Jakemate Blog

From: Washingtonpost.com:

August 14, 2008

“Way back in 1987, Biden was riding high in the presidential race — widely regarded as a serious contenders for the Democratic party’s nod.

Then  Neil Kinnock happened. Biden borrowed passages of a speech given by Kinnock, a leader in Britain’s Labour Party, without attribution — a mistake that led to a detailed examination of Biden’s public statements that turned up several more examples of potential plagiarism and resume inflation. The feeding frenzy eventually chased the Delaware senator from the race.”

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/08/the_case_against_joe_biden.html

---

August 25, 2008

Joe Biden is wrong on missile defense

James Lewis
Joe Biden is supposed to add foreign policy credibility to the Obama ticket. But Senator Biden has been consistently wrong on at least one crucial national security issue: The steadily spreading danger of strategic missiles and nuclear weapons.

Two years ago the north of Israel was attacked from Lebanon with thousands of fairly simple missiles. Israel’s high-tech army could not mount a successful defense, nor could it completely wipe out the dug-in missile launchers in Lebanon. Hundreds of thousands of civilians had to be evacuated. An Israeli naval vessel was nearly sunk by an Iranian missile fired from Lebanon.

Since the summer of 2006 missile defense has become an even greater priority for countries that feel threatened, from Israel to India, Japan, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. Iran is now boasting about its advanced Shahab-3 missiles, built with the aid of North Korea. Shahab-3s can strike large parts of Europe and the Middle East. North Korea launched a multistage missile over Japan several years ago. Pervez Musharaf just resigned as President of Pakistan — but that country has both nukes and missiles, and a history of instability. We may end up regretting the loss of Musharaf if those weapons get loose.

Missile proliferation is a reality; it’s too late to stop it now. All we can do is build up our defenses.

In the US Senate, Joe Biden consistently resisted missile defenses, a position that seems more and more reckless with every passing month. If Obama wins in the Fall, VP Biden will be in a powerful position to wreck our growing defenses, just on the very cusp of success. Liberals have been known to do just such dangerous things.

In 2001 Senator Biden loudly fought the Bush administration’s decisive push for BMD, because he claimed it would never work, wasn’t worth the money, and there wasn’t any danger anyway.   But Biden has no engineering background, so he had to go on faith, echoing the critics — who turned out to be wrong. Now we know ballistic missile defense works. If we had listened to Joe Biden in 2001 we would be far more vulnerable today.

Our missile defenses have vastly improved since the Bush administration took office — but they are not yet good enough. We need to push BMD as fast as possible into the realm of “ray gun” defenses. We are close to having a chemical laser mounted on a Boeing 747 that will be able to shoot down ballistic missiles during launch. The next generation will be beamforming radar systems able to bring down a massive attack, straight out of the “domed cities” of science fiction; except they will really work. “Iron Dome” is the Israeli name for its latest efforts along these lines. They are fielding it in the North, where Hezbollah rained missiles two years ago.

Apparently Poland, the Ukraine, and Georgia are fully convinced of the need; so are Israel and Saudi Arabia; so is India, Japan and South Korea. Not a surprise: If you’re under the gun, you suddenly start thinking more seriously. Joe Biden hasn’t been the swiftest thinker on these threats.

The big question is: Does Joe Biden realize he was wrong? Does he learn when the facts go against him? Because if he doesn’t, neither Obama nor Biden should be allowed near the White House.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/08/joe_biden_is_wrong_on_missile.html

---

August 25, 2008

Obama, Biden and the Daley Machine

Rosslyn Smith
It is unwritten law in Chicago politics that nobody wants nobody nobody sent.  Thus it is no surprise that Joe Biden and Barack Obama have friends in common in the Daley Machine.

Joe Biden has described himself as a 30-year friend of Joseph Cari, Jr.  Cari is a veteran Chicago political operative who had been the Midwest field director to Biden’s 1988 presidential bid. Cari was reported as being poised to take a major role in Biden’s 2008 White House run but something happened along the way.  He got indicted for participating in the kickback scheme involving contributions to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. This is the same scheme that involved Obama friend Tony Rezko.  In fact, Cari was a key witness at Rezko’s trial.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/08/obama_biden_and_the_daley_mach.html

---

August 25, 2008

Biden and son - friends of the credit card industry (Updated)

Ed Lasky

As more details emerge about Senator Joe Biden’s track record, more questions are emerging about the wisdom of Barack Obama in selecting him to be his Vice-Presidential running mate.

One area of concern is revealed by Biden’s moniker ‘The Senator from MBNA.” MBNA is a large credit card company now owned by the Bank of America that was formerly domiciled in Biden’s home state of Delaware. As a Senator, Biden advocated for the credit-card industry and received large donations from MBNA, in particular. He supported a bankruptcy bill that made it arduous for consumers to escape from their credit card debt by filing for bankruptcy.

