Category Archives: military

War and Obama by Bill O’Reilly (Human Events)

Posted: 06/07/2008

Cutting through all the fog, there are two primary reasons behind Barack Obama’s stunning victory over the Clinton machine: authenticity and the war in Iraq.

As amply demonstrated, there is simply no comparison between Obama and Hillary Clinton as far as public speaking is concerned. He is eloquent and natural, talking directly to the folks. She is more stilted and rehearsed, talking at the listener. Sen. Clinton comes across as the typical politician, while Sen. Obama seems like a genuine human being.

He also outflanked her on the Iraq war. In the beginning of the campaign, Obama bolted from the starting gate flashing his anti-war cred. From the jump, he had been against the action. And now he was the guy who would pull the USA out of the Iraq swamp.Clinton was immediately put on the defensive, as she initially supported the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein. Also, her entire outlook on confronting Islamic fascism was far too bullish for far-left America. So the Net roots, as they call themselves, flocked to Obama and provided him with vast amounts of money via the Internet. By the time Hillary rallied Democratic moderates, it was too late.

Now Obama has achieved the nomination, but his winning primary strategy on Iraq could come back to haunt him in the general election, when the far left becomes rather insignificant. Already John McCain is painting Obama as a terror appeaser who would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq.

And McCain has some heavy ammunition to back up his attack. In May, American casualties were the lowest since the Iraq war began in 2003. In addition, Iraqi oil production is now at its highest level since Saddam fell. Even the liberal Reuters news agency calls the current situation in Iraq a “dramatic turnabout.”

Of course, you won’t hear much about that in the American press, as the liberal media have much invested in a U.S. defeat in Iraq. But there is no question that the war there can now be won. It’s not a lock, but it’s certainly a possibility.

McCain must make the case that a victory in Iraq, which means the country stabilizes and becomes an ally against Islamic terror and Iran, means a much more secure United States. For the past few weeks, McCain has been spotlighting Iran’s villainy; pointing out its support of terror groups like Hezbollah and its outright killing of our forces in Iraq.

Quietly, McCain is setting Obama up for a hard right to the jaw. If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq too quickly, the pressure on Iran immediately lightens and the potential for aggression by the bitterly anti-Jewish and anti-American Mullahs rises dramatically. Does Obama understand that? Does it matter to him? McCain will confront his young challenger with those questions.

Obama’s advisers know the Iraq scenario is changing fast. They also understand that the media will ignore the good news for as long as it can. But word will get out and, after years of frustration, Americans could be staring at a success story after all.
Not good news for Obama.


Obama’s Black Ambition

If Barack Obama is running on the platform of being black, then he should lose unless the electorate cows in fear meanwhile justifying their own capitulation by hypocritical accusations (e.g., against conservatives for resisting miscegenation). An economist article suggested that American whites are less racist than they used to be (like in the fifties) because whites have had a seven-fold increase in the proportion of interracial children. This argument infers that whites are racist if they don’t intermarry and that whites are therefore racist by virtue of their skin color. Notwithstanding the fact that this is a racist argument, it leads unambiguously to the conclusion that whites are criminal (because it is a crime to be racist).  Don’t you like how the devil turns things upside down? Very nice logic indeed.

A leftist on tv says that she thinks it’s mean that people won’t vote for a candidate because of his race. On the contrary, it’s mean to vote for a candidate because of his/her identity.



Analysis: Obama reacts fast to Bush on diplomacy

WASHINGTON (AP) — In President Bush’s hint that Barack Obama wants to appease terrorists, Democrats heard troubling echoes of 2004, when Republicans portrayed John Kerry as irresolute and weak on national security…



War With Iran Might Be Closer Than You Think

Market forces are predicting a war in Iran, I suspect. Speculators would obviously bid up the price of oil if they think a major conflict will come soon. Philip Giraldi at the American Conservative:

There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants.  The camp that will be targeted is one of several located near Tehran.  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was the only senior official urging delay in taking any offensive action.  The decision to go ahead with plans to attack Iran is the direct result of concerns being expressed over the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, where Iranian ally Hezbollah appears to have gained the upper hand against government forces and might be able to dominate the fractious political situation. The White House contacted the Iranian government directly yesterday through a channel provided by the leadership of the Kurdish region in Iraq, which has traditionally had close ties to Tehran.  The US demanded that Iran admit that it has been interfering in Iraq and also commit itself to taking steps to end the support of various militant groups.  There was also a warning about interfering in Lebanon.  The Iranian government reportedly responded quickly, restating its position that it would not discuss the matter until the US ceases its own meddling employing Iranian dissident groups.  The perceived Iranian intransigence coupled with the Lebanese situation convinced the White House that some sort of unambiguous signal has to be sent to the Iranian leadership, presumably in the form of cruise missiles.  It is to be presumed that the attack will be as “pinpoint” and limited as possible, intended to target only al-Qods and avoid civilian casualties.  The decision to proceed with plans for an attack is not final.  The President will still have to give the order to launch after all preparations are made.

