Obama: You Don't Want Someone Slick

Obama has been stomping the campaign trail hard for Creigh Deeds, the Democrat in the Virginia gubernatorial race. He made one comment, recently, that struck me as odd.

In describing Creigh Deeds at a rally, Obama seemed to try and convince his audience to vote for the candidate who can offer real solutions, not someone who is merely "slick" looking. Obama's message seemed pretty darn simple: Sure, Deeds might look like a wreck adn his opponent, McDonnell seems well groomed and put together. But, does that really matter? Vote based on the issues! Here is a little of that exchange:

"Are you looking for someone slick?"
The crowd shouts back: No!
"Are you looking for someone who will be fighting for you...I hope you are going to be voting on his track record."

But, Mr. President, and forgive my ignorance, but weren't you viewed as the "cool, hip" candidate in 2008? If I remember correctly, your "style" was part of your whole image, right?

I don't know, maybe my memory is failing me. I just thought the comment was ironic. Check out the video link below.

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8930953

War Against FNC, Chamberlain Reborn

When it comes to foreign policy, President Obama has been called an appeaser. If you had any doubt about that being true, look at the president's recent attempt to censor the media and the character it reveals.

In case you missed it, President Obama went to war with Fox News trying to block their access to a White House czar. Fox was triumphant in this little struggle as other news agencies refused to partake in the interview if anyone was banned from access.

So, Obama tried to control the media and silence what the White House considers opposition to their policies. This is exactly what was going on in England during the late 1930s.

One of the most infamous appeasers in the last century was Neville Chamberlain. Fueled by his immense stubbornness, Chamberlain pursued peace at all cost even has the horrors of Hitler's war machine were becoming know. One of the tactics Chamberlain and his government used leading up to disastrous meeting in Munich was to control the press and the information the general public received.

The media has the overwhelming responsibility to deliver the truth. While Chamberlain and his government never officially censored the press, they did all they could to suppress any anti-appeasement sentiment.

Jack Margach, a reporter for The Sunday Times, later remarked in his book The Abuse of Power: The War Between Downing Street and the Media from Llyod George to Callaghan (p. 50):

"From the moment [Chamberlain] entered No. 10 in 1937, he sought to manipulate the press into supporting his policy of appeasing the dictators...In order to cling to power, Chamberlain was prepared to abuse truth itself. He made the most misleading and inaccurate statements, which he was determined to see published so as to make his polciies appear credible and successful. Quite simply, he told us lies."

Officials from Chamberlain's government (Lord Halifax in particular), expressed envy when talking about Hitler's ability to control the German media. The government determined which politicians were able to speak on BBC radio and what exactly they were allowed to say. Controlling the media and determining what people are told, how they are told it and who delivers the message is a central character trait of any politician and/or government blinded by the falsity of appeasement.

America, like the British, are a proud people. We have a heritage soaked with patriotism. Our forefathers waged a revolution that defined the very meaning of liberty and freedom. Most Americans are extremely proud of that heritage and this country's place in history.

Appeasement does not sit well with the majority of Americans. Firstly, we are not nor should we be apologetic of who and what we are as a nation. Our ideals are of the finest; we never have to apologize for what this country stands for. Appeasing dictators inevitably means apologizing for celebrating individuals' freedoms; it inevitably means that we are wrong.

Secondly, while I wish to believe that we are all peace loving, I know that we are not willing to sacrifice security, liberty and freedom for the sake of a empty peace. We are not foolish enough to believe that every world leader values freedom, desires peace or is a rational partner in negotiations. If history has taught us anything at all, is that there are truly evil people in this world and some of those people rise to power.

President Obama, like Chamberlain, is blinded by his childish belief that peace can be achieved. All we have to do is apologize for who we are and compromise what we believe in and than we will all be able to lovingly hold hands. Thankfully, Americans aren't buying it.

The recent attempt to muscle Fox News isn't shocking. The president and his administration were only acting in character with a administration of appeasement.
Over the last couple of months,Fox News Channel and its highly talented staff was the lone voice of reasoning; questioning the ridiculous numbers of White House czars, covering in depth the town hall meetings, releasing real economic figures, and exposing ACORN for the criminal enterprise it truly is. Fox News alone has been the watchdog in the media. Fox News was and is exposing the flaws in this administration's policies. In Obama's mind, they therefore needed to be silent. So Chamberlainean.

Gosh, I'm Annoyed!

President Obama is bothered by all the criticism.

No, not about his handling of the war or his failure to unite the nation under his health care reform effort. Nope, not the summer full of town hall meetings.

What annoys the president the most so far...being criticized for spending over $278,000 of taxpayer money on a date.

