The USA president, George Bush, is traveling to Suadi Arabia with “hat in Hand” to beg for more oil!This is an insult to Americans, in my opinion. Saudi Arabia doesn’t even allow women to drive cars!
Moreover, they are a Muslim Country that spawned Osama Bin Laden, and the more oil we buy from them, the more money the Arabs have to spend on maintaining their tyrannical regime.
And the President is playing right into the hands of the ecological left that wants our country to lose it’s military and industrial might.
According to government estimates, there is enough oil in areas accessible to America — 112 billion barrels — to power more than 60 million cars for 60 years. The Outer Continental Shelf alone contains an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Had President Clinton not vetoed exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR) in 1995, when oil was $19 a barrel, America would currently be receiving more than 1 million barrels a day domestically, all of it taken by better technology than existed more than 30 years ago. That was when the Alaskan pipeline was built despite protests from environmentalists who claimed it would destroy the caribou. It didn’t, but the environmentalists are back with the same discredited arguments. Because most of the oil remains “off-limits,�� we are becoming more dependent on foreign oil.
At the same time that Bush is traveling to Saudi’s King, the Democrats in Congress are talking about penalizing our only source of fossil fuels, the oil companies!They want to repeal $17 billion in tax breaks for the oil companies over 10 years and on top of that impose a windfall profit tax on companies that don’t invest in new energy sources. This is political demagoguery and expediency at its worst.
The oil companies will just pass their increase costs on to the consumer as would any other product producer. This exacerbates the problem without any attempt to solve the problem.All the plans now on the table do not take into consideration the fact that we have more oil available in ANWAR and “off-shore” than the oil available in Saudi Arabia!
In addition to the sinking value of the dollar, here is the main problem: According to the Department of Energy, U.S. oil production has fallen approximately 40 percent since 1985, while the consumption of oil has grown by more than 30 percent. According to government estimates, there is enough oil in areas accessible to America — 112 billion barrels — to power more than 60 million cars for 60 years. The Outer Continental Shelf alone contains an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Had President Clinton not vetoed exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR) in 1995, when oil was $19 a barrel, America would currently be receiving more than 1 million barrels a day domestically, all of it taken by better technology than existed more than 30 years ago. That was when the Alaskan pipeline was built despite protests from environmentalists who claimed it would destroy the caribou. It didn’t!
Time to wake up America, and elect people to Congress that will allow new refineries and drilling for our known oil sources. If you don’t believe me, get ready to ride your bike or walk to the grocery store in a few years, when crude oil reaches $200 or more!It is one thing to demand that we put a more expensive and more polluting bio-fuel in our cars, that will eventually destroy the fuel injectors, It is another travesty to ask our military to fight an impending war without enough gasoline and diesel to run their planes and tanks.While the Arab world and Russia have a glut of oil.
Todays issue of The Iran News in English has an article about Barack Hussein Obama’s name and the controversy that surrounds his middle name. This same news source carried an article that claims that the USA embargo on Iranian oil has not stopped other Countries from buying crude oil from the second largest of the Worlds oil producers.
OBAMA’S REAL MIDEAST PROBLEM
By AMIR TAHERI
“Is pronouncing a man’s middle name tantamount to in sulting him?
In Sen. Barack Obama’s case, the answer appears to be yes.
Sen. Hillary Clinton has already apologized because her allies used the unmentionable middle name - ostensibly without her consent. Last week, it was Sen. John McCain’s turn to apologize, because the host of a meeting he attended was rash enough to pronounce the seven-letter word.
The word in question is “Hussein,” Obama’s middle name and the name of his Kenyan Muslim father. Obama has accepted the apologies as if using his father’s name was, indeed, an insult. Why?
Well, “Hussein” supposedly has a negative resonance with many Americans, reminding them of Saddam Hussein, the late Iraqi dictator. The fact that the name Hussein means “most benign” or “very beautiful” in Arabic isn’t enough to persuade Obama and his pr gurus to treat it more kindly. (Hussein is also one of the most popular names for Muslims, especially Shiites.)
Obama’s problems shouldn’t end there. “Barack” is also Arabic, from “barakah,” meaning “blessing.” “Obama,” meanwhile, is a word in Swahili - a language based on Arabic that serves as the lingua franca of East Africa; it refers to members of his father’s tribe who converted to Islam.
