'Radical Islam' should jolt voters, evangelicals say

'Radical Islam' should jolt voters, evangelicals say - USATODAY.com

Following last month's Values Voter Summit in Washington, conservative Christian power-broker Gary Bauer sent an e-mail to supporters.

He ticked off the issues dear to activists in attendance. Opposition to "abortion-on-demand" and preservation of traditional marriage led the way.

Then the one-time presidential hopeful turned his attention to a different threat, one social conservative leaders hope will shake their constituents from their apathy about the 2008 presidential race.

"The war against Islamofascism is in many respects a 'values issue,"' Bauer wrote. "That may seem like an odd statement at first glance, but, as I have often said, losing Western Civilization to this vicious enemy would be immoral."

"It's the ultimate life issue," said Rick Scarborough, president of the Texas-based conservative Christian group Vision America. "If radical Islam succeeds in its ultimate goals, Christianity ceases to exist."

That might sound alarmist, but Scarborough's words illustrate how many conservative Christian leaders view matters of national security as a battle between good and evil — nothing short of a clash of civilizations.

With America at war in Iraq and continued aftershocks from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, national security is an issue for all the campaigns. But disagreement exists about how to frame the threat, with Republicans more likely to blame radical Islam and Democrats speaking more generally about terrorism.

The use of "Islamofascism" is another flashpoint. Proponents of the term argue that Islamic radicals who embrace totalitarian methods evoke European fascist movements of the early 20th century. Critics call it manufactured propaganda, a 21st-century scare tactic that fails to capture the complex causes of terrorism.

Tensions between evangelical Christianity and Islam are long-standing, too. Aside from major theological differences, the two traditions work tirelessly to win new believers and often compete. Evangelical missionary groups have long protested restrictions on access to predominantly Muslim nations in Africa and the Middle East.

The Sept. 11 attacks, carried out by Muslims who cited their religion as a motivating factor, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have further inflamed evangelical anxiety.

"These Christian right activists are very concerned with order," said John Green, a senior fellow with the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "And radical Islam, in the same way that radical Communism was, is a threat that would interfere with families, with good government, and also the church and the spreading of the Gospel."

So what kind of solutions do Christian conservative leaders propose for battling what they see as a real threat?

One is staying in Iraq. More than 40 conservative leaders, most of them social conservatives, signed a declaration in September warning against the "catastrophic" consequences of withdrawing from Iraq. The statement said the war "must be seen in the broader context of Islamo-fascism's war on America and Western Civilization."

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sphere: Related Content

Republican Darlings of the Leftist Press

CFP: Republican Darlings of the Leftist Press

Dark horse candidate Ron Paul is fast becoming the media darling of the same leftist press that has been pushing Rudy Giuliani for President since 2001. This alone should make conservatives nervous about supporting either. If the leftist press approves, count me out!

Most conservatives know too well why the press is pushing for these two candidates. But it’s high time the supporters of these two candidates come to grips with this reality.

In a recent Zogby poll asking who you would NEVER vote for in America, Paul came in third, behind only Hillary Clinton and Dennis Kookoocinich. Half of America said that they would NEVER vote for any of the three. Giuliani is a front-runner and Paul is a caboose, at best.

Giuliani is pro-war on terror, including in Iraq. Paul is anti-war on terror, especially in Iraq. Rudy supports abortion and gay rights. Paul opposes both. Giuliani is pro-trade. Paul is an isolationist. Giuliani supports some government run social engineering. Paul prefers none. They could hardly be more different, yet the leftist press is pushing for both of them. Why?

They are the only two Republicans who guarantee a divided conservative vote in 2008

Like in 1992 and 1996, when former cheater-in-chief Bill Clinton won the White House against the will of more than 50% of American voters, by way of a conservative electorate divided by Ross Perot, Hillary needs a divided conservative vote in order to win in 2008.

No matter who you like, there is no doubt in any conservative mind, that the leftist press is very pro-Hillary. If a blind poll were taken across the American press, Hitlery would get more then 80% of the press vote.

They love Rudy because...

In part, Rudy is the social liberal of the Republican Party. This means that they can still get most of their leftist social agenda through even if Hillary loses, so long as Rudy wins. He’s a good second choice for social liberals. But even more important is the fact that while he leads the field, he leads with only 30% or less of the conservative vote. This guarantees a divided conservative electorate in 2008 and that’s what makes Rudy a favorite in the press.

Rudy can’t defeat Hillary if he can’t unite conservative voters, and he can’t. Rudy supporters really need to take a close look at this reality.

They love Paul because...

He’s anti-war like them. He’s running on leftist anti-war talking points, lending credence to their anti-war anti-American rhetoric by being the first Republican to squawk the same message as Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin and Harry Reid. But more importantly, as a result, he too guarantees a divided conservative electorate in 2008.

Paul can’t even defeat Rudy for the nomination, so there’s no way he can unite conservative voters to defeat Hillary. He can’t win anything among conservatives or even libertarians. The only way he can win the Republican nomination is to get his supporters over in the DNC to jump parties long enough to vote in the RNC primary.

Liberals might jump parties to help Paul win the Republican nomination. But they will vote Democrat in the general election. That makes Paul a leftist’s dream and a Republican nightmare. This is why primaries should be closed to registered party members. In too many states, they are not.

Hillary can not win against a united and engaged conservative electorate. Neither can any other Democratic Socialist, including Al Gore. America may or may not be ready to elect its first female President. But it isn’t going to be the most hated and distrusted female in America, and rightfully so. 50% of America would never vote for her and she will be lucky to garner 50% of the Democrat vote. She can only win with at best about 45% of the popular vote, against the will of 55% of voters.

For conservatives to win in ‘08, they only need to unite and engage. This requires a candidate that conservatives can unite behind, not a candidate as socially left as Democrats or a candidate that has run so hard to the extreme right that he has circled the issues and come up left of Hillary on national security.

