Dem Attacks on Palin Experience Ironically Apply to BHO

The fringe Leftists in the Democratic Party are being vile toward Sarah Palin. The Democratic Party leadership aren’t being vile however they being hypocritical. The main Dem talking point about Palin is she is inexperienced and zero foreign policy experience.

The irony is as a Governor, Palin has accomplished more substantive actions than Senator Barack Hussein Obama has as a State Senator in Illinois and as a Senator representing Illinois to Congress. Palin has as much foreign policy experience as BHO. Just because BHO did a whirlwind European receiving the adulation of non-Americans who dislike President Bush does not make BHO experienced in foreign policy.

Robert Novak has an excellent take on Sarah Palin that rubs the Leftists and Dem leadership the wrong way.

JRH 9/3/08

Dem Party Politburo and Free Speech

Check it out my fellow conservatives: The elite leadership of the Democratic Party has it in their Party Platform the coded words that essentially translates into limiting or eliminating Freedom of Speech in Conservative Talk Radio AND Conservative Web Publications and Blogs.

The Center For Individual Freedom (CFIF) with the aid of the reader power of HumanEvents.com are making American voters aware of the Freedom of Speech suppression of the Democratic Party.

JRH 8-31-08

Libertarian Party: Bob Barr for President

Here is an interesting situation. Former Republican Representative from Georgia Bob Barr has taken on the Libertarian Party nomination for President. Barr is a former Representative because a Democratic Party dominated State Congress pull off some gerrymandering to eliminate Barr’s Republican base. It placed Barr in a position of running against an incumbent Democratic Party Representative with his base gerrymandered to win.

Anyway, the Left Wing MSM is reporting praying that Barr will have just enough appeal to swing a close race away from McCain and into Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s lap.

The GOP is already counter-spinning that an intelligent Republican will understand a vote for now Libertarian Barr is really a vote for Obama.

My fascination with Barr becoming the Libertarian nominee for President is that primarily he is Slanted Right on most issues and was a virulent pursuer of staining the Clinton legacy. Now this fascinates me because the Libertarians have lately evolved into fiscal Conservatives yet nearly to the fringe Left on social issues. For example the Libertarian philosophy of anything goes as long as it does not infringe the beliefs of the individual or cause harm to other individuals has morphed into anti-Christian morality and pro-homosexual activism.

That does not fit the Barr image.

JRH

Dems Use Senate to Launch BHO Campaign

I find it fascinating that the US Senate Intelligence Committee denounced President Bush as misrepresenting the Intel given him that he used to convince Congress to invade Iraq.

Here is the fascinating thing: All the Left Democrats and two RINO Republicans (RINO = Center Left to Fringe Left) put their name on the Senatorial condemnation and the rest of the Republicans (including the ranking Republican on the Committee) denounced the Senate Intelligence Committee denunciation of President Bush.

Yes friends it is a pure ploy by the Cut-n-Run Party to give ammunition to their Democratic nominee to sway the public to NOT look at Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s bona fide connection to Marxism. O YES: The kind of Marxism that wishes to over turn the American Way of life!

President Bush’s invasion of Iraq may have used Intelligence meant to make him look bad; nonetheless the tyrant Saddam HUSSEIN was a supporter of terrorism even if that support could not be directly linked to al Qaeda. Let’s see, let me count the ways: HUSSEIN was a genocidal butcher of Sunni enemies, Shiite faithful and Kurds. He used chemical WMD on his own citizens and attempted to build a weapons grade nuclear site that only the Israelis had the cajones to prevent.

So if HUSSEIN did not have WMD, pick another reason. He had to go! If only the West would wake up about the rogue nations supporting or allowing Islamist terrorists to function in their reign of terror for whatever chauvinistic Islamic reason that can be come with.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s solution is to talk with Islamists who are noted for lying to stall for time to accomplish an agenda. O yes, this is where I bring up the much Leftist denounced Hitler/Nazi card. It may be cliché by now however it is cliché because it is true. Appeasement brings war, it does not prevent it. Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler and the Munich Agreement AGAIN are the historical proof.

So I say to the Senate Intelligence Committee: Pull up your pants legs for there is a load of horse manure being politicized to aid Barack HUSSEIN Obama and by association with President Bush, make Senator John McCain appear to have rolled out the manure.

I pray that McCain is wise enough to demonstrate just how much manure is plastered Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

JRH

Barack Obama's disturbing leftist ties

How fringe Left is Barack Hussein Obama? Check out this email alert from Redstate.com.

JRH 6/4/08
************************
Barack Obama's disturbing leftist ties

By Erick Erickson, Editor
Email Sent June 3, 2008

Last week at RedState we uncovered the news that Barack Obama was endorsed by something called the New Party. Since then we have investigated what the New Party was.

It is abundantly clear that the New Party was a political party designed to push the Democratic Party to the far left. It's membership was an amalgamation of socialists, unrepentant communists, union activists, urban activists, and environmentalists.