Today’s New York Times is reporting that the largesse of MBNA also extended to Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, who was paid large sums ($100,000)  every year from 2001 to 2005 as a “consultant” to MBNA. Hunter serves as a lawyer and lobbyist in Washington-as do many other family members of Congressmen.
The irony is palpable. Barack Obama has made protecting consumers from credit card companies-who he portrays as predatory — a signature issue. In late 2007, Obama introduced his “Credit Card Safety Act” to help consumers evaluate credit card agreements

Just a few months ago he spoke out against credit card companies and specifically addressed the power of credit card companies stating he “fought against the credit card industry’s bankruptcy bill that made it harder for working families to climb out of debt” and criticized John McCain for supporting the very same bankruptcy bill that Joe Biden and his son supported and promoted. He has called for new restrictions on “predatory” credit card companies he says deceive consumers into piling up massive debt they have little hope of repaying and spoke of his opposition to the overhaul of the bankruptcy laws that “Biden and Son” supported and promises to overturn the very law that they helped to pass.
File under cynicism and hypocrisy-two words that are more appropriate than hope and change in describing the Obama campaign.

UPDATE

Jim Geraghty reminds us that it is nice to be a Senator’s son:
He points out that Hunter Biden at 28, less than two years out of law  school, was already a “senior vice president” at Delaware-based credit card giant MBNA.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/08/biden_and_son_friends_of_the_c.html

---

The Second Amendment - Supports Increased Gun Control:

Biden’s 1994 crime bill also banned semiautomatic “assault” weapons for 10 years, and he would probably renew the ban if given an opportunity. His NRA rating is, predictably, F.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussenators/p/joe_biden.htm

---

From:

Sarah Palin and Joe Biden: Worlds Apart

Friday, August 29, 2008

“As for Joe Biden, from Delaware, the Brady Campaign sums it up in a straightforward enough fashion, saying, “Senator Biden has been a consistent supporter of the Brady Campaign,” and “Senator Biden was a key player in the fight for the federal assault weapons ban that passed in 1994.  He also worked hard for passage of the Brady Law (sic).”

In fact, Biden introduced an “assault weapons” ban in Congress five years before the Clinton gun and magazine ban was imposed.  In 1989, Biden’s Senate Bill 1970 proposed to ban the Colt AR-15 and eight similar firearms as “assault weapons,” and authorize the Secretary of the Treasury (in reality, BATF) and the Attorney General to recommend to Congress any other firearms, regardless of type, to be banned as “additional assault weapons.”

As lead sponsor of the Senate crime bill to which the Feinstein gun ban amendment was attached, Biden was instrumental in the passage of the 1994 Clinton gun and magazine ban.   Biden reiterated his support for the ban-and, in fact, took credit for authoring it-in response to a question at the CNN/YouTube debate earlier this year (to view the video, please click here).

Biden voted for the ban on a stand-alone vote in 1993, and voted to extend the ban in 2004 as an amendment to the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.”  He also included a renewal of the ban in his crime bill last year, along with gun show restrictions.

Currently, Biden’s S. 2237 proposes to renew the Clinton ban on roughly 200 makes and models of semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns on the basis of things like the shape of their grips, and on ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, regardless of the kind of firearm in which they are used.

As if that’s not enough, Biden voted against the law that prohibits lawsuits designed to bankrupt law-abiding firearm manufacturers and dealers.  He also refused to sign the Congressional brief in Heller, and voted to confirm only one of the five justices who ruled in favor of the Second Amendment in Heller, yet he voted to confirm all four justices who voted against the Second Amendment in that case.

To put it simply, Gov. Sarah Palin would be one of the most pro-gun vice-presidents in American history, and Joe Biden would definitely be the most anti-gun.”

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4156

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZTH2yCWQMs

Obama’s Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11

Obama’s Pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Has a History of What Even Obama’s Campaign Aides Say Is ‘Inflammatory Rhetoric’

By BRIAN ROSS and REHAB EL-BURI
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788

March 13, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama’s pastor says blacks should not sing “God Bless America” but “God damn America.”

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright has made a number of controversial statements.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor for the last 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago’s south side, has a long history of what even Obama’s campaign aides concede is “inflammatory rhetoric,” including the assertion that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own “terrorism.”

In a campaign appearance earlier this month, Sen. Obama said, “I don’t think my church is actually particularly controversial.” He said Rev. Wright “is like an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with,” telling a Jewish group that everyone has someone like that in their family.

Rev. Wright married Obama and his wife Michelle, baptized their two daughters and is credited by Obama for the title of his book, “The Audacity of Hope.”

An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright’s sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans.

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda’s attacks because of its own terrorism.

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” he told his congregation.

Sen. Obama told the New York Times he was not at the church on the day of Rev. Wright’s 9/11 sermon. “The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification,” Obama said in a recent interview. “It sounds like he was trying to be provocative,” Obama told the paper.

Rev. Wright, who announced his retirement last month, has built a large and loyal following at his church with his mesmerizing sermons, mixing traditional spiritual content and his views on contemporary issues.

“I wouldn’t call it radical. I call it being black in America,” said one congregation member outside the church last Sunday.

“He has impacted the life of Barack Obama so much so that he wants to portray that feeling he got from Rev. Wright onto the country because we all need something positive,” said another member of the congregation.