In other words, “Barack Hussein Obama” is a perfectly common identifier for someone with an ethnic East African Muslim background.
Nevertheless, Obama insists that, while his father and paternal grandfather were both Muslims, he himself was never one in any way.
In Islam, of course, anyone born of a Muslim father is automatically regarded as Muslim. But Obama is hardly obliged to abide by what Muslims may or may not think of his religious status. As a citizen of a free and democratic state, he can cross from one faith to anther or have no faith at all without losing any of his rights, including the right to stand for the highest office.
What’s troubling about Obama’s approach to the mini-storm stirred by his political enemies over his name is what may look like an attempt at obfuscation. He has behaved as if he did have a family secret, and as if the name Hussein was something to be ashamed of - or, worse still, as if a Muslim background is somehow a handicap for an American politician in ways that Christian, Jewish, Mormon or any other faith is not.
That, of course, is hurtful to Muslims - a majority of whom reject the anti-American diatribes of the radical and violent minority.
It would’ve been better for Obama to state the situation clearly at the start: I was born in Hawaii and spent part of my childhood in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country. Half of my family background is Islamic. My paternal grandfather and father were both Kenyan Muslims. My father gave me an Islamic forename and middle name. But my mother was from a Christian background, and I chose her faith.
Most Americans judge a candidate based on his politics rather than his parents’ religious background. In a country where everyone has a rich ethnic and religious background, Obama’s family story wouldn’t have sounded that exotic. Some Americans may have even regarded the Islamic part of Obama’s family story as a plus for the candidate, if only because the biggest challenge to US global leadership todayscomes from forces speaking in Islam’s name.
Obama’s efforts to distance himself from Islam contrasts with his innovative approach to US relations with its Islamist challengers.
President Bush has chosen the “iron fist” - invading Afghanistan and Iraq, quarantining the Islamic Republic in Iran, keeping Syria’s Baathist regime in check and helping a dozen Muslim states fight al Qaeda or its variants. McCain and Clinton offer variations on the same theme, albeit with twists and turns to satisfy their constituencies.
By contrast, Obama offers a policy of dialogue and accommodation. He has opposed listing Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization and proposed a grand bargain with Syria’s rulers. He is even prepared to ignore two UN Security Council resolutions that require Iran to stop its uranium-enrichment program as a precondition for talks at the highest level. He has campaigned for a formal congressional move to prevent Bush from taking any military action against Tehran.
In an important symbolic move designed to signal an end of the special relationship between Israel and America, Obama has become the first major presidential candidate in 25 years not to commit himself to transferring the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Last but not least, Obama has promised to withdraw from Iraq in his first year in office - meeting a key demand of all radical Islamist forces, Sunni and Shiite.
The message is clear: Obama wants a new relationship with radical forces in the Islamic world while distancing America from its traditional regional allies. In other words, he proposes to reverse policies that have taken shape over more than six decades under 12 successive American presidents.
It’s this revolutionary idea that deserves to be examined and debated, not the origin and meaning of Obama’s middle name”.
The voters of the USA should evaluate this article before they enter the polling place.
Todays issue of The Iran News in English has an article about Barack Hussein Obama’s name and the controversy that suurounds his middle name. This same news source carried an article that claims that the USA embargo on Iranian oil has not stopped other Countries from buying crude oil from the second largest of the Worlds oil producers.
OBAMA’S REAL MIDEAST PROBLEM
By AMIR TAHERI
“Is pronouncing a man’s middle name tantamount to in sulting him?
In Sen. Barack Obama’s case, the answer appears to be yes.
Sen. Hillary Clinton has already apologized because her allies used the unmentionable middle name - ostensibly without her consent. Last week, it was Sen. John McCain’s turn to apologize, because the host of a meeting he attended was rash enough to pronounce the seven-letter word.
The word in question is “Hussein,” Obama’s middle name and the name of his Kenyan Muslim father. Obama has accepted the apologies as if using his father’s name was, indeed, an insult. Why?
Well, “Hussein” supposedly has a negative resonance with many Americans, reminding them of Saddam Hussein, the late Iraqi dictator. The fact that the name Hussein means “most benign” or “very beautiful” in Arabic isn’t enough to persuade Obama and his pr gurus to treat it more kindly. (Hussein is also one of the most popular names for Muslims, especially Shiites.)