You can read all about the New Party and Obama's rise to power here.

Its platform included such lovely ideas as government takeovers of all banking institutions, much higher taxes, and massive reductions in the military. To win the nomination of the New Party, a candidate would have to agree to sign a statement expressing loyalty to the party.

By the time Barack Obama sought the party's nomination for his first election in 1996, the New Party had well established itself as the major third party alternative for leftists who thought the Democratic Party had drifted too far to the right.

There is absolutely no doubt that Barack Obama knew what the New Party was. Barack Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of this far left group and, with it, was able to win his election. He was willing to express his loyalty to this far left party. The radical left Democratic Socialists of America praised the New Party's endorsement of Obama and itself promoted Obama.

None of us should buy into the notion that the man is somehow different because of his silver tongue. He is a political opportunist, a die-hard leftist, or both. It is clear, based on what the New Party was and Obama's connection to it, that he is the candidate of a repudiated past that we should not want to resurrect.

Please forward this email to your friends to show them who Barack Obama really is.

Erick Erickson Editor, RedState.com

Dems Lie Their Way into Power

A vote for Obama is a vote for a Party of Liars; the Democratic Party Liars that is.

Hat tip to Freedoms Watch.

The Man Without A Party

You’re dang right! There is bias against Republicans in the Mainstream Media! When have you heard the big buck Call Girl’s dream – Governor Spitzer of New York – called a Democrat by the MSM?

JRH 3/14/08

Does America Really Want a Dem in the White House?

A lot of people think the Democratic Party is on the fast track to winning the White House in 2008. Of the many people, the prediction is Barack Hussein Obama will be that Democrat.

With that in mind, the primary theme of Obama is the word “change.” The only defining allusion to the word “change” at this moment is something different from the status quo of Washington politics. Anyone with any sense is aware that a fringe Leftist like Obama is not going to change the status quo of politics in Washington. He will be just as polarizing receiving enmity from the Right as GW received enmity from the Left.

The first item of “change” will be for a Democratic Party President to bring the troops home from Iraq preventing victory which is now just a hands grasp away and probably throwing the oil rich Iraq into a chaos with an Iranian predator next door.

Thus leaving Iraq would probably lead numerable bad things, of which the Saudis and Europe will clamor for the return of the American military to clean up.

A chaotic Iraq will lead to an invasion from the north from Turkey to make sure oil endowed Kurds do not form an independent nation. A chaotic Iraq will lead to a civil war between Sunnis and Shias that has nearly been solved by the current Troop Surge. Then Iran will make its play to either create a Shia Islamist Iraq or simply annex the Shia dominated part of Iraq next door to Iran.

The in between time of the Democrats removing troops from Iraq and an impending chaos in Iraq, an international proclamation that transnational terrorism (of which al Qaeda appears to be the most notorious to Americans) has defeated the most powerful nation in the world – the United States of America – will be shouted from the Islamist roof tops.

This will place some swagger on some goals of transnational Islamist terrorism to spread Islam by further terrorism and embolden Western Islamists to require more concessions in the rule of law to practice Sharia Law as opposed to the Rights and Liberty oriented values of Western Culture.

Since Europeans tend to be appeasement minded lefties supporting many of the issues of why Islamism exists, the rule of law debate between Islam and Western values is already an issue.

In America where Islamist dominated organizations in private yet publicly deluding the American public and Left that they are of a moderate nature, will begin to emulate their Islamist brothers in Europe. The demand for Sharia exclusivity apart from Constitutional Law will begin. This kind of demand will undermine the current Leftist stand on Separation of Church and State as the Islamic religion is given government privileges and perks to practice Islam under government protection and involvement all in the name of the delusion of multiculturalism.

Thus all those years of work by the Left to rid the local, State and Federal government of Christian heritage will become a hypocrisy as Islam is protected by the Government. For example it will be a hate crime for Christians to condemn Islam according to Biblical Scriptures but it will be Freedom of Speech for Islam to proclaim its superiority over all other religions and those religions that criticize Islamic superiority will be a hate crime. Can anyone say self-imposed dhimmitude?

The Islamist deception is already spreading in America’s public domain via the so-called moderate non-profit Islamic organizations and non-profit Islamic civil rights organizations. Islamists are highly involved in American Mosques and American Public and Private Schools.

Steven Emerson recently has wrote a blog post which I found at Political Mavens criticizing the Mainstream Media (specifically the New York Times in this instance) for proclaiming moderate bona fides to obvious Islamists who wish to bring down the American way of life by hook or by crook.

In this case the Islamists are members and speakers the Muslim Students’ Association (MSA), which was directly founded by the Muslim Brotherhood out of Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood’s roots reach all the way back to the cooperation of Hassan al Banna and Amin el-Husseini that supported and received support from Adolf Hitler due to a mutual hatred of Jews.

Steven Emerson demonstrates there is ABSOLUTELY nothing moderate about the MSA which is highly involved on American University campuses nationally.

