McCain knows exactly who Zapatero is.

Lisa Abend is a freelance journalist living in Spain who writes periodic articles ranging from culinary reviews to left-leaning political articles. Today she has a new article, published in Time, titled “The Pain in Spain falls Mainly on McCain.”

Never mind the cutesy title; it’s a deviously deceptive lie.

In this article, Abend laments that Spanish President Jose Luis Rodriguez de Zapatero was apparently ‘slammed’ by US Presidential hopeful John McCain. She says that “during an interview in Miami…a reporter asked McCain whether, if elected, he would receive Zapatero to the White House. McCain answered, ‘Honestly, I have to analyze our relationships, situations, and priorities, but I can assure you that I will establish closer relationships with our friends, and I will stand up to those who want to harm the United States.”

Abend clarifies that this question came “after a series of questions about how McCain sees relations with Venezuela, Bolivia, and Cuba. He said he would not speak to Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez ‘without any sort of preconditions, as Sen. Obama has said he would,’ and… that Chavez was ‘depriving his people of their democratic rights.’”

Abend points out that “the questioner tried several more times to steer the Senator back to a clear answer…but he never addressed it, saying: ‘What I would say is that my record is that of someone who has worked in a friendly atmosphere with those who are our friends and faced up to those who aren’t.”

Abend then reports that “much” of the Spanish press concluded that McCain “confused Spain…with one of those troublesome Latin American states”. In fact, the questioner even reminded McCain that “Spain was a country in Europe.”

As if McCain needed reminding. Because it is clear from the tenor and content of this article that it is the journalists who are confused—if not simply deceitful. Why do I say that?

Let us go back to the Spanish presidential elections in 2004. In the days immediately preceding the Spanish election, conservative Spanish President Jose Maria Aznar was leading in the polls, in spite of his commitment of Spanish troops to the war in Iraq. By contrast, Zapatero was running on a liberal left socialist platform opposing Spanish participation, and maintained consistently warm relations with Latin American leaders such as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Zapatero disagreed vociferously with Aznar’s tough stance against terrorist organizations, and promoted the idea that his administration would negotiate peace with the Basque separatist and terrorist group ETA, a clear and radical break from the current Spanish position on negotiating with terrorist groups.

On March 11, 2004, al Qaeda planted bombs on trains that exploded in the Atocha rail station, killing 191 innocent civilians. At first, the government suspicion was that the attack had been masterminded by the Basque terrorists, and Aznar’s government stated that opinion. But soon it was revealed that the real conspirators were al Qaeda, and that group released a statement threatening Spaniards due to their involvement in Iraq. The Spanish populace, deeply hurt by the loss of life, fearful of future reprisals, suddenly shifted their loyalty and the socialist Zapatero won the election—and handed a major victory to al Qaeda.

Zapatero was true to his word: he unilaterally withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq. And he began unilateral, unconditional negotiations with ETA. His relationship with Chavez and Castro also warmed, and Spain even considered selling military supplies to Chavez. This lasted until ETA began bombing civilian targets again, and the political situation in Venezuela deteriorated until Chavez started confiscating Spanish investments, private property, blaspheming against God and the Church, and his followers murdered an elderly Spanish-Venezuelan woman who had returned to Venezuela to vote against Chavez in the Presidential Recall Referendum.

In fact, the political instability and worsening human rights conditions in Venezuela eventually forced Zapatero to distance himself from Chavez. Chavez, however, just like the ETA, has no respect for friends or former allies. He therefore had no qualms with insulting Spanish dignity, an attitude that eventually led to a verbal conflict in Chile. Chavez was indignant that Aznar had continued attacking his government and policies even after leaving office. So Chavez, ignoring the protocol at the economic summit held by Chilean president Bachelet, launched into a rude tirade, attacking Aznar and eventually insulting Spain in general. To his credit, Zapatero maintained his dignity as he tried to reason with Chavez and insist that he speak with respect. Chavez’s outburst continued, until the Spanish King finally lost his temper and uttered that historic phrase: “Por qué no te callas?!” (Why don’t you shut up?!)

Both the King’s and Zapatero’s popularity rebounded in Spain. The King had defended national honor, and Zapatero had finally, yet respectfully, put Chavez back in his place.

But this eventual about-face cannot undo the sins of his administration. The origin of the Zapatero government was based upon a fearful capitulation to the world’s most notorious terrorist organization. The essence of his governmental policy was to naively trust in the innate goodness of terrorist leaders and presupposed that, given the chance to speak in a respectful forum, they would inevitably come to terms and peace could be reached. Zapatero’s bad judgment inspired him to seek friendships with some of the most abhorrent regimes in the Americas, and the result was disastrous.

