The Governor of Missouri Speaks Out

The Governor of Missouri Speaks Out

Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts – not a free society.”


Who is Better Suited for National Security Leadership?

Who is Better Suited for National Security Leadership?

Palin v. Obama: Who’s Better Suited for National Security Leadership
by Clark S. Judge

In the Category 100 hurricane of mainstream media sarcasm, dismissals and denunciations that has blown over the number two spot on the GOP ticket this week, one simple fact remains standing amidst the debris: Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is better suited to take responsibility for the national security of the United States than is Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

Let me be clear first about the reasons I could have had in mind, but did NOT have in mind, in reaching this contrarian conclusion.

First off, I was NOT thinking about the MSM’s record for perceptiveness and insight when it comes to national strategy and commanders in chief. It is not a good record.

Over seven years, I served in the Reagan Administration in capacities ranging from volunteer staff for a commission to review government management to an international economic policy assignment to speechwriter to the president. I watched as the same institutions – even sometimes the same people – directed the same rhetorical fire at Ronald Reagan that they are now directing at Governor Palin.

Ignorant, dangerous, trigger-happy cowboy (well, not “boy” in Palin’s case): all this and more they said about the author of the most brilliant national security strategy of the 20th century. For more than a decade after he returned to California, they dismissed as a near buffoon the man whose policies led to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War within less than a presidential term of his exit from office.

For example, The New York Times was a leader of the charge of the blind brigade then and is once more leading the pack now. This Sunday’s edition featured a front page story and three columnist writing that the governor who took on corruption in high places, cut federal earmarks accepted in half and enjoyed an 80 percent approval rating was not such an able a leader at all and, of course, not suited for global leadership.

But I am NOT suggesting that, given their record, the opinion of this crowd on the suitability of any candidate for global leadership is beyond laughable and beneath contempt. I’m not. Truly, I’m not.

And in saying that Senator Obama is less qualified than Governor Palin, I am NOT thinking of the almost unbelievable absence of judgment that the senator has displayed on national security matters since the campaign began.

It is hard to pick the low point. There have been so many — from advocating abrogation of NAFTA to proposing unconditional direct talks between US president Obama and Iranian president Ahmadinejad to announcing in a televised debate that he would start pulling US troops out of Iraq within sixty days of taking office to his running mate telling Israeli generals that they would have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran. It is quite a list.

But my top pick for low moment came in just the past couple of weeks. In an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, Senator Obama said of our troop surge in Iraq that no one could have imagined how successful it would be. The mainstream media glided over the confession, but it is worth noting that early advocate John McCain as well as the much maligned George W. Bush and the brilliant David Petraeus all were able to imagine the surge’s success. By her support for the surge, Governor Palin was, too.

But I am NOT saying that Senator Obama’s breathtaking failure of imagination on the most consequential national security decision of the past four years makes him a less able candidate for national security leadership. After all, maybe he thought that our troops just weren’t up to the job, that they couldn’t do much but cling to their guns and pray for the best.

And I am NOT saying that Governor Palin is more qualified because of her experience related to foreign affairs, though it is vast by comparison with Senator Obama.

Let’s face it — neither has much in the way of direct experience in international policy. Senator Obama’s main claim to stature is co-sponsorship of an uncontroversial, entirely obvious bill regarding acquisition and disposal of Soviet-era weapons of mass destruction still in Russia – legislation that, while beneficial, displayed all the sophistication of an undergraduate term paper and on which he followed the lead of GOP co-sponsor Senator Richard Lugar, a true expert in this field.

But the world and its challenges are changing. Thanks to the surge’s unimaginable success, Iraq may be little more than a cleaning up operation for the next president. But with the economic rise of China and India and events in Russia, it seems clear that outside the Middle East, the big challenges will have to do with access to resources.

Both tickets have placed high emphasis on securing energy from, if not domestic sources, then at least friendly ones. Senator Obama initially put off limits the two forms of energy that are most within reach of current technology – offshore oil drilling and building more nuclear generating plants. He seems to be backing off that position, like so many others. But if he goes through with his threat to demand a renegotiation of NAFTA, he may well complicate access to the next most politically stable and friendly source of both petroleum and uranium: Canada.