Obama’s problems shouldn’t end there. “Barack” is also Arabic, from “barakah,” meaning “blessing.” “Obama,” meanwhile, is a word in Swahili - a language based on Arabic that serves as the lingua franca of East Africa; it refers to members of his father’s tribe who converted to Islam.
In other words, “Barack Hussein Obama” is a perfectly common identifier for someone with an ethnic East African Muslim background.
Nevertheless, Obama insists that, while his father and paternal grandfather were both Muslims, he himself was never one in any way.
In Islam, of course, anyone born of a Muslim father is automatically regarded as Muslim. But Obama is hardly obliged to abide by what Muslims may or may not think of his religious status. As a citizen of a free and democratic state, he can cross from one faith to anther or have no faith at all without losing any of his rights, including the right to stand for the highest office.
What’s troubling about Obama’s approach to the mini-storm stirred by his political enemies over his name is what may look like an attempt at obfuscation. He has behaved as if he did have a family secret, and as if the name Hussein was something to be ashamed of - or, worse still, as if a Muslim background is somehow a handicap for an American politician in ways that Christian, Jewish, Mormon or any other faith is not.
That, of course, is hurtful to Muslims - a majority of whom reject the anti-American diatribes of the radical and violent minority.
It would’ve been better for Obama to state the situation clearly at the start: I was born in Hawaii and spent part of my childhood in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country. Half of my family background is Islamic. My paternal grandfather and father were both Kenyan Muslims. My father gave me an Islamic forename and middle name. But my mother was from a Christian background, and I chose her faith.
Most Americans judge a candidate based on his politics rather than his parents’ religious background. In a country where everyone has a rich ethnic and religious background, Obama’s family story wouldn’t have sounded that exotic. Some Americans may have even regarded the Islamic part of Obama’s family story as a plus for the candidate, if only because the biggest challenge to US global leadership todayscomes from forces speaking in Islam’s name.
Obama’s efforts to distance himself from Islam contrasts with his innovative approach to US relations with its Islamist challengers.
President Bush has chosen the “iron fist” - invading Afghanistan and Iraq, quarantining the Islamic Republic in Iran, keeping Syria’s Baathist regime in check and helping a dozen Muslim states fight al Qaeda or its variants. McCain and Clinton offer variations on the same theme, albeit with twists and turns to satisfy their constituencies.
By contrast, Obama offers a policy of dialogue and accommodation. He has opposed listing Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization and proposed a grand bargain with Syria’s rulers. He is even prepared to ignore two UN Security Council resolutions that require Iran to stop its uranium-enrichment program as a precondition for talks at the highest level. He has campaigned for a formal congressional move to prevent Bush from taking any military action against Tehran.
In an important symbolic move designed to signal an end of the special relationship between Israel and America, Obama has become the first major presidential candidate in 25 years not to commit himself to transferring the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Last but not least, Obama has promised to withdraw from Iraq in his first year in office - meeting a key demand of all radical Islamist forces, Sunni and Shiite.
The message is clear: Obama wants a new relationship with radical forces in the Islamic world while distancing America from its traditional regional allies. In other words, he proposes to reverse policies that have taken shape over more than six decades under 12 successive American presidents.
It’s this revolutionary idea that deserves to be examined and debated, not the origin and meaning of Obama’s middle name”.
The voters of the USA should evaluate this article before they enter the polling place.
With farmers destroying wheat fields to plant corn or soy beans, to cash in on the subsidized price of grain products that can be used to make ethanol. The world is beginning to experience food riots and over fourteen countries are facing rapidly approaching famine.
Since the majority of Congress and the President have “bought in to” the idea that ethanol will help reduce our dependence on fosil fuels, despite the fact that it costs more to make than gasoline and gradually destroys fuel injectors in motor cars! The supply of corn, soy beans and rice has been drastically reduced for the making of food products.Check your food stores to see the results, higher prices. And this is just the begining!
In places like Haiti the poor are eating yellow cake “mud Biscuits”. On the roof of a former prison, enterprising women prepare something that looks like biscuits and is even called by that name. The key ingredient, yellow clay, is trucked in from the nearby mountains. The clay is combined with salt and vegetable fat to make dough, which is then dried in the sun. The clay costs$5.00 to make 100 biscuits!
