More Demands From Islam

Have a look at this short video if you want to know how it is with Saudi Arabia and Islam in Europe today: More Demands From Islam

Obama the Vacuous

THE MOST LIBERAL U.S. Senator (National Review), Barack Obama, gives the concept of an “empty suit” a bad name.

Cult Of Obama Has Induced Mass Delusion

By ROBERT SAMUELSON
February 19, 2008

It's hard not to be dazzled by Barack Obama. At the 2004 Democratic convention, he visited with Newsweek reporters and editors, including me. I came away deeply impressed by his intelligence, his forceful language and his apparent willingness to take positions that seemed to rise above narrow partisanship.

Obama has become the Democratic presidential front-runner, precisely because countless millions have formed a similar opinion. It is, I now think, mistaken.

As a journalist, I harbor serious doubt about each of the likely nominees. But with Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain, I feel that I'm dealing with known quantities. They've been in the public arena for years; their views, values and temperaments have received enormous scrutiny.

By contrast, newcomer Obama is largely a stage presence defined mostly by his powerful rhetoric. The trouble, at least for me, is the huge and deceptive gap between his captivating oratory and his actual views.

The subtext of Obama's campaign is that his own life narrative — to become the first African-American president, a huge milestone in the nation's journey from slavery — can serve as a metaphor for other political stalemates. Great impasses can be broken with sufficient good will, intelligence and energy.

"It's not about rich vs. poor, young vs. old; and it is not about black vs. white," he says. Along with millions of others, I find this a powerful appeal. But on inspection, the metaphor is a mirage.

Repudiating racism is not a magic cure-all for the nation's ills. It requires independent ideas, and Obama has few. If you examine his agenda, it is completely ordinary, highly partisan, not candid and mostly unresponsive to many pressing national problems.

By Obama's own moral standards, Obama fails. Americans "are tired of hearing promises made and 10-point plans proposed in the heat of a campaign only to have nothing change," he recently said. Shortly thereafter, he outlined an economic plan of at least 12 points that, among other things, would:

• Provide a $1,000 tax cut for most two-earner families ($500 for singles).

• Create a $4,000 refundable tuition tax credit for every year of college.

• Expand the child care tax credit for people earning less than $50,000 and "double spending on quality after-school programs."

• Enact an "energy plan" that would invest $150 billion in 10 years to create a "green energy sector."

Whatever one thinks of these ideas, they're standard goodie-bag politics: something for everyone. They're so similar to many Clinton proposals that her campaign put out a news release accusing him of plagiarizing. With existing budget deficits and the costs of Obama's "universal health plan," the odds of enacting his full package are slim.

A favorite Obama line is that he will tell "the American people not just what they want to hear, but what we need to know." Well, he hasn't so far.

Consider the retiring baby boomers. A truth-telling Obama might say: "Spending for retirees — mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — is already nearly half the federal budget. Unless we curb these rising costs, we will crush our children with higher taxes.

"Reflecting longer life expectancies, we should gradually raise the eligibility ages for these programs and trim benefits for wealthier retirees. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for inaction. Waiting longer will only worsen the problem."

Instead, Obama pledges not to raise the retirement age and to "protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries." This isn't "change"; it's sanctification of the status quo.

He would also exempt all retirees making less than $50,000 annually from income tax.

By his math, that would provide average tax relief of $1,400 to 7 million retirees — shifting more of the tax burden onto younger workers. Obama's main proposal for Social Security is to raise the payroll tax beyond the present $102,000 ceiling.

Political candidates routinely indulge in exaggeration, pandering, inconsistency and self-serving obscurity. Clinton and McCain do. The reason for holding Obama to a higher standard is that it's his standard and also his campaign's central theme.

He has run on the vague promise of "change," but on issue after issue — immigration, the economy, global warming — he has offered boilerplate policies that evade the underlying causes of the stalemates. These issues remain contentious because they involve real conflicts or differences of opinion.

The contrast between his broad rhetoric and his narrow agenda is stark, and yet the press corps — preoccupied with the political "horse race" — has treated his invocation of "change" as a serious idea rather than a shallow campaign slogan.

He seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story. The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation's major problems when, so far, he isn't.

A New Middle East, After All

The following article titled A New Middle East, After All by Reuel Marc Gerecht, American Enterprise Institute, is a very level and complete summary of the current status of the Middle East today that I recommend to your attention. The article has sections that discuss: Iraq; Al Qaeda and the War on Terrorism; Afghanistan and Pakistan; Palestine, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Syria. The article is a lengthy but nonetheless worthy of your attention.

