Obama Ineligibility Case Headed to Supreme Court

Despite the fact that many in the media continue to mock "The Birthers," there are dozens of good reasons for the public to support the petitioners in the Kerchner et al vs. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al case. We need to be steadfast in our resolve to question why his documents are being kept hidden. We need to spread the word as these petitioners continue their fight to expose the fact that if Obama's biological father was Barack Obama Sr., then there is no way that Obama Jr. could be a natural born citizen of the United States of America.

New Ad - Kerchner v Obama Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court - Washington Times National Weekly edition - pg 5

Excerpt:

Obama was born a British Subject and is still such to this day. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards. Obama has never conclusively proved he was born in Hawaii. Obama's paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and newspapers in Kenya say he was born in Kenya. Obama's maternal grandmother likely falsely and illegally registered him as born in Hawaii to get him, her new foreign-born grandson, U.S. Citizenship.

Link to read and download newest ad:

History shows us that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office, e.g., Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was a prime example. After he was sworn in and serving as Governor, the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office, after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected.

http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governors/governors19.html

In case you are STILL a victim of the liberal left media of mass deception, which has covered this issue in a one-sided way, then I suggest that you read the links in the excerpt above to familiarize yourself with what the lamestream media refuses to reveal regarding this issue.

I am trying to remember where I read or heard this, but there was one judge in one case (there are several Obama ineligibility cases still active) who stated that [paraphrased] 'to reveal this information would be an embarrassment for the pResident.'

What???? Is that a "lawful" statement or an emotional, political ideological, and social opinion?

The term "embarrassment" is very interesting. There could be all sorts of reasons to use that term. However, I do not recall any judges stating that certain revelations about past presidents deserve to be hidden because of "embarrassment." Do you?

I applaud the courage of these plaintiffs to pursue this case all the way to the Supreme Court! That is why I continue to post and spread the word about this extremely important issue!

Hat Tip:

A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers


*******

Also see this YouTube video:

Proof Obama Admits He Was Born In Kenya

*******

Several brief videos where Obama - from his own mouth and in his own words - admits he was born in Kenya!

OBAMA CONFESSES HIS BIRTH PLACE IS KENYA, AFRICA.

Obama ADMITS Born in Kenya!!!

*******

The following video link may appear to not be connected to Obama's ineligibility issue. However, within the first six minutes, I can point out a deception that is being raised by the creator and narrator of the video.

Of course, I do not agree with everything in the following video, I present it here for people to go over to YouTube and view - even if you just view the first six minutes or so which is where I make my point, anyway. It has been viewed over 7,525,349 times!!!

In all honesty, it is difficult for me to get past the first few minutes when the narrator makes false accusations against President Bush.

The Obama Deception HQ Full length version [Note: The video is 1:53:40 long!]

What is truth and what are lies within this video? Well, I can share one lie. It is the opinion of the narrator and creator of the film that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

From "The Next World War: What Prophecy Reveals About Extreme Islam and the West," by Grant R. Jeffrey -

What Happened to Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction?

VX nerve gas, a WMD, is a binary gas that can be prepared only with complex chemical warfare technology, equipment, and experienced scientists. It is known from Iraqi admissions and the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors that Iraq possessed more than five hundred tons of the precursor chemicals required to produce VX-nerve gas weapons. Iraq claimed to have destroyed these materials but never provided proof.

Israeli intelligence analysts and key players in the U.S. intelligence community, including retired U.S. Air Force Gen. James Clapper, declared that huge amounts of Iraqi WMD were transferred to Syria just before the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003. U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told Congress in testimony in 2003 that U.S. satellite surveillance revealed substantial vehicular traffic in convoys from Iraq to Syria in February and March 2003. Clapper said that the intelligence community determined the convoys contained missiles and WMD components that were banned by the U.J. Security Council.5

The former deputy undersecretary of defense, John A. Shaw, revealed what actually happened to Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction. "The short answer to the question of where the WMDs Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon... They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz units out of uniform, that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence." 6

During the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1989 and 1990, Russia repeatedly used this type of "emergency exit" planned removal of WMD and other sophisticated military equipment from former Warsaw Pact allies in Eastern Europe, as well as from former Soviet republics such as the Ukraine and Kazakstan. A variety of respected sources, including Shaw and Saddam Hussein's former top general, Georges Sada, have confirmed that Russian Spetsnaz troops coordinated the removal of Iraq's WMD to Syria by large truck convoys and aircraft in the period just before the invasion of Iraq in April 2003. 7

The question that will occur to most readers is why the Bush Administration endured countless attacks on the credibility of its prewar claims about Iraq's WMD and never publicly revealed the significant evidence that points to the removal of these weapons to Syria. According to both Shaw and Sada, the Bush administration's desire to protect Russia from international embarrassment motivated it to suppress this intelligence in the hope that Russia would assist America in limited Iran's and North Korea's plans to achieve a nuclear warhead.

We now know how badly THAT hope didn't pan out! Russia is actively helping Iran (admittedly, I don't know about them helping North Korea) and with the Obama admin., through it's extremely weak foreign policy, is not actively doing anything to halt Iran from getting nuclear weapons! It appears that Israel will, once again, need to come to the rescue of the world and destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. The question is when...

Footnotes:

5 "U.S. Intelligence Consensus: Iraqi WMD Shipped to Syria," World Tribune, October 30, 2003, www.worldtribune.com/wholdtribune/WTARC/2003/ss_syrua_19_29.html/. Also posted at www.ualm.org.au/Syria_Files.asp?display=content&id=61.

6 Kenneth Timmerman, "Ex-Pentagon Official Says Russia Moved Saddam's WMDS," Newsmax, February 19, 2006, www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/ex-Pentagon.htm.

7 For more on this, see Georges Sada, Saddam's Secrets (Nashville: Integrity Publishers, 2006).

*******

Glenn Beck is right about the need to "question with boldness" and about "doing your own research." The over 7 million viewers of "The Obama Deception" have been fed some propaganda about President Bush and the WMDs that were in Iraq, after all!

Now, I'm not claiming that there isn't any true information in that Infowars video, but I am pointing out that sometimes, a person's ideology can blind them to the truth in some situations and cases.

This is why I like to study the Bible and prophecy. I know that I can count on the TRUTH contained within its pages!

Islam "House of Truce" by Barry Soetoro?

As if there hasn't been enough to worry about with this corrupt, horrendously clueless ObamaFRAUD ethics and morality challenged administration, now we are also learning of a highly disturbing, not-so-secret covert intention being worked out behind the scenes - under the radar of most of the American people and, of course, the clueless Lamestream media.

I will just post the entire blog post from The Betrayal and those who care to comment - please do so.

Christine

*******

Quote:

Taqqiya Muslim Barry Soetoro - Submission

Posted on February 4th, 2009 by David-Crockett

I fully agree with the Obama File conclusions reached at the end of the article and in particular the following line “…Trained as a Muslim, Obama knows that in Islam, the world is divided into two parts — Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb…” is most certainly accurate, I would however want to add the following observation. Barack/Barry Obama/Soetoro seems to be very well versed in the Muslim practice/tactic of Taqqiya whereby the Kufar can be deceived into believing she/he is sa[f]e from Islam imperialism. Barry who indeed knows the distinction between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb and in applying Taqqiya is concealing his aim to integrate our Country into the Dar al-Islam. He will attempt to achieve the integration by initially mov[ing] towards transforming the US into the state of Dar al Suhl (House of Truce - a state in which a non-muslim country negotiated a peaceful/subservient co-existence with Muslims by means of surrendering into Dhimmitude) once this is achieved the next step will be integration into the Dar al-Islam. Mark my words.