The fact is, like it or not, love Rudy or Paul or not, Rudy and Paul are the only two candidates who CAN’T defeat Hillary because they are the only two who CAN NOT unite or motivate conservative voters. Paul can’t get more than 10% and Giuliani can’t get more than 40%, of conservatives, ever!

Disagree with me if you want, but mark on your calendar that today, JB told you that if either of these two candidates becomes the Republican nominee, Democratic Socialists win in ‘08.

And that’s why these two are the media darlings of the leftist press today and will likely remain so throughout the primary process.

Divided, conservatives will fall in 2008. Is there any doubt about that?

But united, conservatives can’t lose. Are you so committed to one of these two candidates that you are unwilling to unite behind any other? If so, remember that, as you watch the left take control of all branches of government in ‘08 by way of divided conservatives…

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sphere: Related Content

The Top 10 Things to Know About '08

Townhall.com::The Top 10 Things to Know About '08::By Patrick Ruffini

If you're angling for a spot as campaign manager for one of the 2012 or 2016 campaigns, here are the top ten things you'll learn from 2008 (so far).

10. Politics Abhors a Vacuum. Earlier in the year, conservatives anguished over the choice of "Rudy McRomney." The conspicuous absence of a reliable conservative from the GOP's top tier created a huge vacuum that Fred Thompson tried to fill, but ultimately couldn't. Enter Mike Huckabee, who seems destined to play a major role in Iowa.

While social conservatives probably won't get their top choice at the end of the day, the rise of Mike Huckabee proves that politics abhors a vacuum. There was ample room for a social conservative to run well in Iowa, and odds are that will happen in one way or another.

9. Announcement Bumps Always Fade, But... Check out RealClearPolitics's polling charts for the Republican nomination. When Rudy "announced" in the winter he got a bump. When Fred announced in September he got a bump. Mitt's first place showing in Ames, followed by a poll bump, was in many ways his national coming-out.

All of these bumps faded, but the size of the bump tells you something about the resiliency of each of the campaigns. When Rudy announced, he led big. Likewise, Fred's September bump also showed his potential for gathering wide support, though it wasn't as pronounced as Rudy's. By comparison, Senator McCain received no bump from his April announcement, an omen that probably foreshadowed the wheels coming off of his campaign machine.

8. Get In Early. Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson banked on a surge of frustration with the GOP frontrunners to fuel their late-starting candidacies. And for a time, Thompson biding his time looked like a brilliant strategy.

In Newt's case, the takeaway is that you can't influence events from the periphery; the longer he waited, the more his influence waned. It's also easy to say that Thompson peaked too soon. But that isn't the whole story: Presidential campaigns are massive undertakings, their first few moves filled with missteps and rookie mistakes. You want all the time you can get to be able to work out the kinks. In Fred's case, he had to deal with staff turmoil and other similar distractions through the summer and well into the fall, while other campaigns got this out of their systems early on. And it hurt him.

7. Second Timers Don't Win. This one hasn't always held true, but the new environment of permanent campaigns is writing a new rule for Presidential candidacies: one strike and you're out (unless you get elected VP). The fact that the Johns (Edwards and McCain) have had so much trouble catching on is directly related to the lack of mystique surrounding their candidacies. They're yesterday's news, and were best known for losing. Meanwhile, candidates with a combined six years in statewide office (Romney and Obama) rank near the top of their respective fields. Edwards in particular benefited from this dynamic the last time around, and is its chief victim in '08.

6. Nice Guys Finish Last. The polls say that the public despises negative politics. The polls are wrong.

In an 8-second soundbite universe, new information is king and attacks always make the news. So while it's true that the public may not like hearing slashing attacks, new attacks always have more legs than recycled positives.

Barack Obama has tried to stay above the fray, embracing a "politics of hope" and until recently limiting his attacks on Hillary Clinton to the notion that she was too polarizing. The result: he stayed flat while she surged ahead. Politics is about conveying the reasons why voters should vote for you and no one else. (The media loves covering the last part.) Being Miss Congeniality gets you nowhere.

5. Be the Guy (or Gal) People Want to Vote For. Emotion, charisma, and nostalgia are still huge factors in driving the vote. Committed observers of politics disparage this basic fact -- while candidates who are able to establish an emotional connection with the voters keep laughing all the way to the White House.

Hillary continues to romp thanks to Democratic nostalgia for Bill despite lingering doubts about her electability. Mike Huckabee, who's good with a quip, edged the more rigorous Sam Brownback out of the race. The pro-choice Giuliani thrived while the pro-life McCain tanked because of the connection the former built with Americans on 9/11. Appeals to reason increasingly fall on deaf ears. That sounds like a stinging indictment, but it's not. It's simple reality. And smart politicians need to adapt to it.

4. You Actually Have to Want the Job. Personally, I have no opinion on the burning question of whether or not Fred Thompson wants the Presidency or not. But you have to admit that the perception that he doesn't, combined with some prominent un-dorsements related to this supposed lack of fire in the belly, have created their own reality on this point.

Voters ultimately respect candidates who do what it takes to win. They may not savor the particulars or the negative ads, but how you run your campaign is a proxy how you run a Presidency. If you're dogged, if you work hard, if you consistently outsmart your opponents, that's a powerful qualifier for the toughest job on Earth.

3. Primary Debates Don't Matter, But the Post-Spin Does. Big Time. Regular people don't watch primary debates -- and that makes the post-debate spin all the more important. In 2004, people who watched the first debate thought John Kerry did better by a small margin. Four days later, they said Kerry won by a 3-to-1 margin. The post-spin matters.

