The Democrats keep repeating the mantra that the financial crisis is the fault of the Bush Administration and Republicans. When is McCain going to hit back and lay this mess at the feet of those who created it and refused to do anything to control it? Bill O'Reilly ripped into Barney Frank, head of the House Financial Services Committee, last night for blaming everyone but himself and accepting no personal responsibility for this mess. In 2003, Frank said, "These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis." According to a New York Times article, Frank added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

How many people are aware that John McCain supported a proposal for oversight of FMAE and FMAC in 2005 while Democrats refused to support it and wanted approval for more suspect mortgages? McCain and Palin should hit the Democrats over the head with this until they knock them silly! See: http://beltwaysnark.com/2008/09/16/john-mccain-supported-a-proposal-for-...

The bill was shot down by DEMOCRATS! Shove this right down their throats, talk about the push by Democrats during the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low- and moderate-income people who were not qualified to receive these loans. Repeat as many times as necessary that the very groundwork for today’s problems are rooted in Jimmy Carter's 1977 Community Reinvestment Act , and that in 2003 President Bush proposed the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis and was blocked by Democrats on party lines. Keep slamming Obama who has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Chris Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000. Barack Obama and his allies took the money and, for years, did nothing to resolve the credit crisis.

John McCain needs to push back against the way the media has painted this as the fault of Republicans, including McCain himself. If he continues to roll over and say nothing about this, McCain will go down with the ship.

Come on John! Fight with me, stand up, fight with me! Fight!

Here's what I have learned from the American media:

1. Barack Obama should be the first black person elected to the presidency - that's good. It's destiny.

2. Barack Obama has plenty of experience to be president. His "community organizing" and less than 1 term in the Senate has thoroughly prepared him to be president despite his lack of foreign policy experience.

3. John McCain is going to die in the next 4 years. Count on it.

4. If John McCain is elected president, Sarah Palin is going to assume the office in the next 4 years. That's a catastrophe.

5. Sarah Palin is totally unqualified to be president. She has only 13 years in elected office as Town Council Member, Mayor, and Governor of Alaska.

6. Sarah Palin has too many scandals in her life. She has 5!!! (oh my god!) children. She did not get an abortion but had a baby with Downs Syndrome. Her unmarried daughter is pregnant. Her husband had a DUI 22 years ago. How can we possibly elect a person with so many skeletons in her closet?

7. Barack Obama is friends with a terrorist, a Catholic priest who preaches against America and a con artist. His minister for more than 10 years is a racist. So what? That should not be counted against him. After all, he left the church after defending his preacher many, many times. And the terrorist bomber actually did the bombings when Obama was a kid. Ignore those closeted skeletons.

8. Joe Biden is a foreign policy expert. He was for a nuclear freeze during the Cold War, voted against the war to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein, voted for the second Gulf War, voted against the surge, and said that we should split up Iraq into 3 parts. What a genius!

9. Barack Obama's claim to fame is that he was against the Iraq War even though he had no vote. He says that because McCain supported the war he should be disqualified from holding office. Biden voted for the war and is Obama's running mate. No problem.

Here is what I have actually learned. The American so-called "mainstream media" is nothing but a corrupt, immoral, agenda-driven, liberal propaganda tool for the Democrat Party. Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler would admire the work of this group of gutter snipes.

The Basics

Significance: First woman vice-presidential candidate for her party.

Age: mid-40's.

Foreign Policy Experience: none.

Years holding a political office: 10+.

The Challenge:

The opposition party claims that her limited political experience makes her unqualified to be placed only "one heart beat" away from the Oval Office. She is seen as a "token" pick, selected for her gender not her political agenda or ability. It is asserted that she has been selected to bring youth, energy and glamor to her running mate's stodgy image and lackluster campaign.

Her Response:

On Her Qualifications: "There's not only what's on your resume that makes you qualified to run for or to hold office. It's how you approach problems and what your values are. I think if one is taking a look at my career they'll see that I level with people; that I approach problems analytically; that I am able to assess the various facts with reference to a problem, and that I can make the hard decisions."
On Her Experience: "My feeling, quite frankly, is that I have enough experience to see the problems, address them and make the tough decisions and level with people with reference to these problems."

On the Problems Facing America: "…what we are talking about are problems that are facing the entire nation. They're not just problems facing women. The issues in this campaign are the war-peace issues; the problems of deficits; the problems of trade deficits."

