Heads Up: 2008 Archives

Joan Swirsky is a nurse who became an author. She has her point of view and she expresses it forcefully. Her website tells you something about her. However, her recent article explaining why, as a Jew, she would never vote for Obama has created somewhat of a stir.

Russian emigré to Israel Natan Sharanksy (author of the best-selling "The Case for Democracy" also recently said he could not support Obama; he was a "risk" to Israel. As for McCain, Sharanksy said he was "a person of principle" who has "absolutely a great record of supporting Israel."

Swirsky lists many reasons why she, as a Jewish American, cannot and will not vote for Barack Obama. Her stinging conclusion:

I ask: Does Obama have any friends, associates, mentors or advisors who don’t hate America and Israel? If so, e-mail me. I haven’t found one yet!

Any voter – whether Democrat, Republican or Independent – should find Obama’s far-left voting record and silly-putty changes-o- mind on crucial policy issues reason enough not to vote for him in November.

Certainly, every American Jew should consider his ascension to the presidency a virtual death knell for Israel.

If the corrupt ACORN group he so heartily supported in the Chicago machine – where he “made his bones” – doesn’t rig the election with the votes of millions of dead people and convicts, as they have so many times in the past. I trust the electorate will do the right thing.

The right thing, of course, would be vote against Obama, a candidate who has been infested with far more odious things than fleas, specifically the treacherous anti-American, anti-Israel advice that has clearly shaped his worldview.

Obama would make America less safe, and an unsafe America – which is the last, best hope for the survival of the Jews and Israel – would destroy the twin pillars of steadfast Judeo-Christian values. Destroying both nations is the goal of the Jihadists that Obama would sooner chat with than confront.

Read the whole thing here. We don't think she would mind.

Why does John McCain describe radical Islam as the "transcendent challenge" of our times?

Unless there is a revolution of the natives, European civilization in Europe will disappear before the end of this century. Already 20 to 50 million Muslims are in Europe, most of whom have refused to assimilate. They cluster in their own neighborhoods living as they would in Pakistan or Sudan, maintaining their alien Islamic culture and intimidating the natives to change their practices and ways. Continuing immigration and high birth rates -- while the natives are failing to even reproduce their numbers -- are leading to increasing Muslim dominance. Amsterdam and Rotterdam, for example, are close to being majority Muslim cities now.

What will a Muslim-dominated Europe be like?

Under Islamic law, if one refuses to become Muslim, one is subject to death unless he or she agrees to a humiliating, underclass status (dhimmitude) and pays special (historically onerous) taxes not levied on Muslims. During the so-called Golden Age of Islam Islamic centers such as Baghdad and Damascus flourished with the riches of those taxes and the hired talents of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and other non-Muslims. As the generations went on, non-Muslims tired of their underclass status and converted to Islam and became as warlike and and uninterested in real work as their fellow Muslims. So Muslim society collapsed and has been revived only because of the discovery and development in Muslim lands -- by westerners -- of oil and gas vital to the West.

Europe is succumbing to a demographic and ideological takeover, the kind of jihad that is already being waged against the United States.

Muslims are smart enough to realize they have the best chance now in 1400 years to take over the world: They have the oil, they have the money, they have the true believers (growing greater in numbers every day as Saudi madrassas recruit the young to what Mohammad commanded was every Muslim’s duty – jihad until Islam rules the world). What Iran’s leaders say about killing Americans (Great Satan) and Israeli (Little Satan) is no aberration, no departure from Koranic teaching at all. They and the House of Saud may be contending for leadership of the Islamic masses or ummah, but they are united in their goal of achieving power over the world.

With their supreme sense of superiority, an imperial ideology, more than a billion adherents (whom they are willing to sacrifice in the millions) and, soon, nuclear weapons facing off against an anxious-to-please, politically correct, pacifist, let-us-reason-together West, who will have to lead the fight against them if not the United States?

Unflortunately, for America's and the world's sake, Obama doesn't see the challenge at all. As he said in Berlin, all walls between Muslims and the rest of the world should come down and peace will prevail. History tells a different story.

This article from May has even more relevance today.

May 24, 2008, 0:00 a.m.

Wright Connection
A haunting presence for Obama.

By Michael Barone

As Barack Obama makes his slow but steady way toward the Democratic nomination, the assumption in the admiring precincts of the press corps is that voters have dismissed as irrelevant his longtime association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But that may prove as mistaken as the assumption, back in 1988, that voters would not be impressed by Michael Dukakis’s 11-year support of a law granting weekend furloughs to convicts sentenced to life without parole, an issue brought up in the primaries by Al Gore but largely ignored in press coverage at the time.

Evidence for this comes in the exit polls from the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries on May 13 and 20. In both, about half the voters — and these are voters in the Democratic primary — said that they believe Obama shares Wright’s views either somewhat or a lot. And slightly under 50 percent of these voters said that Obama is honest and trustworthy.

To be sure, these were primaries in which Obama was beaten, and beaten badly, by Hillary Clinton — 67 percent to 26 percent in West Virginia, 66 percent to 30 percent in Kentucky. So they would be inclined, one might believe, to think ill of Obama. Yet it is not universally the case that voters who choose one candidate in a hotly contested election doubt whether the other candidate is honest. You can oppose someone who you believe to be trustworthy. Only 38 percent of Americans voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964 and George McGovern in 1972. But probably a higher percentage believed that they were basically honest.

Which leads me to ask why these voters declined to say Obama is honest. When have they seen him lie or being caught in a lie? The response to the question on Wright may provide the answer. They know that he attended Wright’s church for 20 years. They know that he said, both on March 18 when he refused to renounce Wright and on April 29 when he did renounce him, that he was not aware of his pastor and spiritual mentor’s incendiary comments. Yet half of these voters also think that, despite those statements, Obama agrees with what Wright has been saying.

It’s a little dangerous in interpreting polls to assume that voters’ thinking proceeds along logical lines. People who aren’t professionally involved in politics, whose knowledge comes from bits and snippets of news, can hold beliefs that are contradictory or in tension with each other. They don’t feel obliged to resolve contradictions. But even granting that, it seems to me that about half of West Virginia and Kentucky Democratic primary voters were saying that Obama lied about not knowing what Wright has been preaching and that he agrees with him a lot more than he has let on.

Now West Virginia and Kentucky are not typical primary states. They, together with Arkansas, where Hillary Clinton was First Lady for 12 years, were Obama’s weakest states in this year’s primaries. And some percentage of registered Democrats in these states have been voting Republican in recent presidential elections. Nevertheless, the negative verdict these voters render on Obama’s honesty and his relationship with Wright is likely to be typical of some significant quantum of potential Democratic voters this year. And not just in states like West Virginia and Kentucky, which he will certainly lose, but in marginal states which he must carry in order to be elected.

I find confirmation from this in a recent focus group conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by pollster Peter Hart (for whom I worked for seven years) of non-primary voters in Charlottesville, Va. As Hart and Alex Horowitz note in their analysis of reactions to Obama, “When asked to recount any two memories of the total presidential campaign so far, seven of the 12 participants cite Rev. Wright by name. So far, clips of Rev. Wright clearly are the one ‘key defining moment’ of this campaign.”

Most reporters are liberals, whose circles of friends and acquaintances have included people with views not dissimilar to those of Wright or William Ayers, the unrepentant Weather Underground bomber with whom Obama served on a nonprofit board and at whose house his state Senate candidacy was launched. Such reporters don’t find these views utterly repugnant or particularly noteworthy. But most American voters do. And they wonder whether a candidate who associates with such people agrees with them — or disbelieve him when he says he doesn’t.

Though most in the press won’t admit it, that’s a problem — for the Obama candidacy and for the whole Democratic party once it nominates him.

While Pelosi-Obama-Reid continue to keep their heads buried in desert sand, Brazil is showing there is lots of oil in the continental shelf.

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer recently marveled at the stupidity of Democrats in not doing what every sensible American wants done: Drill our way out of high prices and dependence on the Middle East and Venezauela.

American oil reserves have been in decline because Democrats in Congress have banned new exploration and development for decades.

Brazil’s oil reserves are soaring because Brazil is developing its own resources. Even its European partners are benefitting.

As new discoveries are made, the estimate of new reserves for Brazil are going up. Speculation now centers around 50 billion barrels of new oil in Brazil’s offshore region. That’s five times Brazil’s reserves as of last year (11 billion) and 2½ times all of the reserves of the U.S (21 billion).

Yet the estimates for banned areas offshore the U.S., in ANWR and in Rocky Mountain shale exceed one trillion barrels of oil or oil equivalents. The results of this failure to drill are high prices for gas, home heating oil and jet fuel and crude oil itself and unhealthy dependence on hostile and unstable oil producers.