By contrast, according to American foreign policy expert James Bennett, writing in this weekend’s London Sunday Telegraph, Palin’s celebrated pipeline deal included successful negotiations with the Canadian national and provincial governments. Because of its rich energy resources, Canada is about to become a far more important factor in US global policy. Obama has spent a good part of this campaign insulting and threatening this ally. Palin already has worked constructively with them.

But, as I say, experience is NOT the reasons that Governor Palin is better suited as a steward of our national security than Senator Obama. Here is the reason.

Presidents are surrounded with lots of foreign policy experts. Most of the National Security Council staff will be the same, whichever ticket wins. Both Obama and Palin are intelligent people who will quickly absorb their briefing books and lectures and within months be extraordinarily well versed in the full range of foreign policy issues.

But then something will happen and, not only will the president have make decisions, but it will be essential that he or she be able to stand firm. No quality is more fundamental to the success of a keeper of our security than strength. In recent weeks, one McCain ploy after another has thrown Senator Obama and his campaign. The senator has backed off one position after another that had been previously cast in cement. He and his campaign have acted deeply intimidated by McCain television ads – well, not ads actually broadcast on television, internet ads, an incredible display of weakness

Meanwhile, Governor Palin has uttered three critical words that mark her as having the strength of a Thatcher or a Reagan – the most telling words she said to Charlie Gibson: “You can’t blink.”

That’s what we learned this week. Under pressure, Senator Obama blinks. Under pressure, Governor Palin does not. That is why Governor Palin has emerged as the one better suited to assume our national security leadership, should she need to step in.

Clark S. Judge is managing director of the White House Writers Group, a policy and communications consulting firm based in Washington


Cling to me

Cling to me

This is what Obama really wants.

Obama’s Lipstick Smear

Obama’s Lipstick Smear

A great article by A.W.R. Hawkins at Human Events that you should read:

When Barack Obama stood in Lebanon, Virginia on September 9, and said, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,” I must say I concurred. And like tens of millions of Americans, I didn’t think it was an insult directed at Gov. Sarah Palin. But it was a lame attempt at a quip to demonstrate that Sarah Palin is nothing new or that the McCain/Palin ticket doesn’t represent real change. I actually think the phrase fits far better on the Democrats, and particularly Obama, who has spent more than a year and half pretending to be what he isn’t in order to garner votes that he otherwise would not receive.

It was obvious that Obama was going to be a weak candidate when he confronted Maureen Dowd in December 2006, for comments she made about his ears. It was after a speech in New Hampshire that Obama walked up to Dowd and said: “You talked about my ears, and I just want to put you on notice: I’m very sensitive about [them]…I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears.'” What? How is a man who can’t handle being ribbed for having gigantic ears ever supposed to handle the threats of our terroristic enemy; an enemy that will certainly forego picking on his ears in their bid to go straight for the throat?

Read more….


Barack Obama – Stealth Socialist

Barack Obama – Stealth Socialist

An editorial in today’s Investors Business Daily was very enlightening about Obama’s socialist mentors. Obama’s family and teachers have been communists and socialists. From his communist father and relatives, to Socialist Bernie Sanders, from late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his “subversive,” “un-American activities” to Gerald Kellman, a disciple of he late Saul “The Red” Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the “Rules for Radicals” and agitated for social revolution in America, they are people well grounded in the process of taking wealth from those who earned it and redistributing it to those who didn’t.

Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called “economic justice.” He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.

During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. “I’ve been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served,” he said at the group’s 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

Democrat Barack Obama arrives in Washington on Monday. On the campaign trail, Obama has styled himself a centrist. But a look at those who’ve served as his advisers and mentors over the years shows a far more left-leaning tilt to his background — and to his politics.

And as president, “we’ll ensure that economic justice is served,” he asserted. “That’s what this election is about.” Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn’t have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.

It’s the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we’re launching this special educational series.

“Economic justice” simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It’s a euphemism for socialism.

In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama’s positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.

In his latest memoir he shares that he’d like to “recast” the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the “winner-take-all” market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).

Obama also talks about “restoring fairness to the economy,” code for soaking the “rich” — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.

It’s clear from a close reading of his two books that he’s a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.

Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.

Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He’s disguising the wealth transfers as “investments” — “to make America more competitive,” he says, or “that give us a fighting chance,” whatever that means.

Among his proposed “investments”:

• “Universal,” “guaranteed” health care.

• “Free” college tuition.

• “Universal national service” (a la Havana).

• “Universal 401(k)s” (in which the government would match contributions made by “low- and moderate-income families”).

• “Free” job training (even for criminals).

• “Wage insurance” (to supplement dislocated union workers’ old income levels).

• “Free” child care and “universal” preschool.

• More subsidized public housing.

• A fatter earned income tax credit for “working poor.”

• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

His new New Deal also guarantees a “living wage,” with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and “fair trade” and “fair labor practices,” with breaks for “patriot employers” who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for “nonpatriot” companies that don’t.

That’s just for starters — first-term stuff.

Read the whole article.

This is scary stuff, folks. This man is close to being in the White House. With a Democrat majority in the House and Senate a President Obama could take this country from a free enterprise economy to a socialist economy in the first four years.

How any American can let this man get anywhere near the White House, or any position of power in the American government is a mystery to me. People just don’t realize the incredible damage he can do to our country and our economy.

The editorial concludes:

Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate “outsider” (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a “breath of fresh air” to Washington.

The few who have drilled down on his radical roots have tended to downplay or pooh-pooh them. Even skeptics have failed to connect the dots for fear of being called the dreaded “r” word.

But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.

Both a historic banking crisis and 1970s-style stagflation loom over the economy. Democrats, who already control Congress, now threaten to filibuster-proof the Senate in what could be a watershed election for them — at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

A perfect storm of statism is forming, and our economic freedoms are at serious risk.

Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that’s made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster.

I hope the American public is not so mesmerized by the dazzling images that Obama creates in his skillful manipulation of the press and the public that they are unwilling to see who he really is and how he can truly hurt this country. I also hope they aren’t buying into the notion that opposing Obama means you are a racist. Just because he is black doesn’t mean that you can’t have legitimate reasons for not wanting him to be President.


OBAMA – Citizen of the World

OBAMA – Citizen of the World

Barack Obama is a candidate who wants a one-world government, it would appear from his comments and speeches. If we just look at his speech in Berlin, there are numerous examples that support his one-world view, and also many historical errors. I have enclosed the actual speech below.

The portions that support his one-world views are in red. My comments appear in blue.


Thank you to the citizens of Berlin and to the people of Germany. Let me thank Chancellor Merkel and Foreign Minister Steinmeier for welcoming me earlier today. Thank you Mayor Wowereit, the Berlin Senate, the police, and most of all thank you for this welcome.

I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen — a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.

I know that I don’t look like the Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city. [An obvious attempt to point out the fact that he is black, and therefore you must be racist if you don’t support him. ]

The journey that led me here is improbable. My mother was born in the heartland of America, but my father grew up herding goats in Kenya. His father — my grandfather — was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.
[An attempt to show he comes from humble origins despite his being a wealthy intellectual academic elitist. Of course, no mention of the fact that his father was a communist who affected Kenya’s pull to the left.]

At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning — his dream — required the freedom and opportunity promised by the West.
[promised by the West, or promised by America? The “West” didn’t promise opportunity in the post-WWII era, only America did.] And so he wrote letter after letter to universities all across America until somebody, somewhere answered his prayer for a better life.

That is why I’m here. And you are here because you too know that yearning. This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom. And you know that the only reason we stand here tonight is because men and women from both of our nations came together to work, and struggle, and sacrifice for that better life.[Historical inaccuracy: The only reason is because both of our nations came together? I would say not. Most of East Germany supported the Russians during the Cold War. When Ronald Reagan came to Berlin, tens of thousands of Germans protested his presence]

Ours is a partnership that truly began sixty years ago this summer, on the day when the first American plane touched down at Tempelhof. [Actually, the relationship began several years earlier when the US and its then allies conquered the Nazis and liberated Germany.]

On that day, much of this continent still lay in ruin. The rubble of this city had yet to be built into a wall. The Soviet shadow had swept across Eastern Europe, while in the West, America, Britain, and France took stock of their losses, and pondered how the world might be remade.