John McCain did not need any reminding about with whom he was dealing. He did not confuse Spain with those “troublesome Latin American states”. McCain has it very clear in his head that Spain and its government are two different entities. But McCain also has no reason to try to warm relations with Zapatero.

After all, Jose Rodriguez de Zapatero is the Spanish equivalent of Barack Hussein Obama. Obama, like Zapatero, has stated that he wants to sit down—without preconditions—with extremist groups and governments that are (to say it mildly) unfriendly to the United States.
Zapatero eventually learned the error of his ways. I’m sure that Obama would too.

But Zapatero should count his lucky stars that McCain didn’t bluntly remind the world why the United States cannot consider the Zapatero government to be a reliable friend to the United States.

They slander the Founders and throw babies in the trash

A couple of days ago, it was reported that a newborn baby was found alive in a Trash Can in a Phoenix middle school. The healthy baby boy’s mother was a 14-year old girl who delivered the baby in the bathroom of an administration building and—being young, confused, and frightened—abandoned the baby in a panic. Reports on the event stated that “due to the abandonment of the baby in a life threatening situation, investigators will do a possible child abuse report and submit it to the Maricopa County Attorney's Office for review.”
This is not the first time we’ve heard of this sort of thing.

A quick search finds multiple recent tales of women trashing their newborn babies, often resulting in the death of the child. Here’s one in which the baby survived, and here’s another, the baby was also found in time and survived. These mothers were not scared teens. They were both 24 years old. Tragically, in another story, a woman attending her high-school prom left the dance, delivered her baby in a bathroom, and then trashed it. This time the baby died, yet at the time the article was, the mother was not charged.

So in the middle of the election cycle, a young woman named Gianna Jessen, who is a member of a 527 group called BornAliveTruth.org, is challenging Obama to define when a baby has rights and to support legislation that would protect babies born alive after abortion attempts.

Her story is very unusual. She started her life as abortion that failed. Her mother tried to abort her, but she was born alive. Luckily for her, the abortionist was not in the clinic when she was born, because if he had been, he would have terminated her life by smothering her, or letting her die of exposure—and this would have been legal under current law, because the aborted fetus has no rights. She was fortunate. The attending nurse called an ambulance and she received treatment and obviously survived.

A transcript of the advertisement her group is running reads:

“Can you imagine not giving babies their basic human rights, no matter how they
entered our world? My name is Gianna Jessen, born 31 years ago after a failed
abortion. I’m a survivor, as are many others…but if Barack Obama had his way, I
wouldn’t be here. Four times, Barack Obama voted to oppose a law to protect
babies left to die after a failed abortion. Senator Obama, please support born
alive infant protections. I’m living proof these babies have a right to live.”

These issues may seem unrelated to the current election cycle, but they are not. It is well recognized that the next president will very likely appoint one or more Supreme Court justices, which is why McCain’s selection of a very pro-Life VP (Palin) energized the conservative base: it was confirmation that he was committed to selecting strict ‘constitutionalist’ judges that very well might overturn Roe v. Wade.

McCain was asked about this when he was a guest on the ABC program, The View. In a brief but telling exchange between McCain and the women co-hosts, his response about wanting to appoint constitutionalist judges was challenged by Whoopi Goldberg:

Goldberg: “I don’t want to misinterpret what you are saying; did you say you
want strict constitutionalists?”
McCain: “I want people who interpret
the
constitution the way our founding fathers intended them to do.”
Goldberg: “Do
I have to worry about being returned to slavery because
certain things in the
constitution had to be changed?”
Goldberg: “That’s
an excellent point,
Whoopi, {loud audience applause for Goldberg} I thank
you.
Goldberg: "I got scared!"
Co-host Joy Behar: “She saw herself back on the plantation! Don’t worry, honey, we’ll take care of you, us white folk we’ll take care of you!” Co-host Sherri Shepherd hid her head in apparent embarrassment.

Did anyone else notice the obviously patronistic statement made by the liberal Behar?! Thank goodness that nice white liberal is going to "take care" of the poor little black girl! But no comments have ever been uttered: Liberals get away with racist remarks all the time! and isn't this the CORE of the liberal Democrat belief? "Don't worry, we good Whites are gonna take care of you poor, downtrodden Blacks!"