The number one exporter of oil to the U.S. is Canada. Canada, like Brazil, has been aggressively exploring and developing its own natural resources. Canada has been building its reserves even as production in mature oil fields is flattening or declining. That’s fortunate for the U.S., since Canadian oil exports to the U.S. have been growing to help support economic growth.

Here’s the most recent news out of Brazil:

Galp Advances After Making New Oil Find in Brazil
By Joao Lima
Aug. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Galp Energia SGPS SA, Portugal's biggest oil company, rose in Lisbon trading after finding light crude oil in a deepwater well in Brazil's Santos Basin, the location of the biggest discovery in the Americas since 1976. …
Tupi is the largest oil discovery in the Americas since Mexico's Cantarell field was found in 1976, and compares with the 12 billion barrels held at Kazakhstan's Kashagan field, the largest oil find in the last three decades.
Petroleo Brasileiro SA, Brazil's state-controlled oil company, is the operator and owns 65 percent of the BM-S-11 block where both the Iara and Tupi wells were drilled. BG owns 25 percent and Galp owns 10 percent.
Estimated Reserves
``Given the discovery, recoverable reserves on block BM-S- 11 could increase to 10 billion barrels from currently 5 billion to 8 billion barrels,'' Kapadia said.
Iara is in Brazil's ``pre-salt'' offshore region, a new oil province that may contain about 50 billion barrels of oil according to Peter Wells, a director at U.K. research company Neftex Petroleum Consultants Ltd. The Iara well, which has yet to be declared commercially viable, is still being drilled in the hope of finding more oil at greater depths.
Some oil industry analysts, including David Thomas from Citigroup Global Markets Inc., have said that Tupi, Tupi Sul and Iara may be linked as part of a larger offshore deposit.
Petrobras in January said that a gas and oil discovery known as Jupiter, in the Santos Basin's BM-S-24 block, could be as big as Tupi. Petrobras owns 80 percent of Jupiter and operates the well. Galp has 20 percent of Jupiter. …

Do we need oil? Despite what Obama says, of course. (Obama wants to end the use of oil "in our time.")

This chart shows that 70% of our oil is used for transportation. That's not only motor vehicles, but airplanes and ships. That includes our defense capability -- destroyers, cruisers, aircraft carriers, fighter aircraft, landiing craft and tanks.

At the present times 96% of transportation propulsion comes from petroleum; 2% from biofuels and 2% from natural gas.

Most of the rest of oil goes into petrochemicals for use in everything from plastics to detergents.

1Excludes 0.6 quadrillion Btu of ethanol, which is included in "Renewable Energy.”
2Excludes supplemental gaseous fuels.
3Includes 0.1 quadrillion Btu of coal coke net imports.
4Conventional hydroelectric power, geothermal, solar/PV, wind, and biomass.
5Includes industrial combined-heat-and-power (CHP) and industrial electricity-only plants.
6Includes commercial combined-heat-and-power (CHP) and commercial electricity-only plants.
7Electricity-only and combined-heat-and-power (CHP) plants whose primary business is to sell electricity, or electricity and heat, to the public.

Note: Sum of components may not equal 100 percent due to independent rounding.
Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, Tables 1.3 and 2.1b-2.1f, and 10.3.
Source

An enthusiastic crowd of supporters jammed the function room at the 400 East Restaurant in Harwich to hear Massachusetts State Committee Chairman Peter Torkildsen give a rousing introduction to Don.

Massachusetts has suffered badly from one party government and Howell's Democratic opponent does what the Democratic leadership says. We need more voices on Beacon Hill that will oppose the fleecing of the Massachusetts taxpayer.

It's time to remake the two-party system in Massachusetts. Don Howell will stand up for traditional Republican values and will not be beholden to any special interest. His long experience in dealing with the problems of real people as a selectman and as an owner of a small business puts him on the side of those who can't stand the extravagant spending of the Democratic majority.

With a Democratic governor and the legislature controlled by Democrats, state spending is unrestrained, the deficit is balooning and, guess what, the Democrats are talking about more taxes again. The entrenched Democratic majority ignores the will of the people: They don't care what people think, as negative votes on referenda and laws supported by large public majorities attest.

Just think, the Speaker of the House has been there for 30 years! He even has Democratic buddies who have been there longer. Don Howell will help lead the fight to break up this unhealthy monopoly on power by filing a bill to limit the number of terms state legislators can be in office. The founding fathers envisioned citizen legislators, not lifetime careerists intent on a fat public pension.

It's time to fight back for sanity in government. You don't have to just sit there, shrug and say there's nothing you can do, as frustrated as you are. It's time for Don Howell to go to Beacon Hil from the Fourth Barnstable District.

If you live in Harwich, Chatham, Orleans, Eastham, Wellfleet, Truro or Provincetown and you want a fighter on Beacon Hill for you, someone not in the pocket of any special interest or the Speaker of the House, support Don with your money, your emails, your phone calls and your bumper stickers and then vote for Don Howell on November 4th. Donate and volunteer at Don's website. For more information, email Don at info@electdonhowell.com.or dhowell@cape.com.

The Wall Street Journal notes some questions are being asked about why a Belgian beer company was able to buy Anheuser-Busch and not the other way around.

Taxes were a big part of the reason. The Bud boys were paying almost twice as much in taxes as the Begian company InBev. U.S. corporate taxes are now among the highest in the world. John McCain wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 25%, which is about the world average (Ireland's is 12.5%, for example.) Obama has only been talking about raising taxes. John McCain understands the economy, Obama doesn't. Another reason to vote for John McCain.

Democrat Speaker of the House Pelosi closed down the House Friday and left town in a hurry, making sure there would be no vote authorizing drilling in the outer continental shelves. She claimed she was “saving the planet.” (See Charles Krauthammer’s destruction of that ludicrously false argument.)

However, Republicans stayed on the House floor to argue for drilling. Pelosi heard about it and ordered that the lights and microphones be shut off and C-Span to stop broadcasting. Everyone was to be evicted from the House chamber. Talk about heavy-handed totalitarian rule acting against the interest of the American people.

The Republicans dug in, as these four reports from National Review writers show. As Mark Hemingway notes, “It really looks like Congressional Republicans are getting some of their mojo back.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposes lifting the moratorium on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and on the Outer Continental Shelf. She won't even allow it to come to a vote. With $4 gas having massively shifted public opinion in favor of domestic production, she wants to protect her Democratic members from having to cast an anti-drilling election-year vote. Moreover, given the public mood, she might even lose. This cannot be permitted. Why? Because as she explained to Politico: "I'm trying to save the planet; I'm trying to save the planet."

A lovely sentiment. But has Pelosi actually thought through the moratorium's actual effects on the planet?

Why has Pelosi only thought about the American part of the planet where the best and safest technology is available operating under one of the best enviromental regulatory regimes?

The world consumes 86 million barrels a day; the United States, roughly 20 million. We need the stuff to run our cars and planes and economy. Where does it come from?

Continue reading "DRILLING AND BLISSFUL IGNORANCE"

Posted by Republican on Friday, August 1, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Email This | DIGG This | del.icio.us | Facebook | Stumble It

Some expressed astonishment when Obama intoned that "we are the ones we've been waiting for," which of course meant "I am the one you've been waiting for." Twice before we had noted the swelling arrogance of Obama.

In Germany it was "generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment," you know, "when the rise of the oceans began to slow" because those cars in Boston which were melting the Arctic ice cap were impounded by his enviropolice.

Then there was the Obama quasi-presidential seal -- he couldn't wait.

At an intimate gathering of House members last night reporting on his triumphal tour of Europe (during which he bugged out of a scheduled visit to wounded servicemen) he announced to his open-mouthed listeners, "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

Well, all this deserves a whole new book, don't you think?

Even the Bush-trashing Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank is choking on this:

"Barack Obama has long been his party's presumptive nominee. Now he's becoming its presumptuous nominee."

The Republican National Committee is getting into the swing of things and has launched its Obama Audacity Watch.

Watch this space.

It's seldom one hears anything positive about America or patriotic coming out of Hollywood. It's nothing like it was during World War II, when Hollywood felt it was its job to keep America's spirits and pride up even at the toughest of times.

So when a sensible, direct statement comes from a Hollywood figure it is a reason to cheer. However, one can be sure that most of the media will ignore it because it doesn't fit with their Obama-the-next-president narrative.

Jon Voight knows what he's talking about. An excerpt:

Our soldiers are lifting us to an example of patriotism at a time when we've almost forgotten who we are and what is at stake. If Mr. Obama had his way, he would have pulled our troops from Iraq years ago and initiated an unprecedented bloodbath, turning over that country to the barbarianism of our enemies.

With what he has openly stated about his plans for our military, and his lack of understanding about the true nature of our enemies, there's not a cell in my body that can accept the idea that Mr. Obama can keep us safe from the terrorists around the world, and from Iran, which is making great strides toward getting the atomic bomb.

Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, who is leading the Republicans in the House of Representatives fighting to get the Democratic ban on domestic drilling lifted, charged that the Democrats were "beholden to environmental extremists."

Investor's Business Daily has detailed how true that charge is.

Let's face it. The average individual American has little or no clout with Congress and can be safely ignored. But it's a different story with groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club and Nature Conservancy.

When they speak, Congress listens. Unlike the average American, they are well organized, loaded with cash and well positioned to be a disobedient congressman's worse nightmare. Their political and economic success has been a near disaster for our nation.

For several decades, environmentalists have managed to get Congress to keep most of our oil resources off-limits to exploration and drilling.

They've managed to have the Congress enact onerous regulations that have made refinery construction impossible.

Similarly, they've used the courts and Congress to completely stymie the construction of nuclear power plants. As a result, energy prices are at historical highs and threaten our economy and national security.

The massive damage these organizations have done is only a prelude to what they're planning as they use the global warming scare to ram dangerous new laws through Congress to allow this or prohibit that.

The possibilities for control over our lives would be endless and could include nuisance-type edicts such a requiring us to buy a permit to barbecue in our backyard.

The thirst to wield massive control over our economy helps explain the near religious belief in man-made global warming and the attacks on scientists and others who offer contradictory evidence.

Defeating Pelois-Obama-Reid and their environmental extremists on drilling is a necessary first step to turning back those who would control our lives to "save the planet (Pelosi's very words)."

Jeff Beatty supports domestic drilling. John Kerry is against it. Yet another reason to retire Kerry this November.

UPDATE: Charles Krauthammer takes on Democrat Speaker Pelosi's desire to "save the planet."

The Republicans in both the House and Senate have been pressing for votes to open up new drilling in the U.S. to bring oil and gas prices down. But the Democrats led by their unholy trinity of Pelosi-Obama-Reid are doing all they can to block votes.

Eric Cantor, the Republican chief deputy whip in the House, is one of those leading the fight to get relief at the pump for Americans. Cantor is a rising star and is on the short list of those being mentioned as a running mate for John McCain.

In a detailed account provided to Power Line, Cantor describes the mess Democrats have created with their opposition to drilling:

While American families are enraged over pain at the pumps, Democrat leaders, beholden to environmental extremists, remain mired in an anti-drilling posture that pits them against a clear majority of the American people. And they know they are vulnerable too.

So what exactly are the "Don't Drill" Democrat leaders Pelosi-Obama-Reid doing?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have ducked and dodged a debate over drilling at every turn. Reid has bogged down bills by stonewalling Republican amendments aimed to bolster American energy exploration. Pelosi has foisted bills onto the suspension calendar to thwart the addition of Republican pro-drilling amendments. Meanwhile, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey went so far as to shut down the FY ’09 appropriations process because his party couldn’t stomach a debate on offshore drilling.

So what is their strategy then? The Democrats’ goal is to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. Look like you are doing something substantial, rail against “Big Oil” and other convenient scapegoats you can find, and pray the public doesn’t catch on.

Continue reading "REPUBLICANS FIGHT FOR GAS PUMP RELIEF"

Posted by Republican on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Email This | DIGG This | del.icio.us | Facebook | Stumble It

There are many sharp differences between the positions of John McCain and Obama. McCain wants to give kids at the bottom of the economic ladder a chance to get a better educuation. Parents should have a choice. John McCain puts it very well:

"When a public system fails, repeatedly, to meet these minimal objectives, parents ask only for a choice in the education of their children." Some parents may opt for a better public school or a charter school; others for a private school. The point, said the Senator, is that "no entrenched bureaucracy or union should deny parents that choice and children that opportunity."

Obama backs the teachers union in opposing that opportunity, brushing it aside by calling it nothing but "tired rhetoric about vouchers and school choice." It is no coincidence the teachers unions support Obama for president.

The Wall Street Journal calls the nation's failure to provide a decent education to children in the inner cities "The Greatest Scandal." It is a tragedy not only for the children and their parents, but for the communities and the nation. HIgh drop-out rates lead to more crime, lower lifetime incomes, more welfare dependency and the loss of a productive citizenry.

The success of alternatives which parents can and do choose is overwhelming. But the Democratic Party is doing all it can to deny families school choice -- in Congress and at the local school boards in inner-city neighborhoods, wherever the unions are strong. Democrat Obama exercises his choice and sends his own children to private school in Chicago instead of the public schools in his district.

Just another reason why the nation will be far better off with John McCain as president and Jeff Beatty as a senator from Massachusetts.

Read the WSJ piece here.

A military spokesman told them this:

[B]ecause political candidates are prohibited from using military installations as campaign backdrops, Obama's representatives were told, ‘he could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member (sic), no campaign officials or workers.’ In addition, ‘Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama's visit.’

What, no media? Apparently, forgetaboutit.

Instead, Obama went to the gym and sightseeing in Berlin.

Update: John McCain also noticed what Obama didn't do.

McCain is the Man for America.

Now we all know that transportation these days runs on oil. Someday there will other reliable means to power us out of our dependence on foreign oil. But in the meantime those who are realistic know we need to drill for oil in our own country.

That's why we have to break the Democratic obstructionism in Congress. Democrats control Congress, so everyone should call his or her Democratic congressional representative to say you're for bringing down the price of gas at the pump and you want drilling now.

Don't bother calling the Republicans. They've been fighting the Democrats to get drilling going, but the Democrats JUST SAY NO to bringing gas prices down. Your call might make the difference. .

Transportation needs reliable energy now.

The highly respected political analyst Michael Barone feels the ground shifting. "Enviro Lunacy" may at last be fading. $4 a gallon for gas puts things in perspective, at least for ordinary Americans.

While the Republicans are demanding an end to the various Democratic moratoriums on drilling, the Democrats, who control Congress, led by their unhold trinity of Pelosi-Obama-Reid, JUST SAY NO to the American people. They clearly have superior insights and know better than you.

Democratic leaders are preventing Congress from voting on continental shelf and ANWR drilling or oil shale development because they fear their side would lose and are making the transparently absurd claim that drilling won't lower the price of oil. They're scampering to say that they would allow drilling somewhere -- mostly in places where the oil companies haven't found any oil.

There is hope.

The time may be coming when our lunatic environmental policies are swept away by a rising tide of common sense.

Can the Democratic Congress' 9% approval rating drop even farther?

"Yes, it can."

Get at least one vote in the Senate from Massachusetts for a sane energy policy by replacing John Kerry, who has consistently opposed drilling.

Polls show disaffection with Kerry and good vibes toward Jeff Beatty, his Republcan opponent in November. Before the campaign even begins, they are close to being in a statistical tie.

Help Jeff Beatty replace John Kerry in the U.S. Senate this November 4th and stick a needle into the do-what-the leadership-says Massachusetts all-Democratic congressional delegation.

Do you support drilling? Really support our men and women serving our country? Then, not only vote for, but help, Jeff Beatty With your help, he can win. Give John McCain another vote in the Senate.

Read it all.

Another day in Congress and Democrat leaders are desperately fighting to block votes that would provide relief at the gas pump for average Americans.

Democrat Majority Leader Reid and Democrat Speaker of the House Pelosi know they would lose to the Republican-led drive to bring relief to consumers and are trying to run out the clock until Congress departs for its summer vacation.

These shameful tactis are being used to prevent a defeat for Obama, who has said he wants to keep these prohibitions in place for their special interest groups. That Americans are sending hundreds of billions of dollars to hostile and unstable regimes and are paying $4 a gallon for gas doesn't seem to bother these three.

President Bush and John McCain are both demanding action from the Democratic Congress, but to no avail because of the Pelosi-Obama-Reid tactics and their control of Congress.

The upward pressure on oil prices is caused by rising world-wide consumption and limited growth in supplies. Yet at least 65% of America's undiscovered, recoverable oil, and 40% of its natural gas, is hostage to the Congressional drilling moratorium.

The Democratic leadership is trying to smother any awareness of their responsibility for high prices.

Read Democrats Against Drilling

A lot has been made of T. Boone Pickens building hundreds of windmills in the wind corrider running from Texas up to Oklahoma as if that were the sole answer to the enegy crisis. Pickens has said we can't drill our way out the crisis and that was construed by some meaning "Don't bother with new drilling." Not so.

Pickens told CNN that neither Presidential candidate has gone far enough in advocating the exploitation of our domestic oil resources (HT: Power Line):

BLITZER: What about drilling offshore? There's a debate. As you know, McCain says, yes, go ahead and drill off the coasts of Florida and California. Obama says, no. You're an oilman. What do you say?

