30 September 2008

What Conservatism Isn't

By John Hawkins.

If you closely follow politics, one thing you'll learn is that liberals often go to great lengths to try to hide what they really believe from the public while conservatives inevitably seem to be trying to correct some misperception that has been spread about them.

So, as a creature of the Right and as someone who knows other conservatives well, I'd like to do something a little out of the ordinary. I'd like to take the time to explain what we conservatives are NOT so that people who aren't that familiar with conservatism can know when they're being fed a plateful of baloney about what we believe.

Conservatives don't dislike minorities: Few things outrage conservatives more than the fact that liberals are forever accusing us of hating this or that group for the flimsiest of reasons. Yes, there are a few racist conservatives, just like there are racist liberals and moderates. However, judging by the number of race-based attacks on minority conservatives by the Left, the Right as a whole is considerably less racist than our brethren on the Left.

Conservatives don't want women kept barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen: Conservatives have much more respect for stay-at-home mothers than the Left does and therefore, we don't look down our noses at women who want to be at home with the kids while their husband works.

For people who say that means conservatives just want women to be subservient to men, I have two words for you: Sarah Palin. She's a working mother shooting for the second most powerful position in the land. Conservatives love her and liberals hate her in large part for the exact same reason: she's a living, breathing stereotype killer.

Conservatives aren't anti-science: One of the great ironies of modern life is that liberals, a group that regularly tries to whip up scientifically unjustifiable hysteria for political gain, has consistently tried to brand conservatives as being "anti-science."

Have you ever noticed how that plays out in say, the global warming debate? On the Right, you have people constantly quoting actual studies and scientists as they make an argument while on the Left, they're quoting Al Gore and telling you sketchy stories about how the polar bears are all going to die if we don't do something right this second! Honestly, which side sounds like it's more interested in actual scientific facts as opposed to political propaganda masquerading as science?

"Conservative" and "Republican" aren't necessarily the same thing: Most conservatives are Republicans, but much to the chagrin of the Right, far too many Republicans, even ones claiming to be conservative, don't act in a conservative fashion.

For example, during his time in office, George Bush has been ferociously criticized by conservatives for out-of-control spending, expansions of government power, and his stand on illegal immigration. That's not to say that conservatives don't agree with the Republican Party on most issues -- because we do -- but you should never forget that "conservative" and "Republican" are most definitely two different things.

Conservatives aren't theocrats: People who aren't Christians -- or alternately are believers, but don't take their faith seriously -- sometimes accuse conservatives of wanting to disregard the Constitution in order to implement a theocracy.

Never, in my entire career as a writer, have I seen a prominent conservative advocate such a thing and never, in my entire life, have I met a single conservative who believes in doing such a thing. This idea has slightly less resonance on the Right than making Nancy Pelosi House Majority Leader for life.

Conservatives don't rig the elections: This is a theme that has been taken up by the Left after their chosen candidates went down in flames during the last two presidential elections. However, if conservatives are rigging elections, why in the world did we allow the Democrats to take over Congress in 2006?

Moreover, if you look at cases of election malfeasance where someone is actually prosecuted for doing something wrong as opposed to imaginary cases where something "must" be going on because the wrong candidate lost, you'll find that the Left is much more likely to engage in election fraud than the Right.

Conservatives don't want to pollute the environment: Here's a little secret you will seldom hear from environmental groups: the environment is in pretty good shape here in the United States. We don't have Bejing-like pollution in the air, uninhabitable radioactive wastelands like the Ukraine, and people regularly drinking contaminated well water like you'll find in India.

This is where the Left and Right differ. Conservatives are concerned about clean water, clean air, and a clean environment while the left-wing environmental groups have become increasingly hysterical over trivia and dubious problems, like global warming, in order to keep their fundraising going. So. if you're interested in environmental issues that might actually have some measurable impact on your life and your health, the Right is just as concerned as the Left about the environment.

Conservatives aren't in the pocket of the rich: When it comes to the rich, the biggest difference between the Left and the Right is that conservatives don't resent successful people for their success. Add to that a healthy respect for capitalism that isn't present on the Left and you get a generally favorable attitude towards business and successful people.

That being said, it is the Right, not the Left that is the greatest foe of corporate welfare and businesses that profit from illegal immigration. That's one of the biggest reasons why, despite what you'd expect, big business is much friendlier to the Left than you'd think given their socialistic attitudes.

29 September 2008

How NOT To Convince Republicans To Vote For Your Bill

Robocop's Comment:

I guess the speech did not work. By the way, since the Libtards hold the majority of the house, why could they not pass this bail out bill? Because it was wacked. Finally, the Federal budget deficit had nothing to do with mortgage loans, and bad bank decisions.

Score Another One For The Good Guys

Indiana Father Kills Sex Offender Who Broke Into Home

A convicted sex offender died Sunday during a struggle with a father who found the naked man in or near his 17-year-old daughter's bedroom, police said.

Police responding to a call from the city's northwest side about 3:20 a.m. found 64-year-old Robert McNally on the hallway floor with his arm around the neck of 52-year-old David T. Meyers, who was pronounced dead at the scene.

Police spokesman Sgt. Matthew Mount said Meyers had a heart condition and may have had a heart attack. An autopsy was planned.

Police said Meyers was naked except for a mask and latex gloves and had entered the home through a window near the girl's bedroom with rope, condoms and a knife. He was familiar with the home's layout because it belonged to a relative, police said.

The girl awoke and screamed when she saw the man in her room, police said. The father responded and struggled with the intruder while the girl's mother phoned 911.

Police did not anticipate any charges against McNally.

"If a person breaks into your home, you are justified in using deadly force in defending your family," said Mount. "In this situation, I don't think he was trying to kill him, he was trying to hold him down."

Meyers had served 10 years in prison for criminal confinement and sexual deviate conduct and was wanted in Boone County for failure to register as a sex offender. He was registered as a sex offender in Marion County.

Police said Meyers lived with his mother and had recently lost his job.

The death is under investigation and will be reviewed by a Marion County prosecutor.

"Nobody wins," McNally told The Indianapolis Star. "It's a lose-lose situation for everybody. He has family also."

He said his daughter went to church Sunday after the incident.

Robocop's Comment:

Police said Meyers was naked except for a mask and latex gloves and had entered the home through a window near the girl's bedroom with rope, condoms and a knife.

I guess he wasn't there to engage in Bible study. Sucks to be him now, since he is now worm bait.

Rewriting History: Lies that Hurt Us All

by William Wilson.

As Congress and the Administration work to prevent the crisis in the financial sector from spilling over into the larger economy, the vultures are swarming. In an Associated Press article yesterday, the following quote is made by Barney Frank, ultra-liberal Democrat of Massachusetts:

“The private sector got us into this mess…The government has to get us out of it. We do want to do it carefully.”

This is obscene. This “mess”, as Congressman Frank so eloquently put it, is the fault of government pure and simple. And, it is the personal fault of Barney Frank. For him to now hide his near-criminal behavior by pointing a finger at the entire private sector is the height of arrogance.

Consider the facts.

Under rules implemented by the Clinton Administration in 1995, banks and mortgage companies were required to give loans to people who could not afford them. This scheme was welfare pure and simple—hand over money to people everyone knew would not be able to pay it back. The banks and mortgage companies did as required. Otherwise they would face stiff penalties and possibly lose their license to operate. So, they gave out the money to put people in homes they could not afford.

But the banks had to get the money from somewhere. They got it from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two failed quasi-government organizations. Fannie and Freddie urged, encouraged and bullied banks to give out more and more high-risk loans. They then bought these bogus mortgages and sold them to investors, again with the implied backing of the U.S. Government.

So, why wouldn’t an investment firm not buy these securities? After all, they were marketed as having the backing of the U.S. taxpayers.

The Wall Street Journal detailed Barney Frank’s sorted history of defending the scammers:

• In 2000, then-Rep. Richard Baker proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight. Mr. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."

• Two years later, Mr. Frank was at it again. "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems," he said in response to another reform push. And then: "I regard them as great assets."

• Again in June 2003, the favorite of the Beltway press corps assured the public that "there is no federal guarantee" of Fan and Fred obligations.

• A month later, Freddie Mac's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal broke into the open. But Mr. Frank was sanguine. "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," he said at the time.

Three months later he repeated the claim that Fannie and Freddie posed no "threat to the Treasury." Even suggesting that heresy, he added, could become "a self-fulfilling prophecy."

• In April 2004, Fannie announced a multibillion-dollar financial "misstatement" of its own. Mr. Frank was back for the defense. Fannie and Freddie posed no risk to taxpayers, he said, adding that "I think Wall Street will get over it" if the two collapsed.