This discussion takes us away from the topic of abortion, but cuts to the heart of the real matter: human rights. And it also highlights a common misconception held by many Blacks and perpetuated by either ignorant or devious Black leaders (such as Reverend Wright and Barack Obama), that the Founding Fathers were racists who institutionalized and perpetuated slavery when they wrote the constitution.

This distortion of history is convenient to leaders who want Blacks to see themselves as victims and want them to hate and oppose their government. It also becomes evident from the patronistic attitudes of liberals--like Sherri Behar--who subconciously believe that Blacks are not capable of taking care of themselves and need "us whites" to "take care of you".

When I was a teacher in an inner-urban, mostly Black school in Florida, one of my students was shocked to find out that there had been Black slaves throughout the continent. She said: “I thought it was white Americans that invented slavery!” And when I tried to disabuse her of this misconception, she furiously accused me of trying to “re-write history”.

But this could not be further from the truth. In fact, the Founding Father’s opposition to Slavery was one of the main reasons for desiring a separation from Great Britain.

“The historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by the Founders; slavery was introduced in America nearly two centuries before the Founders. In fact, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay noted that there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery prior to the Founding Fathers. …one of the reasons given by Thomas Jefferson for the separation from Great Britain was a desire to rid America of the evil of slavery imposed on them by the British.”

Thomas Jefferson was not the only Founder who opposed slavery.

“In 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America's first
antislavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York.
When Constitution signer William Livingston heard of the New York society, he,
as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering: ‘I would most ardently wish to
become a member of it [the society in New York] and... I can safely promise them
that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the
abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and
Christianity... May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has
expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to
let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.’”

The Founders struggled to end slavery and had already begun almost immediately after declaring independence from Britain, and years before the ratification of the constitution on December 7, 1787. Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery seven years before the constitution was ratified (1780), and just four years later, Connecticut and Rhode Island abolished slavery. Slavery was abolished in New Hampshire in 1792 and in Vermont in 1793. New York took six more years (1799) and New Jersey abolished it 1804—that’s fifty seven years before the start of the civil war.

It could be said that American fought not one but two wars in order to free the slaves. The first was to separate from Britain, which had imposed slavery upon the colonies, and about which George Washington commented: “I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].” Eighty five years later, Americans fought the Civil War to finish the job and free the slaves in the South.

Given this historical context, it must be clear to any reasonable historian that the majority of the Founders—and probably the majority of the average citizens—abhorred slavery and had purposely worded the Bill of Rights (“All men are created equal”) and Constitution in such a way as to facilitate the inevitable end of slavery.

Although it is easy to say that Jefferson and others who owned slaves were “hypocrites”, one should keep in mind that slavery was the economic model in existence for centuries before the industrial revolution, and although it was recognized as an abhorrent system, there was no viable solution available until the 19th century. We citizens today find ourselves in a similar moral predicament: we know that our addiction to fossil fuels, internal combustion engines, and consumerist economic models cause damage to the environment, and we all recognize that we should try to find an alternative, but at this time, no practical alternative is available. So while people like Obama and Gore run around lecturing us how we need to get rid of our gas guzzling vehicles, they continue to drive cars and fly in private jets. Some day we will surely solve this problem, but should historians look back at the proponents of alternative energy and call them hypocrites for not having the solution sooner?

The second modern conundrum that parallels the issue of slavery is that of abortion. And it is this issue—and particularly the story of Gianna Jessen—that ties all the previous themes together.

Because, while it is clearly established principal that all humans have equal human rights, proponents of Abortion—cleverly marketed as “Choice”—struggle to deny the human fetus with the status of “human being”. It is this monstrously contradictory opinion that creates our contemporary moral dilemma. After all, current dogma holds that it is a woman’s choice—which is a “private” matter protected by the constitutional right to privacy—to abort a fetus in her body. As long as the fetus is not “human”, as long as it is considered nothing more than “cells”, then it cannot legally be considered “murder” to kill those cells.

The Jessen story destroys this argument. The late-term abortion forced the baby to be born, and the mercy of one nurse saved her life. If the abortionist had finished the job, suffocating the infant, it would have been perfectly legal. Now that she is an adult, she is capable of asking the question that other aborted fetuses cannot: what rights did I have? At what point did I get rights? And who is the inventor of this moral calculus that determines when an infant is human and when it’s “just cells”?

By contrast, if it was alright to kill a healthy baby in an abortion clinic, why is it wrong for a young woman to throw a baby in the trash?