Vote John McCain – And Donate Now!

My Friends,
We have a lot at stake in this presidential election. As a nation, we face many challenges that will require real leadership from our next president. I have said before that this election will be about the big things, not the small things, and I write to you today about one big issue in particular – the future of the U.S. Supreme Court. If one of my Democratic opponents is elected in November, you can rest assured that given the opportunity to appoint judges, they will appoint those who make law with disregard for the will of the people.
There may be at least two vacancies on the United States Supreme Court during the next presidential term. As president, I will ensure that only those judges who strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States are appointed. I will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their will through judicial fiat.
If you want judges who will clearly and completely adhere to the Constitution of the United States and who do not legislate from the bench to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, then I ask that you join my campaign for president today by making a financial contribution.
I am proud to have played a role in the appointment and confirmation of two great Supreme Court justices – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito I need your support now so that as your president I can nominate judges like Justices Roberts and Alito. Judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust. Judges who take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people’s elected representatives. Judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.
My friends, the future of our country and of the Supreme Court is at stake in this election. If either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is elected – both voted against confirming Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito – they will appoint activist judges. They will appoint judges who legislate from the bench.
I’m sure I don’t have to remind you how important even one vote on the Supreme Court can be. Issues concerning states’ rights, abortion, affirmative action, the Second Amendment and religious freedom have all been decided by a very slim 5-4 margin.
America needs a leader who recognizes that the people and the states should decide what’s best, not the courts. In order to be that leader, I need your financial support immediately.
Please follow this link to make an immediate donation of $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000 – any amount up to the legal limit of $4,600.
Thank you for your support.
John McCain
P.S. To date, my Democrat opponents have raised almost $450 million in their efforts to win the White House. Both Senators Clinton and Obama voted against confirming John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Both Senators Clinton and Obama will nominate liberal, activist judges. As your president, I will ensure that the Supreme Court protects our values. Please follow this link right away to make your donation of any amount, up to the legal limit of $4,600. Every contribution, no matter how big or small, is crucial to our efforts. Thank you.

Current Events and ’08 Election Checklist

News of the TX polygamy sect is a Red Herring to distract attention away from the brainwashing in our very own taxpayer funded Madrassas. What is more of a threat to national security, Islamic institutions promoting unvarnished antipathy toward the West, or some hermitic Quakerish people with a distorted view of Christianity? In order to answer this question, one must ask oneself firstly, “How many Quakers have terrorized Western civ and how many Muslims have done the same? 

On that note:  If McCain gets the election nod, the Iranian regime is now in the process of digging its own grave. A Republican victory in 2008 will send a strong signal to the rest of the world that we’re not going to take transcendentalist terrorism sitting down. Sanctimonious preacher men like Martin Luther King, Jr. may have snookered a vacuous baby boom cult and helped to hijack American culture for multiple decades, sending ripple effects across the globe. However, the consequences of the multicultural disease vector, a byproduct of a liberal project gone mad, importing trouble from all parts of the globe, has calloused the hearts of erstwhile idealists, thereby earning significant pushback from the same.

This POTUS election cycle, like Hurricane Katrina, has been analogous to turning lights on in a cheap apartment and watching cockroaches scatter. We need to clean up our own house and the time is now. We are facing our foes more directly in the face than ever before and now it’s our opportunity to show the world what we’re made of. Will we be cowed by hypocritical personal attacks from our enemies or will we stand strong in truth and good character, in longsuffering and personal as well as collective faith? Our problems as a nation are our own, but not every one of our citizens’ or our aliens’ problems is our fault.

It is time to halt with the sanctimonious self-flagellation and confront the bitter, supercilious rhetoric of radical particularism.

The following is a burgeoning checklist to see where you stand on the issues (from my view). It can be amended; I can put it into mydocs on Google or in MSFT Livewindows and you can edit this as you please. Just let me know and I’ll post a link.

Vote Democrat to:

1.    be a dhimmy and subsidize Muslim charter schools; encourage plenty of Islamic immigration while denying basic rights memorialized in the American founding documents to Christians

2.    dragoon white heterosexual Christian men by every hate-filled liberal, anti-traditionalist orthodoxy

3.    raise high the red flag of Socialism and raise taxes, thereby sending the economy over a cliff

4.    nationalize health care and every other industry because the free market is ‘unfair’ since there is opportunity to both win and – gasp – lose. By the same token, allow the bureaucrats to take away the freedom inherent in the free market and receive kickbacks from monopoly profits for themselves

5.    have ‘free’ public services that you can wait in a multiple-day Russian breadline for, regardless of your place in the social hierarchy because that’s fair!

6.    Promote and subsidize abortion on  demand in the name of freedom, meanwhile condemning national defense via accusations of ‘baby killing’ (a la Jane Fonda in Vietnam) – ohh the irony!