For many Haitians, the mud biscuits are their only food. They taste of fat, suck the moisture out of the mouth and leave behind an aftertaste of dirt. They often cause diarrhea, but they help to numb the pangs of hunger. “I’m hoping one day I’ll have enough food to eat, so I can stop eating these,” Marie Noël, who survives with her seven children on the dirt cakes.source :The Associated Press
The shortages triggered revolts in Haiti last week. A crowd of hungry citizens marched through Port-au-Prince, throwing stones and bottles and chanting, “We are hungry!” in front of the presidential palace. Tires were burned, and people died. It was yet another of the rebellions that are beginning to occur with increasing frequency worldwide, but which are still only a harbinger of what is yet to come. The USA closed our embasy during these riots!
Food is become increasingly scarce and expensive, and it is already unaffordable for many people. It is estimated that 850 million people have to go to bed hungry every night. How long will it be before these hungry people turn to the violence of revolution and the Communism that usually follows a revolution that is violent!
World Bank President Robert Zoellick warned that exploding food prices threaten to cause instability in at least 33 countries, including regional powers like Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan, where the army has had to be brought in to protect flour transports. The crisis is helping radical Islamic movements gain strength in North Africa. There has been unrest in recent weeks in Mauritania, Mozambique, Senegal, the Ivory Coast and Cameroon, where the violence has already claimed about 100 lives. source : DerSpiegel
The food crisis has hit Manila in the Philippines where Communist insurgents have already been busy with their spread of revolution through violence. India has the largest number of underfed people, about 220 million!
China with over close to a quarter of the world’s population to feed, but only 7 percent of its farmland. And a similar situation applies in India. This means that both countries must import food on a large scale, prompting many exporting countries to impose export quotas so that their own citizens are not suddenly forced to go without.
How long will the ethanol frenzy go on in the USA? Will it take riots by the poor and rationing to wake Americans to the fact that ethanol is not the answer to the fuel crisis here in the USA?
More drilling where we know the oil is and building more refineries will make some people mad, but is the only Christian thing to do. As Christ said, “feed My poor.! Not make ethanol out of food products and starve my poor!
The heparin, made from ingredients imported from China, has been recalled by Baxter International and the Food and Drug Administration has blocked imports from the Chinese company.
The FDA found the drug was contaminated with over sulfated chondroitin sulfate, which mimics heparin and thus was not detected in routine testing.
“FDA’s working hypothesis is that this was intentional contamination, but this is not yet proven,” Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, told the panel in her prepared testimony.
China has secretly fired powerful laser weapons designed to disable American spy satellites by “blinding” their sensitive surveillance devices, it was reported yesterday.
China has secretly built a major underground nuclear submarine base that could threaten Asian countries and challenge American power in the region, it can be disclosed.
They are systematically probing us for weakness folks. We need to wake up. Communist tyranny knows no borders. The thirst for collective power to dominate the earth and it’s peoples will not rest until they have built their utopian empire.
From lead tainted children’s toys to poison drugs to tainted dog food and now laser assaults on out satellites, they are aggressively testing our defenses and our resolve…
If you have a choice, and frequently you don’t, when you buy a product from China, you do so only at peril to your country, your family and even your own life.
At the same time that the Jerusalem Post announced that feminist Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb and 21 other feminist peace activists were embarking on a trip to Iran to”dialog” with the Iranians. The Bush administration was making the following dictum as reported today in the New Media Journal by Mark Silvaberg.
“The Bush administration has launched a new “outreach” policy reflecting it’s reluctance to discuss jihadism in public. This time, it has targeted language. We are no longer at war with “jihadism”. Rather, we are engaged in a war against “extremism”.
“In a document titled: “Words that Work and Words that Don’t: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication” released in March 2008, Federal agencies including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center will now be issued instructions on how not to describe “jihadists”, or the “mujahedeen”, or to use any references relating to Islam, Islamic theology or Muslims in the context of our current war. Nor are these the only words to be struck from the government’s political lexicon. Words and phrases like “al Qaeda movement”, “Salafi”, “Wahhabist”, “Sufi”, “ummah” (the Muslim world), “Islamic terrorist”, “Islamist”, “holy warrior” and even “caliphate” are also to be removed from diplomatic discourse”.