- David Crockett

The Obama File reports:

Obama was working with Arab intermediaries to establish an unofficial dialogue with Al Qaida long before the election, according to a report in the Feb. 4th edition of Geostrategy-Direct.com.
Al Qaida has offered what has been described as a truce (hudna) in exchange for a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan, according to the report.

Obama has deemed the U.S. reconciliation with the Muslim world, including Iran, as his main foreign policy goal, sources quoted in the report said. Obama has been aided by several Persian Gulf Arab Muslims with ties to Al Qaida’s leadership in Pakistan.

On his first day in office, Obama ordered the shutdown of the U.S. Navy prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where 245 Al Qaida members are detained, saying, “Can we guarantee that they’re not going to try to participate in another attack? No.” But he’ll let them free nonetheless.
Obama spoke about his own ties to the Muslim world:

“Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect,” Obama said. “I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.”

“My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy — we sometimes make mistakes — we have not been perfect.”

Whose job is it to communicate to this fool that al Qaeda is OUR enemy?

Trained as a Muslim, Obama knows that in Islam, the world is divided into two parts — Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb.

Dar al-Islam literally means the “House of Peace” which is all the lands conquered and subjugated by Islam.

Dar al-Harb literally means the “House of War” which is all the lands currently not conquered by Islam.

Islam’s chief goal is to eventually conquer and subjugate all the lands of Dar al-Harb into one territory called Dar al-Islam. Only after all people and all lands of the world have been conquered and have submitted to Islam is there to be “peace” in the world. /quote

Hat Tip: The Betrayal

*******

In a related article, The Obama File reveals the Bogus POTUS as being willing to "Snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory." Read and weep:

Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory



CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus, supported by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to pullout all US combat troops from Iraq within 18 months at an Oval Office meeting on January 21, sources have said.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama's decision to override Petraeus' recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including General Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilizing public opinion against Obama's decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying: "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama."

Obama, who was never even a boy scout, has the arrogance to believe he knows better than his generals. He prefers to take his military strategy from the likes of Cindy Sheehan and Media Benjamin (Code Pink crazy lady).

I REALLY miss George W. Bush...already.

Hat Tips:

Pajamas Media: Works and Days

The Obama File - Latest Obamanations

*******
Update At 6:07 a.m. PT:

The following is one of those WOW comments that hits the nail on the head on many of the issues being handled VERY BADLY by the Bogus POTUS and his cronies-in-crime administration:

The following quote is from the comment section of "Pajamas Media: Works and Days" -

21. cfbleachers:


"Even the fawning media–that is responsible in some way for the crisis, given that they chose to be Pravda-like in encouraging the messianic style that got a haughty Obama in his present mess–will soon start bailing in efforts to restore their last fides."

In short, no…they won’t. Sorry, VDH.

Great essay, though. Yes, I expect that quite a few creepy people are presently sharpening swords and daggers. I see the dangers of swaggering into town and tossing in an ante in a “mixed rules” game. I see even graver dangers to America from those who deal.

1)There is a “mixed rules” game peril in foreign affairs with the “creepies” you mention. They see compromise as weakness. They see conciliation as cowardice. They will use apology as a rallying cry and recruiting tool. They will abide by no convention, they will use our adherence to convention as a weapon against us. Saul Alinsky with nuclear warheads, they will use our own rulebook to crush us. And they will do so without real compromise, real conciliation and sans apology.

2)”Mixed rules” apply with respect to entrenched media coverage of virtually every important issue of the day. The leftist “message” is king and we are all its subjects. The Trilogy of the Book of Slander co-written by Hollywood, the entrenched media and academia has the US and Israel as its main targets. Non-leftists, including Republicans of all stripes, conservatives without exception and moderates who dare to cross the line…virtually anyone who disagrees (see, ie., Liebermann and Billary)will be viciously attacked.

The truth is an ancient artifact. It is being buried beneath a storm of debris that is relentless and unceasing. We have been sold out for this “message” and we continue to this day to be buried, inch by inch, under its dirt. There is absolutely zero reason to believe, no matter what happens as a consequence (and there have been several major negative consequences already), that it will change one iota. There are mixed rules in our information stream, and the three dealers at the main tables are crooked.

3)Political cover for leftists is rampant and widespread. They can shirk any burden, secretly meet any foe, abandon any friend, drive up any price in order to pursue the leftist implementation of statism here and abroad. No act is beneath them. Logan Act violations by ex-Presidents abound. Meetings with Soviet leaders, Viet Cong leaders, arch-enemies, sworn enemies…in direct contravention of our declared foreign policy…are met with a collective burial of facts. News gathering editorialists have Soviet handlers. Stringers are plants for Arab dictators. Cable news networks intentionally downplay a dictator’s evils. Wire services photoshop and stage pictures. International news outlets fake the “scorecard” to make one tiny nation’s attempt to survive look grossly unfair. Leftists here at home and abroad are dealing a “mixed rules” crooked game.

4)Closer to home, the armor shell of leftist media covering for sins of democrats is appalling. I don’t see how the manner in which we impose our shared burden can any longer be said to equate to “representative”. This nation once stood up to taxation without representation of a different set of unfair rules, but not entirely dissimilar.

Somehow we have allowed the system to act like a mafia loan shark for the little guy. Imposing thuggery upon the entrepreneur who struggles to provide jobs and a spark to the economy with chokehold penalties and kneecap busting interest for minor infractions, while the “insiders” play with an entirely different deck.

The IRS as mafia hit man going after the little guy for not paying his “protection” money, while they “oops” didn’t play by the same rules, is a bit much to take. This is an institution that ought to be dismantled. The entire purpose was not to confound people, consume them, then carve up their stolen goodies for lords, nobles and viceroys. The leftists, especially the extremists like Pelosi would crush the economy in order to advance statism, upon the broken backs of small businesses.

The IRS as a weapon in a class warfare being waged by leftists, where the “mixed rules” are open and obvious and provided cover by the Slander Trilogy is an assault on our way of life.

5)We are in a rigged game, let me rephrase that…we are in a number of rigged games. They are being played simultaneously…and we are being dealt cards from the bottom. We keep trying to play by the rules according to Hoyle. That is what the enemies of truth, honor, liberty and freedom, here and abroad…are counting on.

And no, my esteemed friend…VDH, I don’t see any of that changing any time soon.


Feb 4, 2009 - 3:12 am

*******
Update:

Stop The ACLU has a post up with several links about this, too.

Thank A Vet Today

In honor of Veteran's Day, I thought that I would pass along a link to a wonderful organization called Operation Gratitude .

We have much to be thankful for in this nation. And, we owe our freedom to all of the Veterans who have fought for that freedom ever since we became a nation. I salute each and every one of you. Thank you - for all you have done for the United States of America!

One of my favorite photos is this one of a soldier with a young Iraqi boy, standing on his boot.



Here are some letters from the website:

To Operation Gratitude:
My husband was feeling very down yesterday when I spoke to him. Today when he called me on the computer, his whole attitude had changed. He was smiling ear to ear. He had received a box from Operation Gratitude. He had to show me everything that was sent to him. He loved everything. He had decorations hanging up in his room for the Fourth of July and he had a teddy bear sitting on his bed. You turned his whole day around. Just a few little things that reminded him of home and let him know that there were people who cared brought him great joy. I am so grateful for your support.
Army Wife, C.P.