Her Identity

Who is this woman who was propelled to the national political stage as the first woman to be selected by her party to be a candidate for vice-president? Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska? Nope. Guess again. The correct answer is Geraldine Ferraro, Congresswoman for the 9th District, New York who was named as Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984.

Isn't it amazing that the Democrat Party, which was so proud of their woman VP candidate in 1984, with comparable if not less experience, is now so appalled that John McCain would select a female governor as his running mate? Equally amazing is the Democrats' lack of concern that their presidential nominee, Barack Obama, has less experience than either of the two women vice-presidential nominees. Here are some typical reactions to the pick of Governor Sarah Palin as Republican VP candidate:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "John McCain and Sarah Palin will not bring the American people the New Direction they need." Right, Nancy. With the 18% approval rating for your congress, you are the "New Direction" we are looking for.

New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer: "...her lack of experience makes the thought of her assuming the presidency troubling." As opposed to Obama's "lack of experience" which does not make the thought of his assuming the presidency troubling for Chuck.

Barack Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton: "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency." Never mind that she is governor of the largest state in the country. It's better to have a former "community organizer" with zero foreign policy experience be the president immediately.

Executive Director of MoveOn.org Eli Pariser: "It’s not only fair, but critical in this case, to ask if she’s up for the job of commander in chief. We just can’t afford a gamble like this with our future." Palin's a "gamble". Obama cannot even admit that the surge in Iraq has succeeded. No gamble there. It's a sure thing that he's not "up for the job of commander in chief."

What are Her Values?

Sarah Palin is the 11th governor of Alaska. During her first legislative session, Governor Palin implemented an overhaul of the state's ethics laws and a competitive process to construct a gas pipeline. She was recently named chair of the National Governors Association Natural Resources Committee. She is a lifetime member of the NRA and enjoys hunting and fishing.

Sarah Palin: "I'm pro-life. I'll do all I can to see every baby is created with a future and potential. The legislature should do all it can to protect human life.

Fiscally and socially, I am a conservative. My respect for the three different branches of government and the balance between them has been my guide.

I would push for a strong military and a sound energy policy. I believe that Alaska can help set an example on energy policy.

We have billions and billions of barrels of oil and trillions of feet of natural gas. We have so much potential from tapping our resources here in Alaska. And we can do this with minimum environmental impact. We have a very pro-development president in President Bush, and yet he failed to push for opening up parts of Alaska to drilling through Congress -- and a Republican-controlled Congress, I might add.

I thought when we hit $100 a barrel for oil it would have been a psychological barrier that would have caused Congress to reconsider, but they didn't. Now we are approaching $200 a barrel. It's nonsense not to tap a safe domestic source of oil. I think Americans need to hold Congress accountable on this one."

Governor Sarah Palin sounds to me like someone who can make a real change - not a promise of change - in Washington, DC.

There
are approximately 1 billion Muslims in the world. In Great Britain there are
approximately 2 million Muslims. In America we are tolerant of the practice of
all religions but we expect the practitioners to be tolerant of others who do
not share their religious beliefs. Islam is a religion born out of violence and
proselytized by tactics of fear and intimidation. I recommend reading
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)", by Robert
Spencer. Spencer reveals
truths about the "religion of peace" which show that it is not what the
apologists for Islamic jihadists want you to believe it is. Not much has changed
since the 11th Century. If you don't believe this is happening today, see: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

This
intolerant religion is spreading throughout the world and it is becoming more
and more violent. Many young people are buying into the jihadist cause promoted
by al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the radical clerics throughout the Middle
East. If the following article doesn't scare the hell out of you, nothing will:

From The Sunday Times

July 27, 2008

A third of Muslim students back killings
Radicalism and support
for sharia is strong in British universities

Abul Taher

ALMOST a third of British Muslim students believe killing in the name of
Islam can be justified, according to a poll.

The study also found that two in five Muslims at university support the
incorporation of Islamic sharia codes into British law.

The YouGov poll for the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC) will raise concerns
about the extent of campus radicalism. “Significant numbers appear to hold
beliefs which contravene democratic values,” said Han-nah Stuart, one of the
report’s authors. “These results are deeply embarrassing for those who have said
there is no extremism in British universities.”

The report was criticised by the country’s largest Muslim student body,
Fosis, but Anthony Glees, professor of security and intelligence studies at
Buckingham University, said: “The finding that a large number of students think
it is okay to kill in the name of religion is alarming.

“There is a wide cultural divide between Muslim and nonMuslim students. The
solution is to stop talking about celebrating diversity and focus on integration
and assimilation.”