Is this the scenario you as an American wish to get rolling by supporting the Democratic Party? God Almighty I pray not! Vote Republican!

JRH
***************************
Soft Pedaling Radical Islam: The New York Times Discovers the MSA

By Steven Emerson
February 21st, 2008
Political Mavens

Neil MacFarquhar’s latest paean to radical Islam appeared in Thursday’s New York Times, “For Muslim Students, a Debate on Inclusion,” in which he praises a known radical leader of the Muslim Students’ Association as some kind of moderate. MacFarquhar begins the story with a sweet vignette about Mertaban’s alleged moderate bona fides:

Amir Mertaban vividly recalls sitting at his university’s recruitment table for the Muslim Students Association a few years ago when an attractive undergraduate flounced up in a decidedly un-Islamic miniskirt, saying “Salamu aleykum,” or “Peace be upon you,” a standard Arabic greeting, and asked to sign up.

Mr. Mertaban also recalls that his fellow recruiter surveyed the young woman with disdain, arguing later that she should not be admitted because her skirt clearly signaled that she would corrupt the Islamic values of the other members.

“I knew that brother, I knew him very well; he used to smoke weed on a regular basis,” said Mr. Mertaban, now 25, who was president of the Muslim student group at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, from 2003 to 2005.

Pointing out the hypocrisy, Mr. Mertaban won the argument that the group could no longer reject potential members based on rigid standards of Islamic practice.

Mertaban the non-hypocritical “moderate,” as MacFarquhar would have you believe. Mertaban apparently likes girls in miniskirts – at least enough to not refuse them admission to the MSA.

But what does Mertaban have in store for this flouncing, attractive, be-miniskirted undergrad? Here’s what he told an MSA audience at U.C. Berkeley in April 2007:

So you never compromise on your faith. You be confident in every aspect of life. In every aspect of Islam you are confident. Four wives? Yes men are allowed to have four wives within this context.

Of course, polygamy is illegal in the United States. And Mertaban’s speech that day was not limited to Islamic marital relations. He continued:

Jihad? Yes Jihad! Jihad is the tightest thing in Islam. Don’t compromise on these little things. Be proud of it. Why? Because Islam is a perfect religion. If you sit here and you start saying, ‘Jihad is only an internal this and that,’ you are compromising on your faith.

That’s very moderate, indeed. Of course, you won’t read this in the New York Times, but Mertaban began his speech that day with a stirring defense of none other than Osama Bin Laden, imploring his audience that, no matter what Bin Laden may – or may not – have done, Muslims are obliged to defend him “to the end.” Here’s what he said:

War in Iraq or Afghanistan or Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. Don’t ever compromise on Islam! And don’t ever compromise on your Muslim brothers and sisters in which you have no evidence. Osama bin Laden- I don’t know this guy. I don’t know what he did. I don’t know what he said. I don’t know what happened. But we defend Muslim brothers and we defend our Muslim sisters to the end. Is that clear?

At the same conference, Mertaban defended radical Shi’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on the same grounds:

Time magazine had this one article on Muqtada al-Sadr. Who knows who Muqtada al-Sadr is? He is one of the individuals in Iraq who is one of the leaders of the Shi’a resistance movement against U.S. troops. Anyways, Time magazine dramatizes everything. So here is Muqtada al-Sadr, ok? And I want you to look at my facial expression, because this is very powerful how they used him … They’re attacking Muslims not based on you and how you look and how you look - based on how he looks.

I don’t even know the guy. The guy is probably a tight Muslim. I don’t even know him. I don’t really care too much about him to tell you the truth. But the idea is how they use individuals like that to portray Muslims.

So, according to Mertaban, not only is Muqtada al-Sadr a “tight Muslim,” but Time Magazine should not show images nor report on an influential radical Islamic leader having a major impact in the Iraq war because of how he looks. But again, you won’t read about this speech in the Times, just about how “inclusive” Mertaban is.

Not content to simply downplay one of the MSA’s most radical leaders, MacFarquhar goes on to sanitize the founding of the entire organization. In describing the MSA’s origins, he writes, “Organized in the 1960s by foreign students who wanted collective prayers where there were no mosques, the associations were basically little slices of Saudi Arabia.”

That is a complete whitewash. It is well known that the MSA was not merely founded by “foreign students.” It has been reported in multiple sources that the MSA was formed by members of the Ikhwan, or Muslim Brotherhood. The Chicago Tribune reported just that nearly four years ago:

“While the U.S. Brotherhood was influential from its beginning–in 1963 it helped establish the Muslim Students Association, one of the first national Islamic groups in the U.S.—(American-based Ikhwan leader Ahmed) Elkadi thought the group could expand its reach.”