The New York Daily News reports:

He told this Sunday's New York Times Magazine the criticism he received for whisking his wife up to Manhattan for dinner and a Broadway play was the single most annoying experience since arriving at the White House
Read more:

Gosh, that is annoying!I would be annoyed too if people were totally overlooking my significant flaws, misjudgments and failures and focusing on a date!

Is Andy Afraid of Rudy?

Yesterday, the New York Post reported that the New York Attorney General and aspiring gubernatorial candidate sent a message to Rudy Giuliani: I'm all in!

The Post reported that:

"The confidential message, conveyed through intermediaries, was delivered to Giuliani recently and is expected to play a central role in the former mayor's impending decision on whether to run as the Republican candidate for governor in 2010, sources with knowledge of the situation said.
It was sent as a courtesy -- Giuliani says he's "friends" with Cuomo -- and as a warning that the former presidential candidate would face a brutal and, according to a dozen recent polls, losing battle against the highly popular attorney general."

It was an interesting move and I would be satisfied with the explanation that Cuomo was courteously giving Rudy a heads up except for one bothersome fact: who didn't know that Cuomo was running for Governor?

Cuomo has made his intentions very clear: he is going to challenge his Party's current governor in 2010, assuming the Governor Paterson chooses to run again. Cuomo has already begun fund raising for his campaign. The potential match up between Paterson and Cuomo even gained national attention when it was alleged that one of the President's political advisers asked Paterson to step down and not run for re-election. And than there was the debate over the Obama hug/snub when he was in upstate New York a few weeks back.

So, again, it is safe to assume that Rudy - and the rest of the nation - has long known of Cuomo's political aspirations. Why, then, the warning, or the heads up, or whatever else you choose to call it?

Cuomo is getting nervous. A primary against Paterson will be ugly, unpleasant ( Paterson is New York's first African American governor) and, most importantly, costly. And, there is a very realistic possibility that it might become a three-way Primary, only complicating Cuomo's life even further.

Rudy is the only New York Republican that can wage a legitimate campaign for the governorship - sorry Lazio, but you ain't got a shot. Rudy might be running behind Cuomo in the polls now, however, if Cuomo gets caught up in a rough Primary, voters' opinions of him will inevitably change and for the worse.

If Rudy does run, Cuomo's life becomes very difficult. When developing a campaign strategy, he will be forced to build up reserves for a legitimate General Election campaign whereas if Rudy chooses not to run, Cuomo can focus a far larger number of resources - both money and manpower - in the Democratic Primaries to ensure his victory against Paterson and whoever else emerges in that contest.

And, while Cuomo is entangled in a brutal battle with his own Party, Rudy can travel the state, build a a robust grass-roots organization, and raise huge lumps of cash( don't forget, the mayor still has a large national donor base from his presidential bid).

If Rudy runs, Cuomo might very well win the Primary but find himself stretched too thin.

This note was a scare tactic. Cuomo knows that his future is jeopardized by facing a formidable candidate in the General Election. Cuomo needs Rudy to stay out of this thing enabling him to go full throttle during the Primary and than coast through the General Election against Lazio. Therefore, in his desperation, Cuomo sent his little note.

Whatever Rudy decides to do, I think it is fair to say that Cuomo is not as confident as some people think; despite the encouraging polls. And, I don't think Rudy is the kind of man that backs down from a challenge.

For Full Article

Isreal Take a Hike, We Love You Iran

It became clear today that America is no longer Israel's close friend and ally.

This morning, the United Nations Security Council voted today on a proposal that demands that Israel give up its atomic weapons, and it passed. Yep, that wasn't a typo. The world has demanded that Israel disarm and face the hungry wolves with nothing but sticks and stones.

And where did America stand on this resolution? Well, last September America opposed a similar resolution that targeted Israel's nuclear arsenal. Not this time. This time, Obama's administration abstained.

In today's Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens points out that America was strategically motivated.

"...the factors that chiefly seemed to drive the administration's decision to abstain from this morning's vote were more strategic than personal. Western negotiators have been pressing Iran to make good on its previous agreement in principle to ship its nuclear fuel to third countries so it could be rendered usable in Iran's civilian nuclear facilities. The Iranians, in turn, have been adamant that they would not do so unless progress were made on international disarmament." (Read the full artcile here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574454782341597654.html)

Than, Mr. Stephens quotes a senior administration official:

"The Iranians have a point...The U.S. can't forever be the enforcer of a double standard where Israel gets a nuclear free ride but Iran has to abide by every letter in the NPT... How can we tell Tehran that they're better off without nukes if we won't make the same point to our Israeli friends?"

Look at what this official is say: Iran has a point? In what twisted version of realty does Iran even have a opinion on the world stage? At what point did we begin taking policy advice from foreign dictators?