The article concludes: “An uneasy and healthy tension now exists between rhetoric and reality, guaranteeing that Americans will continue to debate what has gone wrong and right in the Muslim Middle East. Whether America escapes another 9/11 or not, the president deserves credit for understanding that the region's murderous anti-American extremists, both secular and religious, had to be confronted on the battlefield. Sanctions, cruise missiles shot at rock huts and empty intelligence-service buildings, and close liaison relationships with foreign internal-security services were not enough. If the United States is brutally struck again by holy warriors, President Bush will seem prescient and wise--about the need for reform in the Middle East's autocracies, about the strategic shortsightedness and immorality of pre-9/11 American foreign policy toward Muslims, and about the imperative to use ugly tactics against mass-casualty terrorists. Given the forces arrayed against him, his administration's failures, and his own limitations, these are achievements even Ronald Reagan would envy.”

The Terrorists Among US !

The terrorists are among us and are being provided support, aid, and comfort today by members of the U.S. Congress. Read it and weep! Read more about Islam: Religion of Peace --- and Dead Bodies

Devil May CAIR
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
February 08, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Homeland Security: In a new court filing, federal prosecutors describe the Council on American-Islamic Relations as a supporter of terrorists. So why are Democrats still supporting the organization?

---

Related Topics: Religion | Global War On Terror

---

CAIR's boosters on the Hill, where it's headquartered just three blocks from the Capitol, have known for some time that several people in positions of power within the group have been directly connected to terrorism and have either been prosecuted or thrown out of the country. Yet lawmakers have gone right on singing CAIR's praises and doing its bidding. That agenda includes suing John Doe witnesses, censoring critics of Islamism and denying the FBI antiterror tools.

These cheerleaders, who include a handful of Republicans (see box), also know by now that CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror-fundraising case last year. And that FBI wiretaps revealed that CAIR's founder, Omar Ahmad, and executive director, Nihad Awad, last decade attended a secret meeting in Philadelphia with Hamas leaders and other terrorist sympathizers.

In fact, Ahmad himself was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the terror case, which counts a CAIR founding director among its criminal defendants.

But now, in a separate case involving a senior CAIR official who trained to kill American soldiers in jihad, prosecutors are tying CAIR even closer to terror. In court papers filed in December, federal prosecutors described CAIR as not just an apologist or sympathizer, but a supporter of terrorists.

"From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders," the filing states, "CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists." The government also cited evidence "the conspirators used deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists."

Perhaps some members of Congress had been fooled by CAIR's deception. But now they have no excuse. Now Sen. Barbara Mikulski, who saluted CAIR's "important work," and Sen. Paul Sarbanes, who applauded "CAIR's mission," know better.

The criminal briefing should also disabuse Rep. John Conyers, who's trumpeted CAIR's "long and distinguished history." Rep. John Dingell, who said "my office door is always open" to CAIR, now has an obligation to slam it shut.

No red-blooded American lawmaker wants to do anything that would facilitate the support of terrorists, not even Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who's gushed "CAIR has much to be proud of."

Continued support of CAIR plays right into its hands. Such endorsements are promptly posted on its Web site in an attempt to legitimize itself in the media. It also uses outreach events with the government as a kind of insurance policy against investigation.

But CAIR's tricks are wearing thin. Now it is resorting to thinly veiled threats, warning presidential candidates to avoid any "anti-Muslim rhetoric" or suffer a backlash at the polls. The group already attacked former GOP hopeful Rudy Giuliani for using the phrase "Islamic terrorism." Democrats, typically, have taken the hint. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama won't even describe the enemy as terrorists, let alone Islamic.

To continue to embrace CAIR and cater to its demands is the equivalent of legitimizing the Muslim Brotherhood, a group which gave birth to Hamas and al-Qaida.

And Now It's On To McCain

McCain’s signature campaign issue is his promise to fight and win the war waged on Western civilization by Islamo-nazi-fascist terrorists in their worldwide campaign for a global caliphate and total world domination. McCain states that he will: “Win the war against terrorism and argue convincingly that losing in Iraq would result in far greater losses than any we've seen.” McCain probably understands more than most the severity and magnitude of the threat to this country. It is telling that Clinton and Obama can’t even bring themselves to utter the words jihadist, fascist, Islamo-nazi terrorism. How in the world could either of them be expected to confront and defeat the threat that has been so effectively ignored by the politically-correct, hard-left mainstream news media in this country if they can’t even say the words?