Rev. Wright, who declined to be interviewed by ABC News, is considered one of the country’s 10 most influential black pastors, according to members of the Obama campaign. Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Obama has praised at least one aspect of Rev. Wright’s approach, referring to his “social gospel” and his focus on Africa, “and I agree with him on that.”

Sen. Obama declined to comment on Rev. Wright’s denunciations of the United States, but a campaign religious adviser, Shaun Casey, appearing on “Good Morning America” Thursday, said Obama “had repudiated” those comments.

In a statement to ABCNews.com, Obama’s press spokesman Bill Burton said, “Sen. Obama has said repeatedly that personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they’re offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church. Sen. Obama does not think of the pastor of his church in political terms. Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Sen. Obama deeply disagrees. But now that he is retired, that doesn’t detract from Sen. Obama’s affection for Rev. Wright or his appreciation for the good works he has done.”

August 27, 2008

Annenberg documents show extensive contacts between Obama and Ayers

Rick Moran

As we wait for the press and others to go through the thousands of documents related to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge where Barack Obama served as President of the Board and terrorist William Ayers headed up the operations arm, we can say for certain that Obama is a liar of the first magnitude.

Barack Obama made it appear in public statements that he barely knew Ayers. Here is what he said at the Philadelphia debate in April about his relationship with the terrorist:

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense, George.

And here’s what the Annenberg docs show so far:

The UIC records show that Obama and Ayers attended board meetings, retreats and at least one news conference together as the education program got under way. The two continued to attend meetings together during the 1995-2001 operation of the program, records show.

“Not someone I exchange ideas with on a regular basis?” Assuming he had private meetings with Ayers in addition to the public ones, one could easily conclude that Obama did indeed “exchange ideas with Ayers on a regular basis.”

I’d like to know when the last time he talked to Ayers, the last time he saw him. Does he have a role - even an unofficial one - in the campaign?

Obama is going to have a lot of explaining to do - if he ever has a press conference.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/08/annenberg_documents_show_exten.html

August 27, 2008

A Brief History of Bush’s Time

By Randall Hoven

The current narrative of the Bush Presidency is that it is a failure (believed by 107 of 109 historians surveyed) and that George W. Bush is the worst President in history (believed by 61% of those surveyed historians).  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said, “The president already has the mark of the American people — he’s the worst president we ever had.”

That’s one narrative.  I have another.

Despite being handed one of the worst situations in history from President Clinton, and being fought tooth and nail by his opponents in government and the media, literally from the day of his election, President George W. Bush persevered to restore prosperity at home and to make the US and the world more free and secure.

The 2000 Election and Transition to Office

On November 7, 2000, voters went to the polls and elected George W. Bush to be President of the United States.  After initially conceding defeat in a private phone call to Bush, Al Gore decided instead to contest the outcome in Florida.  He sued for various recounts and was joined by the Florida Supreme Court, while Bush fought for counting votes per the rules in place prior to the election.

Complaints that Bush “stole” the election boiled down to two: (1) we should use a method of determining the winner other than the one in the Constitution, and (2) we should use a method of determining “voter intent” other than by counting legally cast ballots per the rules in place prior to the election.

Later recounts would show that George W. Bush would have won the election in Florida under any method considered by either Al Gore or the Florida Supreme Court.

“The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue.”
Al Gore would not concede in public until December 13, more than a month after the election.  But the Clinton administration denied the Bush team the keys to the transition office set up two blocks from the White House and waiting since November 8, until December 15.  Normally a newly-elected President is provided a transition office the day after the election.  George W. Bush was finally allowed to use his just 36 days before being sworn in as President, or less than half the transition time allowed other Presidents-elect.

The Pre-Bush Situation and His First Eight Months

A year before Bush took office, the stock market peaked and subsequently declined 8% by the end of 2000.  The last four fiscal quarters under President Clinton showed steadily declining GDP growth rates of 4.8, 3.5, 2.4, and 1.9 percent, respectively.  When Bush took office, the US Government was still operating under the fiscal budget signed by President Clinton, and would remain so for more than another eight months.  Within six weeks of Bush being sworn in, the economy was officially in recession.

On the defense front, President Bush was handed a smoldering crisis that had been brewing throughout President Clinton’s two terms.

The World Trade Center was bombed by Islamists in 1993, killing six and injuring 1,042.

We lost 18 US Special Ops forces in Mogadishu while fighting Islamist allies of Osama bin Laden.

Osama bin Laden declared war against the U.S. in his fatwa of 1996.

The Khobar Towers used to house our servicemen in Saudi Arabia were bombed by Islamists in 1996, killing 19 US servicemen.

Our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya were bombed in 1998 by bin Laden supported Islamists, killing at least 223 and injuring thousands.

Pakistan and India both successfully tested nuclear warheads in 1998, to the surprise of our CIA.

The USS Cole was bombed in 2000 by Islamists, killing 17 US sailors.

