Michelle Malkin » Fighting back against Obama’s thugs

Fighting back against Obama’s thugs

By Michelle Malkin • August 26, 2008 11:49 AM

Here is the ad Barack Obama doesn’t want you to see. Pass it on.

I cannot stress how outrageous the Obama campaign’s attempt to silence the creators of the Ayers ad is. Mr. Hope and Change is applying Chicago-style mafia tactics to intimidate those who want to alert the nation to Obama’s troubling ties to, and longtime relationship with, the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist. Obama’s lawyers and minions are playing hardball with TV stations that have dared to air the ad. They have the gall to champion campaign finance integrity — even as Obama has just admitted hiding payments to his Chicago cronies at ACORN. The Obama campaign can’t cite anything false or defamatory about the ad because it is accurate and truthful. This intimidation campaign is of a piece with the left-wing MoveOn effort to bully GOP donors. Remember?

I’ve just obtained the response of the group running the ads that Obama doesn’t want you to see:

American Issues Project Responds to Obama Campaign’s Efforts to Compel TV Stations, Government to Censor Ad

Obama team fails to convince stations to kill ad in spite of threats, harassment and false claims

Washington, DC – August 26, 2008 – The Barack Obama campaign has resorted to a campaign of intimidation and legal threats to convince television stations and the federal government to force off the air an ad by the American Issues Project detailing the link between Sen. Obama and remorseless domestic terrorist William Ayers.

The Obama campaign has been contacting stations running American Issues Project’s ad in an unsuccessful attempt to compel them to pull the spot. The Obama campaign also sent a letter yesterday to the Department of Justice asking the government to investigate American Issues Project, its officers, board of directors, and donors. With no success on either front, the campaign has begun running its own ad in response. Notably, this ad fails to dispute a single fact in the American Issues Project’s initial ad.

“The Obama campaign knows it can’t argue the facts of the link between Obama and Ayers, so it is instead resorting to a desperate campaign of intimidation and legal threats,” said Ed Martin, American Issues Project’s president. “The scary question this raises is if Barack Obama demonstrates this little regard for free speech from his opponents during the campaign, what could the American people expect from him as a president?”

“The tremendous amount of time, money and effort the campaign is expending to run its own ads on the Ayers controversy and dispatch its hired guns all over the country – during the Democratic convention – speaks to the fear they must have that this issue is resonating with American voters.”

American Issues Project sent a letter today to the Department of Justice responding to the Obama campaign’s claims. Key points from the letter:

AIP is organized as a qualified nonprofit corporation as that term is defined in the regulations of the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) 11 C.F.R. §114.10. As such, AIP enjoys the protections of the provisions of the Supreme Court’s decision more than twenty years ago in FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 646 (D. Mass. 1984), aff’d, 769 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1985), aff’d, 479 U.S. 238 (1986)…

AIP complies with each and every one of the provisions outlined by the Supreme Court in the MCFL case, as well as the regulations of the FEC promulgated subsequently…

Counsel for the Obama Campaign is undoubtedly fully knowledgeable of the reporting and compliance responsibilities of qualified nonprofit corporations, such as NARAL-Pro Choice America (“NARAL”), an organization that, ironically, also claims protection as an entity described in Massachusetts Citizens for Life v. FEC…

AIP functions in exactly the same manner as NARAL and any other qualified nonprofit corporation. NARAL has made substantial independent expenditures in opposition to Sen. McCain’s presidential candidacy during the 2008 election cycle and continuing through the present time. Yet, no objection to those expenditures has been raised by the Obama campaign…

Surely we have not come to a point where the government and its agencies are used to protect presidential candidates from citizens’ speech, essentially destroying the very purpose, meaning and historical essence of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The full text of the letter is available at: http://www.americanissuesproject.org/

The American Issues Project’s ad began airing Thursday, August 21, and will continue through the Democratic Convention. An electronic version of the ad and full documentation of all statements made are available at American Issues Project’s website: www.americanissuesproject.org.

About American Issues Project

American Issues Project is a 501(c)4 organization representing a coalition of conservative activists committed to raising important issues that deserve deeper examination given their impact on policy and politics. In accordance with federal law, American Issues Project only solicits and accepts contributions from individuals and not from any business corporation. For more information, visit: www.americanissuesproject.org.

***

Spread the ad far and wide. Will they come after bloggers next?

Shut us up?

No, they can’t.

Posted in: Bill Ayers

Regular View

comments (299)

trackbacks (72)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

Newer Comments »

#422072

On August 26th, 2008 at 3:47 pm, chapoutier said:

I asked you if you would accept the word of John Kerry that the SBVT were telling the truth. Are you running away from that already, Chap?

What are you talking about? I answered that above.
#422079

On August 26th, 2008 at 3:49 pm, StanW said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 3:47 pm, chapoutier said:

What are you talking about? I answered that above.