In this, I disagree with conservative talk show hosts who blasted Whoopi Goldberg’s question. It was not foolish or stupid. It was an opportunity squandered by McCain, who—in his desire to pander to women and minorities—did not recognize that he had just been offered a perfect opportunity to differentiate the Republican party from the Democratic party.

His response to Goldberg should have been forceful and unequivocal. The Republican Party wants to select Supreme Court justices that are constitutionalists—that is, judges who will apply the law according to the strictest intent of the Founders. Those Founders abhorred slavery, they clearly recognized the injustice that was wrought by governments and laws that dehumanized people of color and allowed for their inhumane treatment. Those same Founders fought the very first battles toward Black Liberation. They laid the road to liberty and sanctified it with the blood of national sacrifice, and provided the roadmap to liberty in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. It was the Republican Party that then waged war to finally free the slaves and secure forever the human rights for all people in the United States. It is the Republican Party that has made it their doctrine to spread those rights around the world. And it is the Republican Party that believes that the sanctity of human life cannot be violated—not even in the womb. The Republicans can look Gianna Jessen in the eye and say: in the more perfect union we wish to form, you would have always had the same rights to life and the pursuit of liberty as all the rest of us.

Whoopi, if you really believe in human rights, why can’t you open your heart to giving those rights to the most helpless among us?

Whoopi, it is time that you and people like you see through the lies, and make the same commitment that the Founders made over two hundred years ago, when Supreme Court Justice John Jay wrote:

"neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the
abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity"

Or are your words just hollow?

The race baiter is as guilty as the one who pulls the trigger

On September 2, 2008, a Philadelphia journalist named Fatima Ali wrote a warning that, if America didn’t choose Barack Obama as president, there would be a “full-fledged race war”. I wrote a short piece about that, saying in essence that the term she chose could not be interpreted in any way other than to suggest that violence was inevitable.

Her choice of language caused a great deal of outrage, which she addresses in an article today. And, as I had predicted, she now is trying to sound much more reasonable, and say that all the extremely foul responses she received is evidence that “we don’t have to wait until after the election for a race war. We’re in one now.”

She then goes on to cherry pick from among the most extreme responses she got in order to qualify her assertion that angry whites are already starting a race war.

The absurdity of this situation is simultaneously hilarious and alarming. It was not Whites who threatened Blacks with violence; it was a Black columnist who fired the first verbal salvo. It was a classic example of race baiting, and what a manipulative act of propaganda it is! For this woman to proclaim “I hate violence, but I do see a growing wave of intolerance sweeping the nation”, and threaten not once but twice with a race war, to be surprised that Whites would feel threatened and respond with a warning of their own (that they are ready to defend themselves) is either the stupidest journalistic blunder I’ve ever seen, or the most cynical attempt to provoke a violent reaction.

She goes on to say:

“No, we're not anywhere near "post-racial" times. If we were, the possibility
that a black man may well become our next president wouldn't matter.”

I feel obliged to write Ms Ali directly.

Fatima, why can’t you understand that for the vast majority of Americans, Obama’s race is not the issue; it’s the issue that you make of his race and the threats that you made that is the issue! Whites are nauseated by being told that if they don’t vote for a Black candidate, that it is because they are racist. Extremists like you leave no room for the possibility that your candidate is simply too inexperienced, too socialist, has too many friendships with extremists who hate the country, for us to simply vote him into office and just keep our fingers crossed that it will all work out.

And instead of giving us the benefit of the doubt, that just maybe those of us who vote for McCain want him for his experience, you instead assume the very worst about us and then threaten us—and by extension, our families—with a war based solely on race!

Your final sentence in the article pretty much sums up the idiocy of the position:

“And two words out of 775 in my original column would not have unleashed the
kind of hatred that makes me want to retreat to a bunker.”

Was it not your own beloved Barack Obama who said: “Just words! ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident’, Just words! ‘I have a dream’.” If you admire Obama so much, did you learn nothing from that speech, in which he was illustrating the importance of choosing your words carefully?

Two words? Just two little words? No, my dear, it was the intention, and the threat, behind the words, that caused the reaction. You issued the incendiary comments. You cannot blame the reaction on others. It's exactly like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and then denying responsibility by declaring the panicked crowd to be fools.

If you really do “hate violence”, then it would have behooved you to write a piece that was a mea culpa, instead of issuing a second challenge.

If Obama loses this race—which it appears he may do—and there really is violence, you need to say a prayer from inside your bunker, and ask for forgiveness, because at least some of the blood will be on your hands! Because the one who used race to bait for violent reactions is just as guilty as the people who actually pull the trigger.