This is all the more important in primary debates because of the small initial audience. Chances are you didn't hear about Hillary's last debate performance by watching the debate, but by watching the overwhelmingly negative coverage of it. Likewise, the negative reaction to Rudy's early missteps on abortion in the debates forced him to give a sweeping address on these issues that largely succeeded in stopping the drip-drip-drip of social issue attacks that was dogging his campaign (further evidence of #8 above and getting the bad stuff out early).

2. You Can Buy an Early Lead in IA/NH for About $2 Million. Cool. Mitt Romney's surge to the top of the pack in Iowa and New Hampshire will be studied for years to come. How did a relatively unknown Massachusetts Governor become the hands-down early state favorite? Answer: by dropping ads in these states when no one else would and being on the air uncontested for months. It didn't take much -- perhaps as little as $2 million -- before Romney surged to the lead in these states. And less than 60 days until the voting begins, this early surge has not "corrected" itself.

1. Issues Are Secondary. This is the one that D.C. insiders, the media, and interest group conservatives really don't get. How has Rudy Giuliani stayed atop the GOP field for so long? Because people admire his leadership persona despite his positions on issues. How is Hillary Clinton (who won't apologize for her vote for the war) winning over a rabidly anti-war primary electorate? Because she represents The Clintonian Restoration, and issues are secondary.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sphere: Related Content

Another question planted by team Hillary?

So, Hillary supporters, is this:

a) unethical, or

b) sometimes you have to do whatever it takes to win?


Another Question Planted by Team Hillary? « Cameron’s Corner « FOXNews.com

In a telephone interview with Fox, Geoffrey Mitchell, 32, says he was approached by an operative for the Clinton campaign to ask a planted question about standing up to President Bush on Iraq war funding. The encounter happened before an event on a farm outside Fort Madison, Iowa. The Clinton event was hosted by Iowa State Sen. Gene Fraise. Mitchell tells Fox that Clinton campaign worker Chris Hayler approached him and asked him to ask Sen. Clinton a question about how she was standing up to President Bush on the question of funding the Iraq war and a troop withdrawal timeline. Mitchell told Fox the Clinton campaign wanted to contrast Clinton to Sen Barack Obama, who had recently said the president would probably prevail in the Iraq funding battle with Congress. Mitchell said he refused to ask the question. “I told Chris I had other issues I wanted to raise with Sen. CLinton,” MItchell said. Asked what those were, Mitchell said: “I wanted to ask her why she voted for the Iraq war and why she didn’t consider that a mistake.” Mitchel told Fox that Hayler, the Clinton campaign worker, was unhappy and moved on to others. “I know he tried to have others ask that question,” Mitchell said. Ultimately, Mitchell said Clinton took no questions at the event.

Hillary Clinton’s Iowa campaign confirmed to Fox that one of its staff discussed questions with Geoffrey Mitchell before the senator’s April 2 event near Fort Madison, but denied atempting to plant a pro-Clinton question.

Asked if the Clinton campaign denied Mitchell’s unequivocal assertion that Hayler tried to plant a quesiton about Clinton trying to stand up to Bush on IRaq war funding, Elliethee declined. “I’m not going to comment on what he said,” said Elleithee, referring to Mitchell. “They had a previous relationship, the subject came up and there’s nothing more to it than that. It’s not newsworthy. It’s inocent. It’s not yesterday.” That was a reference to Clinton’s campaign admitting, first to Fox, that it planted a question on global warming at a Newton, IA event on Tuesday.

hattip to NJDhockeyfan on LGF

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary supporter defends lying, because "sometimes you have to do whatever it takes to win".

Someone calling themselves “Vote for Hillary Online" has submitted comments to 1RedThread in response to a couple posts today about Hillary Clinton.

In response to the “Hillary's people planted global warming question in a townhall meeting” post, this person had this to say:

“Geeez this story has been way overblown. So what if she had a planted reporter asking questions? Hillary Clinton is our only hope to take back America and get it under control, and sometimes you have to do whatever it takes to win. The fact that people fail to realize this is simply shocking.”

In response to the "Hillary’s Not Invincible” post, this pillar of intellectualism had this to say:

“Nobody ever said Clinton was invincible, jerk.”

Dear "Vote for Hillary Online",

I wasn’t going to post your comments because my post rules clearly state “inane leftist drivel will be deleted”, but your inane drivel is too funny to be ignored.

Your comment speaks volumes about where you’re coming from. I’m sure if you found out that a Republican set up planted questions, you’d go nuts. I know this because you obviously have control issues. “Take back America”? There is a Republican President because he was voted in. If you don’t like it, too bad. If you’re among those who believe the election was stolen, straighten your tinfoil hat.

There is no “taking America back”, America chose that President and America will choose the next one. You Democrats won the House and Senate in 2006 because they swore they would “take America back”, and have they helped you? The definition of insanity is doing something repeatedly, expecting a different outcome. Let me put it simply for you: the Democrats that you voted into the House and Senate basically lied to you, and Hillary has proven herself, with this, to be a liar.

How do you plan on getting America “under control”? How do you plan on controlling those who disagree with you? The United States of America is a democratic republic, look up the definition. You sound like you’re a Socialist, at the very least. Look that up, too.

The best part of your comment is the part about “doing whatever it takes to win”. I guess that includes lying and cheating. Isn’t that what Democrats accuse the Republicans of? I guess its okay as long as your side does it. I’m sorry, it’s not so very shocking that I cannot understand how lying and cheating your way into being President is so wonderful.

In response to your last post, BWHAHAHAHAHA. Thank you for proving yourself an idiot.

Sincerely,

1RedThread

UPDATE: Another question planted by Team Hillary?

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary's Jihadist Donors

Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news

Some of the donors, in fact, are under active federal investigation for supporting terrorism, money laundering and tax fraud. After the press reported their alleged terror ties in past elections, Democrat Reps. Jim Moran of Virginia and Cynthia McKinney of Georgia had to refund their donations, making national news.