More conclusive information linking the MSA to the Muslim Brotherhood came out during last year’s Hamas-fundraising trial in Dallas against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF). A 1991 document entered into evidence titled “Shura Council Report on the future of the Group: Work paper #1,” (”Group” is the code name for the Ikhwan) stated:

In 1962, the Muslim Students Union was founded by a group of the first Ikhwans in North America and Meetings of the Ikhwan became conferences and Students Union Camps.

That history matters. The Muslim Brotherhood, an 80-year-old social and religious order established in Egypt, seeks a global Islamic state governed by Shariah law as its ultimate objective. Its guiding ideologues have served as the inspiration for virtually all Sunni terrorist organizations from Hamas and Islamic Jihad to Al Qaeda.

Other exhibits from the HLF trial, dated in the early 1990s, show Muslim Brotherhood members in the U.S. saw their role as a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

And while MacFarquhar writes of the MSA, “That past has given the associations a reputation in some official quarters as a possible font of extremism,” he immediately undercuts that by adding, “but experts in American Islam believe college campuses have become too diverse and are under too much scrutiny for the groups to foster radicals.”

And yet he makes no attempt to cover the fact that MSA’s routinely invite radical Islamic speakers who justify suicide bombing and make virulent anti-Semitic and anti-American statements. We are just simply to believe there is some kind of “debate” going on concerning “inclusion.”

Well, let’s talk about inclusion. Here’s radical Imam Abdul Malik Ali speaking at an MSA event at San Francisco State University in April 2002:

Brothers and sisters. Stop calling them suicide bombers!

When a person commits suicide, they are depressed! When a person commits suicide, they are without hope! When a person commits suicide they are losing their patience. They are in a state of despair! These brothers–and sisters– before they go out on their martyr missions, are doing videotapes, and they are saying “Yeeeuuhh! I’m doing this! I’m doing this!” And their mothers are right next to them saying, “Go ahead and go!”

I wonder which side of the “inclusiveness” debate Mr. MacFarquhar thinks suicide bombers belong to. Or what MacFarquhar would write about this, as Malik Ali continued:

You cannot win against a people like this! Because you have Israelis whose ideology is so bankrupt–You never hear an Israeli talkin’ about “I hope I’m going to die.” They want to live, they want to live. And once you go up against a people who love death, more than you love life, you in trouble man! You in serious trouble!

Very inclusive, indeed. Another MSA favorite speaker is Mohammed al-Asi. At a 2002 MSA event at the University of California, Irvine, al-Asi had posed his own unique contribution to the inclusiveness debate, telling the crowd:

If the only thing the Israelis and their mentors, and their sponsors and their superiors in Washington DC are going to understand is the use of force, than that’s the language we’re going to communicate with, we’re going to use force. And whatever was taken by force can only be retrieved by force.

Not every story is going to be an investigation. But every story, even soft features with appealing anecdotal leads, require some real reporting and a challenge to the assumptions and conclusions a reporter reaches. As we have pointed - out - repeatedly, there is no evidence of this in MacFarquhar’s reporting.

You can look it up.
____________________

Does America Really Want a Dem in the White House?
John R. Houk
© February 25, 2008
___________________

Soft Pedaling Radical Islam: The New York Times Discovers the MSA

Steven Emerson bio: Steven Emerson is an internationally recognized expert on terrorism and national security and considered one of the leading world authorities on Islamic extremist networks, financing and operations. He now serves as the Executive Director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, one of the world’s largest archival data and intelligence institutes on Islamic and Middle Eastern terrorist groups. Mr. Emerson and his staff frequently provide briefings to US government and law enforcement agencies, Members of Congress and Congressional committees, and print and electronic media, both national and international. Since 9-11, Mr. Emerson has testified and briefed Congress dozens of times on terrorist financing and operational networks of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizzbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the rest of the worldwide Islamic militant spectrum. He and his organization have been quoted or profiled in hundreds of newspaper and television stories since 09-11.

Mr. Emerson started The Investigative Project on Terrorism in late 1995, following the broadcast of his documentary film, “Jihad in America,” on Public Television. The film exposed MORE …

Copyright (c) 2006 [sic] POLITICAL MAVENS. All Rights Reserved.

Dissenter of The House

Bob Parks addresses Nancy Pelosi (and sort of the rest of the Dem fringe) in an open letter finger pointing tirade. Maybe “tirade” is not the best description because Parks is writing the truth about the Democratic Party attitude of “See no evil, Speak no evil and Hear no evil.”

I say Sick’em Parks!

JRH 12/18/07 (Hat tip ccpga Yahoo Group)
********************

Dissenter of The House

Bob Parks, Featured Writer
December 17, 2007
The New Media Journal

To the "Honorable" Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Democrat, California:

As a citizen of the United States of America, I find your comments today beyond insulting. Your competence to hold the hallowed office of House Speaker should be questioned.

During a press conference today, you said of Republicans...

"They like this war. They want this war to continue."

Let me be clear: No Republican I know "likes" war. I know of no Republican that woke up this morning, happy in the knowledge that someone, somewhere in the world, was the latest casualty of a war.