PICKENS: OK. McCain says, OK off the East and West Coasts. I say East, West Coast and ANWR. Get it all. I mean, to get off of foreign oil, that is the enemy. Get everything you can get. You cannot drill your way out of it. But you're drilling, and whatever you are able to find and put into the domestic system will help us. But you -- you aren't going to be able to find enough to take care of all the imports that we have.

BLITZER: What about nuclear?

PICKENS: Nuclear, fine, do it. Anything in America, do it, and get off of foreign oil.

McCain is for drilling offshore and for nuclear power. Obama opposes both. ANWR should be added to the drilling program. Pickens is right: Use them all, drilling, wind, solar, nuclear, biofuels, coal. And if the Rocky Mountains shale oil yields the estimated 500 to 800 billion barrels, domestic oil can replace all foreign overseas oil. (Our friends Canada and Mexico are solid suppliers, though Mexico's fields appear to be in decline.)

A close ally of John McCain Medal of Honor holder Bud Day said that he would fight Islamic supremacism in America. He said "Muslim have said either we kneel, or they're going to kill us." He wasn't about to do that or advise anybody to do that and he was sure John McCain wasn't going to, either.

There was a big uproar from the Islamic supremacist organizations in the U.S., the Saudi-linked CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) prominent among them.

Trouble is, the statement was accurate.

The Muslim Brotherhood in the United States is, according to a Brotherhood operative, engaged in a “grand jihad” aimed at “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 who are those objecting?

CAIR, of course, was in 2007 named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas terror funding case, and has had several of its officials arrested and convicted on terrorism-related charges.

If those organizations are supportive of the U.S. Constitution and are not intent on having it replaced by Islamic law one day, they should not have taken offense but affirmed thier desire to defeat Islamic imperialsm.

In a sane world, instead of taking offense, Islamic spokesmen in the U.S. would have been assuring reporters that they were working energetically within Muslim communities against those who wished to make non-Muslims kneel. But sanity is at a premium in the public debate on Islamic jihad today.

McCain's supporter Medal of Honor recipient Bud Day was dead on.

Democrat leaders Obama, Reid and Pelosi, John Kerry and the entire Democrat Massachusetts congressional delegation do not feel your pain.

To achieve energy self-sufficiency for the sake of national security and reasonable prices, the U.S. will be looking at many different sources. There are many promising technologies in development which will be economically practical with oil prices higher than $60 or so a barrel.

No one can be sure how long it will be before alternatives are developed to a commercial level and the necessary infrastructure is in place to make utilization possible. For example, shifting motor vehicle propulsion from liquids to electricity will require an enormous build-up in generating facilities. New power plants take years to permit and build, nuclear power plants longest of all.

There will be a demand for oil and oil derivates and substitutes for years to come, no matter what alternative energy sources are developed. Airplanes will require jet fuel of some sort, for example.

The more fuel the U.S. can develop on its own – or obtain from friendly sources in our hemisphere such as Canada, Mexico and Brazil, the safer the U.S. will be. There are tremendous oil resources available off the coasts of the U.S. and in Alaska that can and should be opened up to environmentally responsible oil development.

Because of recent technological advances, oil shale in the Rocky Mountains may be the biggest prize of all -- triple the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. It is estimated that 1.5 trillion barrels of oil can be recovered from shale in the U.S. Here, too, as with offshore and Alaska, there is a Democrat moratorium in place that needs to be ended.

Republicans led by John McCain have concluded for reasons of national energy security and to bring relief to American consumers of oil and its derivatives, including gasoline, home heating oil and jet fuel, there are areas in the U. S. in which new oil development, which is blocked by congressional moratoriums, should be allowed.

These forbidden areas include the continental shelves off the west and east coasts of the U.S., parts of the Gulf of Mexico and oil shale lands in the Rocky Mountains. Democrats oppose all such efforts to open up new oil development in these areas and are blocking votes in the House and Senate to allow it.

Also at issue is a particular tract of land in but not part of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) -- 2000 acres out of 19 million acres – known as 10-02. 10-02 was excluded from the Refuge in the original law setting up the refuge in 1980 and designated for oil development; it is not classified legally as wilderness or refuge. Exploration and oil development have been barred in ANWR since the 1980s.

Obama's all-consuming ego is becoming more and more obvious. When he finally disowned his 20-year spiritual mentor, white-America hating Jeremiah Wright, he so not because of Wright's accusation about the government spreading AIDS among blacks or for "God Damn America," but because Wright, by saying Obama was just another politician, had "disrespected" him. What struck us then about Obama, as we observed in a post on June 9th, "It's all about me."

Obama's latest pretention, seeking the backdrop of Berlin's Brandenburg Gate, for a political speech was too much for the Germans and for Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, who today writes about "The Audacity of Vanity."

Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast -- a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins -- would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials. What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn.

President Ronald Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final "tear down this wall" liquidation.

When President John F. Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.

Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush the elder -- who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap -- called "a Europe whole and free"?

Indeed, Obama's campaign is all Obama all the time, not the future safety and prosperity of the United States.

Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself. There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history -- "generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment" -- when, among other wonders, "the rise of the oceans began to slow." As Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, "Moses made the waters recede, but he had help." Obama apparently works alone.

All of which leads inexorably to another question about Obama.

For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?

We are getting to know. Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more. As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when "our planet began to heal." As I recall -- I'm no expert on this -- Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas.

To read this devastatingly accurate critique in full, click here.

It has been suggested that in his imperial "Do you know who I am?" ascendency to the Democratic nomination for president Obama actually bears an eerie resemblance to the last Democratic nominee for president, Massachusetts' own John Kerry.

Kerry, who once again is resurfacing in Massachusetts now that it's election season, is hoping to avoid being retired to his wife's estate in Pennsylvania this November at the hands of former Army Delta Force Officer Jeff Beatty, who has just been endorsed by Vets for Freedom. (We all know what Kerry's Swift Boat colleagues thought.)

The iconoclastic Boston Herald reporter Howie Carr mused on his years covering Kerry back in 2004. Some things never change, so it's worth a trip down memory lane.

THE REAL JOHN KERRY

HOWIE CARR
February 5, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One off the surest ways to get the phones ringing on any Massachusetts talk-radio show is to ask people to call in and tell their John Kerry stories. The phone lines are soon filled, and most of the stories have a common theme: our junior senator pulling rank on one of his constituents, breaking in line, demanding to pay less (or nothing) or ducking out before the bill arrives.

The tales often have one other common thread. Most end with Sen. Kerry inquiring of the lesser mortal: "Do you know who I am?"

Continue reading ""DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?""

Posted by Republican on Friday, July 18, 2008 at 8:17 AM
Email This | DIGG This | del.icio.us | Facebook | Stumble It

High gasoline prices along with the arguments being made by John McCain and the White House are beginning to change minds in California about drilling offshore.

A new poll shows just 51% of Californians in favor of the 20-year ban, a new low.

California gas prices are among the highest in the nation because of special environmentally-driven formulations. While yesterday the price of regular at one Cape Cod service station was $4.25, an attorney in San Francisco was paying $4.89.

Our elitist Democratic presidential candidate Obama believes he can prove Republican Abraham Lincoln wrong.

Honest Abe:

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

Obama clearly disagrees.

Political strategist and commentator Dick Morris summarizes the breathtakingly sudden reversals of positions Obama has made in the past few weeks. None of the changes occurred because of new facts and circumstances (as happened with McCain's switch to support of drilling for oil), but only because of the looming politics of the general election. Obama is confident his buddies in the left-wing main stream media won't call him on it and the great unwashed won't notice.

Consider:

• After vowing to eschew private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money.

• Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telephone companies from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has voted for the legislation.

• Turning his back on a lifetime of support for gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.

• Formerly, he told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn’t mean it.

• From a 100 percent pro-choice position, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions. [Note: Obama even supported infanticide in some circumstances when in the Illinois legislature.]

• For the first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor.

• Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first.

• During the primary, he backed merit pay for teachers -- " but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it.

• After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position.

So, once again, what does Obama really stand for? Who does he care about -- besides himself?

As for the crisis in fuel prices that caused McCain to come out in favor of drilling to help the little guy, the average American, Obama and his Democrats in Congress are unmoved.

[T]he Democrats oppose drilling virtually anywhere that there might be recoverable oil. Not in Alaska. Not offshore. Not in shale deposits in the West. The Democratic claim that we “cannot drill our way out of the crisis in gas prices” begs the question of whether, had we drilled five years ago, we would be a lot less dependent on foreign market fluctuations.

The most Obama would say is he wished the price rise had been more gradual, but he showed indifference to the impact of $4 or $5 gasoline on the average American.

Why are Obama and his Democrats in Congress giving the back of the hand to Americans strapped by escalating fuel and home heating oil costs?