Pretty clear. It was not the “private sector” failing as Congressman Frank declared. It was government that failed. Specifically, it was people like Barney Frank that failed the American people. Moreover, he committed these acts for a pure ideological reason—to advance his warped left-wing vision.

But it goes deeper still. By attacking the entire “private sector”, Frank is declaring his opposition to small business and to tens of millions of people who labor for the betterment of their families by saving and investing.

The central issue of the proposed bailout proposed by the Bush Administration—the issue that prompted Barney Frank’s childish and insulting remark—is how to get billions of dollars securities based on the mortgages held by people who cannot afford them out of the system. You can argue over whether to do it or how to do it—but that is the aim of the proposal.

And what does Comrade Frank now insist is a deal-breaker? More money has to be made available to keep these people in the homes they couldn’t afford in the first place! Oh, and of course, many on his side are demanding that state and local governments who have been spending at double-digit increases every year for a decade be bailed out as well. No, they shouldn’t have to cut the feather-bedding or cut back on the silly-expensive union contracts. Barney Frank wants the American taxpayers to bail them out too.

Taking the global view, here is what happened and this is where we are. Knowing the American people were sick and tired of the welfare handouts, the liberals devised a backdoor way to funnel billions of dollars to their welfare clients. It was based on a Ponzi scheme that finally went broke. A lot of people made money along the way but the central rationale was always to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars in welfare to low income citizens.

And now that the game is exposed, the first thing these thieves do is blame the “private sector.” They are using the destruction they have caused to justify giving them more power to do even more damage.

That is what is at stake. Will we hand our country over to a group of devious, venal socialists who hate private enterprise, individual responsibility and personal freedom? Or, will we step back from the abyss, clean up the mess and set our house in order?

If he has done nothing else, Barney Frank has at least clarified the issues and made the choice clear for all willing to observe the facts. As valuable a service as this is, it should not be enough to keep him out of a well-deserved jail cell

28 September 2008

Who wins, loses in proposed bailout plan

From The Washington Times.

The proposal to bail out U.S. financial markets to the tune of up to $700 billion creates a lot of potential short-term winners, as well as some losers.

Wall Street and the banking industry are perhaps the biggest winners. Scores of banks and other financial institutions faced with going under stand to gain a lifeline that should allow them to start making loans again.

Under the plan that congressional aide sought to put into final form Sunday, the Treasury Department can start buying up troubled mortgage-related securities now held by these institutions.

These securities are clogging balance sheets, leaving banks without the required capital to make new loans and putting the banks dangerously close to insolvency.

Not only have banks slowed lending to individuals and businesses, but also they have stopped making loans to one another. The rescue plan should help restore confidence to financial markets.

Related stories: Congress expected to pass rescue package and Deal reached on financial markets bailout

There are other winners, too, if the bailout works as intended: anyone soon trying to borrow money -- for cars, for student loans, even for new credit-card accounts.

Top executives at troubled financial institutions, on the other hand, are in the losing column because the proposal would limit their compensation and rules out "golden parachutes."

Of course, these executives may take solace in knowing their jobs still exist.

Investors, including the millions of people who hold stock in their 401(k) and pension plans, should benefit. Failure to reach a deal over the weekend could have sent stock markets around the world tumbling on Monday.

Homeowners faced with foreclosure or those who have lost their homes get little help from the agreement. nor will it help people whose houses are worth less than what they owe get refinancing or take out equity loans.

It would do little to halt the slide in home values that are one of the root causes of the current economic slowdown.

"It doesn't deal with the fundamental problems that gave rise to the problem -- or alleviate the credit crisis," said Peter Morici, an economist and business professor at the University of Maryland.

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke are potential winners.

In just a few months, they have remade Wall Street. If the plan helps to get the economy moving again, they may be remembered for having kept the financial crisis from spreading throughout the economy.

"When I see Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke on TV, I see fear in their eyes. Like on a battlefield when people are shooting at you. I think they are afraid to say how serious the problem is for fear of making it worse," said Bruce Bartlett, an economist who was a Treasury official under the first President Bush.

Mr. Bartlett said the plan is flawed, yet the alternative of doing nothing could be catastrophic.

After the heavy dose of new regulation in the agreement, New York will have a hard time claiming it is the center of the financial universe. That title may have shifted to Washington.

If the plan stays together, Congress -- with approval ratings even lower than those of President Bush -- may be seen as having acted decisively at a time of national emergency.

Congressional leaders added new protections to the administration's original proposal. That was only three pages long and bestowed on the Treasury secretary almost unfettered powers.

Instead, the agreement would divide the $700 billion up into as many as three installments, creates an oversight board to monitor the Treasury secretary's actions and sets up several major protections for taxpayers, including a provision putting taxpayers first in line to recover assets if a participating company fails.

The president, on the other hand, probably would get little credit for the deal. He allowed Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke to do the heavy lifting. The only time he called all the players to the White House -- late Thursday afternoon -- the wheels almost came off the process entirely.

It's hard to tell which presidential candidate benefits the most from an agreement they tentatively endorsed Sunday, a little more than five weeks before the Nov. 4 election. Democrat Sen. Barack Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain each sought to claim some credit for the deal, even though they played active roles only over the past few days.

Hard economic times traditionally work against the party that holds the White House, and in recent polls Mr. Obama has inched ahead of Mr. McCain. Furthermore, there is widespread consumer resentment over being asked to bail out Wall Street, and lawmakers have learned the proposal has not been popular with their constituents.

That may help Democrats in general. The strongest opposition to the original bailout plan came from House Republicans.

Lawmakers and presidential candidates alike are "trying to orchestrate everybody jumping off the cliff together," said Robert Shapiro, a consultant who was an economic adviser to President Clinton. "I think we'd have a different plan if we weren't five weeks out from the election."

And ordinary taxpayers?

Nothing that potentially adds $700 billion to the national debt -- already surging toward the $10 trillion mark -- can be considered a winner for those who foot the bills.

But lawmakers did put in taxpayer protections, including one to require that taxpayers be repaid in full for loans that go bad.

The package could even end up making money for taxpayers, supporters claimed.

But only if the loans and interest on them are repaid in full. Few expect that provision to be a winning proposition, however.

Douche Of The Week 09.28.08

The Winner: Pastor Steve Richardson

The Reason: This pastor of the First United Methodist Church traded in Child Pornography on both his personal computer, and his church computer.

ROYSE CITY, Texas - After his arrest in connection to a child pornography case, Pastor Steve Richardson appeared in court for the first time Thursday in downtown Dallas.

Authorities said the investigation has been underway for nearly a year. According to court documents, Richardson admitted to investigators that he traded child pornography from his work computer.

A search online for Richardson led to a MySpace page that revealed the pastor to be a father with a wife and two boys.

On the day before taking his job at the First United Methodist Church nearly two years ago, Richardson wrote, "We have been blessed with a newer and bigger home and have been overwhelmed by the kindness of our new church members."

Now, federal investigators say the 36-year-old pastor used the church's office computer for child pornography.

According to court documents, Richardson, under the user name "cowboysspades," sent dozens of pictures of girls under the age 10, including infants, engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

Richardson was busted after he allegedly sent images to an undercover federal agent, who used another child pornography suspect's identity, authorities said.

Graphic online chats between Richardson and the agent are documented in the criminal complaint.

The court documents report when Richardson, under the user name cowboysspades, asked "Vlad," the undercover agent, about a child's age, he stated "even more awesome" when the agent responded four.

"Yeah, such a cute age," the agent responded.

"You ever doing anything with her?" cowboysspades asked.

Before serving as the pastor at First United Methodist Church in Royse City, the church's site said he worked in Boyd for five years as a pastor and also was an associate pastor and youth minister in Dallas area churches.

Thursday, family, friends and church members showed up to support Richardson at his first court appearance in federal court.

"The church holds the sanctity of the pastoral office and the place of the church as an environment of safety and security for all as an absolute value," read a statement released by the North Texas Conference of the United Methodist Church. "No abuse of the pastoral office can or will be tolerated.

Robocop's Comment:

I know church leaders can go astray sometimes, but DAMN!

Obama's Patriotic Tonic

From The Washington Times.

During his Fox News interview with Bill O'Reilly, Sen. Barack Obama responded to one question where the statistics contradicted his position by saying that "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." He then went on to say that 95 percent of Americans would get a tax break under his economic plan. That's ironic, because his comment on "damned lies and statistics" is the perfect commentary on his own plan. Taken with Sen. Joe Biden's novel definition of patriotism, Team Obama is making an argument that Americans have never bought.

