Obama: The Hamas Poster Boy?

In an E-mail a few days ago John McCain's deputy campaign manager, Christian Ferry wrote some interesting things. The E-mail in it's entirety was about the overwhelming ineptitude of Sen. Barack Obama and his policies. His talking points emerged from the recent democratic debate in Pennsylvania between the Sen. and his rivalry Hillary Clinton.

"Wednesday's Democratic debate provided insight into Barack Obama's positions on key foreign policy issues. As president he says he would immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq- even if he were strongly advised against this by our nation's top military commanders. He would also hold direct talks with the Iranian regime- a regime that does not recognize Israel and is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Iran's president has even called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," Ferry wrote.

He continued by pointing out Obama's insistence on refusing to condemn former president Jimmy Carter for holding talks with the terrorist organization Hamas. Which is a group supported financially, politically and military by Iran. However, this is no surprise. Obama has said he would open talks with terrorists and dictators alike if he were to become president. Then came the most interesting part of the E-mail, what Mr. Ferry says Hamas thinks of Obama.

According to Mr. Ferry: "Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Hamas Prime Minister said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America." Now, Isn't that just wonderful news? Even the terrorists like Obama!

I wonder why? Is he the most sympathetic U.S. leader to their cause? Perhaps it's because he's the most marxist candidate to maybe ever run for the White House. What kinda change do terrorists think Obama will bring that will be good for them? Well, maybe they know if he's in office they don't have to worry about Lady Liberty sticking a boot in their .... if they get out of line, or could it even be they see him as one of their own? If his Idea of change lines up with Hamas's we would have to be nuts to put him in office.

Sadly way too many Americans are simply brushing off the facts, for his slick rhetoric. If the Debates showed one thing it's this: Barack Obama thinks he is above tough questions, that somehow he should get a by on them because he's so good, that he's extremely in-experienced and has a basic lack of knowledge on economic theory. His economic theory has one component- punish every one else for the poor, just to be fair. Ah-lah Communism?

"We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas, surrenders in Iraq and will hold unconditional talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad."

-Christian Ferry

From All The Whitey's, I'm Sorry!

As I ponder the current social dynamics between the African American Community and the Caucasians I am confused. I have grown up in the deep South all my life and am always careful as to what I am saying and try to be as politically correct as possible. A few weeks ago I heard one of the most racist men in America speak. Who was it you say? The leader of the Klu Klux Klan? The President of the Neo-Nazi's? Amazingly it was not! This man was a preacher, and he was black!

I listened as he bashed America and then began to bash us....the whitey's. I was astounded..Astonished... In utter disarray. All my life I was taught that all men were equal no matter of race, creed, etc... I found out that one of the biggest racists in America is Reverend Wright, an African American. Why? Does he harbor so much hate in his heart for people who years earlier had helped give him and his race the liberty they so desperately wanted?

He is teaching an entire generation of African-Americans a doctrine of hate, plain and simple. How a man who wants to be our President can sit in this man's congregation and not believe in this philosophy of hate is beyond me. I was going to vote for this man, but I am beginning to see the big facade being constructed by the Democratic Party. To think that at one time I was going to vote for a man named Barack Hussein Obama. Ponder this notion, if a doctrine of hate is being taught in today's prominent African-American churches; how can we truly be at peace with one another.

This goes against everything that Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of. Do the leaders of the African-American communities have to keep claiming racism and keep spreading idea's of hate to have a sense of purpose? I challenge every white person in America to go to Reverend Wrights church and sit and listen to his hate mongering, even better I am going to start a new college called The University of Whitey... Whites only. What you say? It's racist to have a school completely dedicated to one race and for that race exclusively? Wow, how many African-American colleges and African American organizations can I, a white man join?

To Reverend Wright I say you are a disgrace to your wonderful race, quit propagating hate. Start preaching some ideas in the Bible like love, tolerance, acceptance, etc. I am tired of these racist African-American leaders using the problems of their people not as a solution for a problem but for a Political Platform! Grow Up Sir! Your hate is a spreading cancer infecting everyone.

Jimmy "the joke" Carter

Former president Jimmy Carter has decided to travel to Syria to meet with Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal. Hamas being a terrorist organization and Khaled Meshal- being an intense anti-Semite of course. In perspective, Meshal praises Iranian leader President Ahmadinejad for his comments that the Holocaust is a myth and that Israel should be wiped off the map as "courageous declarations."

Is it any surprise that Jimmy Carter wants to meet with this guy? No. Many people are outraged by it, however, saying that Carter is abusing post-presidency. In fact, he has been suspected of being anti-Semitic at times. A few quotes:

"It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse
a balanced position between Israel and Palestine"

"When I met with Yasir Arafat in 1960 he stated, "The PLO has never
advocated the annihilation of Israel. The Zionists started the 'drive the Jews into the
sea' statement and attributed it to the PLO"

The two quotes above are terribly misinformed of Mr. Carter. At one point many of the people on his staff quit because of the possible Anti-Semitic talk circulating. However, I don't tend to think that Carter is a true full blown ant-Semite. What i do think is he that he is ignorant and that his opinions on Israel and the Middle East are most often based on fallacy.

Carter in a recent interview defended his trip by saying, "It's very important that at least someone meet with the Hamas leaders to express their views, to ascertain what flexibility they have, to try to induce them to stop all attacks against innocent civilians in Israel and to cooperate with the Fatah as a group that unites the Palestinians."

He thinks we should cooperate with terrorists. I bet their a bunch of compromising guys that are just misunderstood. All they want is peace I'm sure....Not. Carter's logic on the matter is absolutely incoherent, and he should be ashamed. The truth is no one really cares what Jimmy Carter says or does for the most part. His presidency was a joke, and he's following suite.