Forget the Bush Doctrine. We need to look forward.

Coffee break talk last Friday centered on Sarah Palin’s first interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson. In general, she received good marks for her adroit responses to Gibson’s questions, with the one exception being Gibson’s alleged “gotcha” moment when he asked her: "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?''

Palin paused, looking a bit perplexed, and tried to get some clarification by asking: “In what regard?”

When Gibson finally—and rather pedantically—revealed that he was referring to the Bush policy of pre-emptive strikes, Palin responded by reaffirming that the US has the right to respond to what it perceives as an imminent threat.

Liberals tried to point to this moment as an example of how Palin is weak on her comprehension of international policies and is ignorant about the “Bush Doctrine”. All which is powerfully contradicted by the brilliant commentator, Charles Krauthammer, in his article “Gibson’s Gaffe”.

Krauthammer makes the point that there is not one “Bush Doctrine”, but rather a total of four. The one to which Gibson referred is the third in the series, and technically was incorrect, because it is Bush’s fourth policy statement that will probably be remembered as his “doctrine”:

"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of
liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of
freedom in all the world."

Liberals have remained fixated on Bush’s third policy statement, the one stating that the US has the right to preemptively strike against nations that harbor terrorists or support them and pose a threat to US security. They cling to this argument because they believe they will gain political points—and political office—by reminding America of how we got into the war in Iraq.

This may be an interesting discussion, but discussions of "presidential doctrine" is table fare for historians and will do nothing for America's future. So Charlie Gibson's question was not only misleading and probably wrong, but really was totally irrelevant!

I’d like to use this moment as an example of how these so-called “leaders” are not leading at all. It was not Bush’s third policy statement that is now heating the current and riskiest global crisis, but his fourth and most far-reaching that needs deeper examination.

The “Bush Doctrine” quoted by Krauthammer is potentially the more controversial of the two. After all, it this part of the Bush policies that has inspired the administration to take such an aggressively supportive role of Eastern European democracies such as Ukraine, Poland, Czech Republic, and Georgia. Bush’s determination to defend the former Soviet bloc countries is making Moscow feel threatened. In response to the ‘missile shield’ that the United States is offering to put into Poland and the Czech republic is at the source of the conflict with Georgia/Russia. We must remember that it was shortly after the Bush administration worked out deals to locate the missiles in Poland that Moscow responded, threatening that their response could be a military one.

Russian President Medvedev was quoted in NOVOSTI, Russian news source:

“These missiles are close to our borders and constitute a threat to us,"
Medvedev said in an interview with Al-Jazeera television on Tuesday. "This will
create additional tension and we will have to respond to it in some way,
naturally using military means." … The Russian president said that offering NATO
membership to Georgia and Ukraine, two former Soviet republics, would only
aggravate the situation.

Shortly afterward, the Russians apparently manufactured a political crisis in Georgia by encouraging Georgian rebels of Russian descent to ramp up their activities. The Georgians responded militarily in an attempt to restore control of the breakaway region, giving Moscow the excuse it wanted to invade the territory in the role of “peace keepers.”

While the US and Europe wrung their hands over the issue, it became clear that the US was not willing to confront Russia militarily. But the Bush administration did respond diplomatically, and began to press to speed the inclusion of the other Soviet bloc nations in NATO, thus providing them with a promise of multilateral military defense, if needed.

Predictably, this action again provoked Russia. But watch this time, it appears that the Russians are looking to expand their influence in our hemisphere.

Weeks after the Georgian conflict, as tensions between the United States and Russia continue to escalate, Venezuelan caudillo Hugo Chavez declared that Venezuela sided with the Russians in the Georgian affair, and bragged that the Russians and Venezuelans were planning war games in the Caribbean region.

The Russians then flew two Tu-160 long distance strategic bombers into Venezuela. Chavez declared that the presence of the bombers was a warning to Washington that “Venezuela is no longer poor and alone.”

Other reports indicated that Chavez had been courting Russia for a long time in the hope of convincing Moscow to establish a Navy port there and install an aircraft carrier in the Caribbean.
Congresswoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said she was not concerned about the presence of the Russian bombers in Venezuela: “I don’t think Russia would launch attacks on the United States.” By contrast, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md) said that “There is a continuing pattern over the last several months of Russian intimidation…and they are using the same old bullying intimidation tactics that go back to Brezhnev and Stalin.”

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, stated clear concern.

“What you are suggesting doesn’t surprise me, and yes it concerns me,” said Murkowski. “If it is clearly a flexing of muscle and effort to display force, it makes you wonder what the objective is and what the appropriate response should be.”