“The erroneous rationale given is that these terms promote support for “extremism” among Arab and Muslim audiences by providing religious credibility to “extremists” while offending moderate Muslims. The directive states that the term “jihad” tends to “glamorize terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have and damages relations with Muslims around the world”. The memo says the advice is not binding and does not apply to official policy papers, but should be used as a guide for conversations with Muslims and media”
The government might as well tell us that the New Testament of the Bible should never be used in public, because it might offend the Jewish people.
The truth is what it is, and you can never gloss over evil by eliminating speaking about it. All you do then is discard the truth for the darkness of lies! It may be politically correct, but it doesn’t change the fact that the evil described in the now banned words and phrases is real.
While we try to hide the threat from Jihdists. People like the “Rabbi” turned peace activist, Lynn Gottlieb is taking her band of radical feminists to Iran in response to Senator Clinton’s statement last week that “if Iran attacks Israel we will obliterate Iran”!
This former Rabbi( since age 23 in 1973) now leader of a Southern California group called The Jewish Renewal Movement, and founder of the “Bat Kol” Jewish feminist theater troupe, and the co-founder of the Jewish Peace Walk, believes that their dialogue will help relieve the tension between Iranians and the USA.
I guess she forgot that the president of Iran has denied the existence of the Holocaust, and has vowed to obliterate Israel!
This radical feminist wrote a book titled, “She Who Dwells Within” in 1995 in which she makes her case that The Holy Ghost is a women!. She states that “RAUCH” is a female, and the third person of the Christian Trinity of God. And “HAVA” she sees as a woman!
This women refers to the Israeli State as the “brutal state”, and calls the United States Justice System, “the criminal injustice system”!
Not exactly the kind of person the Jewish or Christian community would want to represent us, much less see her traveling to Iran on a State Department issued visa!
Lex et Libertas—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for the editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families, especially those of our fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who have died in defense of American liberty while prosecuting the war with Jihadistan.)
From the “get go” Obama was against the war in Iraq, even after it was revealed what a murderer of his own people Saddam Hussein was.Hillary voted for the invasion, but has called for the withdrawal of our troops before they finish the job they went for.Only McCain has held all along that we were correct in invading Iraq, and we should remain there until the Iraqis can defend themselves, and maintain the peace.The cut and run people, who are too numerous for comfort, want us to have another Vietnam.
It would make them very happy if the USA would withdraw with our collective “tails between our legs” and leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves. It is of no concern to them that a mass genocide would follow a premature withdrawal.Now an unlikely source has agreed with those of us who believe we should not leave with our job undone.
4,000 lives lost is a dreadful sacrifice, but in wars men/women do die! Compared with the over 6,000 teenagers that die on the highways each year, it doesn’t seem quite as bad for 5 years of fighting.
Today from Russia the following was posted. version April 22, 2008, 19:05 Iraq not ready for troop pullout: Russian FMRussia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has ruled out Iraq taking immediate control of its own security, saying local law enforcement agencies are not yet prepared.”There is a point one should keep in mind. This concerns the schedule of the withdrawal of foreign troops, which many Iraqi residents consider as - let’s honestly acknowledge it - occupants,” Lavrov said.“But an immediate withdrawal is out of the question of course. There are no conditions in place for that,” he added. The statement came at a ministerial meeting between Iraq, its neighbours and permanent members of the U.N. Security Council held in Kuwait.Meanwhile, the U.S. is encouraging Iraq’s neighbours to help by opening embassies, offering debt relief and backing its drive to disarm Shi’ite militia. France’s Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner says all EU member countries “must be opening or re-opening embassies in Iraq�� and helping its people.“One day the Americans will leave, so we have to prepare to be close to our friends,�� he said.
It looks like Kerry,Reid,Pelosi, Murtah, and their Presidential candidates,Obama and Hillary, have it wrong in the eyes of the Russians and French Foreign Ministers minds.Don’t look to see if this article will be written in the Washington Post, New York Times or the Los Angeles Times. It is not the negative news they want desperately to print.
Will Obama’s alleged cousin in Kenya be his downfall?
Raila Odinga, the man who believes he was robbed of victory in Kenya’s presidential election, will have a vital say on whether his country can avoid further violence.