In Israel, the Oslo accords had broken down, the PLO had rejected the most generous “peace for land” deal ever offered, and the intifada was back in business by the end of 2000.

Nations pursuing nuclear weapon capability (beyond Pakistan and India, who had it by 1998) were North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Libya.

Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had kicked out the UN weapons inspectors in 1998 and was in defiance of multiple UN resolutions from 1991 through 2000.  Saddam’s Iraq had tried to assassinate former President Bush and fired thousands of times at US and coalition forces enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations.

Throughout this time, President Clinton’s administration forbade communications between the CIA and the FBI regarding terrorists or terrorist activities.  Clinton withdrew US forces from Somalia shortly after the Mogadishu incident.  And he treated the terrorist incidents as crimes to be dealt with by our legal system.

When he did send missiles into Iraq, he made sure it was at night so no one would get hurt.  According to the Washington Post,

“Clinton ordered the attack Friday, but the raid was delayed a day so it would not fall on the Muslim sabbath… The missiles struck late at night — between 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. Baghdad time — because Clinton wished to minimize possible deaths of innocent civilians.”

I’m thinking a strike at 2 am would also minimize possible deaths of guilty Baathists.

On September 11, 2001, or less than eight months after President Bush took office, Islamist terrorists perpetrated the worst attack by foreigners on US soil since the burning of Washington, DC, in 1812, killing almost 3,000 civilians.  The attackers had been planning and preparing it for five years.

That was President Bush’s welcome to office. A recession within two months.  The 9/11 attacks within eight months. And an Iraq in continual defiance of its terms of surrender, multiple UN resolutions and WMD inspectors.  And this after being given only half the transition time as usual.

The Following Seven Years

By November 2001 the recession was officially over, just one month under Bush’s own budget, weeks after 9/11 and just 10 months into a Bush Presidency.  It was an historically short and shallow recession.  From 2003 through 2006, all under President Bush and a Republican Congress, real GDP grew over 3% per year, considered a healthy and sustainable pace.  By early 2008, the real economy had grown about 20% since Bush took office.  Since President Bush took office, the economy has grown in every single fiscal quarter; there has been no quarter of negative real growth.

Are you better off now than you were eight years ago?  If you are anywhere near average, yes.  Personal, disposable, inflation-adjusted income grew 9% in the first six years under Bush.  Since Bush has been President, the unemployment rate has remained under 6.3% and averaged 5.2% (In Clinton’s eight years it remained under 7.3% and also averaged 5.2%.)

On the foreign front, President Bush used “aggressive diplomacy” to convince Pakistan to support us in fighting against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban and to allow us insight into the status of its nuclear weapons.  India, the other new member of the nuclear club, remained on good terms with us throughout.

President Bush, with Congressional support, our NATO allies and our first-rate military, freed the people of Afghanistan from the Taliban warlords, helped install a democracy there, captured or killed hundreds of al Qaida there and drove those remaining, probably including Osama bin Laden and his top commanders, to remote mountains and caves.  By also cutting off funding sources and communications channels, al Qaida appears to have been rendered ineffective as a coordinated network of terrorists under any kind of effective command and control.  It’s possible ad hoc “cells” of those sympathetic to al Qaida might still do some damage on US soil, but none have so far.

President Bush, with large and bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress, support from more than 45 countries and our first-rate military, freed the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein, helped install a democracy there, and captured or killed hundreds of al Qaida, radical Islamists and other terrorists there.  Saddam’s WMD capabilities, programs and remaining weapons were removed from an outlaw regime.  I have written elsewhere on the justification of the Iraq war, which was supported by both pre-war and post-war intelligence.

President Bush, with diplomacy, the example of Iraq and the assistance of foreign allies, convinced Libya to cease its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

President Bush, using diplomacy and working with China, Japan and South Korea, appears to have reached a breakthrough with North Korea, getting it to dismantle its plutonium creating sites and to allow intrusive inspections. While this all needs to be finalized and verified, such progress illustrates President Bush’s skill at effective diplomacy - one that has real results, not paper promises quickly broken and never verified.

Iran is still a problem, but even there President Bush is waging diplomacy in concert with our allies and the United Nations.

In short, all the new and major WMD proliferation threats were dealt with one way or another: Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya.  They are not all put to rest, but about three-and-a-half of the five biggies appear to have been dealt with sufficiently.  And terrorists, even those inside Iraq and Afghanistan at this point, seem to be kept at bay for now as well.

I think these are tremendous achievements, and ones that would not have occurred under either a President Gore or President Kerry.

But what have been the costs?  In dollars, defense spending has gone from 3% of GDP to 4%.  That’s it — a level that is still below where it was for over 50 years, from World War II through 1994.

In US lives, 4,147 servicemen lost their lives due to hostile or non-hostile action in Iraq to date.  Each lost life is a tragedy, and I am deeply grateful to our lost troops and their families.  From 2001 to 2006, the worst year for active military duty deaths was 2005, with 1,941 deaths due to all causes.  In 1980, President Carter’s last year, there were 2,392 such deaths in a larger military establishment.  Each year in which we had troops engaged in both Iraq and Afghanistan saw fewer US military deaths than any year from 1980 through 1987, all years without major conflicts.  The major conflicts of World War II, Korea and Vietnam had 405,399, 36,574, and 58,209 fatalities, respectively.