The truth is that the Democrats put the need to mitigate climate change ahead of the imperative of holding down gasoline prices at the pump. If there was ever a fault line between elitist and populist approaches to a problem, this is it. In fact, liberals basically don’t see much wrong with $5 gas. Many have been urging a tax to achieve precisely this level, just like Europe has done for decades.

Obama's elitist streak, most dramatically evidenced by his sneering reference to the rural rubes who "cling" to their guns and their God, shows how out of touch he is with the men and women who have to drive to work every day and the seniors faced with doubled costs of heating oil. From his Olympian height he apparently believes he can shift his positions at will and none of his adoring throngs -- or those rubes -- will notice or care.

McCain is with the little guy, demanding that Congress lift the bans on drilling. Polls show that a big majority of Americans agree with McCain.

If Obama once again shifts in the political wind, this time on drilling, it won't be for "the little guy," it will be, once again, for Obama.

This firestorm McCain has ignited may blow Obama over. Honest Abe Lincoln will be proved right after all.

For the entire Dick Morris article, click here.

The Washington Post expressed dismay about Obama's tone-deaf speech about Iraq:

The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq "distracts us from every threat we face" and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are demanding that the Democratic-controlled Congress end its prohibitions on drilling for oil in America. These congressional bans are what's responsible for the high price of gasoline and heating oil. John McCain supports drilling; Obama and his Democrats do not.

Only public pressure will force the Democrats to switch. Polls show a large majority agree with John McCain that we should develop our own resources and end the stranglehold hostile foreign oil producers have on us.

Make your voice heard! Go online to Freedom's Watch right now and sign the message to Congress that you want them to stop their obstruction: We want drilling to start now!

UPDATE: OBAMA SAYS NO, NO, NO. DRILLING NOW WON'T DO ANYTHING. IT'LL TAKE YEARS.

HE HAS SO LITTLE EXPERIENCE HE PROBABLY DOESN'T KNOW HOW LONG DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN SINGING THE SAME CAN'T DO, WON'T DO SONG. THE INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY'S PRIZE WINNING EDITORIALIST MICHAEL RAMIREZ HAS HEARD THE DEMOCRATIC DIRGE BEFORE, BEFORE, BEFORE:

At Monday's monthly meeting of the Chatham Republican Town Committee, Chatham Republicans gave a warm welcome to Jeff Beatty, the Republican candidate to defeat John Kerry for the Senate this November.

Chairman Walter Bilowz expressed the committee's concern for how the high price of fuel was hurting everyone in Chatham, from our fishermen to the tourism industry to the men and women who have to drive to work every day.

Beatty said everywhere he goes in Massachusetts people have the same concerns about the high price of fuel and our unhealthy reliance on hostile and unstable overseas oil producers. They are frustrated and angry that not one member of the Massachusetts congressional delegation – all Democrats -- is doing anything to support development of new oil and natural gas resources in the United States.

Despite gasoline prices going higher and higher congressional Democrats continue to block development of resources that could help bring those prices down. Republicans have repeatedly sought to end the development paralysis, but have been stymied by the Democratic majority in Congress. Every day development is delayed is another day the U.S. is reliant upon hostile overseas oil producers.

The most exciting prospect for achieving energy independence is in the Rocky Mountains. Only recently has technology been developed to extract oil from shale deposits. But congressional Democrats slapped a moratorium on shale development to add to the moratoriums they voted for on drilling in Alaska and the outer continental shelves.

The potential for oil from Rocky Mountains shale is enormous. The estimable blog Power Line published a chart showing how huge the deposits are. Saudi Arabia has the most oil reserves, but, taking shale into account, the U.S. has about ten times what the Saudis have.

While the oil crisis has accelerated efforts to develop alternative sources of energy, be it solar, wind, biofuels, nuclear or whatever, it will be years, perhaps many years, before transportation will not need oil. We need to use all our resources to set America free.

Cape Cod has a Democratic congressman who is still opposing new oil development. Contact the office of William Delahunt and let him know you've had enough of high gas prices and want him to support oil development offshore and in the Rocky Mountains. 508-771-0666 is the number of his Hyannis office.

And, while you're at it, let Senator John Kerry, who also stands in the way of lower gasoline prices, know you're fed up. 508) 677-0522 is his Fall River office, the closest he comes to concern for the Cape (except to oppose wind farm development -- which he was for before he was against it.). Fortunately, there is an opportunity this November to get sensible representation in the Senate from Massachusetts by voting for Jeff Beatty.

John McCain is leading the way for lower gas prices by demanding that oil development begin offshore and in the Rockies.

This morning's Wall Street Journal announced the failure of a large bank specializing in mortgages. The FDIC will take the bank over and depositors will get their $100,000 of insurance coverage.

But what triggered the bank's collapse? It turns out that in late June Democrat New York Senator Charles Schumer wrote a letter (and made it public) expressing concern about the solvency of the bank. That immediately created panic among its depositors who stormed the bank and took out $1.3 billion.

Our banking system and each bank operates because of public confidence. When something happens to damage or destroy that confidence, as Schumer's letter clearly did, confidence and dollars go flying out the bank door.

Why would Schumer do such a thing? He could always pick up the phone and talk to the regulator privately to make sure he was doing his job. But, no, a highly-publicized letter went out and catastrophe followed. The estimated bail-out cost could be $8 billion.

The regulator aptly said that Schumer's letter caused the bank to have a "heart attack." It will probably cause the nation, the economy and the markets more heartache and headaches.

UPDATE: Monday's WSJ quoted the federal regulator saying this about Schumer:

OTS Director John Reich said Friday that Mr. Schumer sparked a deposit run that "pushed IndyMac over the edge." Publicizing the June 26 letters was "an unprecedented act," Mr. Reich told reporters Friday. He said Sen. Schumer should have privately addressed his concerns with regulators.

Q. Who's responsible for high gas prices?
A. That's easy. The Democrats in Congress.

That includes Democrat Obama, Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Democrat Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the entire Massachusetts House delegation (all Democrats), with special mention to Cape Cod's Democrat Congressman William Delahunt, the "excellent friend" of Venezuela's America-hating Hugo Chavez.

Just yesterday Democrat Speaker of the House of Representatives Pelosi told her fellow Democrats they aren't going to budge on energy. She will not allow any bills to come to a vote that would permit American companies to drill for oil in America on the outer continental shelf and other places from which Democrat votes have banned them for years. As the New York Times reported, Democrat Pelosi said no way on drilling because if the Democrats changed their position (thus showing they were wrong all these years) they "might as well pack up and go home." Polls show a big majority of Americans want drilling now.

Not only is this outrageous for the average American paying upwards of $4 for gasoline, remember who we're handing our money over to.

So the American public is getting stiffed by the Democratic Congress and the oil boys are laughing all the way to their banks in the Middle East.. " How stupid can those Democrats be," they must be saying. "No wonder their approval rating has dropped to an all-time low of 9%. And with Obama as president, nothing will change. There'll be a lot of wind and sunshine, but no new oil."

John McCain has taken the lead in developing a national security policy embracing energy security. Recognizing the stranglehold that foreign oil producers have over the U.S. and the rest of the world McCain has called for lifting moratoria on drilling in U.S. territories except for the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and for building 45 nuclear power plants before 2030 and accelerating work on clean coal technology. Obama and the Democratic Party are opposed, continuing to bury their heads in Middle Eastern sands. Skyrocketing gasoline prices for the average American seem not to bother Obama or the Democratic majority in Congress.

Veteran oilman T. Boone Pickens agrees with John McCain that this oil dependency is dangerous. He, too, believes a comprehensive energy program is needed to set America free. Drilling, conservation and alternative energy sources such as biofuels, wind and solar along with natural gas (which the U.S. has in abundance) are all part of the solution.

It cannot be emphasized often enough that the West, including the United States, is funding both sides of the War on Terror. Commendably, Pickens is spending his own money to alert the American public to the magnitude of the dependency and its cost to America. Watch this clip from the first of a series of announcements he will be running on national TV.

The U.S. Senate today overwhelmingly approved a bill that authorizes surveillance of foreigners thought to be engaged in terrorist-related activity that could endanger citizens of the United States. The 69-28 vote is in favor was strongly bipartisan, as evidenced by the "yea" vote of the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Senator Jay Rockerfeller of West Virginia, who praised the bill for its protections of privacy and civil rights.

Once again Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts ignored the security concerns of the American people and voted against the bill. If the "nay" votes had prevailed, the stalemate that has hampered the collection of data on threats to Americans for more than a year would have continued.

It's time for some clear-headed thinking on the serious threats that face America. It is a failure of responsibiility such as this which demonstrates why voters should elect former Army Delta Force Officer Jeff Beatty this November 4th and send John Kerry into retirement.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 6304 )
Vote Number: 168 Vote Date: July 9, 2008, 02:47 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: H.R. 6304 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 )
Measure Title: A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 69
NAYs 28
Not Voting 3

It’s clear the Democratic Congress is the villain in high gas prices.