The leader of the Orange Democratic Movement, Kenya’s main opposition party, refused to call off a “million-man” march in protest of the allegedly rigged election. This headline and story was published in The Guardian on line edition January 2, 2008. The interesting part of the article is that it is about a man who claims to be Obama’s cousin, and he claims he lost the election because it was “rigged” against him. If Obama loses the nomination in Denver will we have the same situation?
Following the election, his tribal followers went on a murderous rampage of violence, and it was reported that many women and children were burned alive in a Kenya church. This occurred in broad daylight, when a crowd of Kenyans set a church filled with hundreds of terrified families on fire and listened to their screams as flames engulfed them.
This same man(Odinga) has allegedly made a pact with the Muslim Kenyans that in effect offered to Islamize Kenya in return for Muslim votes. Despite the fact that Muslims make up only 10% of the population, compared to the 80% who are Christian. Mr. Odinga himself is an Anglican, yet he signed a document that refers to Islam throughout as “the one true religion” and denigrates Christians as “worshippers of the cross.”
Odinga has a similar campaign strategy to Obama’s. He offers himself as the man who represents a CHANGE from Kenya’s past leadership, but he is no political outsider. Born in 1945, he is the son of Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, an independence hero who was the country’s first vice-president.
Raila Odinga has, in his own words, a “close personal friendship” with Barack Hussein Obama Junior. When Obama went to Kenya in August of 2006, he was hosted by Raila and spoke in praise of him at rallies in Nairobi. Odinga claims that Obama’s father was from the same Kenyan tribe(Luo) as Odinga’s father, and that he is his uncle. Thus, he claims that Barack Hussein Obama is his blood cousin!
Obama’s bias for his “cousin”was so blatant that a Kenya government spokesman denounced Obama during his visit as Raila’s “stooge.”With all the money that Obama’s campaign has raised. Perhaps someone should investigate if any of the contributions have come from Kenya?
This from the Free Republic:
“Obama and his paternal 1st cousin Odinga, wanted to bring the whole of Kenya under Sharia law. Obama campaigned for Odinga in August of 2006,just before he filed with the US Federal Elections Commission for his presidential candidacy.
The idea was simply to have the Luo tribe, mostly Muslims, to take over Kenya from the inheritors of colonial power, the Kikuyu, and bring the country under Sharia law, kick out the Western investors in the nation that had made it one of the most stable nations in Africa, and supplant those Western investors with wealthy Arab oil money.It all failed.Then Odinga yelled election fraud, and put his Luo Islamofascists into the streets of Nairobi to “protest” by murdering, raping and maiming Kikuyu people, including the recent burning alive of a church full of Christians.
If Obama and Odinga succeeded, the next step in the alleged plan would be for “president” Obama to help Odinga consolidate his power over Kenya by international recognition and trade”. source:The Australian
As I write this post the polls in Pennsylvania will have been open for at least two hours. The results could effectively push Senator Obama into the nomination as Democratic candidate for President. Baring some dirty tricks or a catastrophe , Obama will be the candidate. It is entirely possible that this good looking, tell the people what they want to hear, empty suit may be this Country’s next President.
If this happens and Obama keeps one of his many promises for “Change”, he will withdraw our troops from the middle east and try personal diplomacy to resolve our problems with Assad and the Mullahs of Iran.
During the campaign Obama has said not to worry! He will go talk to the Iranian Mullahs and get them to stop production of Nuclear weapons. No need for military action says He.
If he goes he better take the whole Marine corps and the Atlantic and Mediterranean Fleet as protection. Reason bring, the Mullahs of Iran are about to include in Iranian criminal law code an item that has been part of their religious law for 14 centuries. Sharia law requires that apostasy be punished by death! Anyone who was a Muslim and goes over to another religion is considered an apostate! Obama was fathered by a Muslim, he has a middle name(Hussein) that is the name of a revered Muslim saint.
Obama went to a Muslim school, and attended Muslim services on “holy” days with his father from age 6 to 10. As far as Muslims are concerned he was one of theirs!
The following excerpt is from an article written in Amillimani.com by Iranian born American author Amil Imani, a frequent contributor to New Media Journal.