This is where the two sides met. And on the twenty-fourth of June, 1948, the Communists chose to blockade the western part of the city. They cut off food and supplies to more than two million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom in Berlin.

The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe. Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin.[Isn’t that exactly true in Iraq? Wouldn’t retreat allow Islamic fascism to march across the Middle East? Also, what does he mean that all that stood in the way was Berlin? How? Since Berlin was ground zero of the Soviet-American conflict, it could easily have been the trigger for another world war.]

And that’s when the airlift began — when the largest and most unlikely rescue in history brought food and hope to the people of this city. [Notice there is no mention that it was the “American airlift”.]

The odds were stacked against success. In the winter, a heavy fog filled the sky above, and many planes were forced to turn back without dropping off the needed supplies. [Not true. See below.] The streets where we stand were filled with hungry families who had no comfort from the cold.

But in the darkest hours, the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up. And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to the Tiergarten, and heard the city’s mayor implore the world not to give up on freedom. “There is only one possibility,” he said. “For us to stand together united until this battle is won. The people of Berlin have spoken. We have done our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty. People of the world: now do your duty. People of the world, look at Berlin!”

People of the world — look at Berlin!

Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle.[Uh, excuse me, Barack. The only reason that Germans agreed to work with Americans was that, as Dennis Prager says, “America and its allies vanquished Germany, overthrew its Nazi leadership, imposed democracy and freedom on Germans, and kept plenty of soldiers in Germany.”]

Look at Berlin, where the determination of a people met the generosity of the Marshall Plan and created a German miracle; where a victory over tyranny gave rise to NATO, the greatest alliance ever formed to defend our common security.
[Really? How effective has NATO been in confronting evil- from communism to Islamic terrorism?]

Look at Berlin, where the bullet holes in the buildings and the somber stones and pillars near the Brandenburg Gate insist that we never forget our common humanity. [Perhaps, but there certainly was not “common humanity” from the early ’30’s to the end of WWII between Germany and the U.S.]

People of the world — look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one. [Historical inaccuracy: A continent did not come together. The world did not stand as one. The world (and Europe) was divided into Communist-controlled countries and the free world. The wall came down only because of the strength and resolve of the United States of America.]

Sixty years after the airlift, we are called upon again. History has led us to a new crossroad, with new promise and new peril. When you, the German people, tore down that wall — a wall that divided East and West; freedom and tyranny; fear and hope — walls came tumbling down around the world. [Thanks to Ronald Reagan]

From Kiev to Cape Town, prison camps were closed, and the doors of democracy were opened. Markets opened too, and the spread of information and technology reduced barriers to opportunity and prosperity. While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history.[The 20th Century taught us that we share a common destiny? Did those living under Communism in the 20th Century have a common destiny with those living in the U.S.? How?]

The fall of the Berlin Wall brought new hope. But that very closeness has given rise to new dangers — dangers that cannot be contained within the borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean.

The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil. [Hmm. No mention that the terrorists were Islamic with a long-standing plan to destroy the West.]

As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya. [No conclusive scientific evidence exists that cars in Boston or factories in Beijing cause Global Warming]

Poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris. The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin. The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow.[History has shown that poverty has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. What breeds the terror of tomorrow in Islamic countries is the teaching of radical Wahhabism to young Muslims.] The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all. [That, at least, is true.]

In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget this truth. [I don’t think England or Spain will forget the truth, even in the absence of Soviet tanks.] And if we’re honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny.[Again, “our shared destiny.” What does he mean by that? That we are destined to both live in collectivist societies?]

In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. [Only among the leftists in Europe] In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe’s role in our security and our future. [Not many] Both views miss the truth — that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe.

Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more — not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.[Scary. I wonder what he has in mind when he says we will be required to do more, not less? Nothing any loyal American will want to do, I am sure.]

That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. [What in the world does he mean by that statement? What walls between the countries with the most and those with the least?] The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; [Between natives and immigrants? Is that a reference to the fact that Americans are tired of carrying the financial burden of too many illegal immigrants, and he wants us to continue to accept that burden?] Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.[It seems to me that the only walls between these three religions consist of Muslims wanting to kill both Christians and Jews. What other walls are there?]