Disdainful Democrats

Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller recently reiterated the extremely obvious feelings that the democratic party holds for our military. To any normal/ logical person it comes as no surprise. Democrats have pandered and ridiculed anything having to do with the military for years (Even before Iraq). The Senators remarks, however, were directed at republican presidential nominee John McCain.

"McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they (the missiles) get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues," Rockefeller said.

The logic behind these remarks is almost completely absent. In fact, they are some of the most ignorant remarks I've heard in awhile minus the absolutely racist Jeremiah Wright's rhetoric. These remarks just go to bolster the fact that the Democrats do indeed hold little to no respect for those that serve our country in the military.

It was extremely evident in the Clinton administration. According to a Heritage Foundation study, Clinton nearly cut the U.S. Army divisions in half and cut total U.S. Naval ships by roughly 40%. He didn't think possessing a strong military was of much importance. Now, even a number of prominent democrats think it would be best if the U.S. didn't have a strong national military, thinking it better if we gave way to a military governed by the U.N. These anti-militaristic idea's are absolutely insane; the problem is theses ideas are absolutely the face of the Democratic party today.

It's no secret that the vast majority of the serving men and woman of the country are republicans. Perhaps they know all to well the dangers of this fallacy inspired thinking.

These Democrats curse and protest military recruiters at college campuses, they refer to The U.S. soldiers as terrorists, they label men such as Gen. Petraeus with sharp names like "General Betray Us", Would rather provide adequate housing to convicted felons over U.S. veterans, and the disgusting list continues. However, let me be clear that i don't believe all Democrats retain these ignorant beliefs. Nevertheless, it is painfully apparent that there is a strong sect of them that do.

God bless our troops.

Petraeus Reports

The head U.S. Military commander in Iraq, Gen. Petraeus began briefing both the Senate Arms Services committee as well as the Senate Foreign Relations committee today. Gen. Petraeus continued to cite positive strides in the growing success of maintaining security in Iraq due to the recent surge of troops. However, he remarked the progress was still fragile and easily reversible.

Throughout his report he was questioned by members of the senate on various issues dealing with the war. However, one in particular stood out. The Democrat from Michigan, Carl Levin. Levin, opened the meeting with intense words and continued to make sharp remarks towards U.S. strategy.

His main point of concern was the responsibility of the Iraqi government. In regards to Gen. Petraeus' suggested strategy of some troop withdrawal, and 45 day assessment period, Levin remarked, that such a move "takes the pressure off Iraqi leaders" to responsibly govern their own country. Levin continued to remark on how and who should now bear the burden of the war citing the billions of dollars the Iraqi government is storing in there treasury from oil revenues.

Levin said that the failure of the Iraqi government to use these billions of dollars "highlights the need to change our current course in order to shift responsibility from our troops and our taxpayers to the Iraqi government, to force that government to take responsibility for their own future -- politically, economically and militarily." Later he advocated a demand to the Iraqi government to begin to bear much more of the burden of rebuilding their country.

While in fact, I do not disagree with Levin's beliefs that the Iraqi government should begin to bear more of the fiscal burden instead of U.S. tax payers, I find his logic comical. Honestly, you have a liberal democrat demanding responsibility? Since when have the democrats demanded or even advocated fiscal responsibility? They certainly do not advocate responsibility to their constituents. Year after year, they run on political platforms advocating government hand out after government hand out. They sponsor complete dependence for their constituents on the hand outs of others, not responsibility.

They base the entire substance of their campaigns on the "importance" of social programs and welfare. Almost the entirety of their supporters would get offended if any boss, or person demanded them to be responsible. No, they have unions to keep that from happening. Responsibility? It would seem that the only time responsibility is important to the democratic party is when it's to further partisan politics instead of producing logical results.

The Truth About Oil

As I was perusing through Facebook.com today I noticed a group that caught my eye. The group was called " How to get GAS back down to $1.30 per gallon," so i was intrigued to say the least. This is what it said:

"Now that the oil companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us to think that the cost of a gallon of gas is CHEAP at $1.50 - $1.75, we need to take aggressive action to teach them that BUYERS control the marketplace...not sellers." "The only way we are going to see the price of gas come down is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their gas! And, WE CAN DO IT WITHOUT HURTING OURSELVES."

"Here's the idea: For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit."

So is this a good idea, is it even feasible?...No it's not. The reason being, the Oil industry is an open market. Which means prices are determined by competition. To successfully work a plan like this, we would have to find a way to compete with OPEC. OPEC is the dirty word. What about alternative energy? Ethanol?

The odds are Ethanol wouldn't even survive in the Free Market, if it wasn't government mandated. Why don't you know this? Because it's one of the biggest political running platforms there is. Accredited studies prove that Ethanol has a net energy waste in use. This means that Ethanol is not an efficient source of energy, not to mention the devastatingly negative effect that Ethanol is having on our agricultural economy. Some experts say that it could cripple the beef industry in a year. That's bad news for a tipsy economy. So what could work? ALASKA!

In 1987, The U.S. Department of Interior, stated that there are projected billions (somewhere between 4.8 - 29.4 billion) of barrel's worth of unrefined oil in Alaska's coastal plains. They also reported finding 26 different oil and gas prospects that could each have giant fields containing up to 500 million barrels each. That's a lot, and it's on our own soil. Furthermore, if we began drilling it would create a staggering 250,000 - 735,000 jobs. Not only would we begin to drastically become less dependent on foreign oil, gas prices would plummet and the U.S. economy would be boosted tremendously. Think about it.