Judging A President

“However tempting it might be to some, when much trouble lies ahead, to step aside adroitly and put someone else up to take the blows, I do not intend to take that cowardly course, but, on the contrary, to stand to my post and persevere in accordance with my duty as I see it.”

If we use these words of Winston Churchill to judge our presidents, did President Bush “step aside adroitly” or did he stand his post and “persevere”?  He has surely taken the blows.
Randall Hoven can be contacted at randall.hoven@gmail.com or  via his web site,

August 18, 2008

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/

On Rick Warren: What Neither Candidate Said @ the Saddleback Church

By Debbie Schlussel

Everyone watching the Presidential race is talking about the “debate” at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church.

But no one and neither of the candidates said what should have been said. And that’s that John McCain had no business being at a church of a man who legitimizes and panders to the same country he says he will not: Syria and its leader, Bashar Assad.

Rick Warren not only went to Syria, he praised it as a moderate country and expressed his admiration of it. Maybe next he’ll do the same for Myanmar and Sudan.

While his performance there was impressive, McCain is supposed to be the guy who says we’re fighting in Iraq so we don’t have to fight terrorists here–a completely fraudulent argument since the terrorists are already here and while we’re fighting them there, we’re capitulating to them here.

The Company He Keeps: Rick Warren Fetes Syrian Terrorist Tyrant Bashar AssadSo what the heck was he doing at the church of a left-wing pseudo-evangelical who reaches out to terrorists–who reaches out to terrorist host-state Syria, where sundry Islamic terrorist groups have their headquarters, where Nazi war criminal Alois Brunner lives in freedom and sanction, where Munich Olympic terrorist Jamil Al-Gashey lives in peace and sanction?

Why did John McCain not say no to Rick Warren? Or if he felt compelled to participate in this “debate,” why did he not say anything about it? He could have scored a lot of points by saying at some point during the debate that he thought it was wrong for a prominent American Christian pastor to legitimize this awful Nazi-like regime in Syria. But he said nothing.

That nauseates me. It shows me that, like Barack Hussein Obama, John McCain has no qualms about the company he keeps. And you can’t tell Obama you object to his ideas of dealing with terrorist states like Iran and Syria with no preconditions, and at the same time elevate the Christian minister who does exactly that when he gives the evangelical seal of approval to a mass murderer–Bashar Assad.

Any preacher or minister that fetes a man who barbarically tortures democratic dissent–as Assad does–and who is involved in the rape of another country, as Assad and his father, Hafez El-Assad did to Lebanon (not to mention the flattening of their own population in Hama), does not deserve the presence of a future President.

We know where Barack Obama stands on “outreach” to these despots. We thought we knew where John McCain stood.

With this Rick Warren confab, perhaps we were wrong.

What Motivates You?

-Jake Kozlowski

Someone asked me recently “What motivates you to train?”  I too often pose this question to people I have trained with as a litmus test for their intentions.  Very few answer in the same way I do and those who do are held in a close circle for me.

I train because I consider it my duty as a man, a father, a husband, and a free American to be a student of fighting and killing those who seek to harm me, my family or my country.  It is that simple.

The only way to be the best possible warrior is through “The Complete Arsenal” mentality, so that is what I do.  The Complete Arsenal is a philosophy that requires one to train in all methods of fighting, killing, and survival.

Skills such as ground fighting, stand up striking, gun fighting, knife fighting, stick fighting, verbal judo, disaster preparedness, and medical training are some of the disciplines that add to the Complete Arsenal.

For instance, one who trains only in Mixed Martial Arts (MMA), when faced by a gunman, will have nothing in his arsenal to deal with such a disparity in force.  Conversely, the highly trained gun range shooter will not fair well when his gun malfunctions and he is on the ground with his adversary.

Many people cite the health benefits of training as their primary motivator.  While the health benefits are great, I consider them serendipitous to the goal of being the best possible warrior.

Good luck with your training.

From a reader on http://www.debbieschlussel.com/:

Reader Kevin B. writes:

French teams: All white Chinese teams: All Chinese

Japanese teams: All Japanese

Russian teams: All white

Iranian teams: All Persian

American teams: Black, Russian, Chinese, Indian, White, etc.

America, the great satan, the racist country who treats immigrants so horribly. THAT America.

And the silence is deafening from the Liberals in the media.

What a nice cover story it would make for the NY Times or the LA Times or even NBC to do about the inclusivity, tolerance and diversity which makes America great.

Don’t hold your breath. It doesn’t fit their “blame America first” liberal agenda.