There is plenty of oil to be found off the coasts of the U.S. and in Rocky Mountains shale. Moratoriums, some for 30 years, have blocked development, leaving
Americans at the mercy of the Middle East, Russia and Venezuela.

This year alone American consumers of oil and its derivatives will be sending almost $700 billion to the Middle East, $400 billion of it to Saudi Arabia. That’s about 130% of the American defense budget.

John McCain has said it is foolish not to develop our own resources to end our dependency on foreign oil. He favors drilling offshore and in the Rocky Mountains (Obama is against). McCain believes we should develop nuclear power as well; Obama is opposed. Transportation runs on oil and our national security is endangered by continued reliance on unstable, unfriendly and enemy oil producers.

Republicans have made repeated efforts in Congress to lift the drilling moratoriums, but they have been blocked at every turn by the Democratic leadership.

As an example, just recently Republicans on the Senate Appropriations Committee proposed to end the moratorium blocking extraction of oil from shale on federal lands in the Rocky Mountains. On a 15-14 party line vote, the Democrats beat back the effort to help bring the price of gasoline down.

Yes, it will take several years to get the oil flowing. Congressional Democrats have made that point for years in defeating Republican proposals to drill. If we'd started drilling years ago, the oil would be flowing now.

Republican senators Hatch of Utah and Allard of Colorado were asked by Fortune Magazine about the damage Senate Democrats were doing by blocking the drilling. After all, it’s estimated that there are “800 billion barrels of recoverable oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming alone,” rivaling the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.

Fortune: Why do you consider developing oil shale such a high priority?

Sen. Hatch: We have as much oil in oil shale in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado as the rest of the world's oil combined. Liberals and environmentalists can talk all they want about wind, solar and geothermal - all of which I'm for - but last time I checked, planes, trains, trucks, ships and cars don't run on electricity. 98% of transportation fuel right now is oil. Ethanol is the only real alternative, and we're seeing that ethanol has major limitations….

People are going to go berserk when they find out that all along we had the capacity, within our own borders, to alleviate our dependency in an environmentally friendly way. (emphasis added)

That’s it, in a nutshell. The Democratic Congress refuses to take steps to make more of our own gasoline available to American motorists. Will they be as stubborn (stupid?) when gas prices go to $5, $6 a gallon?

The ultra-left foreign affairs columnist of the Boston Globe H.D.S. Greenway today admitted (Boston Globe, July 8, 2008) that Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations " theories [first published in 1993] are looking ever more prescient."

To stress his point, Greenway quotes Professor Fouad Ajami (Director of Middle Eastern Studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies) who, echoing Huntington, observed that the "youth bulge," the "young Arabs and Muslims" -- as represented by "the 19 young Arabs who struck America on 9/11" --."were the shock troops of a new radicalism. . . . Islam has grown assertive and belligerent."

John S. McCain says this is the "transcendent challenge" of our times. With hundreds of billions of dollars in oil money pouring into enemy, unfriendly and not-too-friendly Middle East regimes in which millions of young men have been taught to hate the West, they are more of a threat than they were in 1993 or even on 9/11/2001.

Barack H. Obama dismisses the Islamist threat as "the politics of fear."

Who, then, has the experience and the understanding to defend the country as Commander-in-Chief in these perilous times?

Professor Sowell, the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at Stanford's Hoover Institution, is a widely read columnist writing for the Creators Syndicate.

Dr. Thomas Sowell examines the phenomenon of the media, teenagers and other usually sensible people swooning over Obama and gives us this warning:

Voting is a right but it is also a duty-- a duty not just to show up on election day, but a duty to give serious thought to the alternatives on the table and what those alternatives mean for the future of the nation.

What Professor Sowell sees is people not paying attention to facts and "the future of the nation," but only to campaign rhetoric and skin color. They aren't being serious.

What is becoming ever more painfully apparent is that too many people this year-- whether conservative, liberals or whatever-- are all too willing to judge Barack Obama on the basis of his election-year rhetoric, rather than on the record of what he has advocated and done during the past two decades. Many are for him for no more serious reasons than his mouth and his complexion. The man has become a Rorschach test for the feelings and hopes, not only of those on the left, but also for some on the right as well. Here is a man who has consistently aided and abetted people who have openly expressed their contempt for this country, both in words and in such deeds as planting bombs to advance their left-wing agenda.

Despite the spin that judging Obama by what was said or done by such people would be "guilt by association," he has not just associated with such people. He has in some cases donated some serious money of his own and even more of the taxpayers' money, as both a state senator in Illinois and a member of the Senate of the United States.

Barack Obama is on record as favoring the kinds of justices who make policy, not just carry out laws. No matter how he may “refine” his position on this issue, he voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, who was easily confirmed by more than three-quarters of the Senators.

Like people on the far left for literally centuries, Barack Obama plays down the dangers to the nation, and calls talk about such dangers "the politics of fear."

Back in the 18th century, Helvetius said, "When I speak I put on a mask. When I act, I am forced to take it off." Too many voters still have not learned that lesson. They need to look at the track record of Obama's actions.

Back in the days of "The Lone Ranger" program, someone would ask, "Who is that masked man?" People need to start asking that question about Barack Obama.

Indeed.

What American is kicking our closest ally in the Americas in the teeth?

Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The world celebrates the astonishing rescue by the Columbian army of 15 FARC hostages, some of whom had been held for six years. Three Americans were among them. Columbia is the closest ally of the U.S. in the Western Hemisphere and the rescue was aided by close cooperation with the United States under a program adopted in 1998 by a Republican Congress and President Clinton. President Uribe's popularity, which hovers around 70%, soared to over 90% following the rescue.

Yet Democratic House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi has refused to allow the Columbia-U.S.Free Trade Agreement to go to a vote on the House floor. Political analyst Michael Barone had this to say about that:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's rejection of the Colombia free-trade agreement, by changing House rules in a way that may have destroyed the fast track procedure by which the United States has secured free-trade agreements for more than four decades, seems to me to be the one truly shameful act of this Congress. This rejection of an ally, the third largest country in Latin America, a nation that is threatened by authoritarian and terrorist opponents, and has nonetheless succeeded in strengthening human rights and stimulating economic growth, is as disgusting as anything I've seen Congress do. John McCain hailed Colombia's action; Barack Obama, an opponent of the Colombia trade agreement, unblushingly chimed in a bit later. I wonder how he reconciles this with his message on the Colombia trade pact, summed up aptly in the title of a Washington Post editorial, "Drop Dead, Colombia." (emphasis added)

The Free-Trade Agreement will create jobs for Americans by opening up Columbia's markets while it only makes permanent market access to American markets Columbia has enjoyed on a temporary basis for years.

This would also be a good time -- he's changing his position on everything else -- for Senator Obama to reverse his position and finally speak in favor of the Columbia free trade agreement.

Senator McCain has strongly supported the free trade agreement. He was visiting with President Uribe the day before the rescue attempt. The president briefed McCain on it beforehand. Senator Joe Lieberman, traveling with Senator McCain along with Senator Lindsey Graham, said this:

"I think it was a sign of confidence of President Uribe and the defense minister in Sen. McCain and maybe the two of us that they were prepared to share this information...which was highly classified."

Before the glow from Independence Day fades, one should consider what Professor Thomas Sowell asks.

How did "God Bless America" become "God Damn America"?

Does Patriotism Matter?
Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, July 02, 2008

The Fourth of July is a patriotic holiday but patriotism has long been viewed with suspicion or disdain by many of the intelligentsia. As far back as 1793, prominent British writer William Godwin called patriotism "high-sounding nonsense."

Internationalism has long been a competitor with patriotism, especially among the intelligentsia. H.G. Wells advocated replacing the idea of duty to one's country with "the idea of cosmopolitan duty."

Perhaps nowhere was patriotism so downplayed or deplored than among intellectuals in the Western democracies in the two decades after the horrors of the First World War, fought under various nations' banners of patriotism.

In France, after the First World War, the teachers' unions launched a systematic purge of textbooks, in order to promote internationalism and pacifism.

Books that depicted the courage and self-sacrifice of soldiers who had defended France against the German invaders were called "bellicose" books to be banished from the schools.

Textbook publishers caved in to the power of the teachers' unions, rather than lose a large market for their books. History books were sharply revised to conform to internationalism and pacifism.

The once epic story of the French soldiers' heroic defense against the German invaders at Verdun, despite the massive casualties suffered by the French, was now transformed into a story of horrible suffering by all soldiers at Verdun-- French and German alike.

In short, soldiers once depicted as national heroes were now depicted as victims-- and just like victims in other nations' armies.