The statistics speak for themselves. Only 62 percent of Americans pay federal income tax, meaning that 38 percent get a 100 percent refund of any taxes withheld. So Mr. Obama's 95 percent that will receive money from the government includes roughly 33 percent of Americans who pay no income tax. One-third of Americans pay no income taxes yet would receive a government check of perhaps $1,000 or more.

That is pure income redistribution. Some pundits argue that this is Keynesian demand-side economics. It is not. Having the government take money from business entities or affluent individuals and giving it to those who pay no federal income taxes is not Keynesian. It's Marxist.

American voters don't buy Team Obama's arguments. A recent Gallup poll shows that 53 percent of Americans believe that Mr. Obama would raise their taxes. A recent Zogby poll shows a majority of Americans understand that raising taxes will hurt the economy.

Energy prices have pounded the U.S. economy. The recent woes on Wall Street have further shaken our weakened economy. Certain pillars of our economy, such as productivity gains and American ingenuity, continue to be powerful economic assets. But the current debt situation, spending trends, the cost of combating global terrorism, along with the energy crisis, leaves our economy in a truly precarious position.

Most credible economists warn that raising taxes during an economic downturn only makes the situation worse. Given our current economic situation, Mr. Obama's tax plan is the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a fire.

Then we come to the Team Obama fantasy that the Obama plan would cut taxes for most Americans. Yes, Mr. Obama says he will cut rates for lower-income Americans, but will more than offset that by raising taxes on dividends, capital gains, higher incomes, corporations, estates, and payrolls. But most Americans own stock, either directly or through their IRA, 401k or union pensions. Dividend and capital gains taxes will take money from all those. Those Americans on Main Street who own a house or have other investments will be punished by a capital gains tax increase.

Businesses and corporations do not pay taxes; we do. Businesses don't have huge piles of money sitting in the closet that they simply turn over to government when taxes increase. For every dollar that you increase taxes on a business, they simply increase their prices by a dollar. Who then pays the tax? We do. We do, when the product that we bought last week for $20 suddenly costs $21.

Mr. Obama's plan for universal health care and increased spending on just about everything costs hundreds of billions of dollars. To keep his promises to provide those things while eliminating the deficit and giving checks to lower-income families, he will have to raise taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. But if lower-income Americans receive a check for $1,000 under the Obama plan yet have to pay $2,000 more when buying food and clothes, they are worse off.

Affluent Americans have not had a tax holiday during the Bush administration. Most analysts agree that the affluent pay more under Mr. Bush. In 2000, the top 1 percent of earners paid less than one-third of all income tax; now they pay 40 percent. The affluent already carry more of the burden.

The ancient Roman philosopher Pliny the Elder once said, "In wine there is truth." It means that people tell you what they really think once they have a couple of drinks.

I don't think Mr. Biden was drinking on the campaign trail last week, but it was a rare moment of complete candor when he told ABC News that people who are well-off have a patriotic duty to pay higher taxes. That perfectly states the liberal Democratic philosophy that those who do the right things in their personal life to make more money have an obligation not only to pay more taxes (which they do even under a flat tax because 17 percent of higher-income is more than 17 percent of lower-income), but that they should pay an ever-higher additional percentage on top of that. Liberal Democrats consider it patriotic to pay more taxes, and have a consistent record of voting to help nurture our patriotism for us.

That reveals what is really going on here. The statistics don't lie. Team Obama's plan is not economically prudent, and it's not a patriotic tonic for what ails our economy.

27 September 2008

We Deserve Better

From American And Proud.

Why 9/11?

By Larry Franklin.

‘The Building which they built will never cease to be a cause of hypocrisy and doubt in their hearts, unless their hearts are cut to pieces. And Allah is all-Knowing, All Wise. Verily, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties; for a price, for theirs shall be Paradise. They fight in Allah’s cause, so they kill and are killed.”

This passage is from the Quran — Surah 9, verses 110-11. It occurs in Part 11 of the 30 parts of the Quran. Is this numerical echo of 9/11 pure coincidence? Maybe not.

After all, Surah 9, “Taubah” (Repentance), is the only chapter of the 114 chapters in the Quran that does not open with the salutation “In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate.” This is a purposeful elision, as there can be no mercy, no compassion for us infidels. This inveterate hatred is underscored by verse 109, which asserts that the infidel building’s “foundation is on the undetermined brink of a precipice ready to crumble down with those in it, to the fire of hell. And Allah guides not the people who are polytheists” — which is to say, us. This may well be why Osama chose the date 9/11.

It is this Quranic passage that the 9/11 airborne assassins and others used to religiously justify and sanctify mass murder. It was through this verse that they often communicated their resolve.

We need to know this enemy. We need to rely more on our fellow Americans who are Muslim — who understand the mindset of those among them who are shaped spiritually and politically by a literal understanding of those specific verses. We need to appreciate the wonderful diversity of Islam that exists in our midst — and seek the assistance of the legions of spiritually focused Shiite, Sufi-oriented, and non-Wahhabi Sunni Muslims that are willing to help us battle the pernicious influence of Saudi Arabian-backed (Wahhabi-sect) extremist Sunnis. This would help us be better informed as to the true nature of our enemy and the challenge that confronts our civilization.

Our refusal to call the enemy by name — out of misplaced tolerance, political correctness, or intellectual pusillanimity — has contributed to our failure fully to comprehend his motives and methods. We continue, obscurely and inaccurately, to refer to the war on terror, terrorism, or terrorists. In truth, we are engaged in a war against radical Muslim ideologues who literally interpret Quranic passages as the eternal word of God. We should begin to tune in to how they think.

Why the date 9/11? There are other reasons, besides the Quran-numbering I mentioned above. Radical Muslims are bent on world conquest and plan the establishment of a global Caliphate. For them, the war between believer and infidel is a cosmic war, a war that began with the Prophet’s first recitation of Allah’s word. For extremist Islam, this struggle (external jihad) can end in only one way: the imposition of Islamist rule over all humanity. After all, they claim it is the will of Allah. Our enemy’s sense of time is quite different from that of our civilization. Unlike most Americans, who have little sense of history, many Muslims are highly sensitive to specific dates that reflect the vicissitudes of Islam’s history. Osama and his ilk are aware that it was on 9/11/1683 that the forces of militant Islam pressed their jihad critically close to achieving the continental conquest of Europe. It was on this date that the Ottoman Caliphate’s best troops, the Janissaries (kidnapped Christian boys trained as Muslim warriors) had penetrated the outer defenses of Vienna, the capital of Europe’s most powerful empire, the Hapsburgs.

On that date, Western civilization won one of its greatest victories. The Polish army of King John Sobieski, in response to urgent entreaties by the Pope, arrived on 9/11, joining German and Austrian relief forces led by the Duke of Lorraine. The first contingents of the European alliance arrived on the slopes of Mt. Kahlenberg, 1,000 feet above Vienna. They unfurled a giant flag that featured a white field emblazoned with a red cross. They shot off rockets so that the desperate defenders were aware that their salvation was at hand: Their lives would be spared. (The leader of the Muslim army, Kara Mustapha, had vowed to slay all within.) The next day, Lorraine and Sobieski routed the Turks. The flag flown over Kahlenberg remains to this day in a Viennese Catholic church honoring the victors.

An earlier 9/11 battle also brought defeat to Muslim military adventures. It was on September 11, 1481, that Venetian sailors turned back the Ottoman Caliphate’s fleet off the shores of Otranto in southern Italy. A follow-on planned amphibious Muslim landing was tasked with the seizure of Rome. The Eternal City was not ever again so precariously threatened. Mehmet II — the Ottoman Sultan who conquered Constantinople in 1453 — died the next year.

The date 9/11/1990 was also personally important for Osama bin Laden. It was on this date that President George H. W. Bush, speaking before a joint session of the U.S. Congress, declared a “New World Order.” In the speech’s opening paragraphs, he spoke of our troops arrayed in Arabia. This assertion was anathema to many Muslims — who remembered the Prophet’s admonition that no infidel troops should ever occupy any land on the Island of the Arabs (al-Jazirah al Arabiyah). Osama had begged the Saudi ruling family (to no avail) to permit his Arab veterans of the Afghan mujahedin war against the Soviets to defend the holy soil of Mecca and Medina rather than to depend upon “crusader” infidel troops.

On 9/11/1979, Egypt’s president, Anwar Sadat, became the first Arab leader to apostatize himself from Islam by signing a peace treaty with the “Zionist Entity” (Israel).On that date, Sadat and Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin shook hands in President Carter’s presence after inking the Camp David Accords. Sadat paid with his life.