But that hasn't stopped Hillary from pocketing their money. So much for her promise to fly-speck donations for criminal ties following her fund-raising scandal with fugitive donor Norman Hsu.

In the past several months, the Democrat front-runner has received at least $2,000 from M. Yaqub Mirza, M. Omar Ashraf and Omar Barzinji, records show. Federal agents raided the Virginia homes and offices of the Muslim donors after 9/11, as part of a counterterrorism investigation targeting the so-called Safa group, a Saudi-backed conglomerate of Muslim businesses and charities.

None of the men has been charged with crimes. But their connections are worrisome enough that even Islamist-sympathizing lawmakers such as Moran and McKinney felt compelled to give back their gifts.

Mirza is said to act on behalf of Saudi millionaire Yassin al-Qadi, who's been designated an al-Qaida financier by the U.S. government, according to WorldNetDaily, which broke the story about the donations.

It wouldn't be the first time Saudi money has found its way to Clinton coffers. In fact, the "Royal Saudi Family" is listed as one of the top donors bankrolling Bill Clinton's presidential library in Little Rock.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary’s Not Invincible

Hillary’s Not Invincible | Redstate

The chinks in Hillary Clinton’s once impenetrable armor have been found. Hillary’s opponents have been able to link her stand – or lack thereof – on issues to reinforce voter’s doubts about her honesty and electability. Doubts about her positions on Iraq and Iran and her inability to provide straightforward answers on issues such as social security, access to her White House records, and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants have led to what seems like her first losing media cycle of the campaign. Even her husband – usually a media darling – seemed to stumble as he attempted to defend his wife from ramped up criticism.

What should also concern Hillary are voter’s negative perceptions of her. Polls continue to show her with negatives in the mid to high forties; higher than any of her rivals. Specifically, the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that 43% of voters had a negative perception of her honesty. This seems to indicate that the criticisms are having an effect.

Fueling these doubts are questions about her character and her electability and these are the points her opponents are driving home. Organizations like Stop Her Now have been raising the issue of access to White House documents for months, but it was only after the debate that it became an issue in the campaign.

Hillary’s need to placate the liberal base has also begun to trip her up. In questions on giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants Hillary faced a choice between a simple answer and offending key voters. Yes would have left her vulnerable since as much as 77% of the public are opposed to the idea. No, however, would have put her at odds with the liberal Democratic base that supports unrestricted immigration and benefits for illegals.

Hillary’s solution was to straddle and hedge, but she couldn’t pull it off.

What her recent stumbles reveal is that Hillary is vulnerable. She is attempting a precarious balancing act. She needs to attract and hold the support of liberals while at the same time leaving room to move to the center. But this requires a finesse that Hillary, unlike her husband, lacks. Every time she tries to avoid being pinned down on difficult issues like social security, immigration, and taxes she highlights doubts about her honesty and voter’s trust. Doubts her opponents are sure to reinforce.

And the more these attacks tarnish Hillary’s inevitability the more doubts are raised about her electability. During the debate Senator Chris Dodd spoke openly about Hillary’s un-electability and continues to discuss it on the campaign trail. The more these doubts are discussed the more chance they have to grow.

The only way to stop Hillary is to continue to apply the pressure and keep the focus on Hillary’s weaknesses. Hillary is a committed and experienced campaigner with millions of dollars on hand; she won’t go down without a fight.

But the last few weeks have shown that she is anything but invincible.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary's people planted global warming question in a townhall meeting

Clinton Campaign Confirms Planting Town Hall Question

Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s campaign admitted Friday that it planted a global warming question in Newton, Iowa, Tuesday during a town hall meeting to discuss clean energy.

Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elliethee admitted that the campaign had planted the question and said it would not happen again.

In a state where the caucus is held sacred and the impromptu and candid style of the town hall meeting is held dear, Clinton’s planted question may come as a great offense to Iowans.

According to a report on the Grinnell University Web site, the Clinton campaign arranged for some of the questions for the candidate to be asked by college students:

"On Tuesday Nov. 6, the Clinton campaign stopped at a biodiesel plant in Newton as part of a weeklong series of events to introduce her new energy plan. The event was clearly intended to be as much about the press as the Iowa voters in attendance, as a large press core helped fill the small venue....

"After her speech, Clinton accepted questions. But according to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff ’10, some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. 'They were canned,' she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton’s speech. 'One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask],' she said.

"Clinton called on Gallo-Chasanoff after her speech to ask a question: what Clinton would do to stop the effects of global warming. Clinton began her response by noting that young people often pose this question to her before delving into the benefits of her plan.

"But the source of the question was no coincidence — at this event 'they wanted a question from a college student,' Gallo-Chasanoff said."

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sphere: Related Content

Should voters have to prove citizenship?

The Denver Post - Should voters have to prove citizenship?

El Paso County Clerk Bob Balink brings up an interesting point, but one that always raises political hackles.

If the state is going to require that people be U.S. citizens in order to vote, then it should allow election officials to verify that citizenship, Balink argues.

But if the state doesn't want to require a check of citizenship, then the law shouldn't even mention the word in its definition of eligibility. It would make sense, Balink says, to remove it.

But Balink doesn't want to remove the requirement. He just wants to be able to check for citizenship. Or else,he says, "How can I be sure I'm following the law?"

Republicans generally favor requiring potential voters to prove they are who they say they are. It discourages fraud, they say.

Democrats generally oppose identity or citizenship checks because it discourages people from voting. Voting should be comparatively easy, they say.

Democrats also tend to think their party benefits when the election pool is deeper and wider. Republicans think a more selective electorate benefits them politically.