The researchers found that 55% of nonMuslim students thought Islam was
incompatible with democracy. Nearly one in 10 had “little respect” for Muslims.

In addition to its poll of 1,400 Muslim and nonMuslim students, the centre
visited more than 20 universities to interview students and listen to guest
speakers. It found that extremist preachers regularly gave speeches that were
inflammatory, homophobic or bordering on antisemitic.

The researchers highlighted Queen Mary college, part of London University, as
a campus where radical views were widely held. Last December, a speaker named
Abu Mujahid encouraged Muslim students to condemn gays because “Allah hates”
homosexuality. In November, Azzam Tamimi, a British-based supporter of Hamas,
described Israel as the most “inhumane project in the modern history of
humanity”.

James Brandon, deputy director at CSC , said: “Our researchers found a
ghettoised mentality among Muslim students at Queen Mary. Also, we found the
segregation between Muslim men and women at events more visible at Queen Mary.”

A spokesman for Queen Mary said the university was aware the preachers had
visited but did not know the contents of their speeches. “Clearly, we in no way
associate ourselves with these views. However, also integral to the spirit of
university life is free speech and debate and on occasion speakers will make
statements that are deemed offensive.”

In the report, 40% of Muslim students said it was unacceptable for Muslim men
and women to associate freely. Homophobia was rife, with 25% saying they had
little or no respect for gays. The figure was higher (32%) for male Muslim
students. Among nonMuslims, the figure was only 4%.

The research found that a third of Muslim students supported the creation of
a world-wide caliphate or Islamic state.

A number of terrorists have been radicalised at British universities. Kafeel
Ahmed, who drove a flaming jeep into a building at Glasgow airport last year and
died of his burns, is believed to have been radicalised while studying at Anglia
Ruskin university, Cambridge.

Wes Streeting, president of the National Union of Students, condemned the
study. “This disgusting report is a reflection of the biases and prejudices of a
right-wing think tank – not the views of Muslim students across Britain,” he
said. “Only 632 Muslim students were asked vague and misleading questions, and
their answers were wilfully misinterpreted.”

Some of the findings amplify previous research. A report by Policy Exchange
last year found that 37% of all Muslims aged 16-24 would prefer to live under a
sharia system.

Baroness Warwick, chief executive of Universities UK, said: “Violence, or the
incitement to violence, has no place on a university campus.”

Now that Senator Barack Obama has wrapped up the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, it's time for him to answer some questions about where he stands on the issues that are important to the American people. Here are my questions for the senator:

First, you have made withdrawing US troops from Iraq the top priority of your campaign saying that you want all "combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." Are you still committed to this deadline for removing troops from Iraq regardless of the military situation on the ground? Are you going to ignore our own military commanders including Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has said your position could take "gains we have achieved and struggled to achieve and turn them around overnight"? What are you going to do once our military forces have been withdrawn from Iraq should Iran and Al-Qaeda decide to take action to overthrow the Iraqi government by force? Do you not believe that US troop withdrawal will be seen as a huge victory for these two entities who have stated on more than one occasion that they see Iraq as the pivotal battleground against democracy and Western values? You have said that you would move US military units to other countries in the region so that they could quickly "re-deploy" to Iraq if necessary. Where, exactly, are you going to relocate our military? Are you willing to pay twice in American blood and treasure for military victories that we have already achieved? As Commander-in-Chief, these are difficult decisions that you will have to make. What is there in your background which suggests that you have the experience to make the military decisions necessary to safeguard America's interests in the Middle East and the rest of the world? You have promised that once you are elected you will reduce our military strength, you will cut spending on missile defense, and you will cut funding for future weapons systems. Do you believe this a wise course of action during a time of war and increased terrorist threats to America?