“Okay Obama, don’t claim that no one warned you. If you get elected President and you receive an invitation from your fellow Muslim brother Ahmadinejad to make good on your promise and visit him in Tehran for a tête-à-tête, don’t you do it. BBC’s recent report ought to be enough for you to recant your foolish and naïve promise: “The European Union has criticized the new penal code being drafted in Iran, particularly a section that imposes the death penalty for giving up Islam…Death for apostasy already exists in Iran under Sharia or “Islamic - law.”
But the changes would for the first time bring the punishment into the criminal code. An EU statement expressed deep concern about what it calls the ongoing deterioration in the human rights situation in Iran. It singled out Section Five of the draft penal code currently before the Iranian parliament, imposing the death penalty for apostasy. In the past, Iranian courts have handed down the death penalty in such cases, but have done so relying on Sharia law. If the draft is approved by parliament, the sentence will be formalized in the country’s criminal code.
Who is an apostate according to the legislation? Anyone in the world, not just Iranians, born to a Muslim parent; also, any convert to Islam who leaves it. Only one parent needs to be a Muslim at the time of conception for Islam to own that child for life. Islam is Ummehist. Islam doesn’t recognize nationalities and national boundaries. And these Islamist zealots are very serious and have no sense of humor. Some say they have no sense at all, and they may be right. What they certainly have is a thirst for blood, particularly for the blood of infidels and apostates”.
My question to Obama and those that support him, is do you really think you can use diplomacy to quell the lust for “nukes” by the Mullahs? Or is this just one more false promise that is part of a litany of lies you so smoothly tell to your adoring supporters and people who don’t recognize an Elmer Gantry when they see one?
Even as the London Times, not an admirer of President Bush, headlines the fact the The leader of the Madi army is willing to lay down the arms of his 60,000 man militia. The “shecat’ Speaker of the house and the two Democratic aspirants to the Oval Office show their animus toward the Iraq war in general and the Generals leading the fight. The line in the sand has been drawn. The Democrats fervently want a withdrawal and a symbolic failure in Iraq, and no amount of good news will dissuade them or their sycophant Media to let up on the attack against our effort in Iraq.
Never the less, I enclose an excerpt from the London Times that I doubt you will find in either the visual or print media.
“Iraq’s largest and most dangerous militia will voluntarily disband if Shia scholars advise its leader to do so, officials said yesterday — a dramatic move that could quell much of the fighting in the war-torn country.
Aides to Hojatoleslam Moqtada al-Sadr said that he would send delegations to Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, a moderate religious leader in Najaf, and to senior clerics in Iran to consult on whether he should stand down his 60,000-strong al-Mahdi Army.
The sudden announcement — the first time that the rebellious cleric had offered to disband his forces — came as US and Iraqi troops were poised for a key offensive into his Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City”.
A massive American and Iraqi security presence had ringed the area, with police and soldiers guarding every exit with many predicting a final, bloody showdown as popular support drained from al-Mahdi Army”
Speaker Pelosi had the gaul to warn them before General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have spoken one word to the Congressional Committees. On April 4, Pelosi admonished General David Petraeus not to “put a shine” on developments in Iraq when he and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker testify before Congress this week.
Senator Obama appears to ignore the military success and will question the progress that appears to not have been made in forming a stable government. Obama’s advisers said he also intends to focus his statements and questions on the future in Iraq, such as whether the war is making Americans safer, how it has affected the military’s ability to respond to threats around the world and whether Iraqis are taking responsibility for their country.
Clinton’s spokesman said she expects the committee will question Petraeus and Crocker closely on the lack of political progress in Iraq, the rising influence of Iran in the region and the strain on the military caused by the large numbers of troops serving in Iraq.
Both Democrats have changed their criticism from the lack of military success, including comparison of Iraq to Vietnam, now that the “surge” has produced positive results. They now attack with criticism of the “nation building” efforts in Iraq.
True Patriots, with good heads and good hearts, would cheer the results of the heroic military men and women;s success, and reserve criticism of the fledgling government until a final defeat of the forces of evil, raical Islam, has been ccomplished
Since August 15 , 2007 ACLU and their leftist lawyers have challenged the legality of the Patriot Act , and the Leftist Media has been a willing accomplice in the effort to prevent the renewal of the expired act. Democrats have lined up to defend the ACLU position, despite the fact that there is evidence of spies and covert agents for China, Russia, North Korea and even Israel at work gathering classified material from all departments of our government.