Critics of requiring proof of citizenship raise another point. They say it's a myth that illegal immigrants would even consider voting. Anyone who is in this country without the proper documentation wouldn't want to do anything to call attention to himself, they say, and that includes registering to vote.

Balink counters that that so-called myth is a myth itself. If unauthorized immigrants want nothing to do with government, he asks, why do they avail themselves of government services such as schools, hospitals and food stamps?

In an interview with his hometown newspaper, the Gazette of Colorado Springs, Balink said he can't prove how many people lie about citizenship when they register to vote unless proof of citizenship is required.

Proving citizenship isn't as easy as proving identity. A driver's license or state ID card works to prove you are who you say you are. But a passport, or a birth certificate accompanied by a current photo ID, is necessary to prove citizenship.

Inconvenient, perhaps, but not onerous. Proof of identity would have to be shown only once, when a voter registers for the first time. There wouldn't be any requirement to establish citizenship for each new election. Voters would not have to show up at their polling places with passports and birth certificates.

It wouldn't change the way mail elections are conducted, either. Once a voter is registered, that voter automatically receives ballots in the mail.

Balink isn't ready just yet to impose a proof-of- citizenship requirement in his county. It would be challenged in court instantly and, he asks, "Who wants to go to court?"

But if the legislature won't consider the inconsistency of having a requirement without a way to prove it, a lawsuit would force the issue. Republicans would relish forcing the Democrats to take it up.

Frankly, it doesn't seem like a lot to ask to ensure that only citizens vote in U.S. elections.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sphere: Related Content

A Perfect Storm of Evil

Maggie's Notebook: A Perfect Storm of Evil

Respect for authority has been replaced by demands for ever-increasing public services, while fewer and fewer adults are willing to take responsibility for themselves and their families. The principled leader – always a scarce commodity – is today on the verge of extinction. Politics has degenerated to little more than a vote auction for promised public giveaways. There have always been charlatans in politics, but in today’s culture, being a liar is “smart.” The media are in awe of politicians adept at “crafting a message” that will “resonate” with voters. They discuss without irony how this or that candidate has to “moderate” his/her position to appeal to this or that group. They focus exclusively on image – and seem not to understand that there is no relying on someone whose word is not reliable. But if you don’t stand for something you’ll fall for anything. As this moral degeneracy has spread throughout the population, a political party has arisen that both helped to create and concurrently take advantage of it: the Democrat Party. And hiding within that party for many years has been a malevolent, organized underground that has used it as a pathway to power.

The goals and tactics of the international communist movement have never changed. But now the movement is peopled to a great extent by Neocommunists who disavow membership in the party, while still working actively to accomplish its goals. George Soros is a major player in that movement, and his organizations and money have been behind much of the Democrats’ outrageous initiatives in recent years: the horrid immigration bill defeated last spring, the national network of vote registration organizations (that have been convicted of voter fraud – including massive fake registrations, voter intimidation and destruction of republican vote registrations,) the “Global Warming” scam, the anti-war movement and so many others. Bill and Hillary Clinton are also willing participants in that movement. Democrat legislators, like Henry Waxman, Barbara Boxer, Patrick Leahy, Charles Schumer and many more, are “Democrat” in name only. They wouldn’t know the “mainstream” if they were drowning in it. These people have nothing, repeat, nothing to recommend them but they all have one thing in common: an ego so titanic they believe they are entitled to do literally anything. People view the increasing radicalism of our elected leaders with blasé indifference. As a society we have lost our moral anchors. Thus we cannot see the treachery ahead. A perfect storm is building. Republicans can’t fight off the relentless attacks being waged by the Democrats’ media allies. The American people have become too complacent and ill-informed to see that, while some Republicans certainly are no saints, the Democrats are institutionally corrupt. As Tom Delay told Matt Lauer of NBC “There are scandals that need to be addressed. Republicans address them, Democrats re-elect them.”

People have said that 2008 may be the most important election in our nation’s history. That is an understatement. If Democrats sweep both houses with large majorities, as it appears they might, while Hillary Clinton takes the presidency, what are the likely consequences for our constitutional republic? Will we have to rely on Congressional Democrats to reign her in? Are you kidding? Given the Clintons’ treacherous legacy, do you think she, or her institutionally corrupt Party, is above anything? I don’t.

We are at a crossroads. Our national conscience has degenerated to the point that we only dimly recognize our predicament. Finally, and too late, the horrible ramifications of our apathy will be revealed. We will indeed be punished by our various sins of self-absorbed narcissism, of foolish pride – of worshipping false idols. We are not all guilty of these sins, of course. But Burke said: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Lenin said that the organized minority will beat the disorganized majority every time. The Left is very organized, as we have seen repeatedly. Unfortunately, unless we get our collective act together, the Neocommunists who define American political and popular culture will take the rest of us down with them. The Left will prove once again that you don’t need good ideas, just good organization and a ruthless willingness to do whatever is necessary to win. People who believe in the United States of America, people who believe in real justice, in real freedom, We The People, must organize to defeat them. And we must do it NOW. We may not have another chance.

Hattip to OE

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sphere: Related Content

Speech by Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the French Republic before the Congress of the United States of America

I want to start by telling you something: For France, friendship first and foremost means being true to one's friends, to one's values, to one's history. France is the friend of the United States of America. It's not just the President of France who is talking, I am only the mouthpiece of the people of France.

Since the United States first appeared on the world scene, our two peoples - the American people and the French people - have always been friends. The hardships our two countries have undergone have strengthened this friendship.

Friends may have differences; they may have disagreements; they may have disputes as families do.

But in times of difficulty, in times of hardship, friends stand together, side by side; they support each other and help one another.

In times of difficulty, in times of hardship, America and France have always stood side by side, supported one another, helped one another and fought for each other's freedom.