It would be prudent for our policymakers and intelligence czars to become more sensitive to the Islamic radicals’ worldview and sense of history. They believe their hour has arrived. They remember the incredible defeat of two empires by Muslim armies in Islam’s first century. Islamists believe that just as Allah granted them victory over that earlier age’s twin superpowers — Persia and Byzantium — he also granted them victory over the Soviet Union in our own day. Only one superpower remains, with which there can be no compromise and no peace. It is time for our political leaders and their national-security advisers to better educate themselves and our citizenry so that we can mobilize our population for what will prove to be our longest war, one that may determine whether the last best hope on earth will endure.

26 September 2008

Liberals Warnings About Obama Loss May Prove Self-Fulfilling

by Dennis Prager.

If Barack Obama loses the 2008 election, liberal hell will break loose.

Seven weeks before the 2008 presidential election, liberals are warning America that if Barack Obama loses, it is because Americans are racist. Of course, that this means that Democrats (and independents) are racist, since Republicans will vote Republican regardless of the race of the Democrat, is an irony apparently lost on the Democrats making these charges.

That an Obama loss will be due to racism is becoming as normative a liberal belief as “Bush Lied, People Died,” a belief has generated intense rage among many liberals. But “Obama lost because of white racism” will be even more enraging. Rage over the Iraq War has largely focused on President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. But if Obama loses, liberal rage will focus on millions of fellow Americans and on American society.

And it could become a rage the likes of which America has not seen in a long time, if ever. It will first and foremost come from within black America. The deep emotional connection that nearly every black American has to an Obama victory is difficult for even empathetic non-blacks to measure. A major evangelical pastor told me that even evangelical black pastors who share every conservative value with white evangelical pastors, including pro-life views on abortion, will vote for Obama. They feel their very dignity is on the line.

That is why the growing chorus -- already nearing unanimity -- of liberal commentators and politicians ascribing an Obama loss to American racism is so dangerous.

Andrew Sullivan of (set ital) The Atlantic: (end ital) “White racism means that Obama needs more than a small but clear lead to win.”

Jack Cafferty of CNN: “The polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense … unless it’s race.”

Jacob Weisberg of (set ital) Newsweek and Slate: (end ital) “The reason Obama isn't ahead right now is … the color of his skin. … If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth.”

Nicholas D. Kristof of (set ital) New York Times: (end ital) “Religious prejudice (against Obama) is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice.”

Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, in a speech to union workers: “Are you going to give up your house and your job and your children's futures because he's black?”

Similar comments have been made by Kansas’s Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, and by writers in (set ital) Time (end ital) magazine. And according to The Associated Press: “A poll conducted by The Associated Press and Yahoo News, in conjunction with Stanford University, revealed that a fairly significant percentage of Democrats and independents may not vote for Sen. Barack Obama because of his race.” If you read the poll, it does not in fact suggest this conclusion. The pollsters assert that any person with any negative view of black life means that the person is racist and means that he would not vote for Obama. Both conclusions are unwarranted. But “Obama will lose because of racism” is how the poll takers and the media spin it.

Why do liberals believe that if Obama loses it will be due to white racism?

One reason is the liberal elite’s contempt for white Americans with less education -- even if they are Democrats.

A second reason is that it is inconceivable to most liberals that an Obama loss -- especially a narrow one -- will be due to Obama’s liberal views or inexperience or to admiration for John McCain.

The third reason is that the further left you go, the more insular you get. Americans on the left tend to talk only to one another; study only under left-wing teachers; and read only fellow leftists. That is why it is a shock to so many liberals when a Republican wins a national election -- where do all these Republican voters come from? And that in turn explains why liberals ascribe Republican presidential victories to unfair election tactics (“Swift-boating” is the liberals’ reason for the 2004 Republican victory). In any fair election, Americans will see the left’s light.

If Obama loses, it will not be deemed plausible that Americans have again rejected a liberal candidate, indeed the one with the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate. Liberals will explain an Obama defeat as another nefarious Republican victory. Combining contempt for many rural and middle-class white Americans with a longstanding belief in the inevitability of a Democratic victory in 2008 (after all, everyone they talk to despises the Republicans and believes Republicans have led the country to ruin), there will be only one reason Obama did not win -- white racism.

One executive at a black radio station told me when I interviewed him on my radio show at the Democratic National Convention that he could easily see riots if Obama loses a closely contested election. Interestingly, he said he thought blacks would be far more accepting of a big McCain victory.

I pray he is wrong on the first point. But it does seem that liberals are continuing to do whatever they can to increase anger at America, or at least at “white America.” For 40 years, liberals have described the most open and tolerant society on earth as racist and xenophobic. If Barack Obama loses, the results of this liberal depiction of America may become frighteningly apparent.

Robocop's Comment:

So the Libtards promise a temper tantrum if Obama loses? Bring it on. Us conservatives have the guns.

25 September 2008

You Have Got To Be Kidding

Activists Talk Love, Not War, With Iranian President

Activists from the radical anti-war group CodePink met with the president of Iran in New York on Wednesday, pitching a “peace park” and investment in a bicycle maker as ways to patch relations between the U.S. and the Islamic republic.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in New York to address the U.N. General Assembly, met with CodePink co-founders Jodie Evans and Medea Benjamin and about 150 peace activists at the Grand Hyatt Hotel.

During the two-hour meeting, members of CodePink presented the Iranian president with a petition signed by 50 American mayors calling for diplomacy, not war, in dealing with Iran. CodePink wants to take the mayors who signed the petition to Iran to create “sister cities.”

“We’re modeling diplomacy,” Evans said of her meeting with Ahmadinejad.

The group proposed letting artists create a “peace park” in Tehran and suggested making grassroots investments in an Iranian business that makes green and sustainable products like bicycles.

Investing in businesses in Iran violates U.S. sanctions against Iran.

Ahmadinejad told the group that he wants a million Americans to come to Iran, but members of CodePink have had trouble getting visas to visit the country — including Benjamin, who is Jewish.

“I’m sure it’s because she’s a radical activist,” Evans said.

At the meeting, Ahmadinejad said that he would make sure Benjamin could get a visa to visit Iran.

Benjamin has offered public support of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and has spoken out against U.S. sanctions against Cuba. She is also the co-founder of Global Exchange, a group that organizes tours of Venezuelan neighborhoods and Chavez-supporting media outlets.

Evans has given a total $4,600 to the Obama campaign and $1,000 to former Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich.

Reports in the media have called her a bundler — or someone who uses networking to maximize campaign fundraising — for Obama’s campaign. Evans told FOXNews.com that she has never raised money for Obama, but her husband, Max Palevsky, has been a longtime major fundraiser for the campaign and has supported Obama since he was an Illinois state senator. Palevsky has also given money to the campaigns of Kucinich and to Sen. Christopher Dodd.

Evans said she knows Obama and sees him at public events.

“Every time I see Obama I give him a hard time on his stance on the war,” she said. “There’s no such thing as a good war. I wouldn’t say I’m a supporter. I’m definitely a thorn in his side keeping him on the right path about war.”

Ahmadinejad told the group his dream is that Iran makes friends with the West. He said that if America really didn’t want Iran developing nuclear weapons, the U.S. would have already disarmed Israel.

“He’s really about peace and human rights and respecting justice,” Evans said.

Robocop's Comment:

Only in America! Code Pink must be closet advocates for illegal drug use.

members of CodePink presented the Iranian president with a petition signed by 50 American mayors calling for diplomacy, not war, in dealing with Iran.

Impressive! How about the rest of the cities,towns,and villages in the country?

Ahmadinejad told the group that he wants a million Americans to come to Iran

XVIII Corps, VII Army, Marine Corps, etc...Give us time, and we might swing a million.

Evans has given a total $4,600 to the Obama campaign and $1,000 to former Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich.

Traitors giving to traitors.

“He’s really about peace and human rights and respecting justice,” Evans said.

This idiot puts Neville Chamberlain to shame.

Pakistan's Double Game

From The Washington Times.

Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, visited Pakistan this week in an effort to persuade Islamabad to help rather than hinder the war against jihadist terror. Pakistan's status as a sanctuary for Taliban and al Qaeda has taken on new urgency for the U.S. military due to a dramatic upsurge in violence against U.S. and NATO troops in neighboring Afghanistan. The situation came to a head Sept. 3, when the U.S. military conducted its first ground assault into Pakistan's tribal region in pursuit of radical Islamists, angering the Pakistani government and military.