Dear Operation Gratitude,
I'm the wife of a deployed soldier. When I spoke to him today he said his entire unit each individually received a package from your organization. I wanted to thank you for supporting my husband and his unit. You definitely brought cheer and a morale boost to each of them. This unit is a transportation unit and therefore are doing convoys on the dangerous roads of Iraq on a daily basis. They have encountered many imminent threats and my husband's vehicle alone has taken 4 direct hits. This kind of ongoing stress and fatigue can be a huge drain on our troops' morale. However, it is people like your volunteers who reach out to them and remind them that they are not forgotten. Your support gives them a taste of home and comfort that is priceless. Although we back here can't bring them home safe in body, that's their buddies' job, we can assist them in arriving home healthy in mind and spirit. You and your volunteers have contributed greatly to that mission through the packages you sent. I know you may not hear back from most of them, so I thought I would give you a little personal insight into what your efforts have accomplished. You have touched the lives of Heroes who are willing to place themselves in harms way and leave their families behind because they know that this country is full of good people who embrace and treasure the freedom they fight for. May God bless your efforts. Thank you for not only thinking of our troops but going that extra step to let them know you do. From a grateful and touched heart.
R.U., Proud Wife of a US Soldier.

HT: Operation Gratitude.com

Freedom Is Worth It

Dear Mr. Obama -
A video of an Iraq veteran is YouTube's most watched election video, generating 11 million views.

Update: Apparently, my YouTube account has been cancelled and I am banned from the site! This video is no longer available.


Dear Mr. Obama Video

Iraq War Strategy Vindicated

During the last three weeks of Election 2008, John McCain ought to bring these facts up on the campaign trail!

October 16, 2008
McCain's War Story
By Adam G. Mersereau


A broad consensus is forming -- encompassing the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Whoopi Goldberg -- that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake regardless of the outcome. Senator McCain has defended the Surge, but not the Iraq War. He is missing a chance to reveal the naïveté of his opponent.


Everyone knows that the Bush Administration made some avoidable mistakes early in the Iraq war. However, after the bold troop surge and the change of strategy designed by General Petraeus, victory is in sight. But no one is celebrating. .


Senator Barack Obama fuels the growing consensus by referring to the Iraq war as a "dumb war." In the first presidential debate, when Obama confronted Senator John McCain on his early support for the Iraq war, McCain changed the subject. In their second debate, Obama attacked the wisdom of the war even harder, and McCain conspicuously avoided the issue. No doubt McCain feels Obama's "dumb war" narrative tightening around his neck like a noose.


But McCain should not hide from the true story of the war in Iraq. Far from being a "dumb war," underneath our mistakes in Iraq lay several strokes of strategic genius. The American people-especially those who have made great personal sacrifices-deserve to hear again the compelling reasons why we invaded Iraq, and how a victory in Iraq could vindicate their sacrifices.


Choosing the Battlefield


It is a basic principle of warfare that a commander must never allow his enemy to select the terrain on which he fights. The attacks of 11 September 2001 were designed for the primary purpose of drawing the United States into Afghanistan, which is Al Qaeda's preferred kill-zone. Al Qaeda helped defeat the Soviet Union there. When the Soviet Union subsequently collapsed, Al Qaeda leaders were convinced they had discovered a formula for destroying infidel super-powers: draw them into the God-forsaken moonscape of Afghanistan to fight a protracted war. Al Qaeda knew it would require a spectacular provocation to lure the U.S. military into Afghanistan. Hence 9/11.


Rather than fall for Al Qaeda's "rope-a-dope" ploy, the Bush administration's war planners examined the global situation. Just as America did not charge headlong into Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor, we would not launch a massive invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11. Sure, we could have staged a massive invasion of Afghanistan, but to what end? A large-scale war there would cost many lives and untold resources but would render almost no strategic advantage against the global network of terrorists and their state sponsors.


Instead, President Bush would send a small force to Afghanistan to disperse the Taliban and work with NATO to disrupt Al Qaeda and police the border with Pakistan. To engage the enemy head-on, he would select a battlefield better suited to our strategy.


Iraq - the Obvious Choice


The biggest threat to America was -- and still is -- another 9/11 style attack incorporating nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Even before 9/11, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a beehive of terrorists and WMD activity. Saddam funded Palestinian terrorism. He gave safe haven to notorious terrorists. He hosted bases for six different terrorist groups. His own "Fedayeen Saddam" was operating training camps in Iraq for terrorists from all over the Middle East.


Just prior to 9/11, a Washington think-tank concluded that the most lethal threat to the United States would come from a biological or chemical attack. Biological and chemical weapons were Saddam's forte. One of the few living humans to have actually deployed chemical weapons on a large scale, Saddam was known to possess large stockpiles of them (inspectors inventoried them after the first Gulf War) but refused to provide evidence of their disposal. He had vigorous anthrax and smallpox programs, and he maintained dual-use facilities that could be converted within mere weeks to biological and chemical weapons factories. And yes, he maintained a skeleton nuclear weapons program, ready to be reconstituted as soon as he could beat U.N. sanctions and inspections with help from Russia and France.


All of this made a good case for regime change before 9/11, which is why regime change was the stated goal of the Clinton Administration and Congress before George W. Bush was elected. Every known method to contain Iraq had been tried and had failed: weapons inspections, economic sanctions, U.N. resolutions, and targeted strikes. Editors of the Washington Post and New York Times warned that containment was not working. Military action against Iraq was publicly espoused to varying degrees by Democrats Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and others.


Although these Democrats were among the first to call for retreat when the war became difficult, their pre-9/11 assessment of the Iraqi threat was correct. After 9/11, leaders of both major parties were all the more devoted to "connecting the dots" between terrorist groups and WMD. For anyone paying attention, Iraq was covered with dots.


In addition, the Bush team knew an invasion of Iraq would bring the terrorists to a battlefield on which an American victory could change the entire course of the global war on terror. If a stable representative government could be established there, the entire dynamics of the region could be altered for the better. We would have a new ally that shares a passable boarder with Iran. Perhaps a new Iraq would even give rise to the one antidote for the spreading disease of militant Islam: a Muslim nation willing to fight against Muslim extremists. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq had the infrastructure, resources, and political history to make such a vision possible.


When Barack Obama quips that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to our invasion, he shows his naïveté. The influx of Al Qaeda into Iraq did not discredit the Bush plan, it vindicated it. Further vindication came when in 2005 Ayman al-Zawahiri deemed Iraq the "place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era." We had refused to take the bait in Afghanistan. Instead, we selected a battleground that could yield results beyond mere retribution. We had a lot to learn about our chosen battlefield and would make fateful errors, but ultimately our military would learn to fight well in Iraq.


The Surge


The small-force strategy that routed the Taliban did not work in Iraq. It actually prolonged the Iraq war and gave credibility to Bush's critics. When things got bad, Obama and others clamored for the U.S. to withdraw. Biden argued for a partition of Iraq that would have yielded disaster. But when President Bush teamed with Senator McCain to support a troop "surge" coupled with the new Petraeus strategy, they delivered a devastating blow to our enemies in Iraq and elsewhere. At a moment of fierce political opposition and great military risk, Bush and McCain committed our nation to victory. We showed the terrorists that despite the calls for surrender coming from the left, some Americans had not lost their nerve.


To discredit the success of the surge, Barack Obama cites the Anbar Awakening as the real turning point in the war. But again he fails to understand a fundamental truth of warfare. The surge and the Awakening were symbiotic. The surge allowed us to consolidate the gains resulting from the Awakening, and vice versa. This is the kind of "luck" that often follows in warfare when commanders make bold, well-reasoned decisions.


To prove his mettle after calling for retreat, Obama now argues for a troop surge of his own, this time in Afghanistan. Apparently, it was dumb to invade Iraq but it's smart to expand the war in Afghanistan. What is his strategy? What is his definition of victory? What if our allies balk? He should answer these questions before Election Day.


Senator Obama presents himself as a new kind of diplomat, saying he would open presidential talks with enemies like Iran. Ironically, if Iran's leaders agree to speak with a future American president, it will only be because President Bush has placed them under tremendous pressure. Obama fails to understand that before the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, we could not engage Iran from a position of strength. There was no way the U.S. could transport a land army to Iran. The only threat we could muster was air strikes which, when used alone, are often counterproductive. The mullahs knew they were nearly untouchable. As a result of decisions now mocked by Obama, however, the next American President will have real bargaining power. Added to the NATO force on Iran's eastern border, America may soon have on Iran's western border an ally and a long-term military presence.