The United States and France remain true to the memory of their common history. It is our duty to remain true to the blood spilled by their children in common battles on both sides of the Atlantic. But the United States and France are not merely two nations true to the memory of what they accomplished together in the past. The United States and France are two nations that remain true to the same ideal, that defend the same principles, that believe in the same values.

The American dream. From the very beginning, this American dream meant putting into practice what the Old World had merely dreamed of building.

The American dream. From the very beginning, from its origins, this American dream meant proving to all mankind that freedom, justice, human rights and democracy were no utopia but rather the most realistic policy there is and the most likely to improve the fate of each and every person.

America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who - with their hands, their intelligence and their hearts - built the greatest nation in the world: Come, and everything will be given to you. She said: Come, and the only limits to what you'll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent. The America we love throughout the world is the country that has this extraordinary ability to grant each and every person a second chance, since in America, failure is never definitive.

Here, in your country, in this land, the humblest and most illustrious citizens alike know that nothing is owed to them and that everything has to be earned. This is what constitutes the moral value of America. America did not teach men the idea of freedom. America taught them how to practice it. And she fought for this freedom whenever she felt it threatened. It was by watching America grow that men and women understood that freedom was possible. And this is what gives you a special responsibility.

What made America great was her ability to transform her dream, the American dream, into hope for all mankind.

America liberated us. It's an eternal debt. And as President of the French Republic, it's my duty to tell the people of America, whom you represent in your diversity, that France will never forget the sacrifice of your children, and to tell the families of those who never returned, the children who mourned fathers they barely got a chance to know, that France's gratitude is permanent.

On behalf of my generation, which did not experience war, on behalf of our children who will always remember, to all the veterans here today and, notably the seven I had the honor to decorate yesterday evening, one of whom, Senator Inouye, belongs to your Congress, I want to express the French people's deep, sincere gratitude. I want to tell you something important: Whenever an American soldier falls somewhere in the world, I think of what the American army did for France. I think of them and I am sad, as one is sad to lose a member of one's family.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is more important than all the disagreements we may have had and all the agreements we may have in the future. This is the bedrock of the relationship between France and the United States of America.

Together, united, we must fight against terrorism. On September 11, 2001, all of France - horrorstruck - rallied to the side of the American people. The front-page headline of one of our major dailies read: "We are all, on this September 11, 2001, Americans." And on that day, when you were mourning for so many dead, never had America appeared to us so great, so dignified, so strong. The terrorists had thought they would weaken you and they made you greater. And the entire world felt admiration for the courage of the American people. That's the truth. And from day one, France decided to participate shoulder to shoulder with you in the war in Afghanistan. Let me tell you solemnly today: France will remain engaged in Afghanistan as long as it takes, because what's at stake in that country is the future of our values and that of the Atlantic Alliance. Let me say solemnly before you today: Failure is not an option.

Terrorism will not win because democracies haven't the right to be weak, and because the free world is not afraid of this new barbarism. America can count on France in the fight against terrorism.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, in the name of the French people, I say to you:

Long live the United States of America!

Long live France!

And long live the friendship between France and the United States of America!

Link

Sphere: Related Content

Credit Card Debt a $915 Billion Disaster-in-Waiting for Banks

Think the estimated subprime debt load carried by the big international banks is big, at $1 trillion?

How about this: Americans now owe nearly as much - a record $915 billion - on their credit cards alone.

And defaults and delinquencies in the credit card sector are piling up, which means big banks are on the hook, again. More sand in the gears for the global economy.

Credit card companies wrote off 4.58 percent in payments between January and May, almost a third more than in the same period in 2006, according to Moody's Investors Service. As a result, lenders such as Citigroup, Bank of America, and American Express, among others already reeling from the subprime mortgage disaster, are being further weakened.

Not to mention the staggering U.S. economy, which is so dependent on a vigorous consumer credit sector to keep it healthy. Seventy-two percent of the U.S. economy rides on consumption alone.

Fears are now rising that U.S. consumer credit card problems could ripple out into the global credit market, starting in Europe. Deutsche Bank, for example, is now "in a heightened state of alert to monitor a potential domino effect," says the bank's U.S. analyst, Michael Mayo.

In the U.K., homeowners are reportedly using their credit cards for mortgage payments. Credit card interest typically runs much higher than mortgage rates, so reducing one debt by increasing another at a higher rate can be the first step on the road to default and eventual bankruptcy.

The U.K, usually 18 months ahead of the U.S. in its credit cycle, is perhaps a harbinger of things to come in the U.S. credit picture.

Link

Sphere: Related Content

Republicans keep Cheney impeachment bill alive

House Republicans on Tuesday prevented Democratic leaders from blocking a resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney.

The vote to table the privileged resolution, offered by Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, began as a largely party-line vote to kill the measure, but Republicans developed a strategy to force Democrats to debate the resolution by supporting Kucinich. GOP leaders felt as though it was in their interest to debate the measure because it would make Democrats look bad.

It'd their fault it makes them look bad. They tolerate these moonbats.

Sphere: Related Content

The 'Torture' Fraud of the Left

"Torture" is one of many current topics of significance that have been abandoned to the left. Leftist commentators have been allowed to set the terms, make the definitions, and generally run the argument without much in the way of serious opposition or debate.

"Torture" is probably the most egregious of these cases. That's the explanation for the sneer quotes. Because, quite simply, in much of the debate over "torture", we're not talking about actual torture at all. We're talking about rough treatment, harshness, or coercion.

The American left has defined these upward until they mean the same thing as torture, all as a part of their efforts to undermine the War on Terror in general. The core of this stance is the assertion that a slap on the head, several days without sleep, or hearing Rage Against the Machine played at full volume is fully the equivalent of torture in the classic sense. (Well... maybe we should reconsider that last....)