The raid drew threats to kill any U.S. soldier caught in the course of an "unauthorized" incursion into Pakistan. A critical goal of Adm. Mullen's mission is reaching an understanding about what action the U.S. military will be permitted to take against Pakistan-based terrorists whose goal is to cross the border into Afghanistan and kill as many American soldiers (along with their NATO and Afghan allies) as possible. Pakistani officials say privately that they are willing to accept U.S. strikes utilizing unmanned aerial vehicles that have been coordinated with the Pakistani military. Pakistan objects to the Sept. 3 operation, using ground troops and helicopters, because it was not coordinated with its government.

But Washington has good reason to be wary of the Pakistani government and military, and it's no secret what the problem is: The Pakistani army has been heavily infiltrated by Taliban and al Qaeda sympathizers, and the same is true of Pakistan's security service, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). In important respects, the current difficulties between the United States and Pakistan are but the latest chapter of a long-running dispute between the two nations over Pakistan's relationships with al Qaeda and other radical Islamist forces in the region. During the 1990s, Pakistani governments headed by the late Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and her successor as prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, and then Gen. Pervez Musharraf, went out of their way to placate the Taliban regime in neighboring Afghanistan while the ISI was known to maintain good relations with al Qaeda. This situation changed to some degree after September 11, when Gen. Musharraf began in essence playing a double game (in exchange for $10 billion in assistance from the U.S. taxpayer): assisting U.S. forces in capturing and killing al Qaeda operatives part of the time, while providing the terrorists with sanctuary, bases and protection the other part of the time.

This approach may have seemed bearable to U.S. policymakers several years ago, when the Taliban appeared to have been routed in neighboring Afghanistan. That situation no longer exists, and Pakistan's role in sheltering jihadists has become less and less tolerable. Pakistan's continued refusal to take action against terrorists operating on its soil may be on the verge of opening a dark new chapter in relations with the United States.

Robocop's Comment:

President Bush once said "If you are not for us,you are against us." He also once stated a warning to those who willingly harbor Islamic Terrorists. If Pakistan continues on its present course,I think Bush should put his money where his mouth is. There is no need to kiss Pakistan's ass just because they have nukes. We got them too,and so does India.

24 September 2008

U.S. Scientist Charged With Selling Rocket Technology to China

From Fox News.

NORFOLK, Virginia —
A scientist who heads a U.S. high-tech company has been charged with illegally selling rocket technology to China and offering bribes to Chinese officials, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.

Shu Quan-Sheng, 68, made an initial appearance in U.S. District Court in Norfolk and is being held in jail until a bond hearing Monday.

Shu, the president of AMAC International Inc. in Newport News, is charged with two counts of violating the federal Arms Control Act and one count of bribery. If convicted, he faces up to 10 years on each arms count and five years for the bribery charge.

It could not be determined whether Shu has hired a lawyer. A phone message left at his company was not returned.

According to a criminal complaint unsealed Wednesday, Shu sold technology to China for development of hydrogen-propelled rockets. The Chinese government is developing a space launch facility in the southern island province of Hainan that will house liquid-propelled launch vehicles designed to send space stations and satellites into orbit.

The complaint also accuses Shu of bribing Chinese officials to award a $4 million hydrogen liquefier contract to a French company acting as an AMAC intermediary.

Shu is a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Shanghai. His company also has offices in Beijing.

Federal authorities in recent years have prosecuted more than a dozen cases of either traditional spying or economic espionage related to China. U.S. officials have warned in the last year of increasing espionage efforts by Beijing

Robocop's Comment:

No Bailout

From The Washington Times.

The massive federal scheme ($700 billion and apparently growing) to have taxpayers buy up bad mortgages that is currently being cobbled together by the Bush administration and a bipartisan coalition on Capitol Hill is a terrible idea. It constitutes a large transfer of wealth from the American taxpayer in an effort to revive failed private-sector businesses that should be permitted to fail - something that is essential if a free-market capitalist system is to survive and prosper in the future. Aside from the dubious substance of the legislation, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the Bush administration's point man in pushing for the mortgage bailout bill, is pressing Congress to act with what can only be called unseemly haste, insisting that if lawmakers do not fork over the money right away, the American economy will collapse. Congress may vote on the bill (which is still being written) as early as Friday.

This bailout package does not represent fiscal conservatism. It is untenable.

If ever there were legislation that deserves careful, deliberate analysis and consideration, it's this measure. If this legislation is needed to ward off a financial crisis, then it should not be rammed through in a fashion where members of Congress could not possibly have the time to study it. The $700 billion price tag is more than the annual cost of the defense budget. And in order to effect the rescue, Mr. Paulson proposes to have Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - government-sponsored housing enterprises that Washington is already bailing out - expand their purchases of mortgage-backed securities. In other words, the Treasury Secretary's plan to fix the mortgage mess entails unloading some bad paper onto a pair of failed government enterprises that are already in the equivalent of receivership. Indeed, Fannie and Freddie helped fuel the mortgage crisis in the first place by becoming primary customers for subprime mortgage loan pools.

If anything, the $700 billion figure currently being quoted by the press significantly understates what this legislative monstrosity is going to cost taxpayers. Patrice Hill of The Washington Times reported that over the weekend, Mr. Paulson's Treasury Department dramatically expanded the bailout plan to include buying car loans, student loans, credit-card debt and other "troubled" assets held by banks. The changes - which were included in draft language opening the bailout program to foreign banks with extensive loan operations in this country - have the potential to add tens of billions of dollars to the cost of the bailout program. In his Monday counterproposal, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd included such consumer loans in addition to mortgages.

This bailout proposal is fraught with political peril for Republican politicians who support it. In recent weeks, the Republicans had been staging a comeback of sorts, bolstered by the tough, principled stand that congressional members like House Minority Leader John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and likeminded conservatives have taken on oil drilling. But if they continue to support Mr. Paulson and the Bush administration on the bailout, Republicans stand a good chance of throwing away the good will they have earned. The American public will ask, with good reason: Why should I vote for Republicans if they are going to join the Democrats in passing such irresponsible legislation that piles new debt burdens on my children and grandchildren? John McCain also needs to decide whose side he is on. While he has expressed concern about some procedural issues related to the bailout, Mr. McCain has indicated a willingness to support the package if his questions are addressed.

But the bailout legislation is unsalvageable. If Mr. McCain supports it, he can kiss any credible claim to be a "reform" candidate goodbye.

Robocop And The News 09.24.08

This news commentary is fun. I might be able to do this on my days off.

>Brand New Push In Congress To Prevent Shariah Invasion

Congressman Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., introduced a bill to the House of Representatives that seeks to prevent Islam's radical Shariah law from gaining a foothold in the U.S. legal system, as it has in other countries.

Tancredo introduced HR 6975, the Jihad Prevention Act, last week. If made into law, the bill would allow American authorities to prevent advocates of Shariah law from entering the country, revoke the visa of any foreigners that did champion Shariah law and revoke naturalization for citizens that seek to implement Shariah law in the U.S.

The radical form of Islam's Shariah religious law includes several statutes often objectionable to Western minds, including stoning for adulterous women, amputation for thieves and the death sentence for converting from Islam.

Robocop's Comment:

Just a reminder that just last week, Britain allowed Sharia Law to be applied to civil cases involving muslims in Britain. Congressman Tancredo wants to prevent this, and any other potential application of this twisted law from being applied to Americans (Remember, One Nation Under God). A quick comment on the European countries that allowed this travesty to occur. To be fair, they should apply the Old Testament Law for Jews living in their countries. I like the part about stoning rapists.

>Iran's Ahmadinejad Addresses United Nations, Declares 'American Empire' Reaching 'End of Road'

Robocop's Comment:

It's news to me that we were even an Empire. If it was, Iran would be the world's largest parking lot. More famous leaders who talked shit to America: Saddam Husein, Momar Kadaffi, Nikita Kruschev, Manuel Antonio Noriega, and Barack Obama. Where are they now?

>Democrats Abandon Drilling Ban

I wish I could say they did this out of common sense, but they did not. Since the drilling would not commence until a year from now, they'll have every opportunity to play their Libtard games again. This is more of a strategic withdraw, until they find out if their messiah gets elected, or sent packing. I am hoping for the latter.

>Public Improvement Announcement

STARKE, Fla. — A Florida man convicted of shooting two young sisters in the head after raping and shooting their mother was executed Tuesday after a two-hour delay while authorities awaited final rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Richard "Ric Ric" Henyard, 34, was pronounced dead at 8:16 p.m. He had been condemned for the death of 7-year-old Jamilya Lewis and her 3-year-old sister, Jasmine

Robocop's Comment:

People like this justify public hangings. Still, Kudos to Florida for removing this garbage from our planet. Think green!