A dumb war? Rest assured, the leaders of Iran and other Muslim nations see the strategic wisdom of the Iraq war. McCain should tell the story as it ought to the be told.


A former officer in the United States Marine Corps, Adam G. Mersereau studied the basics of warfare at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia in the early 1990's. He left the Marine Corps in 1995 at the rank of Captain. He is now an attorney in Atlanta, Georgia.


HT: American Thinker: McCain's War Story

*******

P.S. Back in 2004, I saved an article entitled, "The Military Brilliance of the Iraq War." Thought some might like to read, compare and contrast what Craig R. Smith wrote back then with what former United States Marine Corps officer Adam G. Mersereau wrote in his article today.

NYT Rejects McCain's Editorial

drudgereport.com — An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias.

Besides immediately recognizing the obvious liberal left bias involved in the New York Times rejection of Senator McCain's editorial, upon reading a copy of it over at Drudge, I was reminded of a scene in the movie Liar, Liar.

Recall when Fletcher (the dad lawyer played by Jim Carrey) couldn't tell a lie in court because his young son wished this on his birthday? In one scene, Fletcher yells, "Objection" to some evidence being shown against his client in the courtroom. The judge asks, "on what basis?" Fletcher replies (because he couldn't lie), "Because it's devastating against my case."

Well, the deliberate rejection by the New York Times of an op-ed piece written by Presidential Candidate John McCain can be summed up in the same way. Exactly why was his piece rejected? Precisely because "it's devastating against Obama's case!"

Let's examine just why the NYT didn't like this piece by McCain.

Quote: "In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains."

Ah! Here we see McCain using that word "hope." The situation in Iraq (which defeatist Obama wants us to believe is hopeless and we should leave) has improved most significantly. Makes Obama's puff-piece seem infantile...to say the least.

Quote: "Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted."

McCain points out the FACT that Obama is wrong. Can't have THAT now can we? McCain also covers the FACT that the surge is working in both the military and political realms.

Quote: "Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism."

Uh oh. McCain points out another FACT that Obama left out of his own op-ed puff piece! How many of the benchmarks have been met! And, we also have the fact that there has been profound political success because former Iraqi objectors to the war have switched sides to fight against the terrorists! This is something that Obama left out of his essay. Kinda important...don't you think? All of this just exposes Obama's naivete, sloppiness on this issue and his profound inexperience. Plus, the fact that he wrote out a plan for Iraq BEFORE VISITING AND TALKING TO THOSE IN CHARGE OVER THERE...shows his arrogance and inexperience regarding the PROPER method(s) to follow regarding foreign affairs.

Quote: "The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance."

This exposes Obama's weaknesses, once again. Obama was critical of McCain in his op-ed piece for voting for the war in the first place. But McCain can't be critical of Obama for his ideas to withdraw to soon, without striving for complete victory, and without consideration for Iraqis who still need our assistance? Sometimes the truth hurts - especially when the truth hurts Obama's views on this crucial presidential campaign issue.

Quote: "To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future."

This has been found to be also true. Obama used Maliki's words in his favor; whereas, Maliki didn't endorse Obama's views in the first place. Why did the Times let that Obama lie slip by?

Quote: "Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops."

Here, McCain covers a LOT OF FACTS. Plus, there is good reason for McCain to cite the fact that Obama HAS BEEN MISLEADING on the Iraqi military's readiness (which he wouldn't know about because he had not visited there yet) also shows his lack of knowledge about what is really happening there. Again, Obama's inexperience and uninformed views are quite revealing.

Quote: "No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013."

Recall how Obama and his news show surrogates used (and abused and misinterpreted) McCain's "100 years presence" comment on his campaign trail to try and make McCain appear to support a permanent active military presence in Iraq? Why shouldn't McCain use this opportunity to set the record straight? I don't ever see concern on Obama's part for leaviing Iraq as a "failed state" behind. As McCain points out later in his piece, the term "victory in Iraq" doesn't seem to exist in Obama's vocabulary.

Quote: "But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama."

Here McCain shows a definite POLICY DIFFERENCE with Obama. Obama HAS SET AN ARTIFICIAL TIMETABLE OF 16 months. Why? To please the anti-war, Bush hating, Iraq war withdraw no matter what the cost may be in the future, let the terrorists win, rabidly leftist donors and supporters. The FACT that Obama would create such an artificial timetable WITHOUT REALISTIC ASSESSMENT OF THE CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND and before his visit to Iraq, again shows Obama's naivete and inexperience on this issue.

Quote: "Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies."

These three paragraphs absolutely nailed it. Senator McCain obliterates Obama's puff-piece article. Yet, the truth is that these explanations also show why McCain's policies on Iraq make sense while Obama's do not. I suspect that these paragraphs were viewed by the NYT's as DEVASTATING against their candidate of choice.

I can't wait for the debates. Even though the Times refused to print Senator McCain's piece, these facts are out there now. They will be brought up on the Internet, at the debates and in commercials. The Times may have wanted to silence McCain's opinions and views regarding the Iraq War and the success we are now enjoying there, but people are smart enough to know when they see bias and favoritism. The truth about this - as well as many, many other details as to why Obama is not qualified to be president - will come out. More people will eventually realize that McCain is far more qualified than this junior senator from Illinois to be President of the United States in 2008.

HT: Drudge

Related article:

The NYTimes Strikes Again

Digg

*******
Update:

Every time I see a news clip of his travels in the Middle East, I can’t help but notice how much he looks like a wide-eyed tourist! He does NOT have the experience(s) that are necessary to be president.

John McCain has 30 years MORE EXPERIENCE! How could Obama ever compete with that? Plus, Obama has absolutely NO MILITARY experience. Score huge points for McCain in that arena.

The idea that this one “fact-finding” tour of the Middle East would rate him as now “ready and qualified” to be president is ludicrous. He can’t even answer any questions! The topic about dividing Jerusalem is his latest idiotic flub. The man is all fluff and no substance. When will the MSM ever admit this fact? Perhaps Katie Couric will come out of the Obamessiah Kool-Aid drinkers coma and start doing some genuine journalism about the guy.

Wasn’t it very odd that the questions of the press at that Jordan news conference could not be heard? What was that all about? How hard would it have been to get a microphone to these people?? Just imagine if Bush or McCain ever did that. The liberal nutroots would scream, “what are they trying to hide….” Well, I think I, as well as many others have figured out what Obama is trying to hide….his severe incompetence!!

A must read post: Obama: Wrong Then And Befuddled Now

HT: Big Dogs Weblog

The Dizzy Change of Obama

So....is this the kind of "change" the Obama campaign means?

Obama Scrubs "Civil War" From Iraq Webpage!

Now Obama is scrubbing his Iraq webpage!
The New York Daily News reported:


Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence.

"The surge is not working," Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.

Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an "improved security situation" paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.

It praises G.I.s' "hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice."

Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is "not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events."

Go to the above link and click to enlarge to see the screenshots of the old and new pages.

Instead of their tired old mantra of "change you can believe in" how about a more accurate slogan that says:

Change - you can get dizzy from!

he he

Reminds me of Tommy Roe's "Dizzy"

I'm so dizzy
My head is spinning
Like a whirlpool
It never ends
And it's you OBAMA
Makin' it spin...

You're makin me dizzy....

HT: Gateway Pundit

More proof that Obama is clueless:

O'Hanlon Livid Over Barack Obama's Iraq Op-ed

Words May Not Be Necessary!

Sometimes, certain photos are so special and evoke such emotion that words may not be necessary!