Secondly, we have heard about your personal relationships with terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn who, as members of the Weathermen in the 1970's, bombed government buildings and attempted assassinations of US Army officers, and continue to say that they have no regrets for their actions and wish they had done more. Additionally, you were a member of the Trinity United Church for more than 20 years and attended many sermons where the Reverend Jeremiah Wright proclaimed the nonsense that America invented the AIDS virus to exterminate black people and that the government introduced crack cocaine into African-American neighborhoods in order to imprison black people. Your "spiritual advisor" (your description) also vehemently stated that we should not say, "God Bless America" but, rather, "God damn America" because ours is an evil nation. Reverend Wright has also praised the race-baiter Louis Farrakhan and the terrorist group Hamas. And, although you have recently resigned your church membership from Trinity United, you have not renounced the black liberation theology advanced by your former pastor. In fact, it was only after Father Michael Pfleger, another who you claim helped shape your moral views, made racist remarks from your church pulpit about the evil of white people and described America as, "the greatest sin against God", that you decided to leave Trinity United. However, you also said, "I'm not denouncing the church and I'm not interested in people who want me to denounce the church", adding, "the church have been suffering from the attention my campaign has focused on them". It sounds like you are leaving the church for political reasons only. Why can you not denounce a church which puts forth racist, anti-American sentiments? Do you or your wife who says she is "proud for the first time in my adult life to be an American" share some of these feelings? We still have not heard about all your dealings with Tony Rezko, a Chicago slumlord who donated $10,000 to your campaign from an alleged crooked kickback scheme and is now on trial. What are we to make of all these troubling relationships you have had for many years with terrorists, racists, and indicted crooks? You have promised a "change" in the political atmosphere but you appear to be just another politician who will associate with anyone who can help advance your career. Where's the change?

Next, you have proposed a "Global Poverty Act" which would give more than $845 billion of US taxpayers' money to other nations over and above the billions that we already give. You have said that, "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to the elimination extreme poverty". I am afraid, Senator Obama, that the American people will be the ones experiencing extreme poverty once you have enacted all of your big government programs. In addition to a government-run health care program (estimated cost of $100 billion), you have also proposed a 10-year, $150 billion program to establish a "green energy sector"; a $60 billion "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank" to construct and repair highways, bridges, and other infrastructure; a government sponsored college loan program and federal pre-K nursery school program; more tax dollars for illegal aliens, giving them amnesty and allowing them to have drivers licenses, Medicaid and Social Security benefits; and a $340 billion tax credit benefit. And there's more…lots more. To pay for all of this, you have proposed a $2 trillion tax increase on all individuals (not just the "rich") and an increased corporate tax rate which is already one of the highest in the world at 40%, including federal and state taxes. You are also in favor of raising the capital gains tax rate to 20-25 percent. How is all of this going to help an already struggling American economy? Are you not afraid, Senator Obama, that your big tax-and-spend initiatives will drive the economy straight into a recession?

Also, despite your claims of support for the Second Amendment rights for Americans, you have pledged to "ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons". You have stated that the DC law which prevented citizens from defending themselves was "constitutional" and you refused to join with 55 other senators to support the Supreme Court case opposing the DC gun ban. In 1996 you supported "banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns" in Illinois. In 2004 you voted against the DeMar self-defense bill to protect citizens who use handguns in self-defense in their homes and businesses. The bill was overwhelmingly voted into law despite a veto by the governor. You were one of only 20 state senators to vote against the bill. You have been endorsed by several anti-gun groups including the deceptively-named, American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA). It appears, Senator Obama, that you believe American citizens should not be allowed to defend themselves with firearms. How do you explain your anti-Second Amendment comments and actions?

On the cultural front, there is not a single issue on which you have broken with the positions of left-wing interest groups - from gay marriage, to abortion, to legalized drugs. Although you claim that you oppose gay marriage, in 2004 you said that you opposed the Defense of Marriage Act which was meant to prevent gay marriage from being imposed on the country without the consent of the American people. Shouldn't the people, rather than unelected judges, decide on the definition of marriage? You received a perfect 100% voting rating from NARAL over the past three years and you have stated that you oppose "notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions". You have also said that you support partial birth abortions. If you are elected president will you attempt to overturn the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003? How do you feel about the millions of babies who have been put to death by abortion? Also, you have admitted to using drugs in the past and you say that you favor decriminalizing the use of marijuana. Do you or do you not believe that drug use is harmful to our children? If you believe it is harmful why would you want drugs to be more readily available?

You have expressed your intent to name justices to the Supreme Court in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter - judges who have made decisions based more on their personal, political and moral views than on constitutional and legal principles. You said that you want judges who have "the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old". You voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts - one of only 17 nay votes (all Democrats) - justifying your opposition by saying that difficult cases should be decided by "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspective on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy". As a lawyer, do you believe that issues should be decided based upon constitutional and statutory language? Or, should a judge make decisions based upon personal feelings? Do you believe that the will of unelected judges supersedes the votes of the American people?