>EU Warns Iran Close To Nuclear Arms Capacity

Robocop's Comment:

No shit? So what will the EU do about it? They will keep sending Iran strong letters. How about America? Unfortunately, I think we'll need to get nuked in order to get our collective heads together for an attack. Think about it. If NYC, Washington,or LA got nuked with heavy losses, who in their right mind would do a peace march without getting their asses kicked?

> Obama Compatability Test from Dustin's Gun Blog.

I disagreed with Obama 98% of the time.

Yesterday’s Women for Obama

By Carrie Lukas.

It’s been a rough couple of months for establishment feminists. Their dreams of seeing Sen. Hillary Clinton become the first female president — or even vice president — were dashed. The National Organization for Women (NOW) and its sister organizations did everything they could for the Clinton campaign, providing a full-throated endorsement and launching a “Make History With Hillary” Political Action Committee. But it wasn’t enough. Hillary Clinton won the overall women’s vote among Democratic primary voters, but didn’t close the delegate gap with Sen. Barack Obama.

This anemic show of strength was a prelude to a greater blow to their image as power brokers. Senator John McCain’s nomination of Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska — a conservative, anti-abortion, pro-gun, mother of five — to be his running mate was greeted with a 20 percentage point surge of support among white women. From her policy beliefs to her persona, Governor Palin is the antithesis of NOW’s vision for the American woman. Yet she is the one who is energizing American women and who has had such a sizeable impact on this campaign.

This week, the old guard feminist groups sought to reassert their relevance by endorsing the Obama-Biden ticket. Democrats should hope that Obama isn’t counting on this to reverse his slide in the polls.

After all, the Obama campaign revolves around his promise of change and a new kind of politics. Yet the press conference held by the graying grand dames of NOW, Feminist Majority, and a handful of other women’s groups may as well have been held under a disco ball. They trotted out retread rhetoric casting women as the victims of systemic pay discrimination and in desperate need of government protections.

Obama makes their tired claims his own in his campaign’s new ad. He repeats the misleading statistic that women make “77 cents to the dollar a man makes,” and charges that McCain opposes “equal pay for women” because he doesn’t support giving the federal government the power to regulate private sector wages.

One might think the recent news coverage of the gender breakdown of his own staff might cause Obama to consider the problem with these statistics. An analysis of the salaries paid to Obama’s staff revealed that his female employees make just 83 cents for every dollar he pays a male staffer. In contrast, McCain’s staff includes numerous women in senior management and his female employees actually earn more than their male counterparts.

Does this statistics show that Obama, already suspect due to his “sweetie” and “lipstick” comments, is a closet sexist? No. Instead it reveals some of the problems with making these comparisons. The make-up of Obama’s staff tells us nothing about the pool of candidates he interviewed or the work that they perform. I’d bet that Senator Obama simply chose the best of those who applied for jobs in his office and negotiated salaries with them, and it just happened that he ended up with more highly paid men.

Yet if Obama recognizes the problems with the “83 cents on the dollar” statistic to assess his office, he should also recognize how misleading the feminists’ “77 cents on the dollar” statistic is to the American economy. When producing that statistic, the Department of Labor doesn’t take into account factors such as occupation, years of experience, hours worked, education, or the many other factors that we all know affect how much someone is paid. Analysis of this statistic have found that the individual decisions that women make — not discrimination — explain the majority of the so-called pay gap.

Obama shouldn’t use this misleading statistic in an advertisement. Not just because it’s wrong, but also because it won’t be effective. American women know from personal experience that they take many factors into account when they seek and accept a job. They know that these decisions affect how much they are paid. Most women simply don’t feel like victims. Just ask Sarah Palin.

23 September 2008

Robocop and the News 09.23.08

Scanning the news can be frustrating,and joyful at times. Let's give it a try:

>Gunman opens fire in Finnish school

The Finnish prime minister says a gunman who killed 9 people at a school in western Finland was a student there.

Looks like another case of a school out cast venting his frustration on his school. Finland can do an Australia and overreact with draconian gun laws, or they can pull a Texas, and have some teachers start packing in school. Only time will tell.

>Russia Sends Warships to Caribbean, a First Since Cold War

This is just for "temporary" excercises, right? Because if this becomes permanent, I see two things happening: The Fourth Fleet will actually have to contain actual warships,and I could see a permanent Baltic Fleet in the works, if we have a brain.

>Judge Orders Victim to Pay Back Thief

See my surprised look? Nope. Activist judges are as big of a threat to society as pedophiles.

>Those behind market crisis should be punished: Sarkozy

I have never thought I would ever agree with the French. And what is up with this $700 Billion bailout? None of these companies would give me a pot to piss in if I was down and out. Now we are saving there asses with OUR tax money. We are supposed to have a free market economy, not interventionists. Let the weak fall. Yes,a market crash would hurt, but right now, as my wife says, wear are putting a band aide on a bleeding artery. The big picture? Bailouts only encourage risky investment, knowing that big brother will save the day in the case of failure.

>Fifth Grader Suspended For Wearing Anti-Obama Shirt

After I saw all the Libtard crap worn around the schools in my day,I find this double standard distressing. I guess the shirt did not jive with the local teachers union. On a good note, Colorado is not under the sphere of the Ninth Circuit Court.

>Woman on Respirator Dies After Power Company Cuts Electricity

A coroner’s report released Tuesday attributed the New Zealand woman’s death to the cessation of her oxygen machine and the related stress.

I am sure there will be a special place in hell for that billing department.

>Obama struggling to win over Clinton voters

No shit? I guess making deals with Democratic Party leaders behind closed doors to screw over Hillary kind of pissed people off.

>Activist admits keying Hummers in Southlake

SOUTHLAKE - A 72-year-old man caught on camera keying a teen's Hummer admitted to police it wasn't his first time.

James Jeppe said he has keyed four other Hummers over the last four months, according to an arrest warrant.

Environmental concerns were cited by Jeppe as the reason he targeted the vehicles. He said the trucks leave a large carbon foot print and use too much gas.


Jeppe drives a 14-year-old BMW, which New 8 discovered gets only a mile or two more per gallon than the Hummer he criticized.

Another case of Libtard hypocrisy. Keying a person's car is like slapping them in the face. All the Hummer owners he victimized should be given the opportunity to key HIS car at the same time.

Now for your entertainment, a statement from our GREATEST President on immigration:

Well,that's my rant,for now.

It's Gettin' Ugly Out There

by Mike Gallagher.

The Democrats sure have been busy this week. They have now dropped any pretense of civility or decency in this remarkable 2008 election season. Evidently, the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate has turned a number of Dems into rabid attack dogs.

Gone is the appearance of unity.

The act of campaigning with any sort of honor or respect has vanished from the Democrat playbook.

This campaign went from politics to blood sport a long time ago. Now, the Democratic Party voices are nasty, shrill and vile.

Consider what has taken place in just the past few days:

Leftist hackers invaded Gov. Palin’s privacy by criminally breaking into her personal email account; voyeuristic websites posted the private correspondence all over the internet. During an Obama campaign appearance, a bland governor from Kansas made the not-so-bland assertion that the reason the current polls are so close is because “one of the candidates” is half-black. While campaigning on one of the TV networks, Democrat Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden actually suggested that it’s high time that Americans stop being so unpatriotic by not wanting to pay higher taxes. And finally, the Democrat candidate himself urged his followers to start arguments and “get in (the) faces” of Republicans and independents.

As my kids would say, these Democrats have gone and jumped ugly.

Truthfully, ugly doesn’t even begin to describe what the Democrats are doing these days. When Gov. Kathleen Sebelius injects the stale, tired old claim that racism might just keep Obama out of the White House, don’t think for a moment that isn’t done with the total blessing of the Obama campaign. If Sen. Obama was sailing along with a 10 point lead in the polls, they wouldn’t be reduced to such babble. They’d at least pretend this election is about issues, ideology and truth.

They just can’t figure out how to tear down the genuine Republican enthusiasm over the McCain/Palin ticket. Is the excitement part of a GOP revolution? A renaissance, perhaps?

Too early to tell. But if John McCain wins, you can bet the farm that’s what everyone will be saying.

The Democrats are dumbfounded. And now, they’re just being dumb.

When I first heard the audio clip from ABC’s “Good Morning America” featuring Sen. Biden claiming that “it’s time to be patriotic...time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut” by forcing Americans who make over 250 thousand a year to pay higher taxes, I couldn’t really believe my ears. I know Biden can be a loose cannon -- just ask convenience store clerks with accents or Black Americans who would be (rightfully) offended at being called clean and articulate -- but not this nuts. Surely the Democratic VP candidate wasn’t stupid enough to claim that paying higher taxes is a form of patriotism, was he?