We know they have fallen before. After centuries of strife, the people of Europe have formed a Union of promise and prosperity. [Well, not all the people of Europe.] Here, at the base of a column built to mark victory in war, we meet in the center of a Europe at peace. Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, [Not true. See below] where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together; in the Balkans, where our Atlantic alliance ended wars and brought savage war criminals to justice; and in South Africa, where the struggle of a courageous people defeated apartheid. So history reminds us that walls can be torn down. But the task is never easy. True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy; of progress and peace. They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other.

That is why America cannot turn inward. That is why Europe cannot turn inward. America has no better partner than Europe. Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic. Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It was this spirit that led airlift planes to appear in the sky above our heads, and people to assemble where we stand today. And this is the moment when our nations — and all nations — must summon that spirit anew.

This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. [Again, no mention that terrorism and extremism is Islamic.]

This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope. [“The vast majority of Muslims?” Has Obama seen the actual numbers that show that the vast majority of Muslims around the world think terrorist acts against Israel and the U.S. are justified? Where are these “moderate Muslims” who “reject” the “extremism” of which Obama speaks?]

This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO’s first mission beyond Europe’s borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now. [Notice how Obama is essentially diverting attention away from his opposition to the War in Iraq and the “surge” and calling for essentially what amounts to a “surge” in Afghanistan.]

This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. [If the United States gave up our nuclear weapons we would essentially be defenseless. Not that we would use them, necessarily, but the fact that we have them is clearly a deterrent to those who would like to destroy us. ]

The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons.
[I am curious as to how he proposes that would happen.]

This is the moment when every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday. In this century, we need a strong European Union that deepens the security and prosperity of this continent, while extending a hand abroad. In this century — in this city of all cities — we must reject the Cold War mind-set of the past, and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must, and to seek a partnership that extends across this entire continent.
[Is Obama suggesting that we should actually work more closely with former KGB Communist Putin and his kleptocracy in Russia? The same Putin and virtual dictatorship that is helping Iran with its nuclear arms program?]

This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. [Does he mean share the benefits through wealth re-distribution? Just exactly what does “more equitably” mean?]

Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many.
[Growth and development does not favor the few. All boats rise with a rising tide. I detect a desire to redistribute wealth is behind this. That is what “more equitably” means to the Left”]

Together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful protections for our people and our planet. This is the moment for trade that is free and fair for all. [If this isn’t a prelude to the “global poverty tax”–that he has already proposed in the Senate– and the “global warming tax” that would essentially redistribute our wealth “more equitably” to the rest of the world, I don’t know what is. This is his mindset, and one we need to be very concerned about.]

This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East. [Who, exactly, is calling for that new dawn in the Middle East that we must help answer?] My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions. We must support the Lebanese who have marched and bled for democracy, and the Israelis and Palestinians who seek a secure and lasting peace. [Funny how Obama doesn’t say: “and the Israelis who “marched and bled for democracy.” He ascribes a certain moral equivalence to the Palestinians and Israelis. This despite the fact that the only terrorism in that conflict has come from the Palestinians, while the Israelis continue to sue for peace by giving up land and prisoners to those who do not acknowledge their right to exist and who would destroy Israel, if they could. This is a reflection of how Obama would treat Israel in the future. Are you paying attention, Jews who are Democrats? Further, exactly what evidence does he have that the Palestinians seek a secure and lasting peace? Answer: None. The truth is that they do not seek a secure and lasting peace. They seek the destruction of Israel.]

And despite past differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close.
[Those “millions of Iraqis” would never have had that opportunity to “rebuild” and start their lives anew had Obama been President in 2001. Those “millions of Iraqis” would still be subject to the terrorism, lack of freedom, domination and genocide of Saddam Hussein]

This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Let us resolve that all nations — including my own — will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere.
[Again, Another chiding of the US. Obama has bought into the fiction that carbon emissions cause global warming. Doesn’t he sound almost divine? He is going to conquer famine and turn back the tides. I though there was only one divine figure who could do that.]

This is the moment to give our children back their future. This is the moment to stand as one.

And this is the moment when we must give hope to those left behind in a globalized world. [Who are those left behind in a globalized world, and just how do we give them hope? Hope for what?]