What is the objective?

Today’s leaders—both Republicans and Democrats—may be missing the point entirely. The threat is not that Russia might launch a military attack against the United States. It is that the Russians might act as a shield to protect Chavez’s socialist regime, giving him the ability to increase his interventionist policies in regional countries such as Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and others.

This past weekend, violence erupted in some of the Bolivian ‘departments’ (the equivalent of states) between supporters of socialist president Evo Morales and his conservative, capitalist opponents. The Bolivians expelled the American diplomat, claiming that he was promoting violent protests. Chavez stepped in and expelled the American diplomat in Caracas, causing a quid pro quo expulsion of the Venezuelan ambassador from Washington. Chavez then demanded that the Bolivian government respond with force to the “imperialist aggression” and that if Morales was overthrown, he—President Chavez—would send Venezuelan troops to Boliva. “I am prepared to die for Boliva,” he professed.

If the Russians had a naval base in Venezuela, Chavez would feel free to deliver on his repeated, hollow threats. The borderline-dictator and friend to the Colombia FARC terrorists, having bought the technology to build a Kalashnikov AK-47 and ammunition factory in Venezuela, would have the ability to arm hundreds of thousands of rebel forces throughout the continent, thus turning his dream of creating a continental revolutionary army into a reality. Russian protection would make US intervention in this plan much more difficult.

The objective that eludes our congressmen and women could be this: if the US continues to make threatening moves in the Russian neighborhood, they will respond with parallel maneuvers. If we are uncomfortable, we will have to back off our support for the Soviet bloc democracies to get the Russians out of our back yard.

I cannot reiterate strongly enough how potentially dangerous this is. Chavez has repeatedly insisted that the “non-aligned” nations, including Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, etc. need to work together to create an “asymmetrical” attack on the United States, in his words, to create many “Viet Nams” which would simply be too much for the United States to handle.

The United States is already struggling with the entry of millions of illegal aliens, and this during a time of relative peace throughout Latin America. If Chavez manages to create a wave of socialist revolutions across the continent, the number of refugees could increase exponentially.

It is time for the representatives in Washington to get this through their heads: Hugo Chavez is a serious threat to Democracy in the hemisphere, and his alliance with Russia is potentially explosive.

What should be the American doctrine on the Eastern European democracies? Are we really ready to go to war to defend them when they are threatened by Russian imperialism? If so, are we willing to go to war to defend democracies in our own hemisphere that are threatened by local (Bolivarian) and European (Russian) imperialism? The two concurrent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have nearly broken our nation. Are we going to be drawn into the many "Viet Nams" in which Chavez and his cronies want to lure us, in order to lure us into our own doom?

The best thing that could happen right now would be for idiots like Charlie Gibson to stop playing "Gotcha" and instead start asking Presidential candidates Obama and McCain to address this issue now and clarify what they would do about the situation.

Bugger off, loud mouth British idiots.

In response to British wonk Jonathon Freedland, who warns America that we had better vote for Obama, because

"The World's verdict will be harsh if the US rejects the man they yearn
for...

An America that that disdains Obama for his global support risks turning the current anti-Bush feeling into something much worse."

How dare you write a critique of the American presidential campaign in which you try to persuade—or is it warn—Americans that the world is demanding Barack Obama, and Americans had better give them what they want? And then you go on to imply that we had better elect him so the world doesn’t think we’re racists…Who do you think you are?

You are so out of touch with the reality within this country that your article is truly laughable. The liberals here are literally comparing Obama to Jesus, but he is an empty suit. He is former drug user and dropout, who slept in alleys until local communists found him and began to lift him up. Yes, he then managed to go to a good college where he did nothing noteworthy.

Then he was—ooooh! Shiver me timbers! He was a community organizer! A rabble rouser. Nothing more.

And then he was supported by the local Chicago machine to run for state office, where he voted “Present” more than “Yes” or “No” combined. He did nothing noteworthy.

And then he was pushed toward the senate, and since his opposition faltered early on, Obama was unopposed. And in Senate, he is totally un-noteworthy.

So, you European clods would dare to push a no good, arrogant wanna-be Messiah on us, without even thinking about how much worse that sort of inexperience and idealism could be for the world than what we have currently. Leftist idealism has resulted in nearly all of the world’s greatest tragedies, and we are not fooled.

As for your article…you say that Africa, Russia, the Middle East want Obama and then say that if it was “up to the free world”…are you nuts? Russia, Africa, and the Middle East are the free world?