Finally, you have made "hope" and "change" the centerpiece slogans of your campaign, promising fresh national unity and a higher purpose. The national media and young people, especially, love your idealistic rhetoric. But are you the unifier who you claim to be? Your voting record is among the most partisan in the Senate and you were rated the most liberal senator in 2007 by the National Journal, a non-partisan publication. Your policy agenda is more liberal than Hillary Clinton's or Ted Kennedy's or any Democratic nominee since George McGovern. The change that you advocate seems to be nothing more than a reversion to the failed big-government policies of the Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson administrations. If you are truly a unifier, which liberal policies are you willing to compromise for the sake of unity? What bi-partisan legislation are you prepared to support?

So far you have avoided answering any of these questions. The Democratic Party has nominated for President a freshman Senator with barely three years of national experience who most of America still barely knows. You are the least tested and least experienced nominee for the presidency in modern times. Are you prepared to do more than obfuscate, dodge and ignore the tough questions? America needs more than a smooth-talking, politically-correct, empty-suit President. What American voters want to know, Senator Obama, is who are you? Who, really, are you?

Take the online poll here: http://www.stevemc2.com

Recently our elected
representatives in Congress interrogated the heads of the major oil
companies (those evil corporations) and wanted to know why these
companies are making a profit for their stockholders. Of course, many of us are
stockholders either through our IRA's, our 401K's, or the stock market. But,
never mind that. "Big Oil" is the evil-doer and the cause for high
gas prices. Oh, really?

Did they forget
that drilling in ANWR is off limits, and drilling off the coast of Florida and California is also off limits, except for China, Venezuela and Cuba who have signed 100-year leases on the oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
Coal-to-oil technology, which has been around since the 1930s, is prohibited,
no dams can be built for hydro-electric power, and don't even think about
copying France which gets 80% of its energy needs from nuclear power. And
no windmills which only clutter the view of Senator Kennedy from his
summer cottage in New England. Meanwhile, there has not been a new refinery built in
over 30 years and the number of operational refineries has been cut in
half since 1982. The refineries that are in existence have to make
different blends of gasoline, allowing states like California to dictate what unique gasoline blends must be made for
them, further driving up the cost to produce gasoline. To add insult to
injury, several states (again, like California) and the federal government have imposed gasoline
taxes amounting to more than 15% of the price of gasoline, while
only 4% represents oil company profits. Of course,
Congress will not consider a reduction of the federal gasoline tax, even
for the summer months.

Instead, our genius
representatives have passed legislation that would allow us sue OPEC
- like that will accomplish something! Let's produce more ethanol
which costs $1.23 to make a dollar's worth of energy while driving the cost of
food through the roof. Great idea! Oh, and don't forget the recent action
to protect the polar bears and their habitat which makes the location of future
oil development off limits to drilling. Finally, because the oil
companies are making "too much money", our government is looking
at seizing any money that the legislators consider "windfall
profits". Hillary Clinton said she wants to "take that
money" and do something productive with it. (I guess that's how she
intends to pay for her government health care program).

Did Congress ever hear of the law of "supply
and demand"? World-wide demand for crude oil has increased in recent years
due to the rapid industrial growth of China,
India, and
other developing countries. Meanwhile, supply has been limited by OPEC and
foreign national oil companies, which control nearly 80% of world petroleum
reserves and benefit financially from limiting the availability of crude oil.
Many of these oil-producing countries are less than friendly to the US
(Venezuela, Russia,
Iran, and other
Middle East states). We have enough domestic natural
energy resources to allow the US
to be energy independent for centuries. According to most energy experts, oil
and gas reserves on federal lands hold an estimated 100-plus billion barrels of
recoverable oil. These areas hold an estimated 635 trillion cubic feet of
recoverable natural gas. Anywhere from 800 million to two trillion barrels of
oil are available from oil shale in Colorado,
Utah and Wyoming.
According to Mackubin Thomas Owens,
Professor at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., and editor of Orbis, the journal of the Foreign Policy
Research Institute in Philadelphia, "If Congress really cared about
the economic well-being of American citizens, it would stop fulminating against
IOCs (investor-owned oil companies) and reverse current policies that discourage,
indeed prohibit, the production of domestic oil and natural gas. Even the
announcement that Congress was opening the way for domestic production would
lead to downward pressure on oil prices". Until Congress takes these steps
we will be held hostage to countries who want to cripple our economy.

So, tell me why, exactly are gas prices so high?