Not only did he say it once, but he has repeated the claim. He even angrily defended his comments at a union gathering later the same day.

I can just picture the next Democrat campaign billboard: “Get Taxed Through The Nose, Wave A Flag!”

And finally, there is Sen. Obama getting pretty aggressive with his rhetoric. At a rally in Ohio, Obama told thousands of cheering supporters: “I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”

I personally witnessed a number of the Democrat anarchists in St. Paul, site of the GOP Convention. The police there accurately described them as a bunch of dangerous criminals who were capable of serious vandalism, violence and even death. They sure do know the meaning of getting in one’s face.

How nice of Sen. Obama to encourage them to “get in (the) faces” of the loyal opposition. Real responsible.

If a looney Democrat beats an independent or Republican to death over the backyard picket fence, I wonder if Obama will feel bad?

It’s definitely turning ugly. And the Republican Party will be tested. Will we “jump ugly” and take the lefties on by degenerating to their level?

I truly hope not.

We’ll win this election on the strength of ideas and philosophy and moral clarity.

We’ll beat the failed Democrat policies of the past by invoking the true working class spirit of good and decent Americans who want to work hard, achieve success, and celebrate the sanctity of this, the greatest country in the world.

As painful as it is to witness the classlessness of Democrats, this is a process that has to happen. Millions of Americans are watching with their mouths agape, positively stunned that Barack Obama’s party could stoop so low.

Instead of hiding in the shadows, I’m thankful that so many Democrats are willing to expose their true sense of self.

This can only be great news for the Republican Party on November 4th.


22 September 2008

Fun Monday 09.22.08

This week's Fun Monday is being hosted by Heather's Recipes.

The Rules:

The topic: Sports. More specifically, the sports team that you are rabid about. Maybe you love the Dallas Cowboys. Maybe you never miss a Cincinnati Reds game. Perhaps you follow every goal of the Fighting Illini Water Polo team. Or maybe nobody can tear you away from a Manchester United game. I want to hear about whatever sports team(s) that make you cry tears of joy when they win and tears of sorrow when they lose.

And on the flip side, I also want to hear about the teams you love to hate and why you hate them so much. You know what I mean. Like when you meet a new friend who is really cool and fun, and then you find out they root for your most hated rival team and you actually consider for a moment that you can't be friends anymore. Those teams.

That's it. And if you don't like any sports at all, I don't know what to say to you. Tell us something else you are impassioned about

Robocop's Comment:

I am not a die hard sports fan anymore. But given the opportunity, I can enjoy an occasional football game.

On my rare moments of NFL fanaticism, I am a New York Giants fan. Two silly reasons really. First, they are as close to my old hometown team I can get without having to root for the Buffalo Bills (the best Second Place Team the NFL has ever produced). Second, they made it to last years Superbowl, and the Dallas Cowboys did not.

As for a team I rally love to hate:

I hate the Dallas Cowboys. Why? Because a good number of them will probably end up being "customers" of mine. What a collection of thugs. Do you know what they call a dope deal in a stadium? A huddle. They are living proof that money will never change a street punk.

Well,that's it. Enjoy Fun Monday!

Douche Of The Week 09.22.08

The Winner: Columnist Heather Mallick

The Reason: Calling Palin Supporters "White Trash", and other stupid statements.

The Story:

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is reviewing complaints from both Americans and Canadians about a Web site columnist who recently described Sarah Palin’s supporters as “white trash,” compared the vice presidential candidate to a “porn actress” and called her daughter’s boyfriend a “redneck” and “ratboy.”

The incendiary column by Toronto-based writer Heather Mallick appeared on the CBC News site on Sept. 5, after the close of the Republican National Convention. On the same day, Britain’s Guardian newspaper published another column by Mallick in which she trashed Palin’s home state of Alaska as a “frontier state full of drunks and crazy people.”

In the CBC story, Mallick wrote that John McCain’s running mate “added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn’t already have sewn up, the white trash vote.”

She proceeded to write that the Alaska governor “has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favored by this decade’s woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression.”

She also questioned why the Palins were allowing Levi Johnston — 17-year-old Bristol Palin’s boyfriend and father of her unborn baby — into the family.

“What normal father would want Levi ‘I’m a f—-n’ redneck’ Johnson prodding his daughter?” Mallick asked.

“I know that I have an attachment to children that verges on the irrational, but why don’t the Palins? I’m not the one preaching homespun values but I’d destroy that ratboy before I’d let him get within scenting range of my daughter again, and so would you. … Turn your guns on Levi, ma’am.”

CBC Ombudsman Vince Carlin told FOXNews.com that he has gotten “quite a few complaints about [the column], both from Canada and the U.S,” and said he’s reviewing its contents to see if it meets CBC’s journalistic standards and practices.

But he noted that Mallick is a “columnist not a journalist.”

CBC spokesman Jeff Keay said Mallick’s column does not reflect the views of CBC or the Canadian government, which owns but does not directly control CBC.

“She’s an opinion columnist. I think by definition they can be expected to occasionally use provocative language,” he said. But in this case, Keay said the column “could be perceived as excessive or offensive to some people.”

Mallick also wrote on the CBC Web site that Republican men, whom she called “sexual inadequates,” must think that women would vote for Palin just because she’s a woman.

In her Guardian column, Mallick claimed her own small-town credentials are just as solid as Palin’s, writing “Palin cannot out-hick me.”

But she said Palin should have stayed in her hometown of Wasilla, writing, “Small towns are places that smart people escape from, for privacy, for variety, for intellect, for survival. Palin should have stayed home.”

Mallick also blasted Alaska as Canada’s ugly stepchild.

“We love our own north to the point of covering our eyes and humming as it melts … but Alaska is different from our north,” she wrote. “We share a 1,500-mile border with a frontier state full of drunks and crazy people, of the blight that cheap-built structures bring to a glorious landscape.

“Alaska is our redneck cousin, our Yukon territory forms a blessed buffer zone, and thank God he never visits. Alaska is the end of the line.”

Robocop's Comment:

Stupid bitch, I am not white, therefore, I am not "white trash". Get it right. Oh, I love the comparison between Mrs. Palin and a porn star. You watch much porn Mizz Mallick? What do you look like? See here. Can you say dead rat? Wrong, that would be insulting to the rats. You are just a jealous beast of a feminazi who could not attract a bus full of convicts, even if you were the last woman on Earth. As for Palin's future son in law, at least he is sticking around. Doing the right thing might be a new concept for your type. If my Black Lab knocked you up, he would neuter himself. He sure as hell would not stick around. Mr. Keay calls you "an opinion columnist". Great. Here is MY opinion. Mizz Mallick is the reason Pro-Choice groups have a right to exist. One look at you, and I think retroactive abortion. Your face, and you mind speak volumes on the need for birth control. A Masters in English Literature does not make you an expert on Palin, rednecks, or the State of Alaska.

21 September 2008

Obama Can’t Be Trusted on National Defense

By Peter Ferrara.

A couple of weeks ago, the Left was having a grand old time yucking it up over Sarah Palin, even starting a little pool taking bets as to the date when Palin would withdraw. A couple of days ago, the Huffington Post called on Joe Biden to withdraw so that Hillary Clinton could take his place and save Obama from the Palin tidal wave.

But while they are reopening the Democrat ticket, they may as well replace the top of the ticket as well.

Should Obama Withdraw?
In 1991, when President George H. W. Bush was preparing to run for reelection, a devastating charge was raised by Gary Sick, who had served on the National Security Council under Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan. Sick alleged that during the 1980 campaign, candidate Ronald Reagan had dispatched his running mate George Bush to negotiate a deal with the Iranians to delay release of the American embassy hostages they were holding until after the election. In return, the Iranians were supposedly offered arms to be sent by the Israelis.

Sick actually had no evidence to back up his charge, except a record of a short trip by Bush to Paris in the fall of 1980. But the charge still caused a firestorm among Democrats and the media at the time, who were in agreement that if true the charges would amount to treason. The watchword among the liberal lynch mob was that even though there was no evidence to support it, the very seriousness of the charge required a complete investigation. So both the House and the Senate each did such a complete investigation, finding nothing.

Just two days ago, on September 15, the New York Post published an explosive article by Amir Taheri, an Iranian born journalist who has long covered the Middle East for a wide range of publications. He was editor in chief of Iran's largest daily newspaper from 1972 to 1979 and has in the past been a regular contributor to the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and Newsday. He has also long been widely published throughout Europe and the Middle East. He is currently a regular contributor to CNN, National Review, and the New York Post.