It's not anyone's fault but your own that the current climate on Capitol Hill is as acidic as it is today. Like the cowboy you, and many in your party, have accused President Bush of being, you came into the reigns of power declaring the end of "business as usual". What the American people have seen is exactly that, and more.

What is most reprehensible about your remarks is your continued LIE, (that's right, I said it), LIE that the Iraq war was one you never condoned or authorized. You, and many like you, continue to assert that we were brought into this war by some sadistic figment of George W. Bush's imagination.

You, and many like you, claim that the president got us into this war via manufactured intelligence. Some of your supporters state that Vice President Cheney was also responsible for this faulty intel. You go to those supporters and continue to LIE to them. They, in turn, repeat those lies, and your statement that Republicans "like this war" is the culmination. I contend we would have never been attacked on 9/11 in the first place if the very people you support, and have supported, did their jobs defending our country in the first place.

But to imply that Republicans created this war out of some warped sense of machismo proves that you are either a liar or delusional.

The reason we went to war with Iraq is because there were clear links between Saddam Hussein, terror, and the 9/11 attack.

Some of us will not let our nation (and the world) forget that on December 16, 1998, two years before George W. Bush became president, and while the current president William Jefferson Clinton had authorized air strikes against Iraq, you, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, issued a statement that in part read...

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

"The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities; sadly, those same citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers are with the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of U.S. troops participating in the current action.

"I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is, unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program. While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a lasting solution through diplomatic means."

I only present your words because many of your supporters today say that President Bush concocted the whole notion of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as a reason to go to war. Again, George W. Bush was the governor of Texas at the time. YOU were a member of the House Intelligence Committee. YOU had "intelligence" in 1998 that you seemed comfortable enough with at that time.

You never told President Clinton to "calm down". You never said about President Clinton what you told the press about Republicans today….

"We thought that they shared the view of so many people in our country that we needed a new direction in Iraq. But the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush's war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress."

You never referred to President Clinton's long distance, cruise missile strikes as "his" war.

Let's not forget, as you seem to have, we did not start this war. There was a link between Iraq and 9/11. As a former member of the House Intelligence Committee, you should have known that the previously "waterboarded" Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, called the "mastermind' of the 9/11 and other terror attacks worldwide, was actually an Iraqi intelligence agent. He could not, and would not, take action without the approval and blessing of Saddam Hussein.

Is that not a link, Madame Speaker?

Our young men and women have volunteered to go and fight this war, so the very people you deem less evil than Republicans, will not strip you of your seat of power, and condemn you to a private life in hijab hell. What they are doing takes what many of you on Capitol Hill refer to as "courage."

You could learn something from them.
___________________

Bob Parks is a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal, a member/writer for the National Advisory Council of Project 21, VP of Marketing and Media Relations/Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, and VP of the Massachusetts Republican Assembly and host of the Outside the Wire radio program on the Intel Radio Network.

The New Media Journal.us © 2007

Hillary’s ‘Do as I say, not as I Do’ Tapes

Here is some poop on the Democratic Party front runner Hillary Clinton. As you know Leftist Democrats including Hillary Clinton wish to protect the privacy of terrorists and terrorist supporters and terrorist sympathizers. The Democrats and Hillary have painted a picture of President Bush as evil with privacy issues in which the Administration practices of Security have prevented another 9/11 style attack from occurring on American soil.

We can couple this loser attitude with hypocrisy. Hillary listened to audio recordings of illegally intercepted mobile phone conversations of Clinton political opponents.

The image projected by Hillary is that the government cannot on spy on suspected Americans treasonously doing something for America’s enemies in a time of War yet it is perfectly fine to listen to political opponents private conversations to get poop to smear the opponent’s reputation or plan an agenda to disable a political opponents strategy.

Is this “do as I say, not as I do” Leftist the kind of person America wishes to have as its President?

JRH (Hat tip to: dox ^ 2.)

Newt Gives His Reasons for not Running, but could he Win?

Newt Gingrich writes about his decision not to run for President in his Winning the Future E-newsletter that is part of HumanEvents.com.

Before it became evident that Fred Thompson was going to throw his hat in the field of candidates, Newt was one of my top favorites. Newt and the Clinton family are not exactly friends. Newt was involved in slick Willie being the second President of the United States to be impeached from Office. The only thing that saved Clinton’s cajones was a Democratic majority in the Senate.

Then Newt became slimed in a scandal himself – one of the greatest Republicans next to Reagan became embroiled in an extra-marital affair. Unlike slick Willie, Newt resigned from the Speaker’s Office in the House while President Clinton received the aid of Democratic Party buddies in the Senate and actually finished his term unscathed. This occurred even though an American President out right knowingly lied to the American people – “I did not have sex that woman.” Either a blow job and ejaculation is not sex or Slick Willie lied.