This is the same "free world" that still finds it easier to believe that Americans killed their own people on Sept 11, 2001 instead of the obvious and true fact that it was a conspiracy by foreign Islamist terrorists in al Qaeda. Why would we give a damn what you think?

When you European pansies grow some balls and start defending yourselves from the foreign invasion that is destroying your culture and your national resolve, then we’ll talk.

Meanwhile, go back to your gay marriages and high taxes and massive welfare and leave us alone. We haven’t cared one wit for your opinion on our political affairs since July 4, 1776.

Bugger off, you socialist bastard.

"My Muslim Faith..." and lipstick on a pig.

It should have been obvious to everyone, when VP candidate Sara Palin made the joke comparing hockey moms to pit bulls, that the small minded and poor losers would turn her joke into an insult.

Palin: “You know the difference between a pit bull and a hockey Mom? Lipstick!”
A few days later, while discussing the McCain/Palin platform, Obama made the following statement:

“You can put lipstick on a pig…{the crowd, instantly realizing the reference, gets restless} but it’s still a pig!”

He then added another insult clearly aimed at McCain: “You can wrap an old fish in paper and call it change, but it still stinks.”

Interestingly, only days before, Obama had slipped and said “my Muslim faith.” And then he goes and insults a well loved Christian woman by calling her a pig.

It reminds me of the Islamist extremists who called Christian and Jews pigs and monkeys. Taken in that light, the insult of Palin sounds like an extremist Muslim insult. Doesn’t it?

Now, Obama is trying to claim that he had uttered the cliché as a joke about policy. He wants women to believe that he was not insulting Palin, even though it was clear by the audience reaction that they all knew it refered to Palin. In fact, the democratic party had started referring to Palin as "lipstick on a pig" as far back as August 30.

You'd have to be an absolute idiot to not realize that it was in fact an insult of Sara Palin. Because right after the "lipstick" reference, he immediately went on to mention "an old fish". If the lipstick on a pig quote refers to Palin, then it's clear that the "old fish" reference refers to McCain, whose age has been constantly attacked as a detriment to the candidacy.

There is no denying that the arrogant Obama, stunned by his sudden negative turn in luck that now has him losing the race, is lashing out.

I'd have to say that the real pig in the race is the mysoginist pig named Barack Hussein Obama.

Biden, Obama, and the objective paralysis caused by moral relativism

When Senator Barack Obama accepted the invitation to a ‘town hall’ discussion with mega-pastor Rick Warren, he surely must have anticipated that he would be asked about his pro-abortion stance. And when the inevitable question was posed to him, to consider the nearly forty million aborted fetuses in the United States, and to answer “at what point {does} a baby get human rights?”, Obama’s response was admittedly “flip”:

“…whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity…is above my pay grade.”

A number of weeks later, having selected Senator Joe Biden as his VP choice and running mate, it was Biden’s turn to state his opinion on the issue. NBC anchor Tom Brokaw asked Biden,

“When does “life” begin?” Biden answered:

“I know when it begins for me. It’s a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I’m prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you, there an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths—Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others, who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They are as intensely religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life. And they have different views as to when… {life begins}. I am prepared as a matter of faith, to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am, it seems to me as inappropriate in a pluralist society. But then you get the pushback, ‘What about Fascism’, everybody, you know, you gonna say “Fascism is alright?” Fascism isn’t a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks that fascism is all right.”

Brokaw followed up: “You’ve stated that you believe that life begins at conception, and you’ve also voted for Abortion Rights.”

Biden responded: “What I voted {for was} against curtailing the right, criminalizing abortion, I voted against telling everyone else in the country, that they have to accept my religiously based view.”

For the purpose of this essay, I’d like to call this belief system the “Biden Principal”. Let’s make it official, and tag it onto the man who believes he is so experienced in International Affairs that he is singularly qualified to be Vice President and eventually President of the United States--and yet is incapable and unwilling to make any moral judgment that might impose values on anyone else.

Now, contrast Obama and Biden's responses—inspired by the Biden Principal—to the one from Senator McCain, when asked the same question:

“At the moment of conception.”

This simple dialog is one of the most revealing and crucial moments in the entire presidential campaign, and has to be explored. Although the theme is focused like a Laser on the Abortion/Pro-Choice debate, it has ramifications for all aspects of a Democratic Presidency and the type of policies that the country could expect from them.