7.    Censor free speech that is deemed racist against nonwhites but advocate racist and sexist ideas against white men in public schools

8.    Disallow bible and prayer in public schools while indoctrinating sex education and atheism

Vote Republican to:

1.    confront [if not attack] Iran, the main state sponsor of terror in the Mid-East

2.    stop affirmative action and put the ingrate crazies back in their place

3.    keep taxes low and allow hard working people who obey the laws and take care of their business to receive the just fruits of their respective labors

4.    stop the flow of illegal immigrants into this country

5.    keep a security presence in Mesopotamia for as long as necessary to pre-empt terrorists from securing a command and control base there [which they will otherwise do] in order to stage future attacks on the West

6.    continue to build healthy economic relations with our allies like Columbia via free trade

7.    promote family values, including preservation of our religious and free speech liberties as well as the amendments which respect private property, personal privacy and the right to use lethal force in the aim of self-defense

8.    promote teaching of the controversies surrounding the nation’s major issues in public schools to render our children more well-adjusted (e.g., origin of life, racism, sexism, slavery, imperialism/colonialism, politics, economics, etc.) rather than propagandizing left-wing views via the Department of Education run by the Black Panther party

a.     Better yet – defund the Department of Education and localize control over public schools; get rid of bussing and give parents more control over the curriculum meanwhile setting baseline national standards for consistency


“Men of intemperate mind can never be free; their passions forge their fetters.” – Edmund Burke

Telecoms Face Double Risk on FISA


Quin Hillyer: Telecoms face double risk on FISA

WASHINGTON -Did the House Democratic leadership really sell out national security just to kowtow to rich plaintiffs’ lawyers who fill their campaign coffers?

Prompted by groundbreaking reporting by Townhall’s Amanda Carpenter and columns by Robert Novak and others, the notion that congressional liberals are letting torts trump anti-terrorism is firmly taking hold.

With good reason. Telecommunications companies clearly have much to fear in a major legal and moral catch-22 now that Congress has allowed a key intelligence surveillance law approved in the wake of 9/11 to expire.

The key sticking point in the proposed Protect America Act, which House Democratic leaders blocked last week, is a provision giving the telecoms immunity from lawsuits for helping the surveillance program without specific court orders.

The companies received written assurances from the Justice Department of the program’s legality, but now they face dozens of lawsuits seeking damages (for alleged invasion of privacy) that could run into hundreds of billions of dollars.

Carpenter’s report showed that, while only 29 of 100 senators voted against the bill, 24 of those 29 received campaign cash from one or more of the plaintiffs attorneys in suits already filed against the telecoms. In all, 66 of these lawyers have given some $1.5 million to Democrats. Republicans received just $4,250.

Without immunity, the companies are unlikely to participate in this program that experts of both parties consider vital to anti-terrorism efforts — and would thus hobble the program drastically.

After all, as The Wall Street Journal noted this week, without immunity, the telecoms face double legal jeopardy. If they lose money through the wiretap suits, they become vulnerable to a second round of suits — this time from shareholders for putting the companies at risk.

The diabolical trick is that the same attorneys could seek jackpots both ways. Consider Eric Isaacson, himself a donor of $32,860 in the past six years to Democrats, who has made a career with controversial firms known for just the sort of class-action shareholder suits that The Journal warned about. He worked for 15 years for Milberg Weiss, three of whose top partners have pleaded guilty to a vast criminal kickback scheme that operated while Isaacson was there. The firm and a fourth partner are also under indictment and face trial later this year.

Isaacson joined now-convicted former Milberg Weiss lawyer William Lerach — with whom he has co-authored an academic paper on securities lawsuits — when Lerach split from the firm to form Lerach Coughlin (now Coughlin Stoia), the lead plaintiffs’ firm in the wiretap case Hepting v. AT&T. Attorneys for the two firms have donated millions of dollars to Democratic committees and/or current House and Senate members, almost all Democrats.

Isaacson was not implicated in the Milberg Weiss kickback scheme. The point is he comes from exactly the sort of cutthroat milieu that makes telecoms balk (absent immunity) when asked for an emergency foreign-intelligence wiretap.

Just imagine how Coughlin Stoia could take information gleaned from “discovery” motions in the wiretap suit and use it to try to nail the phone company in a subsequent investors’ suit that is the firm’s stock in trade.

Remember the modus operandi of Milberg Weiss, tactics that Isaacson specializes in defending on appeal. As former partners described in their guilty pleas, the firm would troll for clients with stock in big corporations and then file suit almost any time the share-price dropped, without specific evidence of wrongdoing but based merely on what Lerach called his internal “X-ray vision.”

These tactics are advocated at conferences at posh resorts for judges and law professors sponsored by the Institute for Law and Economic Policy, for which Isaacson is a vice president and Lerach is the former director. They are bullying tactics, the moral equivalent of a shakedown.

Without immunity from such shakedowns, the companies surely would be forced to decline even the most urgent of future government requests. Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte has sworn under oath that the end result “reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.”

The real losers, then, will be the American people whose lives these lawsuits, and the Democratic House leaders, have put at risk.