From an internet blogger:

I love my mother country and I love my adopted country, here is my response to the whole thing:

The terror and death inflicted on humanity is not the work of radical Islam, neither the political Islam, nor the militant Islam. It is Islam, period. Get it? And the perpetrators are not fringe elements confined to brainwashed Saudis, loony Taliban, or some know–nothing Pakistanis who have hijacked Islam and are now in the business of mass murder. The latest project of the practitioners of the “religion of peace,” aimed to blowing planeloads of innocent civilians to smithereens in midair over the Atlantic, - ought to finally drive the point home: It is Islam, dummy. Get it?

How could people calling themselves sincere God-fearing religionists bring themselves to even think of acts of such barbarity, yet plan them methodically and cold-bloodedly proceed to execute them?

The answer is Islam. The life manual of Islam, the Quran, is a document of exclusion, hatred and violence that shapes the Muslims’ thinking and behaving. This stone-age document is optimally suited for people of stunted development; people who prefer to follow than to think for themselves, to hate than to love, and to seek death rather than to celebrate life.

Sadly, Muslims themselves are the ones who are most victimized by Islam. They have inherited this viral psychological disease of hate and violence; they live by it, and transmit it to their children as well as to receptive others.

A puzzle to non-Muslims: why any intelligent and reasonably sane person would live his life by the dogma of Islam? It is particularly disconcerting when this Muslim lives in a secular non-Islamic society. The befuddlement becomes mind-boggling when seemingly educated women in free societies voluntarily submit to the yoke of Islamic misogyny.

There are a number of possible explanations to the enigma of believing in Islam and even propagating it with zeal and violence. Some possible explanations are treated here.

For one, Islam is stamped on the impressionable mind of the child from birth. The parents and immediate members of the family are the ones who make the very first impressions on the tabula rasa of the young mind. These early impressions are the grid-work for further formation of the person’s mind and belief system. It is by far easier, as life goes on, to incorporate “items” that readily fit into the grid-work, than to modify it or dismantle it altogether and begin anew. It is in recognition of the importance of early training and education that people such as Saint Augustine and Freud considered the first few years of life as critical for molding the person. “Teaching the very young is like etching upon my youth is when your stones in the stone,” says an Eastern proverb.

Another reason is the herd mentality–stay with the group, be one of them, and don’t strike out on your own. This strong disposition to belong is reinforced by privileges that the group bestows; social pressure, as well as the fear of castigation by the wielders of power. There is security and power in numbers–in any numbers.

Islam is also appealing for giving purpose and order to the person’s life–both the life on earth as well as an immortal life after death. Islam is an omnipresent and omniscient father figure who draws the boundaries, points out the path, dictates the terms, holds the carrots and the sticks. It absolves the person, for most parts, from the often demanding tasks of dealing with difficult questions and choosing what to do with oneself–a highly attractive trade off for many. Accept Islam as your guide, follow its path and you will never have to suffer the agony of not knowing and having to make decisions by yourself; you will be guided along the path of eternal happiness and salvation. Just follow the unerring guide given to mankind by the seal of the prophet, Muhammad.

An elaborate package of mostly illogical and bizarre prescriptions and proscriptions comes with the Islamic offer, covering every imaginable aspect of life. In the matter of being a good Muslim, nothing is left to chance that one needs to figure out for himself. “I think, therefore I am” said Rene Descartes in substantiating his claim to existence as a conscious being. “I don’t think, I have faith; therefore I am an automaton,” says the Muslim in absolving himself of the need for independent thinking.

Even the minutest detail of the Muslim’s life is rigidly structured. He is to perform the obligatory prayer, for instance, five times a day at the exact appointed times. He must drop everything and go through the prescribed gesticulation and recitation of the verses while facing Mecca. Before saying his prayer, however, he must perform ablution. The Ablution, using water, must be carried out in a precise manner and sequence. In the absence of water, the faithful can substitute soil for water and go through the practice of “purifying” himself by running soil over his hands, arms, face and feet. After completion of ablution, as prescribed, he may proceed to say his prayer unless he commits flatulence. In that case, he must re-perform the ablution all over again.

Being a good Muslim, particularly a good male Muslim, is indeed a full time job. Male Muslims are obligated to go for Hajj–women don’t have to do so. Islam is a man’s religion, through and through. Women are to please men erotically, to attend to them like chattel, and birth them boys. Going on Hajj and accumulating merit points for admission to Allah’s paradise is reserved for men. Women may also go to Hajj, if they are lucky enough to afford the journey or allowed by their owners, men, to do so. For women, there are no promises that by going on Hajj and paying tribute to the house of Allah they endear themselves to him. “Women are calamities, but no home should be without one,” is an old Islamic characterization of women. Hence, a woman is a necessity and not much more.

In short, Islam treats its believers as children irrespective of age. An extensive cadre of mullahs and imams, who themselves are thoroughly indoctrinated, minister to the children. These professional leeches–the mullahs and imams–systematically program the minds of their charges through liberal use of fear, threats of hell, and occasional promises of eternal life of bliss in Allah’s paradise if they be obedient good children.