Some spies have been “moles” for decades inside the Defense Department, CIA, NSA, FBI and State Department.Aldridge Ames is a prime example. He spied for the Soviets within the
CIA for many years before being apprehended in 1994.
We have the threat of Radical Muslim spies for alQaeda, and Hamas doing their utmost to learn sensitive information about our war plans to fight Islamic terrorism, and funding that comes from the USA to Muslim terrorists.
An example of the effectiveness of the counter espionage units within the USA intelligence community is this case that just concluded with the sentencing of a Chinese spy to 24 1/2 years in federal prison for spying.
According to US intelligence and Justice Department officials, the Mak case represents only a small facet of an intelligence-gathering operation that has long been in place and is growing in size and sophistication. The Chinese government, in an enterprise that one senior official likened to an “intellectual vacuum cleaner,” has deployed a diverse network of professional spies, students, scientists and others to systematically collect US know-how, the officials said. Some are trained in modern electronic techniques for snooping on wireless computer transactions. Others, such as Mak, are technical experts who have been in place for years and have blended into their communities.
The Protect America Act modernized the Foreign IntelligenceSurveillance Act (FISA)was passed by Congress, to provide our intelligence community essential tools to acquire important information about terrorists(aka:spies)who want to harm America. The Act, which passed with bipartisan support in the House and Senate and was signed into law by President Bush on August 5, 2007, restores FISA to its original focus of protecting the rights of persons in the United States, while not acting as an obstacle to gathering foreign intelligence on targets located in foreign countries. By enabling our intelligence community to close a critical intelligence gap that existed before the Act became law, the Protect America Act has already made our Nation safer.
The ACLU and Media have tried to destroy the Act by spreading untruths about it that I list below.
Myth: The ACLU has claimed that “Many [people] are unaware that their library habits could become the target of government surveillance. In a free society, such monitoring is odious and unnecessary. . . The secrecy that surrounds section 215 leads us to a society where the ‘thought police’ can target us for what we choose to read or what Websites we visit.” (ACLU, July 22, 2003)
Reality: The Patriot Act specifically protects Americans’ First Amendment rights, and terrorism investigators have no interest in the library habits of ordinary Americans. Historically, terrorists and spies have used libraries to plan and carry out activities that threaten our national security. If terrorists or spies use libraries, we should not allow them to become safe havens for their terrorist or clandestine activities. The Patriot Act ensures that business records - whether from a library or any other business - can be obtained in national security investigations with the permission of a federal judge.
Myth: The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act provision about delayed notification search warrants “would allow law enforcement agencies to delay giving notice when they conduct a search. . . . This provision would mark a sea change in the way search warrants are executed in the United States.” (ACLU, October 23, 2001)
Reality: Delayed notification search warrants are a long-existing, crime-fighting tool upheld by courts nationwide for decades in organized crime, drug cases and child pornography. The Patriot Act simply codified the authority law enforcement had already had for decades. This tool is a vital aspect of our strategy of prevention - detecting and incapacitating terrorists before they are able to strike. Source:Dept. Of Justice Web Site
During the Cold War, most espionage was conducted by the Soviet Union and associated Communist countries in Eastern Europe. The surprising thing is how many other neutral or allied countries have also been involved in espionage against the United States. American citizens have been arrested for conducting espionage on behalf of South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Israel, Netherlands, Greece, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Ghana, Liberia, South Africa, El Salvador and Ecuador. Information is based on the 111 cases in which offenders succeeded in passing information.
It is not surprising that 51% of espionage offenders have foreign interests. In considering the security risk associated with foreign interests, it is important to distinguish between susceptibility to recruitment and vulnerability to being targeted for recruitment. Foreign interests do not make one more susceptible (less loyal), but they do make one more vulnerable. Americans with foreign interests have valuable language skills and area knowledge. Because of these skills, they are more likely than other Americans to be in positions where they have access to classified information. They are more likely to have contact with foreigners and more likely to feel comfortable dealing with foreigners. They are also more likely to be accessible for assessment and to be targeted for recruitment by foreign intelligence services. Thus the need for surveillance of Americans in sensitive positions.
Perilous times require severe and often unusual procedures to apprehend those who would betray our Country!