Take the online poll here: http://www.stevemc2.com

Have you seen the bumper
sticker that reads, "War Is Not the Answer?". I saw one the other day
and thought to myself, "That's a nice sentiment but it is a simplistic,
ill-informed slogan". In truth, war sometimes is the answer. There are
many anti-war protest groups, many of them formed on American university
campuses, which continue to believe that war never changes anything and should
never be considered, regardless of the consequences of not waging war. There
are few people who are pro-war but, when used as a last resort, war can often
be the answer. To believe that if we laid down our arms, all of our enemies
would reciprocate, is naïve and explains why most anti-war groups come from the
Left of the political spectrum. Most of those who hold these beliefs are
idealists who continue to advance the theory that man is intrinsically good by
nature despite historical evidence to the contrary. Would pacifism have
defeated the evil of Nazi Germany or imperialist Japan?
Would the communist "Evil Empire" of the Soviet Union
have collapsed without the threat of missiles deployed on the European
continent and the buildup of the American nuclear arsenal? Would Hitler, Tojo
or Stalin have abandoned their militaristic actions if the rest of the world
had simply laid down their arms? Of course not. Our enemies, you see,
understand that war can change things. This is the reason that Osama bin Laden
and al-Qaeda have declared war on America
and the Western world. They realize that war is the answer for them to achieve
their goals of conquest. They will not capitulate to pacifism and bumper
stickers.

Democrat presidential
candidate Barack Obama has stated that he would meet unconditionally with representatives
of all the world's regimes, including Cuba's
Castro, Iran's
Ahmadinejad, and North Korea's
Kim Jong-Il. He believes that all problems can be resolved through dialogue and
negotiations. Once again, this is a naïve point of view. Former US
president Jimmy Carter recently traveled to the Middle East
to meet with the leaders of the terrorist group Hamas in order to engage in
"negotiations". The only thing he accomplished, as Hamas readily
proclaimed, was to give credibility to an organization which has the stated
goal to eliminate the state of Israel.
Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Great Britain during the 1930's,
believed that he could negotiate with Hitler and keep his country out of war
with Germany.
Joseph Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler believing that he could
spare Russia
from the militaristic ambitions of Nazi Germany. Both men came to realize,
almost to the point of the ruin of their respective countries, that negotiation
was not the answer it appeared to be. Those who hold ambitions of conquest,
whether they be Julius Caesar, Adolph Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung, or Osama bin Laden,
have no interest in a negotiated settlement. In most cases, negotiations solve
nothing until a military victory has been achieved.

Another characteristic of the
anti-war Left is that they tend to believe that the aggressor is the victim.
Many believe that America's
foreign policies brought on the attacks of 9/11 and that the problems in the Middle
East are all the fault of America
or their ally, Israel.
Islamic extremists also want the world to believe this lie. The decline of the
Islamic civilization in the Middle East has been
advancing for many years and the region's only economic development was due to
the birth of the oil industry thanks to the investment by American and other
Western companies. Without this economic intervention, the region would be
nothing but a poor, undeveloped, uneducated Third-World ghetto. Al-Qaeda has
taken advantage of this state of affairs to wage a war of terrorism against the
democratic non-Islamic governments of the world. Unfortunately, the "War
is not the Answer" crowd has bought into the myth of American repression
of the Middle East. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy
Pelosi, Harry Reid, and most of the Democrat party leadership have all declared
that America
should withdraw from Iraq
and then the Iraqis will solve all their problems created by our invasion on
their own. Never mind that history has shown that precipitous retreat from a
battle usually results in catastrophic consequences. Those who want to compare
the war in Iraq
to the war in Vietnam
refuse to recognize the horrendous results from the American military
withdrawal in the previous war which resulted in the slaughter of millions in South
Vietnam and its neighbor Cambodia.

America
and her allies cannot simply unconditionally withdraw from Iraq,
return all of the troops home, and hope to peacefully negotiate a settlement
with Iran, Syria,
Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. America's
military has suffered more than 4,000 deaths during the war in Iraq
and, as terrible as that may be, a greater tragedy would be for us to lose the
war. We must do whatever it takes to win. Bumper stickers and slogans will
never lead to peace. Sometimes war is
the answer. War is the answer when it results in defeating an enemy which murders
innocents with suicide bombings, beheadings, and other acts of terrorism. War
is the answer when people can freely elect their representatives, live in
peace, and strive to achieve their dreams of happiness.

He's just going to keep on drifting further and further to the Left. Obama in February:"I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.I think it's important for us to recognize
that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership
generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for
sportsmanship, and for protecting their families.”

Obama now: “I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama told the Pittsburgh Tribune “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

If you needed more, here is another reason NOT to vote for this idiot! Even Hillary Clinton is opposed to revoking concealed carry permits.