Of course, it's no such thing. Torture is easily defined as physical assault carried out over a prolonged period against a victim under complete control and holding the possibility of permanent physical or psychic damage. Official legal terminology contains the proviso that torture consists of acts that "revolt the conscience" We can also add, by way of Dashiell Hammett, that such actions must have "threat of death behind them". If they contain these elements, they are torture. If not, they're something less. Not necessarily something justifiable or commendable, but not torture either.

The left has succeeded, through a relentless media campaign (is there any other kind?) in obscuring this distinction. According to the latest criteria, torture is anything unpleasant that occurs to a prisoner while in American custody. (Overseas it's different. It's very, very difficult -- almost impossible, in fact -- for any developing or left-of-center regime to commit torture, no matter what they do to their prisoners. Unless, as in the rendition uproar, the U.S. is somehow involved.)

Needless to say, none of the foregoing must be taken as approval of torture or any other kind of brutality. But that's just the point: the left has drawn a vicious cartoon in which every individual involved in fighting the Jihadis from the Oval office on down is being portrayed as the equivalent of the Abu Ghraib guards: halfwit knuckle-draggers capable of going out of control without warning. This can endanger us in any number of ways - encouraging officials to back off when they should bear down, to hesitate when they should strike.

It's no news that the Bush Administration has done a horrible job of selling itself and its policies. Bush, being a Texan, evidently believes that accomplishments speak for themselves. But the great world, unfortunately, is not Texas. If you don't create your own narrative, lay down your own version of events, someone else is going to do it for you. And you probably will not like the results.

Sphere: Related Content

Freedom of Speech: Clergy Deserve It, Too

In 1954 it was future president Lyndon Baines Johnson, then a senator from Texas, who proposed another amendment that would have the consequence, intended or not, of restricting the free-speech rights of religious leaders. The amendment rendered them unable to speak freely from their pulpits so long as they operated as 501c3 charitable organizatons, which entitled them to receive tax-deductible contributions.

Sen. Johnson inserted into the tax code an amendment that disallowed a (non-profit) 501C3 organization from endorsing or opposing a political candidate.

Although it has been speculated that Johnson was targeting various 501c3 groups that were opposing him, the unintended consequence of Johnson's amendment, not unlike Blaine's, has been to keep people of faith out of the public square and limit their rights by preventing clergy from speaking directly and forthrightly from the pulpit about their views -- including endorsing political candidates -- so long as they operated as a non-profit and received tax-deductible contributions.

The most recent case that has pointed out the absurdity of Johnson's amendment involved All Saints Church in Pasadena, Calif., whose pastor George Regas gave a sermon imagining what Jesus Christ might say were he to find himself in a debate with then-presidential candidates George W. Bush and John F. Kerry.

Although the IRS gave up the battle against All Saints in September, the underlying questions still haven't been addressed: Why can't a preacher endorse a political candidate from the pulpit on a Sunday morning? Why should the First Amendment not apply to words that emanate from a church pulpit? What right do government bureaucrats have to restrict the speech of any religious leader?

Today, the practical result of Johnson's amendment remains that religious leaders somehow forfeit their right to free speech when they climb into a pulpit.

The pastor of the liberal All Saints Church in Pasadena should be able to look out at his congregation and urge them to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008. Conversely, across the country, the pastor of World Harvest Church, Rod Parsley, an outspoken conservative, should be able to endorse the Republican candidate as well.

Contrary to the now-famous assertion by then-Washington Post reporter Michael Weiskopf that people of faith were "poor, uneducated and easy to command," parishioners are perfectly capable of taking into account, without blindly following, endorsements by their religious leaders.

And with churches able to participate widely in American public life by opening charter schools and preachers able to speak freely from the pulpit, all Americans will be freer as they fully exercise their constitutional rights.

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary takes cash from terror suspects

WorldNetDaily: Hillary takes cash from terror suspects

Presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has taken thousands of dollars in cash donations from Islamists under federal investigation for terror-financing, money laundering and tax fraud, WND has learned. The Democrat senator over the past seven months has received $1,000 from M. Yaqub Mirza and another $500 from M. Omar Ashraf, federal campaign records show. Federal agents raided the Virginia homes and offices of the Muslim donors after 9/11 for ties to terrorism. Others tied to the still-active probe also have contributed money to Clinton, including one Muslim man who after 9/11 complained the U.S. government should focus on changing its Mideast policies instead of killing Osama bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists.

Mirza in March contributed $1,000 to Clinton, listing his occupation as an officer of the SAAR Foundation. The Saudi-backed entity is listed on the federal affidavit for a search warrant in the original counterterror raid.

Ashraf in August gave $500 to Clinton's campaign, listing his occupation as vice president of Sterling Management Group, another entity listed on the affidavit. His Herndon home also was raided. In addition, Federal Election Commission records reveal a June payment of $500 to Clinton from Omar Barzinji, who works for a telecommunications firm as well as Amana Limited, a Herndon-based publisher of pro-jihad materials. Its offices, too, were raided after 9/11. In September 2001, as rescuers were still pulling bodies from the wreckage at Ground Zero, Barzinji chided President Bush for failing to spend more time addressing why the attacks occurred and figuring out what had angered the Muslim hijackers.

Two of Jamal Barzinji's closest business associates – Abdurahman Alamoudi and Soliman Biheiri – are known leaders in the Muslim Brotherhood in America. Both men have been convicted of terror-related charges since 9/11. The Treasury now says Alamoudi was one of al-Qaida's top fundraisers in America. Abdurahman Alamoudi, center, with Vice President Al Gore and President Bill Clinton During her 2000 Senate campaign, Clinton took $1,000 from Alamoudi when he was head of the American Muslim Council. She was forced to return the money when news got out that he voiced support for Palestinian terrorists. (She listed his group as the "American Museum Council" in her donor report to the FEC, an attempt critics say to disguise Alamoudi as a curator rather than a terrorist supporter. As first lady, Hillary had hosted Alamoudi at the White House.)