For a much better understanding of the Islamo-jihadist threat to this country and to the West, you might want to look at 2 DVDs available from Netflix (and Amazon.com):

(1) “Islam: What the West Needs to Know” (2006), and

(2) “Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West” (2006).

The first DVD gives a good summary of the history of Islam and its dictates as expressed in the Koran and the Hadith. The second is a good summary of the contemporary war currently being waged by the jihadists, in this country and in Europe, against the West and its similarity to Hitler and Nazi Germany of the 1930s. You really need to see both DVDs before voting for someone other than John McCain this fall. As Edmond Burke stated, and to which John McCain alluded, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” And , clearly, nothing is what we're doing.

McCain Revealed
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Thursday, February 07, 2008

Republicans: With Mitt Romney's gallant departure from the GOP race, John McCain has all but wrapped up the nomination. Can he now convince conservatives, his party's base, he's one of them? Yes, he can.

---

Related Topics: Election 2008

---

Standing before hundreds of combative conservatives gathered for the annual Conservative Political Action Committee conference, McCain made the most important political speech of his life so far. In it, he needed to make his case for conservative support, without which he can't win in November.

He did that and more, in a wide-ranging manifesto that quoted conservative eminences from Edmund Burke to Ronald Reagan.

"I believe today," McCain said, "as I believed 25 years ago, in small government; fiscal discipline; low taxes; a strong defense; judges who enforce, and not make, our laws; the social values that are the true source of our strength; and, generally, the steadfast defense of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which I have defended my entire career as God-given to the born and the unborn."

If there's a more thoroughly conservative statement of personal political belief out there, we've not seen it. The things McCain articulated as the soul of his own beliefs are bedrock conservatism, pure and simple.

We have acknowledged numerous policy differences with Sen. McCain over the years. Even in disagreement, however, we've always felt he was a man of honor and principle.

Unfortunately, many conservatives don't feel the same. They don't trust McCain when he calls himself, as he did Thursday, a "mainstream conservative." Based on his rousing speech and the response it got, we think — we hope — that opinion will change.

Along with showing he has the "vision thing," McCain also made a series of very concrete promises — met, mostly, with rapturous applause from the skeptical CPAC audience. Among other things, he pledged to:

• Cut taxes on individuals and corporations, and end the alternative minimum tax.

• Use markets, not big government, to solve health care problems.

• Appoint federal judges and Supreme Court justices in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito.

• Put Iran on notice that its espousal of the destruction of Israel and its hatred of the U.S. will earn our implacable opposition to its bid to gain a nuclear bomb.

• Win the war against terrorism, arguing convincingly that losing in Iraq would result in far greater losses than any we've seen. "And I will not," McCain said, "allow that to happen."

These are all profoundly conservative stances. But the last one is especially, and vitally, important — not just for movement conservatives, but for all Americans. Indeed, it's the main point of difference between Democrats and Republicans. Those who think a vote one way or the other won't matter aren't thinking seriously.

Romney, in his gracious exit, underlined this as the reason he was leaving the race — he wanted to have a clear message sent from the GOP about where it stood on the war on terror.

"In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," he said. And yes, he meant it. Romney's display of political maturity and selflessness means he has a bright future — as a possible vice presidential candidate or, down the road (he's only 60), as his party's nominee.

McCain still has work to do to unite his party's various factions. But having a president who will fight our proclaimed enemies should serve that purpose.

Mitt Romney Leaves Campaign for Good of Country

Read the following speech by Governor Romney and ask yourself two questions: (1) “With which of the following points do I disagree?” and (2) “Who could possibly be a better president of this country at this time than Governor Romney? --- and why?”

Governor Romney's Address to the
Conservative Political Action Committee

2008 February 7

I want to begin by saying thank you. It's great to be with you again. And I look forward to joining with you many more times in the future.

Last year, CPAC gave me the sendoff I needed. I was in single digits in the polls and I was facing household Republican names. As of today, more than 4 million people have given me their vote for president, less than Senator McCain's 4.7 million, but quite a statement nonetheless. 11 states have given me their nod, compared to his 13. Of course, because size does matter, he's doing quite a bit better with his number of delegates.

To all of you, thank you for caring enough about the future of America to show up, stand up and speak up for conservative principles.