U.S. Army Task Force Regulators 1st Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment Staff Sgt. Fred Hampton, of Lexington, Ky., kneels on a knee to talk with a young Iraqi boy at the future site of Regular 6 Park in the Thawra 1 section of the Sadr City District of Baghdad on June 20. Photo: Tech Sgt. Cohen Young, Joint Combat Camera Center Iraq.


How would you title this?

HT: Soldiers Angels Blogspot via Michelle Malkin's blog

With special thanks to blogger sh007r for telling me about these photos!

Historic Meeting

More than anyone else out there in media-land, Joel C. Rosenberg has kept me highly informed about the goings-on in the Middle East. I truly appreciate the email alerts that this busy, and productive man sends out to his blog subscribers.

In Joel's recent email, he asks the question, "Why isn't Jalal Talabani on the cover of Time?"

You can go to his blog, view the historic photo, and read Historic Handshake: Iraqi President actually greets Israel's Defense Minister.

I wonder how much coverage this meeting is getting (or, will get) in the MSM?? I have not been viewing T.V. news as much as in the past, so I cannot be sure whether or not this truly historic meeting is getting the coverage that it deserves.

My guess? It is not getting much coverage. Perhaps it might get a passing mention on the liberal stations, but nothing more. Why? Probably because of all of the good news coming out of Iraq and how that would make our brave military men and women fighting in Iraq and President Bush and his administration look good.

Can't have that now, can we? /sarcasm

Joel writes:

In short, Jalal Talabani should be a household name in the U.S. for the convictions he holds, the risks he takes, and the success he is achieving, bit by bit, day by day, week by week. And yet he receives almost no serious press coverage in the U.S. or Europe.

One would think that such a man as Talabani should get credit and press coverage for all that he is doing. But the chance that our brave military and the Bush Administration might get some credit for the successes we have achieved during the Iraq war might be too much for those MSM liberals like tingly-legged Chris Matthews who owns a creepy, messiah-like worship of Obama!

Can't have that now, can we?

What's more, the meeting was arranged by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. It was a small but historic moment that took place yesterday at a conference just outside of Athens, Greece. Talabani's office downplayed its significance to the Iraqi press so as not to stir up more trouble inside their troubled country. But the truth is, it was significant. The last President of Iraq -- Saddam Hussein -- vowed to incinerate half of Israel with chemical weapons....and went on to launch 39 ballistic missiles at the Jewish State during the first Gulf War. Clearly, Talabani is cut from wholly different cloth. And thank God. Worth watching, to say the least.

Certainly worth watching...AND REPORTING! But will the MSM report this success and it's significance? Probably not. Why? Because it might make the Bush Administration look good.

Can't have that now, can we?

P.S. What would Obama say?

"Just words?"

What would his wife say?

"For the first (no, second) time in my adult life, I am proud of my country?"

Yeah right...I won't hold my breath to ever hear that again from Michelle...

HT: Joel C. Rosenberg Blog

*******

Update @ 9:24 a.m. PT

Just did a search and could not find an American website reporting this historic event until page 4! Even then, it was on Digg!

No wonder I hadn't heard of it before Joel's email!

Why Obama Against Iraq War?

In his latest editorial piece, Jack Cashill asks the question, But Why Was Obama Against the War?

Excerpt:

Nearly six months before the war began, Obama had already sniffed out "a cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz," the only two officials so named, "to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats."

Aiding and abetting the neo-cons, of course, was the inevitable Karl Rove. As Obama told it, Rove was banging the war drum to distract America from, among other things, "a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression."

This is the kind of intelligence that Obama could not have drawn from Jeremiah –"America's chickens are coming home to roost" – Wright. As much as Wright might have admired Obama's newfound moxie, he lacked the sophistication to supply the speech's central tropes.

For those, Obama would have turned to his pals in Chicago's unrepentant radical community. In fact, the key organizers of the anti-war rally were two proud veterans of the militant Students for a Democratic Society, Carl Anderson and Marilyn Katz. This helps explain why the website is silent on the speech's origins.

As Katz tells it, she was one of a group of five individuals who put the rally together, and they did so on just 10 days' notice. Left unsaid, of course, is how they so quickly recruited Obama, in Katz's words, "the most senior elected official at the first popular rally."

The most likely connection is Bill Ayers, the former Weatherman bomber and fugitive. Ayers and his Weatherwoman bride, Bernadine Dohrn, helped launch Obama's first campaign for the state senate in the mid-1990s and have stayed close to him since. Katz admittedly had known Ayers since she was 17 – 40-some years earlier.

One senses the radical contribution to the speech. On his own, Obama would not have made the quietly anti-Semitic reference to Perle and Wolfowitz, two names in common parlance only on the hard left.

As to the "worst month" claim about the stock market, this too rings of hand-me-down Marxist hysteria, given that the Dow Jones had been fairly flat since July 2002 and would gain more than 10 percent in that very October of Obama's discontent.

Ah! More dots are being connected through this well researched article! Plus, it reveals the fact that Obama doesn't always know, beforehand, the details of what his teleprompter speech writers place in his speeches! Now that's eye-opening news!

Just one more important reason added to the ever-growing laundry list of why Obama is not qualified to be president!

HT: WorldNetDaily

Who Can Be Trusted?

It was interesting to read the results of the exit polls after the Pennsylvania primary last night. Apparently, those who entered into the voting booths had trust issues with both Democratic candidates! I generally rely on Real Clear Politics for primary information. However, while scrolling through the latest results, I could not find the primary percentages regarding "trust" in their stats.

Fox News has them!

Which candidate do you think is honest and trustworthy? Clinton Obama
Only Hillary Clinton (20%) 99% 1%
Only Barack Obama (30%) 4% 96%
Both of them (37%) 64% 36%
Neither of them (11%) 70% 30%

Number of responses: 2096




Which candidate do you think is honest and trustworthy?
Hillary Clinton is (57%) Clinton: 76% Obama: 24%
Hillary Clinton is not (41%) Clinton: 22% Obama: 78%

Number of responses: 2096

Which candidate do you think is honest and trustworthy?
Barack Obama is (67%) Clinton: 37% Obama: 63%
Barack Obama is not (31%) Clinton: 89% Obama: 11%

Number of responses: 2096

The stats didn't copy very well here. You can go to the site for a better visual.

I thought it interesting that more people would gravitate towards John McCain if Hillary was not the nominee:

If these are the only candidates on the ballot in November, for whom would you vote? Clinton Obama
Barack Obama, the Democrat (72%) 39% 61%
John McCain, the Republican (15%) 90% 10%
Would not vote for president (10%) 98% 2%

Number of responses: 2096

If these are the only candidates on the ballot in November, for whom would you vote? Clinton Obama
Hillary Clinton, the Democrat (81%) 62% 38%
John McCain, the Republican (10%) 30% 70%
Would not vote for president (7%) 5% 95%

Number of responses: 2096

It would appear that in politics, trust about the candidates can be a difficult thing to grasp, and maintain.

Many people think the same thing about the media. Who in the media can genuinely be trusted?

While reading a portion in Newsmax Magazine called "Beltway Bits," I read the following:

When FBI agent George Piro recently described debriefing Saddam Hussein for seven months after his capture, he disclosed that the Iraqi dictator admitted planning to restart his weapons of mass destruction program within a year. That plan included developing nuclear weapons, according to Saddam.

The revelation should have been Page One news in every newspaper. It would have further justified President Bush's decision to invade Iraq. But many in the mainstream media could not bear to hear that Bush might have done something right.

When Piro's interview came out in my book, The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack - written by Ronald Kessler, NBC Nightly News, Fox News, and Newsmax ran the news, but few newspapers published a story.

Two and a half months later, 60 Minutes ran the first television interview with Piro. The interview buried the reference to Saddam's nuclear planning.

The Washington Post ran a 542-word story on the interview, but omitted any mention of Saddam's new nuclear plans. The New York Times ran no story.