Earlier this year, Clinton agreed to return some $50,000 in illegal donations from a Pakistani businessman after news broke that the FBI sought him for fraud. The donor, Abdul Rehman Jinnah, recently surrendered to U.S. authorities after fleeing the country. Clinton also has vowed to return $850,000 in dirty cash raised by outlaw Chinese donor Norman Hsu. During her 2000 Senate campaign, Clinton had to return a $50,000 check from another Muslim leader – Agha Saeed – after it was revealed he backed Palestinian suicide attacks on Israel. She had received a plaque from him at a $500-a-ticket fundraiser sponsored by his group, the American Muslim Alliance.

Sphere: Related Content

Clinton sort of clarifies her position on giving driver's licenses to illegals. Kind of.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, Sunday sought to further clarify her position on New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer’s controversial plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, a position which she said she’s already made clear on “a number of occasions.”

The issue was brought front and center at Tuesday night’s Democratic debate. At the time Clinton said the plan “makes a lot of sense" but stopped short of endorsing it. Former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina, claimed her answer was inconsistent and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, has since said that her answer to that question and others “left us wondering.”

Asked by reporters Sunday why it’s taken so long for clarification Clinton admitted she “wasn’t as clear as [she] should have been” but added, “I broadly support what governors like Elliot Spitzer are trying to do.”

“I think that it’s understandable that states are trying to fill a vacuum left by the failures of the federal government,” Clinton continued. “That is not an answer. I don’t want to see 50 states’ policies on immigration.”

“But finally I do not believe we can resolve this problem unless we bring people out of the shadows,” Clinton said, adding that undocumented immigrants should have a pathway to citizenship but they’d need to register, pay taxes, pay fines, learn English, and wait in line after those who’ve come to the United States legally. Those who have committed crimes, she said, should be deported.

Clinton added that the policy of simply giving licenses to illegal immigrants is not something she thinks any governor would seek out.

“But I was in Des Moines [Iowa] yesterday, and I had three people come up to me and say that they had been hit in automobile accidents by undocumented workers, and they said ‘what are we supposed to do? We’re the ones that were injured. Our cars were damaged, and we get no relief because these people have no accountability, there’s no system that requires them to have insurance or anything else.’” (Yes, they do - we have laws on the books for this already. Why can't we enforce existing laws in this country? - 1rt)

Sphere: Related Content

Bush: "some in Congress are behaving as if America is not at war"

My Way News - Bush to Democrats: 'We Are at War'

President Bush compared Congress' Democratic leaders Thursday with people who ignored the rise of Lenin and Hitler early in the last century, saying "the world paid a terrible price" then and risks similar consequences for inaction today.

Bush accused Congress of stalling important pieces of the fight to prevent new terrorist attacks by: dragging out and possibly jeopardizing confirmation of Michael Mukasey as attorney general, a key part of his national security team; failing to act on a bill governing eavesdropping on terrorist suspects; and moving too slowly to approve spending measures for the Iraq war, Pentagon and veterans programs.

"Unfortunately, on too many issues, some in Congress are behaving as if America is not at war," Bush said during a speech at the Heritage Foundation. "This is no time for Congress to weaken the Department of Justice by denying it a strong and effective leader. ... It's no time for Congress to weaken our ability to intercept information from terrorists about potential attacks on the United States of America. And this is no time for Congress to hold back vital funding for our troops as they fight al-Qaida terrorists and radicals in Afghanistan and Iraq."

He argued that the current debate over the Iraq war and the Bush administration's anti-terror methods harkens back to debates decades ago in Washington when Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin first talked about launching a communist revolution, when Adolf Hitler began moves to establish an "Aryan superstate" in Germany, and when some argued that Cold War accommodation of the Soviet Union was wiser than competition.

"Now we're at the start of a new century, and the same debate is once again unfolding, this time regarding my policy in the Middle East," Bush said. "Once again, voices in Washington are arguing that the watchword of the policy should be stability."

Bush said denial that "we are at war" is dangerous.

"History teaches us that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake," Bush said. "Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is, will we listen?"

"When it comes to funding our troops, some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground," Bush said, "and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters."

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sphere: Related Content

Fred Thompson: No drivers licenses for Illegal Aliens.

Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens? No. | Redstate

While Hillary Clinton was speaking out both sides of her mouth at last night’s debate over the issue of drivers licenses for illegal aliens, what went unsaid is that this is a recipe for increased voter fraud. Under the federal “Motor Voter” law (the National Voter Registration Act of 1993), states must provide applicants for drivers licenses with the opportunity to register to vote.

Giving legal drivers licenses to illegal immigrants is wrong and would provide them the opportunity to register to vote in our country. People who are not citizens of the United States should not be encouraged by pandering politicians to further break our laws and risk the health of our political system.

I think we have to quit inducing people to come and stay if they're illegal. I think it's a disservice to the millions of people who stood in long lines around the world at American embassies to come here and play by the rules and become American citizens and become productive and great parts of our society. But when you're making it easier, when you're providing sanctuary cities and telling your local officials that they can't even cooperate with federal authorities, and then saying its a federal responsibility, I think that's an irresponsible way to go.

Drivers licenses are the nearest thing to an ID card that we've got in this country. Your need your drivers license for everything. Why aren't they being apprehended and sent home if they come in and announce that they're illegal? We've either got to be serious enforcing our laws or not. I don't think we can afford to be selective in that regard.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary Quotes

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the Few, and for the few...... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." - Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007

3) "(We) ...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something Has to be taken away from some people." - Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... In order to create this common ground." - Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed." - Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most Profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." - Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

Sphere: Related Content