We must remember that the Cold War born in this city was not a battle for land or treasure. Sixty years ago, the planes that flew over Berlin did not drop bombs; instead they delivered food, and coal, and candy to grateful children. And in that show of solidarity, those pilots won more than a military victory.
[Again an historical inaccuracy. Those American pilots who airlifted food did not win a military victory. There was no military conflict at that time. What they did do was keep the people of West Berlin from starving because of the lines of supply being cut by the East German communists.]

They won hearts and minds; love and loyalty and trust — not just from the people in this city, but from all those who heard the story of what they did here.

Now the world will watch and remember what we do here — what we do with this moment. [Really?? Do you really think you are that important at this point in time, Barack? You really think that what you do in this moment where you are speaking to Germans as a probable candidate for elected office in the US the world will watch and remember what you do or say in a campaign speech. I think not. I think the world will wonder why this guy, who has not yet been elected to office, is acting as if he had.]

Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time? [Is this an implication that the US does not help others in the world and that it does not already provide millions for AIDS research and prevention. And, wasn’t he the one who advocated that we forget about rescuing the millions of Iraqis who were under the scourge of Saddam?]

Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words “never again” in Darfur?

Will we acknowledge that there is no more powerful example than the one each of our nations projects to the world? Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don’t look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people? [Here again he is chiding the US. He accuses us not only of torture, but of xenophobia. He is also inferring that the US doesn’t “welcome immigrants from different lands?” Is there any country who does more to welcome immigrants from around the globe?]

People of Berlin — people of the world this is our moment. This is our time. [What does he mean by that? This is whose time? Is he speaking as a citizen of the United States or a citizen of the world?]

I know my country has not perfected itself. [Another chiding of the US and an attempt at an apology. What hubris! Who is he to apologize to “the world” for the actions of the US?]

At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions. [When was that Barack?]

But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived — at great cost and great sacrifice — to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom
[We do not have allegiance to people. Our allegiance is to those principles of freedom and personal liberty that were proclaimed by our Founders in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and which were granted, not by men, but by our Creator.]— indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares.[Except Christianity]

What has always united us — what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America’s shores — is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please.

Those are the aspirations that joined the fates of all nations in this city. Those aspirations are bigger than anything that drives us apart. It is because of those aspirations that the airlift began. [No it wasn’t. It was the determination of Harry Truman, despite Congressional opposition that caused the American airlift to begin.]

It is because of those aspirations that all free people — everywhere — became citizens of Berlin. It is in pursuit of those aspirations that a new generation — our generation — must make our mark on history.

People of Berlin — and people of the world — the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. Let us build on our common history, and seize our common destiny, [I still can’t figure out why he is talking about a common history and common destiny with the U.S. There is no common history or common destiny. The destiny of Germany is to be a socialistic Islamic state. The destiny of the U.S., so long as Barack Obama and his fellow socialists don’t get elected, is to be a free country with liberty and justice for all.] and once again engage in that noble struggle to bring justice and peace to our world. [When leftists or Socialists speak of justice they typically mean “social justice”,which is code for wealth redistribution. This is typical socialist rhetoric. Justice and Peace are values the Left holds in highest regard, while Liberty and Freedom are the highest values among conservatives.]


This speech certainly gives an insight into who Barack Obama is, if anyone wants to take the time to find out. I did not see him express a great love of his country or a passion for the freedom and opportunity we enjoy in the US.

To learn more about Obama’s speech in Berlin, I recommend you read this article by Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe. Excerpt:

Indeed, Obama seemed to go out of his way not to say plainly that what saved Berlin in that dark time was America’s military might. Save for a solitary reference to “the first American plane,” he never described one of the greatest American operations of the postwar period as an American operation at all. He spoke only of “the airlift,” “the planes,” “those pilots.” Perhaps their American identity wasn’t something he cared to stress amid all his “people of the world” salutations and talk of “global citizenship.”

You should also read this article in The American Thinker called, “The Audacity of No Fact Checking” about the speech. An excerpt:


Obama speech:


“Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together;”

Quoting from a 5/3/2008 USA Today article:

Ten years after peace was declared in Northern Ireland, one might have expected that Belfast’s barriers would be torn down by now. But reality, as usual, is far messier. Not one has been dismantled. Instead they’ve grown in both size and number.”