Because at the heart of the matter, the Democrats are basically saying that Morality is not a universal value, that opposing opinions almost always should be valued equally, and that it would be “inappropriate” for anyone to “impose” their values on others in a “pluralistic society”. In every case, the Democrats have made an absurd attempt to state that the Catholic Church is still “struggling” with the issue about when a human fetus should be considered human life—despite the extremely clear signal from Rome that Abortion is murder, it is a sin, and it is condemned.
But, to state it another way, the Democrats are practicing a form of the old adage to “Eat your cake and have it to.” A more accurate revision might read: “Abort your child and commit no sin.”

Now, I simply cannot help thinking, Obama should thank God that President Lincoln was a Republican, and not a Democrat. Because if Lincoln had applied Biden’s moral relativism to the issue of Slavery—had he wavered or waffled or caved to public pressures as did his Democratic opponent, General G. McClellan—Obama and all other African-Americans living in the United States today, would all be a slaves.

Because this exact type of moral decision making is not an optional skill for a President. It is not enough to vote “Present” when facing the moral crises that rock the nation.

• “Is slavery wrong? Shall we wage a civil war, killing hundreds of thousands of our own citizens, in order to free millions more?” YES!
• 
  “Shall we enter the war and push back the advances of Fascism?” YES!
• 
  “In order to end history’s most horrendous war, shall we drop a nuclear bomb, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, in order to avoid an invasion that would kill millions?” YES!
• 
  “Shall we change the laws of the nation to give Women or Blacks the right to vote and participate fully in the society?” YES!
• 
  “Shall we condemn Islamic extremism and launch a war to destroy the enemy who attacked us and killed our citizens?” YES!
  

The issue of Abortion is highlighting a moral contradiction within our society that echoes the sins of our ancestors, and cannot be put to bed. Obama worshipped at the altar of a minister who regularly called not only for redemption, but also for reparations, for the sins committed in the name of Slavery.

What redemption is possible for the murder of 40 million unborn souls? This staggering number makes the horrors of Nazi Fascism look paltry! Six million Jews killed? That’s barely a fraction of the number of children who were butchered inside the womb. For what? What exactly is the equation in which “ABORTION” is the “final solution”?

Biden’s statement about Fascism is absolutely crucial: “you get the pushback, ‘What about Fascism’, everybody, you know, you gonna say “Fascism is alright?” Fascism isn’t a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks that Fascism is all right.”

The most logical interpretation of this statement is that it is fascist for any group to impose a moral imperative upon any other group who holds religious conviction that what they are doing is correct. But by this very same illogic, if Southerners in the Confederacy held religious convictions that Blacks were not human, or were sub-human, it would therefore be fascist for the Northern abolitionists to impose their values upon the Confederacy and force them to end slavery.

Let’s extrapolate further: the Islamist terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, immolated themselves in a religiously-inspired suicide mission designed to fulfill the Fatah of their religious leaders and their Prophet Muhammad and kill as many infidels as possible. The Biden Principal logically would not allow for the United States to respond militarily to the Taliban and al Qaeda threat—since these enemies are inspired by deeply held religious beliefs, we are morally obliged to recognize those religious beliefs and elevate them to an equal standing with our own.

The United States, having attacked the Taliban with the intention of supplanting the Islamist regime with a less radical regime, is therefore a fascist aggressor.

And in the case of abortion, the liberals must fight to contradict any attempt to provide the human fetus with a status of “human”, because to do so would be to impose their “religious values” upon others who do not share that value. Faced with an unsure, unclear, ambiguous decision, the liberals have chosen to dehumanize the human fetus in order to secure the more concrete liberty; carefree sexual intercourse without the “punishment” of consequences.
By contrast, the conservatives have taken the opposite solution to the very same problem: faced with an unsure, unclear, ambiguous decision, the conservatives have chosen to humanize the human fetus, eschew carefree sexual intercourse and consider the consequences of an unwanted child not as a punishment but as a direct consequence of a poor decision that is, nevertheless, a blessing from God.

This moral clarity is essential in a President. Reconsider the list of decisions that past presidents had to make, from Slavery to Suffrage, involvement in world wars and how to achieve victory, as well as when and how to defend our national security in a time in which the enemy is a religious fanatic determined to destroy the nation by any means possible.

This is why it is unacceptable, and even shameful, that Barack Obama responded to Minister Warren’s question by stating that the judgment was “beyond his pay grade.” The sort of false-humility, this "Biden Principal" that paralyzes leaders into inaction, this will get us killed.

In the case of American children, it has already resulted in the deaths of forty million.

It is, quite literally, a holocaust of indecision.