I can hear the Democratic fringe now: “Bush lied people died.” If indeed Bush lied (I am not totally convinced), it was not knowingly. Bush’s decision about war was based on the same Intelligence reports that the Democrats of high levels read and endorsed the invasion of Iraq.

Here is the thing: Newt admitted his mistake and resigned from one of the most powerful Offices in America – Speaker of the House.

God knows how many people the adulterer sex offender sparkled up the pinnacle of his power. Yet the dirt has slipped of slick Willie like Teflon and his wife rather than divorce him intends to follow Slick’s tarnished but endeared Leftist legacy to the White House.

Newt would have made an excellent Conservative President however I do not think his integrity could withstand the dirty tricks that began to be hurled by a Clinton machine if nominated as expected by the Democratic Party.

Newt would be a good VP or Cabinet member in a Republican Administration; nonetheless let us read the specifics as to why Newt made the final decision not run in 2008.

Shooting Holes in the Armor of Greatness

Experts in the field of terrorism have been warning for years that a homeland terrorist attack on a big scale will be attempted and if successful could be devastating to the political-social-economic infrastructure of the current most powerful nation on planet Earth – The United States of America.

The Left and particularly the leadership of the Democratic Party have become incredibly dull to this threat due to the only idea they have for America; i.e. to eradicate the George Bush Administration and the Christian Conservative impetus America has floated on since the Reagan years.

Did I mention the word "eradicate"?”

That is the only true idea and agenda of the Democratic Party: Eradicate Bush policies and reimpliment failed utopian socialistic ideas of the Democratic Party past. Certainly some of those utopian concepts are based on the altruistic benevolence toward the general good of humanity; nonetheless the burden of extra taxation and the dumbing down of the American Military simultaneously will come back to bite the butts of the Democrats and Americans who do not have a vision for security for America.

Now I have just been implying transnational terrorists such as al Qaeda; however there is another rogue on the global street that espouses the traditional structure of sovereign Statehood - Iran.

There have been scenarios as to how a two-bit nation can inflict serious damage on the BEST nation the world has ever seen: America.

Here is that scenario:

The Natural Order VS the Unnatural Order

Moonbat State Legislators in California are preparing to overturn the people’s Proposition 22 that passed with 2/3 of those voting which defined marriage as between one and one woman. The Leftists, Secular Humanists, Homosexual Activists, the Moonbat State Judiciary and even Republican Governator Schwarzenegger are preparing to overturn the statute that was passed overwhelming by the citizens of California. Indeed if Proposition 22 was a State Amendment instead it would be the Law of California that only Federal Legislation or the Federal Judicial system could overturn.

This is a classic example of the attack on Christianity that stands for Biblical morality. American Moonbats and homosexual activists have long had an agenda to transform America into an egalitarian moral relativist Secular Humanist nation thus terminating America’s heritage of Christianity.

This agenda is Christophobic. It is an agenda that utilizes the term “homophobia” as accusation of racism as if homosexuals were not moral deviants. Two-Thirds of the voters of California understand Biblical morality even if they are not dedicated to follow the way of Christ. No one is perfect; the duty of humanity is to find the road to perfection. Even murderous Islamists comprehend that there is a Creator that has created a natural order of things.

I am a Christian and I admit I am not perfect; however I seek the Creator of the natural order not the Creator’s natural order as something superior to the Creator. That is the essence of Secular Humanism: Humanity is all there is and humanity’s sentient existence is the highest order of all that exists; thus humanity is arbiter of right and wrong relative to what is right in humanity’s eyes. Secular Humanism is a religion with the collective of humanity as its god without even understanding that agenda is Theo-humanism denying the moral standard of natures Creator.

Part of that natural order is God Almighty created male and female to perpetuate nature’s various species. Many Conservative theologians believe there are two creation stories of humanity because the first represents the two individuals Adam and Eve: Adam created from the dust of the earth and Eve from the person of Adam; the second creation story is the Creator created male and female with Adam representing the males and Eve representing the females. In both cases God created Adam and Eve for the natural order of producing children and nurturing them; God did not create an unnatural of Adam and Steve or Andria and Eve.

Dems Unethically Rob Republicans Update

Here is actual video of how Democrats manipulated a completed vote until the results were the desired Democratic Party result.

The Democratic is evil: Watch for further unethical procedural Congressional in the future.

LIBERALS: GENERAL PATRAEUS MUST BE DESTROYED

I was reading an article by John Hawkins posted at Right Wing News. The article was entitled, “General Patraeus Must be Destroyed.”

Now I have to tell you that struck me as a strange title coming from a Website called Right Wing News. And that was probably the purpose: to get my attention.

The reason Hawkins wrote article is because General Patraeus granted an interview to Hugh Hewitt -–a sort of a right winger. Evidently Hewitt wrote his article about the interview about the Lefties already attacking the integrity of General Patraeus. Hawkins’ point being Patraeus had better begin solid preparation because he is due to appear before the Senate to present a high profile report on the effectiveness of the Troop Surge to date.