Children were bombarded with stories on the horrors of war. In some schools, children whose fathers had been killed during the war were asked to speak to the class and many of these children-- as well as some of their classmates and teachers-- broke down in tears.

In Britain, Winston Churchill warned that a country "cannot avoid war by dilating upon its horrors." In France, Marshal Philippe Petain, the victor at Verdun, warned in 1934 that teachers were trying to "raise our sons in ignorance of or in contempt of the fatherland."

But they were voices drowned out by the pacifist and internationalist rhetoric of the 1920s and 1930s.

Did it matter? Does patriotism matter?

France, where pacifism and internationalism were strongest, became a classic example of how much it can matter.

During the First World War, France fought on against the German invaders for four long years, despite having more of its soldiers killed than all the American soldiers killed in all the wars in the history of the United States, put together.

But during the Second World War, France collapsed after just six weeks of fighting and surrendered to Nazi Germany. At the bitter moment of defeat the head of the French teachers' union was told, "You are partially responsible for the defeat."

Charles de Gaulle, Francois Mauriac, and other Frenchmen blamed a lack of national will or general moral decay, for the sudden and humiliating collapse of France in 1940.

At the outset of the invasion, both German and French generals assessed French military forces as more likely to gain victory, and virtually no one expected France to collapse like a house of cards -- except Adolf Hitler, who had studied French society instead of French military forces.

Did patriotism matter? It mattered more than superior French tanks and planes.

Most Americans today are unaware of how much our schools have followed in the footsteps of the French schools of the 1920s and 1930s, or how much our intellectuals have become citizens of the world instead of American patriots.

Our media are busy verbally transforming American combat troops from heroes into victims, just as the French intelligentsia did-- with the added twist of calling this "supporting the troops."

Will that matter? Time will tell.

As reported by us Thursday (scroll down), Massachusetts Tenth Congressional District Representative William Delahunt, who represents Cape Cod, told Vice President Cheney's chief of staff and former legal counsel, who had been forced to publicly testify at a hearing, he was "glad" al-Qaeda finally got a chance to see him on TV.

Rep Steve King (R-Iowa) immediately protested: “Congressman Delahunt’s live, televised statement to Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff was an invitation to Al-Qaeda to target him. I wonder if Bill Delahunt is ready to guard Mr. Addington’s home and family.”

John Hinderaker, prominent Minneapolis lawyer, writing on the PowerLine blog, after watching Delahunt's remarks on video said "Delahunt's malice and viciousness is obvious to anyone who watches it." Directors of RedState, a conservative blog, called on the House of Representatives to censure Delahunt. Another commentator wondered how Massachusetts and the people of the Tenth Congressional District can stomach such "vile stupidity."

It is embarrassing enough to see Delahunt playing buddy-buddy with the America-hating Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, but, now, to have our representative in Congress clearly implying he hopes al-Qaeda will take out an American government official with whom he disagrees is sickening.

In a one-party state such as Massachusetts there is no discipline of elected representatives by the voters. Once in office they stay forever and can arrogantly do and say what they please, knowing that they can anger, irritate and embarrass their consitutents but that they will get away with it, even as they play the fool.

There are many good reasons to vote for Jeff Beatty over John Kerry this November, but Delahunt just gave the voters of Massachusetts another one. It's time to break the back of one-party rule. And blank the vote for House of Representatives in the Tenth.

If you missed the Delahunt video, it's here.

We have an energy crisis and $4 gasoline because Democrats in Congress have forbidden drilling for our own oil for 30 years. Their presidential candidate also seems content to continue the nation's dependency on hostile and unstable suppliers in the Middle East, Russia and Venezuela.

Our Congressman here on the Cape is usually just known as Congress' number one champion of Hugo Chavez, the de facto dictator in Venezuela who hates America.

But he keeps his eyes on Chavez's friends such as those in al-Qaeda. At a House hearing captured on C-Span Delahunt had this exchange with the former counsel to Vice President Cheney:

Cheney chief of staff David Addington told Democratic Rep. Bill Delahunt he couldn’t discuss specific techniques being used, or even discussed for use, by CIA agents because terrorists may be watching his appearance and would gain insight into what U.S. intelligence agents are up to.
“You kind of communicate with Al Qaeda if you do. I can’t talk to you because Al Qaeda may watch C-SPAN,” Addington said.
Delahunt responded: “I’m sure they are watching. I’m glad they finally have a chance to see you, Mr. Addington, given your penchant for being unobtrusive."

Delahunt later denied he was expressing pleasure that terrorists now had had a good look at who Addington was.

What do you think?

The incredible 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court, in the words of Justice Scalia, “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”

The Boumediene decision: Senator McCain called the ruling “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

Quoting Chief Justice Roberts in dissent:

The majority merely replaces a review system designed by the people’s representatives with a set of shapeless procedures to be defined by federal courts at some future date. One cannot help but think, after surveying the modest practical results of the majority’s ambitious opinion, that this decision is not really about the detainees at all, but about control of federal policy regarding enemy combatants.

The estimable expert on American politics Michael Barone takes a look at this year's political landscape and sees a new terrain. In effect he says "Forget red states and blue states, this time it's different."

The Wall Street Journal editors (June 4 2008) observed the brilliance of Senator Obama's rhetoric and the skill of the campaign that has brought him the Democratic nomination for president of the United States. The editorial went on to note that Obama was "the least tested and experienced major party nominee in modern times."

Irrelevant Apologies

Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
It is amazing how seriously the media are taking Senator Barack Obama's latest statement about the latest racist rant from the pulpit of the church he has attended for 20 years. But neither that statement nor the apology for his rant by Father Michael Pfleger really matters, one way or the other. Nor does Senator Obama's belated resignation from that church.
For any politician, what matters is not his election year rhetoric, or an election year resignation from a church, but the track record of that politician in the years before the election.

Are Barack Obama's views shown by what he says during an election year or by what he has been doing for decades before?
The complete contrast between Obama's election year image as a healer of divisions and his whole career of promoting far-left grievance politics, in association with America-haters like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, are brushed aside by his supporters who talk about getting back to "the real issues."
There is nothing more real than a man's character and values. The track record of what he has actually done is far more real than anything he says, however elegantly he says it.

Continue reading "CHARACTER AND VALUES COUNT IN ELECTING A PRESIDENT"

Posted by Republican on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 10:20 PM | Comments (0)
Email This | DIGG This | del.icio.us | Facebook | Stumble It

Obama wasn’t fazed by Jeremiah Wright’s "God Damn America" or his accusation that the U.S. government invented AIDS to wipe out blacks. He couldn’t disown him when the videos came out, but then when the good reverend repeated these accusations at the National Press Club, and then went on to say that Obama, who said he had never heard any of that stuff in his 20 years in the pews, was just another politician who said what he had to and did what politicians do, well, that was too much for Obama. Time for the reverend to go under the bus with his "typical white person" grandmother.

What was different this second go-round? Obama made it clear -- It's all about me:

‘[A]t a certain point, if what somebody says contradicts what you believe so fundamentally, and then he questions whether or not you believe it in front of the National Press Club, then that's enough. That's -- that's a show of disrespect to me. It's a -- it is also, I think, an insult to what we've been trying to do in this campaign.’

The state Democratic convention gave 22% of its vote to Gloucester lawyer and former lobsterman Ed O'Reilly to force a primary runoff against long time senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004. Kerry fatigue is clearly setting in, even in Democratic circles. While upbeat Bruce Springsteen music accompanied Kerry to the convention stage, it was not enough to carry him to an unchallenged victory. However, to show how far out of the mainstrem the Massachusetts Democratic Party is today, O'Reilly is running to the LEFT of Kerry, complaiining that he is insufficiently opposed to traditional marriage and doesn't support immediate surrender in Iraq.

Jim Ogonowski failed to get the required 10,000 certified sigatures to get on the Republican primary ballot to contest with Jeff Beatty, who easily qualified, to face off against Senator John Kerry. Hopefully, those who were supporting Jim will swing behind Harwich's Jeff Beatty. Some signs of dissatisfaction even within the Democratic Party may be stirring since a Gloucester man says he will challenge Kerry at the Democratic convention for the nomination. In typical Kerry style, Kerry expressed supreme confidence he would crush his opposition.

Obama's strange collection of friends included Antoin Rezko, who did Obama a big favor in having his wife (income $37,000) buy an unusable lot (for the full asking price of $625,000) next to the main lot Obama wanted which Obama bought for a discounted price. Obama couldn't afford the asking price otherwise. Rezko got the money from a loan from an Iraqi Muslim while he was essentially bankrupt. It is not known if the lender knew where most of the money was going or if Obama knew where the money was coming from. What Rezko didn't use for buying the Obama companion lot went to pay lawyers for his tangle of law suits, including federal prosecution for influence peddling charges. Rezko raised about $160,000 for Obama's campaigns.

