’t even get past the front gate at the White House.
My friends, this is the problem with Washington. People like Senator Obama have been too busy gaming the system and haven’t ever done a thing to actually challenge the system.
We’ve heard a lot of words from Senator Obama over the course of this campaign. But maybe just this once he could spare us the lectures, and admit to his own poor judgment in contributing to these problems. The crisis on Wall Street started in the Washington culture of lobbying and influence peddling, and he was square in the middle of it.
Said Bear to the Right @ 8:11 pm Comments (5) | Permalink
“They had some forewarning and they chose to take action.” The defenders of the crescent also have forewarning, and are trying to cover it up.
Gordon Felt, president of the Flight 93 family group that supports the crescent shaped memorial, offered a nice summary statement of the heroism of Flight 93:
They had some forewarning and they chose to take action.
“It’s that citizen soldier, heroism message,” he said “that we want to get out and memorialize their actions.”
Mr. Felt also has forewarning of an enemy plot, but he and the other defenders of the crescent design are choosing not to act. They are displaying a perfect anti-spirit of Flight 93.
According to Flight 93 Advisory Commission member Tim Baird, they all know that all of our basic claims about the crescent design are accurate: the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent; the 44 translucent blocks that are to be placed along the flight path, etcetera. Yet they and their allies in the press are doing everything in their power to keep the public from knowing what they know.
Example 1: PA paper reports Mecca orientation controversy, omits its own verification of the Mecca orientation of the crescent.
In last week’s anniversary coverage of the 9/11 attacks, the Johnstown Tribune Democrat noted the controversy over the orientation of the crescent. We say it points to Mecca. The Park Service denies it:
The project also has been dogged by complaints spearheaded by California author Alec Rawls that the memorial points to Mecca and is a veiled tribute to the Islamic terrorists – a claim family members and developers maintain has been investigated and refuted.
What reporter Kirk Swauger fails to mention is that he himself fact-checked the Mecca-orientation claim last year, and published his findings:
Rawls maintains that the midpoint between the tips of the crescent points almost precisely toward “qibla,” the direction to Mecca, which Muslims are supposed to face for prayer.His claims seem to be backed up by coordinates for the direction of qibla from Somerset that can be found on Islam.com. When superimposed over the crescent in the memorial design, the midpoint points over the Arctic Circle, through Europe toward Mecca.
This is the only instance in three years now where any news organization has ever published any fact-checking of our easy to fact check claims about the memorial design. Alec has several times emailed Kirk’s published confirmation of the Mecca-orientation to every newsdesk in Pennsylvania and to every reporter covering the memorial story. They ALL know about it. Yet even Kirk continues to present the Mecca orientation claim as a “he said, she said” conflict, without letting his readers know that he has verified the Mecca-orientation for himself (and this isn’t the first time he has made this omission).
If Mr. Swauger really wanted everyone to forget his confirmation of the Mecca-orientation, he could just avoid any mention of the orientation of the crescent at all. Alec’s best guess is that Kirk is being held back by Tribune Democrat editor Chip Minemyer, who has tried to sweep the memorial controversy under the rug from day one, but the reporters are also neck deep. Several have suggested that to investigate and report on the accuracy of our claims would be taking sides. Of course that phony “scruple” would disappear in a second if the facts showed our criticisms to be bogus.
Example 2: Gordon Felt himself misled the public about the 44 blocks.
The Crescent of Embrace design, now called the (broken) Circle of Embrace, calls for a total of 44 inscribed translucent memorial blocks to be placed along the flight path. (There were forty passengers and crew on Flight 93 and four terrorists.)
In trying to get this information out to the public, we need to be brief, so “44 inscribed translucent memorial blocks” sometimes gets shortened to “44 glass blocks,” or “44 blocks.” Asked last spring about the 44 blocks, Gordon Felt declared it a lie:
Opponents also claim there is a plan to have 44 glass blocks — for the 40 victims and four hijackers — in the design.“That’s an absolute, unequivocal fabrication that is being portrayed as fact,” said Edward Felt’s brother, Gordon Felt, president of Families of Flight 93. “It’s misleading and helps drive the conspiracy theory.”
But he follows this denial with a footnote, indicating that he knows full well that there will be 44 memorial blocks:
Felt said the names of the passengers and crew will be placed on the memorial, but no final decision has been made on how they would be displayed or on what material.
In other words, he is nit-picking over our occasional description of the blocks as “glass blocks,” when they might not all be technically made of glass.
As Alec’s original report to the Memorial Project made clear, 43 of the blocks are described in the design drawings as “polished, translucent white marble”:
Click pic for larger image.
The lower section of wall, on the left, contains forty of the “translucent white marble” blocks or panels (backlit at night), inscribed with the names of the forty heroes. The upper section of wall, on the right, contains three more blocks, inscribed with the 9/11 date.
That upper section of wall, by the way, is centered on the bisector of the giant crescent, placing it in the exact position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag. Thus the date goes to the Islamic star. The date goes to the terrorists.
Here is the 44th block on the flight path. It marks the upper crescent tip, where according to the Park Service’s own website, the flight path symbolically breaks our (Christian) circle, turning it into the giant (Mecca oriented) crescent. A clearer depiction of al Qaeda victory is hard to imagine, and it all comes together right here:
At the end of the Entry Portal Walkway (after the walkway symbolically “breaks” the towering Entry Portal Walls) sits a large “glass memorial plaque” that dedicates the entire site.
This 44th translucent block on the flight path marks the spot where the terrorists symbolically broke our harmonious circle and turned it into a giant Islamic shaped crescent. To be inscribed: “A field of honor forever.”
Gordon Felt knows ALL of this, and is trying to keep the public from knowing. It’s as if someone on Flight 93, hearing from the ground that airplanes had crashed into the Trade Towers, insisted to the other passengers that NO airplanes had crashed into the Trade Towers.
Apparently grief has made these people crazy. They have forewarning, and are struggling with all their might to keep others from being forewarned as well.
To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.
Said Cao @ 5:15 pm Comments (1) | Permalink
When I read R. Kevin Jaques’ article about how our response to 9/11 should be - submit to sharia law in the US, I thought it was ridiculous.
But that seems to be the exact approach the nutty Brits are taking.
At Dhimmi Watch:
UK: “Sharia law now legally binding”
Sharia comes to the UK
And Phyllis Chesler: Sharia Law Invades Britain, a Fatwa Is Issued Against Sir Paul McCartney (!)–and Hollywood Hoists the Islamic Flag.
Said Cao @ 7:57 am Comments (0) | Permalink
But not on purpose. Pretty damned hilarious.
As seen at Chickenhawk Express.
Said Cao @ 7:56 am Comments (0) | Permalink