Since the Democrats and the Left view the road to attain power is destroying the War credibility and thus the ability to enforce a Slanted Left agenda in America by losing the War on Terror. It becomes incumbent to assassinate the character of General Patraeus. The forefront of this effort will be the Mainstream Media (MSM), the darlings of the Democratic Party due to a mutual hatred not only of a Bush Agenda to promote American National Interests but of the Christian Right Conservatives largely responsible for two Bush elections.

Patraeus needs to especially prepare an awesome indisputable report due to the growing unpopularity of President Bush even among his constituent Conservative Republicans. Without supreme results to report to counter the gloom of the MSM, the Democrats controlling both Houses of Congress will declare Victory unattainable ergo America has lost the War on Terror in Iraq. A Democratic announcement of losing in Iraq will certainly lead to declaring a loss in Afghanistan. If a Democratic Party nominee is elected to the Presidency in 2008 (God forbid), a Taliban/al-Qaeda victory will be declared in Afghanistan. If that happens look to the rapid disintegration of not only Afghanistan, but also nuclear armed Pakistan as Musharraf will submerged in the pathetic victory frenzy of Islamofascists.

Everybody knows that Iran will make a move on Shi’ite aligned Iraq and Turkey will make a move on the Kurd controlled portion of Iraq due to their unreasonable hatred of allowing a Kurdistan State to emerge.

Side Bar: Isn’t it interesting most of the unrest in the Middle East from the Mohammedan view is because a Jewish sliver of land has National Sovereignty while a group of Arabs that did not even become known as Palestinians until the 1960’s wished also to have a Sovereign National State. (The original U.N. plan was to have Transjordan [now Jordan] be the home of an Arab State and Jews in a microscopic portion of land to have their own National State.) Instead the Arab Mohammedans which attacked Israel (Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and other lesser Arab States) had lost. Before Israel against the Arab Mohammedan world war began, Arabs residing in the Israel portion of the U.N. partition fled believing that their Arab brothers were about to execute a Jewish blood bath. After the blood bath these Arabs thought they would return. As History shows the Arab Mohammedan world LOST against a sliver of Jews determined to have their own National Homeland.

Now here is the point: Mohammedan (or variations thereof) Kurds are also a Stateless people that have been persecuted by Turks, Arabs and Iranian/Persians for years. What will be the excuse for denying the emergence of a State called Kurdistan? End of Side Bar.

If a Democratic Party controlled Congress forces a redeployment (leaving the job unfinished to the detriment of American National Interests and probably leading to global chaos), it will simply mean the West and America will have to come back manage and overcome the chaos that will follow with Islamofascist control of oil.

Another element is Russia, China and India.

Russia cannot stand for American power to be so close to their regional hegemonic order. Russia will do all it can to perpetuate Mohammedan chaos.

China is a growing economy with a huge emerging global influence. Oil may be seen as the key to cement a Chinese Superpower in the world. China is wary of American hegemonic power yet America’s economy may aid China to its economic goals market wise. On the other hand if China perceives America wanting to control the global markets, they out of necessary National Interests will side with Russia in destabilizing the Middle East.

Ever since India gained independence from the British Raj in 1948, they have been cozy with the old Soviets and somewhat the new Russians. Yet India’s greatest enemy is nuclear armed Pakistan. India and Pakistan was once one region that was divided by Muslim and Hindi majorities (Bangladesh was once East Pakistan part of the Pakistani government). Ever since that 1948 split India and Pakistan have warred and battled over disputed lands that both claim. India has been flirting with both Russia and America probably trying to feel which nation will best serve India’s National Interests. I guarantee you that India will not stand idly if Musharraf falls and Pakistan falls into the hands of psycho-Islamofascists. India has a history of Muslims maiming, torturing and murdering Hindus that did not convert to Mohammedanism.

Americans need to know and be aware that American influence and a presence in the Middle East will stave off a worse chaos than does exist in the present. If only Democrats and Republicans/Liberals and Conservatives could catch the vision that a new paradigm needs to exist in confronting this minority Islamist movement. Remember America’s Revolutionary War was only actively supported by a third of the colonists. Another third of the colonists were staunch British supporters considering themselves British citizens in the Thirteen Colonies. Then there was the third that just wanted to live life, that third experienced Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness via the sweat and blood of the active Revolutionaries.

Do not think for a minute that in the back of the mind of a so-called Moderate Mohammedan in the Middle East there is a yearning for a successful Islamist revolution that will restore honor, prestige and glory that was experienced in the yesteryear by the initiation of a man called the prophet Mohammed.

The American Slanted Left has an agenda and vision as well. Do not think for one minute (again) the Slanted Left are a bunch of overt traitors. The Slanted Left love America as much as the Slanted Right. America’s problem is a polarized vision.

The Slanted Left wish a society more in line with the European mind-set of egalitarian democracy that leans toward a government managed social utopia.