A Muslim is born Muslim, yet he acts as if he independently and through his own labor has discovered the great find; he clings to it as his cherished security blanket; and, would part with his life, rather than give it up. It is, therefore, understandable what a recent poll has found. Fully 81% of British Muslims consider themselves Muslims first and British second. The 81% know full well that there is absolutely no chance of being harassed, much less persecuted, in Britain for professing their highest loyalty to Islam. So, they come out and admit it. The other 19% are even more Muslim. They are practicing what the Quran teaches–dissimulation. Muslims are taught to lie. They lie when they have to and they lie when they don’t have to, just to stay in practice.

The bottom-line is that the non-Islamic world has a huge problem on its hands–the ever-encroaching Islam. For as long as there are mosques, madrasehs, and Islamic centers; as long as vast cadres of well-paid, highly indoctrinated and strategically placed mullahs and imams; and, as long as there are people who prefer to be treated as children, Islam will flourish anywhere and will pose an existential threat to unbelievers. All the excuses, grievances and reasons given for savagery of the jihadists and Islamofascists are side issues. It is Islam, dummy. It is Islam itself. Get it?

Randy Harris - Suarez International Staff Instructor

Do we really want “CHANGE”?

This election year is possibly the strangest I have ever seen . Normally in an election year there is a lot of talk about change by who ever the party out of power in the White House is. That is just natural. If the other side were doing a good job then there would be no reason for your candidate to even run against them. So we expect some discussion of change. But rarely is a political platform built solely on an ill defined idea of “change” like Barak Hussein Obama’s .

If you go out and ask the man on the street what Obama’s core values and beliefs are you generally get something about “He’s for the people, he believes in change”. They say it like change is Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Something that you either choose to believe in or not like it might not be real. But then when asked to elaborate on what in Obama’s platform is so enticing and exactly WHAT change they are so all fired up to have happen they suddenly look confused and begin to throw out the tired old lines “Republicans are for the rich, they hate old people, they don’t want people to have health care” and a litany of other ridiculous shibboleths that make up the core beliefs of the liberal mindset.

But they never seem to get back around to defining what it is that Obama exactly stands for. We know what he stands against. The status quo. He wants “change”! Great. What kind of “change”. And what will be changed? One thing that he has mentioned is ending the “Bush tax cuts” and moving the lowest income tax bracket to 37%. He also wants a 7% increase in payroll tax. With those combined with all the other tax we pay the average American would be paying more than 50% of their annual income in taxes. That would certainly “change” what I was able to buy or spend money on.

Another thing Barak wants is a 7% increase in Social Security tax. You know, Social Security, the third rail of American politics. That money that senior citizens get back that they have already paid tax on back when they worked to put that money into the social security program? So now the candidate of the party that is “for the working man” is going to raise the working man’s payroll tax 7 more percent and take 7 more percent from the elderly that they claim to look out for?

For those of you who are not aware retirees who make $32,000 per year or more pay back 85% of their Social Security benefits in Social Security tax. Al Gore cast the deciding vote on that during the Clinton administration.The vote was tied 50-50 but since the Vice President is the President of the Senate he gets called on to break tie votes. So people who worked their whole lives to retire and were fortunate enough to have a pension that paid them just enough to be barely considered middle class have to give back 85% of their social security money to the government. Many of those elderly people probably spend much of that $32,000 in medical bills each year. So how does this “help the elderly”? It doesn’t. And Now Barak wants even more of it. How does raising taxes on the elderly who are the hardest hit by the economy slowdown going to help them? They are the ones suffering the most from the rising prices of fuel and food. Barak wants change. But is it really for the better?

Barak has been all over the TV saying he wants to raise taxes on oil companies. He wants to keep oil companies from gouging the honest hardworking American people. Great. How is raising taxes on oil companies going to do that. The oil companies, like every other company in the world exists to generate profit. If their taxes go up, the price they charge will go up too so as to maintain their profitability. So unless he plans to repeal the law of supply and demand his “tax ‘em until they lower their prices” plan will be ruinous to the already shaky economy. Does Barak want six dollar per gallon gas? Does he want 8 dollar per gallon milk? That is what we will get (or worse) if he goes ahead with his plan to increase tax on oil companies. The price of gas effects the price of every other commodity because it has to be taken to market. That uses gas. So the prices go up. While I am certainly not happy with paying four dollars a gallon for gas I will be even less happy when it is six or seven dollars a gallon due to tax increases! Paying two more dollars a gallon for gas and fifty more dollars a week for groceries would certainly be a “change”, but it would not be a welcome “change”.

These are just two instances that I encounter everyday. I have become more aware of the Social Security issues and how the rising price of food and gas effects things. My Mom passed away in January and my Dad , while not destitute by any means has to really pinch pennies to make it every month on just his Social Security without having to dip into the savings for which he worked his whole life . He could be just a medical emergency away from having to sell the house I grew up in . And every time he goes to the grocery store, like many Americans, he spends more each week to buy less groceries than the week before. So how is raising his Social Security tax 7% going to help him and the millions of other seniors who are having trouble making ends meet now? “Change”. Sometimes it hurts.