Today, we have press censorship similar to what existed in the old Soviet Union, except the censors are journalists, and it's in reverse: news favorable to the government is suppressed.

We all know that the WMD question has been at the heart of the anti-war crowd. There has been speculation on both sides of the political debate regarding whether or not Saddam had WMD's and if he did, where did they end up? Some have speculated that they were sent to Syria.

That small piece of big news (in Newsmax) was interesting enough for me to do some Internet research. Of course, the following will not be an exhaustive piece on the subject, but the three sources that I found bring up the subject, and question, of who can be trusted to share the truth on such matters?

I first went to Ronald Kessler's original article (dated November, 2007) and read more details about Piro and Saddam.

Next, I clicked on a website that contained a video and had more George Piro news and links. In the menu there, you can see the Piro/60 Minutes interview. At the very end, the 60 Minutes interviewer asked Piro:

"Did Saddam think that Bin Laden was a threat to his regime?"

Piro:

"Yes."

You can draw your own conclusions about that.

Next, I clicked on the American Thinker blog and read the "Suicide by Cop - Saddam and A'jad" article.

James Lewis wrote:

Well, we need to be a little skeptical about Saddam's deathbed confession. Mr. Piro wouldn't be the first to be conned by Saddam.

Lewis continues:

So we still don't have an answer that makes sense. Provoking suicide by cop is not rational for Western minds.


There is a third possibility, however: Arab pride and shame. That is, after all, why Saddam's old Sunni supporters have kept fighting and dying for the last four years. There was a kind of suicidal willingness in Saddam to risk everything for his Arab warrior's honor. Maybe he really believed all those chintzy wall posters of Saddam as Saladin on his white horse. Whatever it was, in his own mind he needed to be a big hero. After the 1992 war, he required revenge, and in the Arab mindset, it was a family vendetta against the Bush dynasty.


Being a dead hero rather than a living sultan may not be rational by Western standards, but it fits the "heroic" narrative of Saddam's imagination. Remember that when thousands of Baath honchos fled the country in 2003, Saddam stayed behind, hiding in holes to evade American troops. He didn't have to do that: It was just asking for suicide by cop. In the end, we remember him looking like a homeless bum, sticking out of a hole in the ground. Death before disgrace.


That's how an honor-and-shame culture acts. It might be admirable if it were not in the cause of a bloody-minded bully.

So, it wasn't the fear of another war with Iran that caused Saddam to bluff everyone into believing that he had WMD?

Lewis:

All this is relevant today, because the mullahs next door have an even more medieval ideology than Saddam did. We may not understand why they believe it, but that doesn't change their bizarre beliefs. There are lessons to learn from Saddam Hussein.

Lewis mentions how Ahmadinejad arrested Iran's former nuclear negotiator, Mosavian, for treason. He makes the point that others, like A'jad, are willing to court suicide for their pride.

The nuclear weapons "dance" that Iran is doing with the West has a specific purpose. I think that Lewis states it more clearly than anyone else (that I have read) who has written about the subject.

Like Hitler, Saddam had the "suicide for pride" complex. Ahmadinejad is similar. Lewis cites that all one needs to do is observe:

A'jad has been drilled in the martyrdom creed by Ayatollah Khomeini himself, and passed it on to thousands of others. To understand A'jad, look at Hamas TV for children, which indoctrinates innocent toddlers into the glories of martyrdom for Allah. Chances are that A'jad is also looking for Götterdammerung, just like the Rev. Jim Jones and David Koresh, General Tojo and the Omshinrikyo sarin cult in Tokyo. He's looking for a final victory over the infidels, or magnificent personal martyrdom culminating in the coming of the Mahdi.

The cycle of indoctrination goes on through such awful "cartoons" inflicted upon children by terrorist groups like Hamas.

This is why Jimmy Carter's attempt to "talk and/or negotiate" with Hamas was so absolutely foolhardy! We already have seen what has happened. Hamas has denied that they told Carter that they would now recognize Israel's right to exist.

People...that will never happen! Period!!

The Muslim jihad against Israel has been going on far longer than its fight against the West. Carter has made himself look clueless and ignorant! He has also, perhaps inadvertently, given "legitimacy" to a terrorist group by his actions. Honestly - the man should stick to his worthy work in Habitat for Humanity and STAY OUT OF POLITICS! POLITICS DOES NOT WANT YOU, Mr. Carter! NOR, DOES IT WANT YOU TO BROADCAST YOUR NAIVE IDEOLOGY!!

Iran has no intentions of making peace with either Israel or the West. Lewis explains why:

But as part of that narrative, Tehran must be attacked by the infidels, even though it's perfectly innocent of any crime. So A'jad wants war, but he also wants it to arouse the final Muslim jihad against all the infidels. It's Armageddon, but on his terms. That is why he needs to threaten the West again and again in public. He will provoke and provoke again, and escalate his rhetoric, until he can either explode his own nuke bomb or die.

Ahmadi-Nejad is not a normal, rational politician. He lives in a different world. Call it honor, or pride, or an inverted inferiority complex. Call it a Wagnerian opera. A'jad is Saddam with a martyrdom complex. Westerners will try and try to explain him in rational terms. But it's the wrong template.

Likewise, Carter trying to rationalize with Hamas is a complete waste of time. When will liberals like him ever learn that fact? The following conclusion by Lewis could just as well be applied to the Hamas terrorists:

When you see A'jad, think Jim Jones or David Koresh. Think Tojo or Hitler, or Ayatollah Khomeini. Here is a man who is ready to die and kill for his creed, as mad as it is. He doesn't go for carrots and sticks. His provocations are designed primarily to maneuver the West into his own psychodrama. If he were standing on a ledge on the Empire State Building we could let him jump. But he's clever enough to realize that we cannot ignore nukes in the hands of a martyrdom fanatic. Like Saddam, he has a kind of suicidal streak. He's willing to go if he takes others with him. It's his lack of rationality (by our standards) that makes him so dangerous.

Back to this election.

Both Hillary and Obama want to withdraw our troops before success in Iraq is assured. That would be DISASTROUS for Iraq, DISASTROUS FOR the security that has been built up there, and DISASTROUS FOR the safety and security of America!!

I do not trust either one of them to lead this great nation. They may be considered "nice people" by many Americans. They may be good at preaching their "hope" and "change" and "we will" mantras to the masses at their rallies. The MSM may be giddily backing one over the other.

But I ask you. What kind of "change" would either one of them bring?

Is it the kind of change that would make us safe from fanatical radical Islamo-fascists that hunt for new ways to destroy us each and every day?

Where's the "hope" in that?

Protecting our nation and keeping our freedom are the first responsibilities of our president and government officials. Obama is too green, and hopelessly naive about national security and foreign policy to ever responsibly lead us in that regard. The Clintons had their chance to protect this nation in the 90's. Bill's distraction and inaction led to the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil - ever - in the history of our nation! Why in the world would we want them back?

I certainly don't.

There is one candidate left standing.

John McCain.

Although he wasn't my first choice for the Republican presidential ticket, his knowledge, expertise, and experience is light-years ahead of either Hillary's or Obama's.

Who can genuinely be trusted during this time of global terrorism and jihad being directed at the West, Israel, and around the world?

I think that man is John McCain.

I also have come to the realization that he is the candidate of destiny. He survived imprisonment and torture at the hands of his captors during the Vietnam war. Upon his release, he immediately pledged to continue to serve our country. He has served many years in the Senate. He has done so, faithfully. Even though I have disagreed with some of his bills (like the illegal immigration amnesty bill - but he has, admittedly, since seen the light on that) and some of the domestic policies of the past that he had (or had not) supported, the bottom line is that he continues to demonstrate genuine love, respect, desire to protect, and honor for our nation.