The Slanted Right in America wish a society founded on the principles of the Founding Fathers underlined with a morality that finds its foundation in Judeo-Christianity.

Actually both agendas are utopian in nature. And both agendas are willing to be vicious to find their goal - a sort of Machiavellian the means support the ends. The Christian Right feels that if the Slanted Left operates unhindered morality will devolve into egalitarian hedonism and Sodom and Gomorrah sin. That slant is horrific to a Bible believing Christian. There are so-called “progressive” Christians that pick and choose Biblical Scriptures to fit Secular Humanism - that is hypocrisy. Progressive Christians should stand up and say we do not believe in the man/God Christ but in a Christian diluted philosophy that leads to the Secular Humanistic Gospel of Inclusion.

The Slanted Left will lie to accomplish there agenda of American transformation. The inclusion in that lying is that the War on Terror is bogus which will include a smear campaign on General Patraeus before his September Report on the progress of the Troop Surge.

Prepare Patraeus, prepare!

House vote on Iraq – a lethal mistake

Well I wrote of a Senate anti-troop sentiment on the part of the Democratic Party and RINO renegade Republicans; apparently the House Democrats led by Islamofascist loving Pelosi has accomplished the same thing. Here is Melanie Morgan’s take on the House action.

The Hillary Shuffle

Reminiscent of previous Democratic Party candidate Senator Kerry, Hillary changes her mind to fit the mind-set of the fringe Left in her Party.

JRH
****************************



Hillary Double Speak
GOP.com
Thu 7/12/07 6:33 PM Email List

After Consulting Polls, Calculating Clinton Unveils New Iraq Speech That Disregards Her Previous Positions And Panders To Liberal Caucus

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Elephants never forget, so let's remind Hillary Clinton of her past positions on Iraq and cure her memory loss.

On October 11, 2002, she cast her vote supporting the President's resolution to go to war. She said her vote was cast with the "conviction" that the war authorization "best serves the security of our nation."

Hillary also said that she rejected setting a timetable to withdraw from Iraq. Her exact words:
"I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit, and I reject an open timetable that has no ending attached to it." (Associated Press, 12/3/05)

But in recent months and days, Hillary has voted against providing funds to support our troops and their safety. The legislation she voted against provided $1.6 billion for body armor, $2.4 billion to help combat IEDs, and $3 billion for mine resistant vehicles.

And now she is saying that "this is not our fight." She wants to withdraw.

The President and the Republican Party will not forget our commitment to protecting Americans at home and abroad. Neither should Hillary Clinton. Remind her of her past positions and her support of our troops by contacting her here:

Sen. Hillary Clinton
476 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-3204
(202) 224-4451

E-mail form: http://clinton.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm?subj=issue

Homosexual Activists VS Biblical Morality on U.S. Surgeon General

Homosexual Rights groups wish to deny Dr. James Holsinger’s nomination as Surgeon General because his personal beliefs are traditional Christian Morality pertaining to marriage.

Since when do personal beliefs disqualify any person from a job? If that was the measuring, the majority heterosexuals and Christian Biblical moralist would ban homosexuals from a significant number of jobs that affect the family (e.g. school teachers, daycare workers, and public leaders and so on).

This is a classic example of homosexual agenda hypocrisy aimed especially at Biblical Morality. If H.R. 1592 and S. 1105 were the law of the land Dr. Holsinger would be disqualified for his beliefs being incitement to hate crimes.

O MY GOD!

A Remembrance Of Pardons Past

Shortly after reading the Evans-Novak Political Report I received via email I stumbled upon this brilliant article that exposes the duplicity of the Democratic Party. As you know the Democrats (especially the fringe Dem haters of President Bush) are expressing public outrage of the President’s Commutation of Libby’s sentence. Keep in mind it is a Commutation and not a Pardon.

Hmmm … Let us read of Clinton’s outright Pardon’s of political cronies before he departed office.

Syria Practices Taqiya and Khid’a as Means to National Ends

Remember not too long ago that House Speaker Pelosi led a group of Democrats in tow to engage in the Democratic Party’s (Constitutionally dubious) foreign policy discussions with Bashar al-Assad of the rogue nation Syrian?

Well I just a read a post that is an analysis of the Syrian regime governed by the Assad secularist dynasty written by Walid Phares. After reading the essay you have to ask yourself some questions.

Did Pelosi fall for one of the historical deceptive promises of playing enemies and allies against each other to keep the Assad dynasty in power? Indeed if Pelosi was taking this path it means she was given meaningless tokens of assurance. What would those treasonous tokens have been to entice Pelosi to go to Syria?

Another question: Is Pelosi a MORON for not reading dossiers on how the Assads have practiced politic business and just believed any promise Assad duped her with?

Another question: Was Pelosi a stooge delivering or parlaying with the Assads on behalf of an appeasement minded idiotic Democratic Party elite also duped into believing Assad can deliver on peace initiatives?

What is Taqiya? What is Khid’a (Do a page search for Khid’a)?