The White House should be ashamed. The president's approach to nuclear disarmament is naive, dangerous and irresponsible. Nuclear disarmament has never and can never work. The good guys, the nations that would never think of attacking a foreign sovereignty are always the first to drop their weapons while evil rulers who wish to further their own agenda while destroying anyone in their way simple sit int eh corner snickering with their stockpiles of weapons. Disarmament always leave the innocent vulnerable to the violent attacks of aggressors. Every move that the world has made towards peace has been negotiated through strength.

is Obama foolish enough to think that peace can be achieved in the Mid East if Israel disarms? He cannot be serious!

What would have happened if Ronald Reagan moved America towards disarmament in the early 80s? Hundred of millions of innocent people would be living under the brutal communist regime in Russia. Liberation from fear and the deliverance of liberty to countless millions was only made possible because America became stronger and built up our arms. Reagan knew that you can only negotiate with a bully from a point of strength.

Israel is the only thing that keeps some resemblance of order in the middle east. Iran, Syria and other hostile nations are kept in check from the fear of Israel's might. Israel is the only deterrent in the region. And, I promise you no matter what Iran says over a cup of coffee in front of a fire place and no matter what Israel does, Iran's current regime will never cease to pursue a nuclear arsenal.

This White House official claims that we are trying to tell Iran that they are "better off without nukes." No! No we are not. We are telling and must continue to tell Iran that under no circumstances will America and world allow them to have nukes. America has never been a enforcer of a " double standard".

A double standard is when you have different expectations from similar sources. Israel is a peaceful nation and always has been. They have never invaded the borders of their neighboring countries. Israel has never mobilized its army provokingly. They have never sent verbal threats to their enemies. Israel's leaders have never displayed a apocalyptic disillusion. Israel has never said another nation does not have the right to exist. Israel has never funded terror groups who constantly attack women and children, targeting civilian centers of life. Iran has done all of the above and more. Clearly, America and the world must treat Iran differently. And, that is not a double standard.

All Ican say is: Shame on you Mr. President. Today, your administration has drastically changed our country's foreign policy. Today you have abandoned a long time friend in the region. Today, you have brought the possibility of a nuclear bomb going off within the borders of Israel a bit closer. Today, your administration has failed this country.

Psss...What Would You Do?

Yesterday on CNBC's Squawk Box embattled Governor Paterson came out swinging at the ghosts challenging would be candidates to explain what they would do.

"If you had any courage ... get up and say what you'd do now."

It sounded to me like poor Dave was desperately fishing for some free advice. Can he really be that lost? Well, he just might be, but, Paterson would never have the sense to realize it. Instead, he was actually trying to turn up the heat as it becomes more and more apparent that his own Party wants him out.

Than the Governor threw a swing while dropping his guard:

"When all these phantom people who say they are running for governor get into this race, they're going to have to answer the same questions that I've been answering for 18 months,"

Well, most New Yorkers really don't think you have been answering our financial crisis, Mr. Governor. In fact, roughly 80% DISAPPROVE of the way you are executing the duties of your office. We simply do not like your "answers".

And if you are taking a swing at potential candidates like Mayor Rudy Giuliani, you are way out of your league.

Do you really want to know how Rudy Giuliani would handle New York's financial crisis? Look how he governed as mayor.

When he became mayor, New York City was in severe financial trouble. His pro-growth, conservative policies cut unemployment in half, created 423,000 private sector jobs, and increased personal income by nearly 50%.

Like you, Rudy faced a massive budget deficit; $2.3 billion dollars. However, by 2001, he turned that into a $2.9 billion dollar deficit.

Stop scratching your head Dave, I will tell you how he did it. As mayor, Rudy slashed the wasteful spending and drastically reduced the size of government. In fact, he eliminated 20,000 full-time city-funded city jobs (or nearly 20%)excluding teachers and uniformed police officers. I know Mr. Governor, what about all those jobs lost! Unemployment must have spiked! Actually, 640,000 people were able to come off the welfare rolls.

And, the answer was never to burden New Yorkers with more taxes. Rudy reduced or completely eliminated 23 taxes, including sales, income and business taxes. This resulted in over $9 billion dollars in tax savings for hard working New Yorkers.

Mr. Governor, if you want to know what Rudy would do, I suppose the answer is simple: he would rise to the occasion and tackle the tough issues facing New Yorkers day in and day out with common sense solutions built on the principles of accountability and responsibility. Rudy would get us on the right track. Unlike you, Mr. Governor, he would actually work on our behalf.

If you want to challenge candidates like Mayor Rudy Giuliani on economic policies, you are way out of your league.. I hope your suit cases are ready ( oh, and leave the $20,000 rug your wife bought to decorate the mansion in Albany. That belongs to the taxpayers silly!).