So where exactly is all this tax revenue that our “economic savior” is raising going to go? Maybe it is going to go to fund the increase in the size of the Peace Corp he is calling for. Maybe it is going to go to fund the “Civilian Security Force” to fight terrorism with the same size and capability of the US military he has talked about creating. Why is no one in the media asking what that means and what function it will serve? Why? Because he is their darling and whatever “change” he wants is surely good because whatever it is it will be a welcome “change” to eight years of GW Bush. Asking questions would imply they do not trust him. But history is full of examples of people (and media) trusting politicians only to find out later that the change they got was not what they bargained for.

The following is a letter to the editor of the Richmond Times Dispatch on July 7, 2008.. It is written by someone who experienced “change” a half century ago. He says it better than I can so lets hear his story…

This appeared on the Editorial Page of the Richmond Times-Dispatch July 7, 2008.

Editor

Times-Dispatch

Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30, I celebrate my independence day and on July 4, I celebrate America’s. This year is special because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.

On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later, I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.

I’ve thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950’s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said “Praise the Lord.” And when the young leader said, “I will be for change and I’ll bring you change, everyone yelled, “Viva Fidel!”

But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner’s guns went silent, the people’s guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education, it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world most fortunate Cubans. And now I’m back to the beginning of my story.

Luckily, we would never fall in America for a left-leaning young leader who promises change without asking, “What change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?”

Would we?

Manuel Alvarez, Jr

Reading his story puts a little different spin on “change” doesn’t it? Right now America is still the greatest country on earth. That could change………

The Fight Against Radical Islam

-Jake Kozlowski

Radical Islam or Islamism is one of the biggest threats to liberty and freedom in the United States. In order to understand this problem, we must first understand Islamism.

Islamism is not a religion; it is a political ideology and supremacist concept. Once this is understood, it becomes clear why the fight against Islamism is not considered “religious persecution”, “hate” or “bigotry”.

Islamism is a totalitarian political ideology similar to Nazism or White Supremacism. It seeks to dominate every aspect of the believer’s life and has no room for non-believers. It seeks to gain political dominance over the entire world and institute a Sharia law. It is opposed to human rights and to the basic foundation of our Declaration of Independence philosophy that “all men are created equal”. A few of the reasons Sharia law is bad for society are:

• Islam allows husbands to hit their wives.
  • The Quran states -

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. ^[1]

• Sharia law commands that the hand of a thief be cut off.
• Sharia law commands that homosexuals be executed.
  • “In its 1991 Constitution, in Articles 108—113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy.
  • In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.
  • On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for ‘gay conduct.’ “^[2]
• Islam orders death to non-believers or anyone who questions Islam or Sharia law.
  • “In 1989, Iran’s Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel’s role in inspiring the Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed the fatwa.
  • In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on Australia’s vilification law. While on trial, one of them wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence, but the lawyer representing the Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction.
  • In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England’s parliament. They have succeeded. Their ability to propagandize has not been curtailed. Opponents of the law say that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam.” ^[2]

In 2003 and 2004, the [European Court of Human Rights] court ruled “that sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy” (13/02/2003), because the sharia rules on inheritance, women’s rights and religious freedom violate human rights as established in the European Convention on Human Rights. ^[3]

Islamism has the ability to infiltrate and destroy from the inside out that which it infects. It does not allow artistic expression or intellectual freedom. Once it has a stranglehold, it does not allow any outside dominance unless it is defeated by force.

Separating ourselves from Islamism is not an option. By thinking that we can coexist peacefully with Islamism, it would soon become apparent, assuming the above points are true, that we would be faced with a severely intolerant, supremacist Islamic state that would seek its dominance over non-believers. Given the tension that exists between Islamism and the rest of the world, this Islamism state would most likely be led by extremist elements. Also, given the fact that the weapon of choice for extremists is terrorism and Jihadist tactics, we would be faced with more and more terrorism leading up to and continuing after the separation.

Many political leaders believe we should not debate the ideology of Islamism for fear that it will incite more violence. This attitude ignores how we defeated other supremacist, totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism and White Supremacism in the past. Would you fail to criticize White Supremacist ideology for fear of making more people join the KKK?

On December 10. 1948, shortly after WWII, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It outlined basic human rights and freedoms for all mankind.

Predominantly Islamic countries, such as Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, frequently criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 1981, Iran stated that the UDHR was “a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition”, which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.^[4]

Given that this was in the midst of the Cold War, few recognized that this was a Sharia declaration of war on freedom and equality.

This ideological war is being fought tactically by the brave soldiers of our country and is making small gains. Given the above statements to be true, we must change the mindset of our political leaders and citizens to understand that this war can only be won once we realize that we’re fighting a war of ideas. We won WWII against a similar “supremacist” enemy because every US citizen realized we were fighting a war against freedom and values. Until we understand this, we may always be one step behind Islamism.

References

1. MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004.

2. Arlandson, James. “Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies”, American Thinker, August 13, 2005. http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html

3. European Court of Human Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights

4. Littman, David. “Universal Human Rights and Human Rights in Islam”. Midstream, February/March 1999. http://web.archive.org/web/20060501234759/http://mypage.bluewin.ch/ameland/Islam.html