In the article, Taheri says that Obama has done in regard to the troops in Iraq what Reagan and Bush were alleged to have done in regard to the Iranian hostages. Taheri writes:

While campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence. According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

Taheri further reported:

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops -- and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its Ć¢€˜state of weakness and political confusion.'....Though Obama claims the US presence in Iraq is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that American troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandateĆ¢€¦.His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

Taheri has far more evidence than Sick ever had, obtaining his information from the Foreign Minister of Iraq and other top Iraqi officials Obama spoke to while in Iraq this past summer. If the media is to have any credibility at all, it should reassign a few of the dozens of reporters it now has in Alaska investigating the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter to investigate the explosive charges now raised by Taheri. They can start by interviewing Taheri, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, and other Iraqi officials.

I am calling on Obama now to answer these charges, or withdraw from the race, freeing the American people from the trouble of having to impeach him after the election, if he should defy the now lengthening odds and somehow win the race.

Mission Accomplished
The desperation that may have led Obama to engage in this gross misconduct stems from his belated recognition of the new reality in Iraq: The war there is over. America has won. It is too late for Obama to surrender, on behalf of his uninformed, misguided, anti-American netroots.

Victory for America in Iraq has meant a disastrous rout for Al Qaeda's terrorists. As another New York Postcolumnist, Ralph Peters, wrote in July:

A terrorist organization that less than a decade ago had global appeal and reach has been discredited in the eyes of most of the world's billion-plus Muslims. No one of consequence in the Arab world sees Al-Qaeda as a winner anymore. Even fundamentalist clerics denounce it. For all of our missteps, Iraq's been worth it.

Peters also reported:

Al Qaeda has been driven from the Arab world, with nowhere else to go....Unwelcome even in Sudan or Syria, the Islamist fanatics have retreated to remote mountain villages and compounds on the Pakistani side of the Afghan border.

With this smashing victory in hand, American troops are already coming home. The surge troops have been withdrawn. Bush has accepted the recommendations of General Petraeus to withdraw more troops this fall. Most importantly, the Bush administration has negotiated a permanent status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government. The draft, which requires no congressional approval in the U.S., but still requires formal Iraqi approval, provides for Iraq to take over responsibility for security in every province next year, with American troops withdrawn from Iraqi cities and serving in a back-up role from military bases. A phased withdrawal would continue after that, depending on conditions inside Iraq.

Based on his Iraqi sources, Taheri reports Obama's attitude towards this American victory as follows:

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush doctrine of "preemptive" war -- that is, removing a threat before it strikes America.

But this is a vain hope, for, again, it is too late for Obama to turn victory into the defeat he prefers as a matter of both politics and policy. Sometimes, Obama tries to claim credit for the victory, arguing that the troops are coming home on his timetable after all. But this just ignores the huge difference between troops coming home in smashing victory, and troops coming home in devastating defeat.

Imagine if America had listened to Obama and his left wing base, rejected the surge, and withdrawn American troops in defeat. Al Qaeda would now be enjoying the surge of new recruits from all over the Muslim world, triumphant as the victors in the historic defeat of the newly failing American superpower, like Rome in its last days. Al Qaeda would be setting up a new base of operations in Iraq, from which to launch new conquests and terror attacks.

This is the defeat for America that Obama would have engineered. How could we possibly trust this man now with our national defense? What future defeats would lie in store because Obama is philosophically opposed to "removing a threat before it strikes America"?

The Talking Fool
The sweeping, historic victory in Iraq still leaves the grave threat of Iran. Islamic extremists have remained firmly in power there since 1979. Their current front man is President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but the ruling mullahs have expressly said that he represents their thinking.

Ahmadinejad, of course, has said several times that Iran intends to "wipe Israel off the map." Less well known is that another Ahmadinejad theme has been to ask Islamic audiences to imagine a world without America. That is now possible, he has said

Iran has long been the chief state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It is also the chief barrier to peace in the Middle East, providing the key support to those who insist on fighting to eliminate Israel rather than settling with it. It is the source of the rockets that Hamas rains down on Israel. It is the financial patron of Hezbollah, arming them with another store of rockets. It is Syria's patron as well, keeping them in the fight.

Now Iran is undeniably developing nuclear weapons. What is Obama's plan? His plan is to talk to Iran.

Obama is under the delusion that he is the only American in history who has thought of this. But every American President has pursued talks with Iran going all the way back to Jimmy Carter, who was furiously trying to get the hostages released before the 1980 election. The Bush Administration has pursued talks through the UN, through the IAEA charged with enforcing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, through the European Union with England, France and Germany as the negotiators, even through Russia, and even directly, particularly in regard to Iranian attacks on US troops in Iraq. At the very time that Obama was spouting his hot new idea of talking to Iran earlier this year, the news media was filled with discussion about what Condi Rice was considering offering to Iran through the EU negotiations to get a deal to end the nuclear program.

All to no avail. The UN and the EU have even imposed sanctions to get Iran to negotiate. The Iranians have stood firm. They have said they will continue to pursue their nuclear programs no matter what, even war. They have said in so many words that they are not interested in whatever material buyoffs the West can offer. A cataclysmic final war with Israel is a central feature of the fundamental religious vision of the ruling Iranian madmen.

So Obama's breakthrough concept of talking to Iran has been tried and failed. What's next? There is nothing next in Obama's world view, except "aggressive, principled and direct diplomacy" and "tough negotiations."

Talking with our enemies is not a problem, the reality being that America's diplomats are in constant touch with everyone around the world, even rogue dictators. The problem is Obama's delusion that anything is going to be achieved through talks with the mad, murderous dictators that rule Iran.

After a primary win in the spring, I watched Obama say that we need to talk to our enemies "like Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy did." He has apparently forgotten the history of Roosevelt's negotiations with Japan. Japanese negotiators were in Washington for continuing talks on the very morning that the Japanese navy bombed Pearl Harbor. And that is the danger of blind faith in endless talks with Iran. While those talks continue, the Iranians will continue to build their nuclear weapons. We don't want to see, on the very morning that Iranian negotiators meet with American diplomats in Geneva, nuclear bombs go off in Tel Aviv, and New York, or high above the American homeland, frying every electronic device with an EMP surge and booting America back to the 18th century. This is another reason why Obama cannot be trusted with our nation's defense.

Give Peace a Chance
In a speech entitled "A New Beginning" on October 2, 2007, Obama elaborated on his defense policy, saying: "America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons." He explained, "As we do this, we'll be in a better position to lead the world in enforcing the rules of the road if we firmly abide by those rules. It's time to stop giving countries like Iran and North Korea an excuse. It's time for America to lead."

In other words, these rogue dictatorships are seeking nuclear weapons because we have nuclear weapons. A world armed with weapons of mass destruction is all America's fault. If we would just get rid of ours, they would get rid of theirs. Obama reiterated these themes in his summer speech in Berlin and in a Washington, D.C. foreign policy speech on July 15, 2008.

Obama did say he would pursue this goal through international negotiations, not unilateral disarmament. But even such a negotiated nuclear disarmament is not a good idea for America. We would be giving up a huge national defense advantage America has now. Worse, we cannot trust countries like Russia and China, let alone North Korea and Iran, to abide by any such commitments. Obama would naively lead us into a world where Iran has nuclear weapons and America doesn't!

And can we really trust Obama in any event to maintain our nuclear deterrent? Those weapons deteriorate over time, and need to replaced and updated. Could we trust him to maintain the SDI missile defense system? Could we trust him to modernize all of our weapons systems over time? He has said he is opposed to "weaponizing space," even though China is vigorously pursuing space weaponry and Russia would follow.

Can we trust our national defense to a man who has said that America's moral standing to object to Russia's invasion of Georgia is undermined by our invasion of Iraq? He cannot see the difference between Russia's invasion of a democratic country that threatens no one, and America's liberation of Iraq from a murderous dictator with no moral legitimacy to govern, who committed genocide against his own people, and who threatened the whole world with terrorism.

As I discussed in detail in my commentary last week, Obama has spent his whole life swimming in a sea of left wing extremism. Can we trust these national defense issues to such a man? What about his left wing, anti-Israel, foreign policy advisers who have said the way to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is for Israel to unilaterally destroy its nuclear deterrent? What left-wing extremists will Obama appoint to Defense, State, and the Energy Department that oversees our own nuclear deterrent?

The answer is no, we cannot trust Barack Obama with our national defense. A mistake here could lead to deep suffering for the American people