Another article in The American Thinker (Obama’s Casual Way with the Truth) talks about his lack of knowledge about the Airlift. Excerpt:

Obama, speaking to Berliners, used the familiar cloudy and cold Berlin winter weather to evoke a response of sympathy and unity with America (at least America of the Berlin Airlift era) when he said,
“The odds were stacked against success. In the winter, a heavy fog filled the sky above, and many planes were forced to turn back without dropping off the needed supplies. The streets where we stand were filled with hungry families who had no comfort from the cold.”
There’s nothing like shared sacrifice in the past to generate warm feelings. Even young Berliners who weren’t born then experience Berlin’s dreary winters. Very artful speechwriting.
But Obama didn’t know what he was talking about when it comes to the actual military operation of the Berlin Airlift. He was dead wrong about “many planes … forced to turn back,” as historian D.M. Giangreco pointed out yesterday in American Thinker.


Obama should have read my book before making his claim about the Berlin Airlift. Barely a handful of the nearly 28,000 flights “turned back” in the face in the cruel winter of 1948-1949.

Obama obviously has limited knowledge of the Airlift, and automatically assumes that the USAF would send up aircraft in prohibitively dangerous weather (it didn’t) and that, once up, large numbers of pilots aborted their missions.


A candidate for commander-in-chief hereby parades his deep misunderstanding about the way the United States Air Force regards human life. Is this how he would treat Airmen and Airwomen when he is in command? This should raise alarm bells among those who value the lives of our military men and women.

Another interesting article about the speech is “Sweet Nothings” by Andrew Ferguson in the Weekly Standard. Also a must read. Excerpt:


This will come as a surprise to anyone who lived through the Cold War or has even read about it. The thing about wars, even cold ones, is that the world doesn’t stand as one; that’s why there’s a war. And in the Cold War the Soviet side was as united as the West; more so, probably. Left out of Obama’s history was any mention of the ferocious demonstrations against the United States in the streets of Paris and West Berlin during the 1960s and 1980s, when American presidents were routinely depicted as priapic cowboys and psychopaths. Probably a fair number of the older members of Obama’s audience had been hoisting those banners themselves 25 years ago.

In the Los Angeles Times, John Bolton wrote an article entitled, “One World? Obama’s on a different planet.” Excerpt:

This speech, intended to generate the enormous publicity it in fact received, reflects his campaign’s carefully calibrated political thinking. Accordingly, there should be no evading the implications of his statements. Consider just the following two examples.

First, urging greater U.S.-European cooperation, Obama said, “The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together.” Having earlier proclaimed himself “a fellow citizen of the world” with his German hosts, Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved “that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.”But there are larger implications to Obama’s rediscovery of the “one world” concept, first announced in the U.S. by Wendell Willkie, the failed Republican 1940 presidential nominee, and subsequently buried by the Cold War’s realities.

The successes Obama refers to in his speech — the defeat of Nazism, the Berlin airlift and the collapse of communism — were all gained by strong alliances defeating determined opponents of freedom, not by “one-worldism.” Although the senator was trying to distinguish himself from perceptions of Bush administration policy within the Atlantic Alliance, he was in fact sketching out a post-alliance policy, perhaps one that would unfold in global organizations such as the United Nations. This is far-reaching indeed.

After Americans get over the great imagery that Obama creates one would hope they would begin to look at exactly who this leftist “community organizer” really is. Four years ago he was a newly elected state legislator in Illinois, who came out of the Saul Alinsky socialistic model of organizing communities to depend on entitlement transfers from the government. In other words, he is clearly a one-world Socialist.




Rudy publicly states positions on issues

Rudy publicly states positions on issues

2008 Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani appeared on Hannity & Colmes tonight (February 5th) and answered questions about his positions on various issues from the War on Terror, abortion, taxes, gay marriage and other important issues. Rather than telling you about his positions, spend a few minutes and watch the videos. There are two.

Part 1 of 2

Is he my perfect candidate? No. But that guy doesn’t exist.
Rudy does and I like what he has to say.

Related Post:
Is Rudy Giuliani a Conservative?