As I said to you last year, conservative principles are needed now more than ever. We face a new generation of challenges, challenges which threaten our prosperity, our security and our future. I am convinced that unless America changes course, we will become the France of the 21st century-still a great nation, but no longer the leader of the world, no longer the superpower. And to me, that is unthinkable. Simon Peres, in a visit to Boston, was asked what he thought about the war in Iraq. "First," he said, "I must put something in context. America is unique in the history of the world. In the history of the world, whenever there has been conflict, the nation that wins takes land from the nation that loses. One nation in history, and this during the last century, laid down hundreds of thousands of lives and took no land. No land from Germany, no land from Japan, no land from Korea. America is unique in the sacrifice it has made for liberty, for itself and for freedom loving people around the world." The best ally peace has ever known, and will ever know, is a strong America!

And that is why we must rise to the occasion, as we have always done before, to confront the challenges ahead. Perhaps the most fundamental of these is the attack on the American culture.

Over the years, my business has taken me to many countries. I have been struck by the enormous differences in the wealth and well-being of people of different nations. I have read a number of scholarly explanations for the disparities. I found the most convincing was that written by David Landes, a professor emeritus from Harvard University. I presume he's a liberal --- I guess that's redundant. His work traces the coming and going of great civilizations throughout history. After hundreds of pages of analysis, he concludes with this: If we learn anything from the history of economic development, it is that culture makes all the difference. Culture makes all the difference.

What is it about American culture that has led us to become the most powerful nation in the history of the world? We believe in hard work and education. We love opportunity: almost all of us are immigrants or descendants of immigrants who came here for opportunity --- opportunity is in our DNA. Americans love God, and those who don't have faith, typically believe in something greater than themselves --- a "Purpose Driven Life." And we sacrifice everything we have, even our lives, for our families, our freedoms and our country. The values and beliefs of the free American people are the source of our nation's strength and they always will be!

The threat to our culture comes from within. The 1960's welfare programs created a culture of poverty. Some think we won that battle when we reformed welfare, but the liberals haven't given up. At every turn, they try to substitute government largesse for individual responsibility. They fight to strip work requirements from welfare, to put more people on Medicaid, and to remove more and more people from having to pay any income tax whatsoever. Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is a culture-killing drug --- we have got to fight it like the poison it is!

The attack on faith and religion is no less relentless. And tolerance for pornography --- even celebration of it --- and sexual promiscuity, combined with the twisted incentives of government welfare programs have led to today's grim realities: 68% of African American children are born out-of-wedlock, 45% of Hispanic children, and 25% of White children. How much harder it is for these children to succeed in school-and in life. A nation built on the principles of the founding fathers cannot long stand when its children are raised without fathers in the home.

The development of a child is enhanced by having a mother and father. Such a family is the ideal for the future of the child and for the strength of a nation. I wonder how it is that unelected judges, like some in my state of Massachusetts, are so unaware of this reality, so oblivious to the millennia of recorded history. It is time for the people of America to fortify marriage through constitutional amendment, so that liberal judges cannot continue to attack it!

Europe is facing a demographic disaster. That is the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life and eroded morality. Some reason that culture is merely an accessory to America's vitality; we know that it is the source of our strength. And we are not dissuaded by the snickers and knowing glances when we stand up for family values, and morality, and culture. We will always be honored to stand on principle and to stand for principle.

The attack on our culture is not our sole challenge. We face economic competition unlike anything we have ever known before. China and Asia are emerging from centuries of poverty. Their people are plentiful, innovative, and ambitious. If we do not change course, Asia or China will pass us by as the economic superpower, just as we passed England and France during the last century. The prosperity and security of our children and grandchildren depend on us.

Our prosperity and security also depend on finally acting to become energy secure. Oil producing states like Russia and Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iran are siphoning over $400 billion per year from our economy --- that's almost what we spend annually for defense. It is past time for us to invest in energy technology, nuclear power, clean coal, liquid coal, renewable sources, and energy efficiency.

America must never be held hostage by the likes of Putin, Chavez, and Ahmendinejad.

And our economy is also burdened by the inexorable ramping of government spending. Don't focus on the pork alone --- even though it is indeed irritating and shameful. Look at the entitlements. They make up 60% of federal spending today. By the end of the next President's second term, they will total 70%. Any conservative plan for the future has to include entitlement reform that solves the problem, not just acknowledges it.

Most politicians don't seem to understand the connection between our ability to compete and our national wealth, and the wealth of our families. They act as if money just happens --- that it's just there. But every dollar represents a good or service produced in the private sector. Depress the private sector and you depress the well-being of Americans.

That's exactly what happens with high taxes, over-regulation, tort windfalls, mandates, and overfed, over-spending government. Did you see that today, government workers make more money than people who work in the private sector? Can you imagine what happens to an economy where the best opportunities are for bureaucrats?

It's high time to lower taxes, including corporate taxes, to take a weed-whacker to government regulations, to reform entitlements, and to stand up to the increasingly voracious appetite of the unions in our government!