Today Rezko was convicted of influence peddling by a federal jury.

Rezko Convicted of Influence Peddling Updated 5:23 p.m. By Peter Slevin CHICAGO -- A federal jury today convicted political fundraiser Antoin Rezko, a longtime backer of Sen. Barack Obama, of influence peddling in the high councils of Illinois state government.

The verdict comes after weeks of vivid insider accounts about attempts to sell political favors in the administration of Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich (D).

The jury concluded that Rezko was part of a corrupt money-making scheme and found Rezko guilty of 16 of 24 felony counts, including fraud, money laundering and joining a bribery conspiracy.

Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, was not connected to the case and has not been implicated in wrongdoing.

The verdict nonetheless makes it more likely that critics will continue to question his relationship with Rezko, who contributed to and raised money for earlier campaigns and bought property adjacent to Obama's Chicago home.

Indeed, within 20 minutes of the verdict's announcement, the Republican National Committee sent an e-mail to reporters under the subject line, "Rezko: Obama's Longtime Friend and Money Man."

Obama has said whenever asked -- and he has been asked often -- that Rezko asked for no favors and that he did him none.

Rezko, once the prosperous owner of restaurant chains, did not testify at the trial.

More...

A fine organization to which to make a gift to honor America's fighting men and women is Soldiers' Angels. Click on the link to learn about it and to make a donation.

Mitt Romney is jumping in to help Republican candidates this November. He has begun a new organization with a website FreeStrongAmerica.com. John McCain for President is clearly at the top of the list, as he should be. Click on the link and see what Mitt has to say.

John McCain has retooled his message as he now focuses full bore on the November election and the inexperienced, loose-talking but grand orator Barack Obama, who, incredibly, it appears the Democratic Party is going to name as its nominee. Check out the new John McCain.com.

Two versions of a new GI bill are being debated in the Senate. Democrat Jim Webb's bill woud give all veterans full benefits after serving one term. The version backed by John McCain encourages re-enlistment by having a sliding scale of college benefits depending upon length of service. The President and military leaders support this version.

Barack Obama, in supporting the Webb bill, accused McCain of "political posturing."

McCain wasted no time in responding:

It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of. Let me say first in response to Senator Obama, running for President is different than serving as President. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim.

...I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did.

Read all of McCain's statement by clicking here.

The leading analyst of the Middle East Caroline Glick called Barack Obama' rise to prominence and his foreign policy "frightening." (And see our earlier post "Obama: Frightening" below.)

Today, Pulitizer Prize winner columnist Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post said this of the Democratic oratorical wonder and his intention to meet with all of the world's leading thugs in his first year as president:

Before the Democratic debate of July 23, Barack Obama had never expounded upon the wisdom of meeting, without precondition, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il or the Castro brothers. But in that debate, he was asked about doing exactly that. Unprepared, he said sure -- then got fancy, declaring the Bush administration's refusal to do so not just "ridiculous" but "a disgrace."

What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.

Having lashed himself to the ridiculous, unprecedented promise of unconditional presidential negotiations -- and then having compounded the problem by elevating it to a principle -- Obama keeps trying to explain. On Sunday, he declared in Pendleton, Ore., that by Soviet standards Iran and others "don't pose a serious threat to us." (On the contrary. Islamic Iran is dangerously apocalyptic. Soviet Russia was not.) The next day in Billings, Mont.: "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

That's the very next day, mind you. Such rhetorical flailing has done more than create an intellectual mess. It has given rise to a new political phenomenon: the metastatic gaffe. The one begets another, begets another, begets ...

This all would be just too hilariious if it weren't so deadly dangerous. To think that such absurdites are being uttered by the leading contender for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States is, yes, "frightening."

The speculation is growing. Mitt Romney is still prominently on the list, according to some, despite what appeared to be dismayingly strong anti-Mormon sentiment in parts of the conservative base. Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota is young, vigorous and popular and would be a very attractive running mate; his downside is he is unknown and with all the nation has been learning about the "unknown" Barack Obama, an "unknown" might have trouble getting picked.

The New York Sun has a candidate it thinks is perfect: Independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Yes, he's on the wrong side of some very important core issues, but on the "transcendent challenge" of our times, dealing with Islamic imperialism, he couldn't be more solid. At a dinner the other night, Lieberman had this to say, as reported by the Sun:

Let us just say that after Sunday night's speech by Mr. Lieberman at the annual Commentary dinner, there is little doubt in our minds that the senator expelled by the Democrats two years ago in Connecticut would be a fabulous running mate for Mr. McCain. Concerns that he wouldn't appeal to the conservative base? Mr. Lieberman pointedly referred to the New York Times as "a once-great newspaper" and said that the editor of National Review, William F. Buckley Jr., had been like an "older brother" to him. He noted that Buckley had endorsed him in the campaign when he first won election to the Senate, against a left-wing Republican,Lowell Weicker.

Mr. Lieberman spoke of how the Democratic Party had lost its way, from a party that was once "unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American," to one that came under the sway of a philosophy that saw America as the aggressor. "There is now more isolationist sentiment in Democratic than in Republican ranks," Mr. Lieberman said, deriding what he called the "McGovern-Carter blame-America worldview." He attacked Senator Obama, saying that the "presumptive presidential nominee," "has really not been willing to stand up to his party's left on a single significant issue this far in his campaign."

Mr. Lieberman criticized Mr. Obama's promise to meet with President Ahmadinejad and with the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong Il, saying that Kennedy never met with Castro and Reagan never met with Ayatollah Khomenei. He pointed out that while Mr. Obama is courting the Iranians and the North Koreans, he is spurning our allies, opposing free trade agreements with South Korea and Colombia, and "pledging to abandon the democratically elected government inBaghdad." He called President Bush's speech in Jerusalem that Mr. Obama so heatedly objected to "magnificent."

Something to think about.

Jeff Beatty of Harwich and Jim Ogonowski from the North Shore are contesting for the Republican nomination to oppose Democrat John Kerry in November. According to the Boston Globe, Ogonowski may be in trouble securing the necessary signatures to appear on the ballot. 10,000 valid signatures are needed and the deadline for filing with the Secretary of State is Tuesday, May 27th. The primary election is in September.

In another chapter in the long-running saga (and its variations) of “The lady doth protest too much, methinks,” Democratic presidential candidate Barack H. Obama leaped to respond to a speech President George W. Bush gave before the Israeli parliament on Thursday, May 15, 2008 during the observance of the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence.

During the course of his address, President George W. Bush made the following point:

“The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.

“This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.

“And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

“There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,'' Bush said in an address to the Knesset today which drew repeated standing ovations for his commitment to stand by Israel against all enemies.

“We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.''

Almost immediately, in what seemed to at least some as a guilty reaction, Democratic presidential candidate Barack H. Obama complained:

Obama …called Bush's remarks "a false political attack."

"It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel," Obama said in a written statement. "Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power - including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria.

"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists," Obama said, "and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

In response to reporters’ calls for a statement, the White House press office issued a comment:

Dana Perino, White House press secretary, said the president's remark was not directed at Obama. "It is not. And I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that President Bush thinks we should not talk to. I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you -- that is not always true, and it is not true in this case.''.

It’s a mystery why Obama would want to remind voters of his willingness to sit down with tyrants and terrorists and associate himself with appeasement. Obama did say he would as president meet without preconditions with, among others, the president of Iran Mahmoud Amadinejad, who wants to wipe Israel off the map.

Note: The senatorial statement from 1939 which the president quoted was made by Senator William E. Borah, Republican of Idaho.

The full text of the President’s address can be read here.

Who's smarter and more sophisticated than we are?

Who "understands" the comfort the little people get by clinging to their God and guns and hating immigrants and free trade?

Who knows he is better than us?

Who?

On the Sunday talk shows a parade of Dem biggies agreed that Obama was wrong to say he as president would personally meet with the thugs running North Korea, Syria and Iran "without preconditions." What wonderful words of persuasion does he have for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who calls Israel "a stinking corpse" and vows to wipe it off the map? What is Obama going to say to Ahmadinejad that will make him stop his secret forces from pushing IEDs into Iraq to kill Americans and civilan women and children?

Watch Obama Say "I Would" Meet Unconditionally With Leaders Of Iran, North Korea, Syria, And Other Nations.

That a person of such naivete and such an astonishing lack of experience and good judgment is the Democratic frontrunner for the nomination for president is astonishing.

John McCain has called Islamic imperialism the "transcendent challenge" of the 21st century. In whose hands should the American people place the sacred duty for defending the nation and its people in these dangerous times? A hard-headed, been-through-the-mill realist such as John McCain or a grand orator such as Barack Obama?