Unlike John Kerry, McCain doesn't "brag" about "purple hearts" received for military service for our country. Nor, did he ever become an anti-war protester who disparaged fellow military buddies like Kerry did after Vietnam. McCain doesn't tout his service accomplishments. He speaks little about his own, terrible, POW experience.

Instead, he shares a story about a Vietnam POW who was beaten for sewing an American flag into his shirt.

Just think about the difference between that POW, Mike Christian, and Barack Obama. Obama, living in freedom and comfort here in the United States won't even wear a flag lapel pin on his jacket. Christian, despite being beaten for it, has such regard, honor, love, and respect for this nation that he would sew a flag in his shirt during imprisonment. He did such a brave thing despite the fact that he was imprisoned and tortured because of his duty and call to serve this nation.

Such a contrast speaks volumes...doesn't it?

Despite all that McCain has gone through, the Lord of heaven and earth has preserved this man for a most important reason. I truly believe that all that has happened in McCain's life has culminated for such a time as this - our need for him to be the next President of the United States.

Hat tips:

Real Clear Politics
Fox News
Newsmax
Mahalo.com
American Thinker
Snopes.com

*******


Update @ 10:46 a.m.

Please read these posts from Joel C. Rosenberg's blog!

Jimmy Carter - America's Worst Ex-President: What is it about evil he doesn't understand?

GLENN BECK ASKS IF CARTER/HAMAS MEETING HAS PROPHETIC IMPLICATIONS: Calls Dead Heat "fantastic, phenomenal"

ATTENTION, MRS. CLINTON: AHMADINEJAD CANNOT BE DETERRED: Rush Limbaugh cites Epicenter analysis on today's show

HT: Joel C. Rosenberg blogspot.com

Petraeus Report Hearings 4/8/08

General Petraeus Reports for Duty. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker share their military and political assessments regarding the progress in Iraq.

Click on link to access live streaming broadcast.

Michele Malkin is liveblogging.

Related Stories:

Stories
Top Democrats Want Petraeus to Answer Whether U.S. Is Safer

Sen. Joe Biden Declares Iraq Troop Buildup a Failure Leave it to an irate Democrat to bash the bravery of Iraqi troops willing to defend their own country... Sheesh!

Army Combat Tours Expected to Be Cut From 15 to 12 Months in Iraq and Afghanistan

State Department Agrees to Renew Blackwater Contract in Baghdad

Democrats Send Letter to Bush Calling for New Iraq Strategy Yep...the cut and run Democrats aren't wasting any time expressing their desire to run away! Excerpt: "But party leaders wrote to Bush on Friday anyhow, telling him it's not too late to change course and pleading with him not to leave the war for the next president to handle."

Defense Secretary Gates Says U.S. Intends to Boost Combat Forces in Afghanistan Next Year

New NIE Report Shows Iraq Security Has Improved Since August Assessment But of course, Senators the likes of Kennedy, Levin, and Biden could not possibly give any credit where credit is due. Pigs would grow wings and fly before THAT would ever happen!

Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen Says Basra Fight Does Not Indicate Need for More U.S. Troops in Iraq

Rep. Hoyer Says House Plans to Take Up War Funding by May Wow! Hang out the flag! At least one Democrat gets it!


HT: Fox News

*******
In Others News....a.k.a. Well...isn't THIS SPECIAL?

1. Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright: Former Muslim

HT: Infidels Are Cool

Does it all make more sense now? Certainly! Note this comment:

Storm-Rider
April 7th, 2008 6:37 pm
Here is an interesting resource in regards to taqiyya - deception by Muslims. Pretending to be a Christian can be an act of taqiyya.

“Falsehoods told to prevent the denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned in the Qur’an and Sunna, including lying under oath in testimony before a court, deceiving by making distorted statements to the media such as the claim that Islam is a “religion of peace”. A Muslim is even permitted to deny or denounce his faith if, in so doing, he protects or furthers the interests of Islam, so long as he remains faithful to Islam in his heart.”

“Like many Islamic practices, taqiyya was formed within the context of the culture of Arab tribalism, expansionary warfare, Bedouin raiding and inter-tribal conflict. Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse, confound and divide ‘the enemy’.”

Understanding Taqiyya ― Islamic Principle of Lying for the Sake of Allah

2. I don't even want to directly link to the anti-Israel blog, so Go through this one and read "Obama Campaign Hosts Anti-Israel Blog."

*******
Back to some SANE News! Latest newsletter from Newt Gingrich:

Five Years after the Fall of Baghdad: Honoring the Sacrifice of Michael Monsoor
by Newt Gingrich (more by this author)

Posted 04/08/2008 ET

As we listen to General Petraeus' testimony to Congress this week and mark, on Wednesday, the fifth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, we should keep in mind the number of young Americans who have sacrificed their lives for America. Any judgment we make about where we are and what we must do in Iraq must be conditioned by the courage and commitment of those who have volunteered to protect us.

Consider Mike Monsoor as just one example of those who believe in the cause of freedom and believe in protecting America.

He Yelled "Grenade!" but It Was Too Late

On the morning of September 29, 2006, Petty Officer 2nd Class Mike Monsoor was on duty with three fellow Navy SEALs on a rooftop in Ramadi.

Monsoor was 25 years old and already serving his country with more courage and more impact than most of us do in our lifetimes.

The SEALs' job was to protect the coalition troops clearing the streets below their rooftop position. When they came under automatic weapon and rocket-propelled grenade fire, Monsoor and his fellow soldiers stood their posts. Suddenly, an insurgent lobbed a grenade up onto the roof. It hit Monsoor in the chest and bounced onto the floor. He yelled, "Grenade!" but it was too late to escape the rooftop. So Monsoor threw his body on the grenade and absorbed the blast. His three fellow SEALs survived. Michael Monsoor died thirty minutes later.

Wednesday Marks the Fifth Anniversary of the Fall of Baghdad

For his bravery and sacrifice -- fully comprehensible only to brothers in arms -- today Petty Officer 2nd Class Monsoor is posthumously being awarded the nation's highest honor, the Medal of Honor.

It is fitting that this reminder of our permanent debt to young men and women like Mike Monsoor comes today. In addition to General Petraeus' testimony this week, tomorrow marks the fifth anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein's brutal tyranny.

In these five years of conflict, only three other Americans have been awarded the Medal of Honor for service: two in Iraq, and one in Afghanistan. Together with the thousands -- indeed millions -- of acts of honor, courage, and sacrifice of our other service men and women, they are the true story of this war. And keeping faith with them by completing our mission in Iraq is the great challenge we face.

The Iraq War Is a Battle in the Larger War against the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam

So where are we today, five years after we watched cheering crowds topple the statue of Saddam Hussein in central Baghdad?

As I warned in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute last fall, Iraq is just one battle in the global war against Islamic extremists. And the debate over success or failure in Iraq is crowding out a larger examination of what it will take for America to prevail in this real war.
The United States is in a long struggle with a vicious, determined enemy in the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam. This Irreconcilable Wing, what some have called Islamic Fascism, is a small minority of Muslims -- 8 percent by one estimate. Still, this means a jihadist recruiting pool of over 100,000,000 people. This is a determined, hardened movement willing to kill innocent civilians -- including women and children -- and to engage in deliberately horrifying and brutal acts in order to impose its will through terrorism.

An American Faction That Would Prefer Defeat to Continued Struggle

Afghanistan and Iraq are two of the great battlefields of this struggle between freedom and modernity on the one side and terrorism and religious dictatorship on the other. Neither battle has been won. Both are still contests in which violent radicals seek to defeat America and her allies.

Here at home there is a faction that would prefer defeat to continued struggle.
This is nothing new.

There were a number of Americans who tired of the Revolutionary War and were prepared to surrender to the British Empire and resume their role as colonists. They thought freedom was simply too expensive.