And finally, let's consider the greatest challenge facing America --- and facing the entire civilized world: the threat of violent, radical Jihad. In one wing of the world of Islam, there is a conviction that all governments should be destroyed and replaced by a religious caliphate. These Jihadists will battle any form of democracy --- to them, democracy is blasphemous for it says that citizens, not God shape the law. They find the idea of human equality to be offensive. They hate everything we believe about freedom just as we hate everything they believe about radical Jihad.

To battle this threat, we have sent the most courageous and brave soldiers in the world. But their numbers have been depleted by the Clinton years when troops were reduced by 500,000, when 80 ships were retired from the Navy, and when our human intelligence was slashed by 25%. We were told that we were getting a peace dividend. We got the dividend, but we didn't get the peace. In the face of evil in radical Jihad and given the inevitable military ambitions of China, we must act to rebuild our military might. Raise military spending to 4% of our GDP, purchase the most modern armament, re-shape our fighting forces for the asymmetric demands we now face, and give the veterans the care they deserve!

Soon, the face of liberalism in America will have a new name. Whether it is Barack or Hillary, the result would be the same if they were to win the Presidency. The opponents of American culture would push the throttle, devising new justifications for judges to depart from the constitution. Economic neophytes would layer heavier and heavier burdens on employers and families, slowing our economy and opening the way for foreign competition to further erode our lead.

Even though we face an uphill fight, I know that many in this room are fully behind my campaign. You are with me all the way to the convention. Fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976. But there is an important difference from 1976: today... we are a nation at war.

And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat and declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child's play. About this, I have no doubt.

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters... many of you right here in this room... have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.

I will continue to stand for conservative principles; I will fight alongside you for all the things we believe in. And one of those things is that we cannot allow the next President of the United States to retreat in the face evil extremism!!

It is the common task of each generation-and the burden of liberty-to preserve this country, expand its freedoms and renew its spirit so that its noble past is prologue to its glorious future.

To this task... accepting this burden... we are all dedicated, and I firmly believe, by the providence of the Almighty, that we will succeed beyond our fondest hope. America must remain, as it has always been, the hope of the earth.

Thank you, and God bless America.

Obama: From Bad to Worse

The following describes the end of the U.S. as we know it in the event of an Obama election.

Edwards (!) As AG?

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
January 31, 2008

Politics: Trial lawyer John Edwards as attorney general in a Barack Obama administration? That possibility alone should disqualify the young senator as a presidential candidate — now and forever.

---

Related Topics: Election 2008 | Judges & Courts

---

Columnist Robert Novak reported last week that Illinois Democrats close to the senator "are quietly passing the word" that Edwards would be Obama's pick to head the Justice Department. We imagine horrified business owners and leaders are thinking that he could not possibly make a worse choice.

The Point Of Law blog operated by the Manhattan Institute brilliantly summarized the nightmare, saying: "It is difficult to overstate how much harm the suit-happy Edwards could inflict on the nation in a position that would allow him to initiate, for example, antitrust proceedings against oil companies."

Under an Edwards regime, Target would not be the only business in the country to have a red bull's-eye on its shingle. Today's frenzy of litigation would be calm in comparison.

The former North Carolina senator is the prince, if not the king, of torts. He owes his $30 million net worth to his willingness to resort to emotion to persuade juries to hand his clients massive awards, more than $175 million over his career, according to FindLaw.com.

Because he is one of them, trial lawyers have heavily funded Edwards' two presidential campaigns. With nothing so far to show for their contributions, they'd certainly expect him to return the favor if he became attorney general.

Doubling the trouble is the fact that a career of lawsuits — many of them abusive because they were based on junk science — has left Edwards looking at the world through a trial lawyer's lens.

While a good salesman sees everyone as a customer, a trial lawyer sees everyone as a defendant. It would be Edwards' pleasure, not a mere payoff to donors, to rig the system so that trial lawyers would be running downhill in every courtroom in America.

The tort tax caused by trial lawyers — jury awards, defense expenses and administrative charges — already costs the U.S. economy roughly 2% of GDP each year, more than any other developed nation and large jump from the 0.6% of 1950.

If that were doubled, quite possible with a personal injury attorney heading Justice, how much strain would it put on an economy already choked by the leftist policies of a Democratic president?

Not every lawsuit is abusive nor is every trial lawyer a villain. Some do good and necessary work. But too many have turned the profession into a shakedown operation. They should be brought under control through reasonable tort reform, not given free rein by one of their own.