"We Here Highly Resolve That These Dead Shall Not Have Died In Vain"

There were a number of people who tired of "Lincoln's War" and were prepared to dissolve the Union and allow the South to secede. They were the people Lincoln was rejecting in his Gettysburg Address (which I have attached below as a reminder of how Americans honor those who have given the fullest sacrifice so they will not have died in vain).

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives, that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate -- we cannot hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

There were many Americans who believe the slogan "better red than dead." From Henry Wallace's 1948 Progressive Party campaign to the very end of the Cold War there were people prepared to give away American security and freedom to appease the Soviet Union.

In that tradition the North Vietnamese had no better allies than the American Left and the demonstrations against the American effort to defeat communism in Southeast Asia.

Careers Invested in Bad News about America and Bad News about the War

Now once again we have those who are tired of the fight, afraid of the costs, and eager to appease our enemies.

As you listen to General Petraeus' testimony tomorrow, remember that he is testifying to a Congress in which a significant number of people will actually be saddened if America wins. All too many Congressmen and Senators (and sadly too many editorial writers) have invested their careers in bad news about America and bad news about the war. They will be opposed to reports of progress and they will be opposed to any suggestion that, with determination, America can win.

Success Is Being Achieved in Iraq, and Victory is Possible

Despite the determined negativity of those who are invested in defeat in Iraq, the news from there is good.

As Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) pointed out yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, General Petraeus will testify in Washington this week "having led one of the most remarkably successful military operations in American history. His antiwar critics, meanwhile, face a crisis of credibility -- having confidently predicted the failure of the surge, and been proven decidedly wrong."

And my colleague at the American Enterprise Institute, Frederick Kagan, has a new report out that states confidently in its opening sentences:

The United States now has the opportunity to achieve its fundamental objectives in Iraq through the establishment of a peaceful, stable, secular, democratic state and a reliable ally in the struggle against both Sunni and Shiite terrorism. Such an accomplishment would allow the United States to begin to reorient its position in the Middle East from one that relies on antidemocratic states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia to one based on a strong democratic partner whose citizens have explicitly rejected al Qaeda and terrorism in general.

A Dark Cloud on the Horizon: The Continuing Threat of the Iranian Dictatorship

Despite the progress being made in Iraq, Iran remains a major source of violence, terrorism, and instability.

Speaking to reporters last week, Major General Rick Lynch, a U.S. Commander in Baghdad, described facing three enemies in Iraq: Sunni extremists, Shia extremists and Iranian influence.
Here's what Lynch told reporters:

Last night I attended a memorial service for one of my soldiers; he was killed by an explosively-formed penetrator. Tonight I will do the same thing. These Iranian munitions, placed in the hands of the Shi'a extremists, are causing devastating affects on Iraqi security forces, on the coalition forces, and your innocent Iraqi people. And that just has to stop.

As you watch General Petraeus testify, note the details that are coming out about Iranian involvement in Iraq. And remember that Iran is a danger, not just to our troops in Iraq, but to our way of life. Here's how I put it in my AEI speech: "As long as the current dictatorship runs Iran and works every day to create nuclear weapons and to sustain terrorists groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the professional state-sponsored terrorists of the Iranian Guard units, our civilization will not be safe."

Honor Those Who Have Sacrificed by Insisting on Victory

We will hear a lot of information and disinformation this week about America's effort in Iraq and in the war against the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam.

Despite the demonstrable progress that has been made, we will hear more voices urging us to leave Iraq in defeat.

But here are the facts to remember:

The United States is engaged in the right fight in the right countries.
We are gradually winning those fights, but the road will be long and difficult.
Now is the time for Americans to insist that we honor the memory of those who have sacrificed for America -- men and women like Petty Officer 2nd Class Mike Monsoor and his family -- by insisting on victory for the cause of freedom.

Your friend,
Newt Gingrich

Obama: Hopemongerer in chief

There are plenty of blogs that are sharing disturbing information regarding Barack Obama. One of the best articles and "roundups" of links has to be over at Wolf Howling.

Notice the cartoon sketch at the top of the page!

Obamamania is sweeping the secular left in the form of a messianic cult. Here is a round-up and some thoughts.

The author there created an ironic new title for Obama - "hopemongerer in chief."

I thought that this excerpt was particularly revealing:

As to the point Bookwormroom makes in her first paragraph, at the American Thinker blog, one individual wrote:

. . . Obama's speeches remind me of the sermons given by a preacher at one of those mega churches. They give feel good sermons using words like change and hope. Now a lot of conservatives go to church on a regular basis and they hear oratory like Obama gives all the time and they wonder what all the fuss is about. A lot of liberals on the other hand don't go to church and they have never heard "sermons" like this before and it really affects them emotionally. . . .

Read the entire article.

Charles Krauthammer writes:

"We are the hope of the future," sayeth Obama. We can "remake this world as it should be." Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country -- nay, we can become "a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, and make this time different than all the rest."

(bold mine)

Remind you of anyone? Jim Jones perhaps?

Update: The Right Truth shares an email from an Obama supporter:

Out of the blue this morning, I received the following email from an Obama supporter. I had to share. Spelling etc. are exactly as I received the email. Her last name and email address are being withheld for obvious reasons:

I love the fact that people like you are on your knees with your mouth wide open.
OH OH OH NO! What has happened!

Suck on the truth you have always wanted an educated good looking black man now didn't you.

This country has had enough of your white right GWBS>)

Good buy and good riddence.

Patti

Makes you want to go out and vote Obama, doesn't it? NOT. If this is the quality of Obama supporters, we are in for real trouble. Should I reply to this email, and if so what should I say? Or should I simply put in where it belongs in the trash can?

More from Krauthammer:

. . . Interestingly, Obama has been able to win these electoral victories and dazzle crowds in one new jurisdiction after another, even as his mesmeric power has begun to arouse skepticism and misgivings among the mainstream media.

ABC's Jake Tapper notes the "Helter-Skelter cult-ish qualities" of "Obama worshipers," what Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times calls "the Cult of Obama." Obama's Super Tuesday victory speech was a classic of the genre. Its effect was electric, eliciting a rhythmic fervor in the audience -- to such rhetorical nonsense as "We are the ones we've been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek."

That was too much for Time's Joe Klein. "There was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism," he wrote. "The message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is."

. . . Obama has an astonishingly empty paper trail. He's going around issuing promissory notes on the future that he can't possibly redeem. Promises to heal the world with negotiations with the likes of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Promises to transcend the conundrums of entitlement reform that require real and painful trade-offs and that have eluded solution for a generation. Promises to fund his other promises by a rapid withdrawal from an unpopular war -- with the hope, I suppose, that the (presumed) resulting increase in American prestige would compensate for the chaos to follow.

Obama and his followers have absolutely no clue as to the vileness and evil of the Islamofascist terrorist enemy. Indeed. If he is elected president - chaos would follow.

What kind of chaos? Here's one horrendous example. I am placing a link to a blog that has an actual, uncut video of a 12-year old Taliban boy beheading a hostage.

American Power blog: Strongest Possible Content Warning!

I couldn't even look at it. Had to turn my eyes away at the first sign of blood. Just reading the details there made me sick to my stomach.

I apologize, in advance, if you have chosen to view the video and it has seriously disturbed you. I can't see how it wouldn't!!!

So...why did I post the link? Because I absolutely believe that Americans need to wake up...especially the Kool-aid drinking Obama supporters on the left. If it takes a disgusting video like this to do...then so be it!

Obama would not lead our country to victory in Iraq. He has stated this himself. Thus, the terrorists would view it as American weakness and claim a victory for their evil deeds.

The naive, hopemongerer in chief ideology of Obama would be absolutely disasterous for our nation...as well as the entire world!

HT: Wolf Howling
American Thinker
The Right Truth
American Power