Yes, and when I pointed out that Kerry has in fact proven that the SBVT were telling the truth about him, you posted some unsubstantiated story about Pickens and some veterans.

The SBVT told the truth and Kerry admitted it. Now you need to admit you were wrong and move on.
#422091

On August 26th, 2008 at 3:53 pm, twofoot said:

I’m not familiar with the term. Please clarify.

Probably because it wasn’t said that way. When asked how he won so many engagements with the enemey, Nathan Bedford Forrest once replied, “Get there first with the most men”.

It has been slaughtered over the years to either intentionally make him sound like an uneducated hick, or because those who heard it and passed it on simply didn’t know any better.

From a military philosophy of “get there the first with the most men” we get people who claim it is “firstest with the mostest”. It shows an ignorance of history and one of histories greatest military commanders.

By the way, contrary to his stated philosophy of getting there the first with most men, Forrest almost always faced overwhelming odds.

Despite all that, I am not sure what it has to do with this particular thread. More ignorance I suppose?
#422096

On August 26th, 2008 at 3:54 pm, right4life said:

And I kind of think spouses should reveal — Ds and Rs — if candidates do. If there’s something nefarious going on, there’s no real line of separation between husband and wife.

Cheers

I would tend to agree….now what do you think about Michelle (my bell) and her raise after barack became senator? and her little scheme to deny the poor treatment at her hospital?
#422102

On August 26th, 2008 at 3:58 pm, chapoutier said:

I pointed out that Kerry has in fact proven that the SBVT were telling the truth about him

No. You pointed out evidence which corroborates one aspect of one claim they made against Kerry. Good job. But, even taking as gospel truth that they proved Kerry lied about that one incident, that does little, if anything to substantiate any other claims made, does it?
#422110

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:02 pm, Marshall Russ said:

John Kerry had a chance to go to civil court over the issue and he didn’t. Funny thing about court is, is that you have to prove your case before a jury. Depositions have a way of weeding out truth from hearsay. And, when you testify in court you’re under oath and can be cross examined by the other side. What a concept.
#422113

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:04 pm, AlohaGuy said:

a copy of his full military record certified by the Navy

Aren’t we all still waiting for this?
#422117

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:06 pm, Jenn of the Jungle said:

I fail to understand why this sort of thing even shocks us anymore. The left is consistent in it’s censorship.

Of course while too busy playing the victim card and singing kumbayah, they fail to understand their own hypocrisy.
#422119

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:06 pm, Misscheryl said:

fight4life said: I would tend to agree….now what do you think about Michelle (my bell) and her raise after barack became senator? and her little scheme to deny the poor treatment at her hospital?

Goose. Gander. I’m all ears on this one.
#422123

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:07 pm, chapoutier said:

Aren’t we all still waiting for this?

Apparently they have it and sent it to Pickens. I have been trying to find if they just went ahead and released the report after being rebuffed by Pickens, but haven’t been able to find it yet.
#422126

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:07 pm, StanW said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 3:58 pm, chapoutier said:

No. You pointed out evidence which corroborates one aspect of one claim they made against Kerry. Good job. But, even taking as gospel truth that they proved Kerry lied about that one incident, that does little, if anything to substantiate any other claims made, does it?

It is much more substantial that your claim that Hayes dismissed everything the SBVT claimed by saying ‘it’.

The point here is twofold.
1) I can prove using John Kerry’s own words that several of the things the SBVT claimed were 100% true; while you can not point to a single solitary examples of anything said by the SBVT as being a lie.
2) You are too petty and too much of a liberal hack to admit you are wrong. Says a lot about your lack of character.
#422128

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:08 pm, tarpon said:

Free speech to liberals means you can say whatever they agree with.
#422133

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:11 pm, orlandocajun said:

The MSM won’t air the commercial, but you can bet your arse that they would if it were about McCain. Kudos to the outlets that have the integrity and courage to air it.
#422139

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:13 pm, chapoutier said:

It is much more substantial that your claim that Hayes dismissed everything the SBVT claimed by saying ‘it’.

Again, and I will refrain from using nasty language here, I did not claim Hayes proved Kerry right or proved the swift boaters liars. I said that it was compelling evidence that the issue was still open. If you cannot grasp that please go back to school and learn how to read what is actually written instead of projecting your own biases on what you think I should have written.
#422158

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:18 pm, publiuswarmac9999 said:

Obama is part of the international socialist thug-o-cracy that contains folks like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. Americans elect him and his radical followers at peril to us all.

By the way, I worked with a Swift Boat Vet and read what he said about Kerry. In terms of credibility and courage, the overwhelming weight of evidence goes with the astoundingly courageous river warrior. There is no question that Kerry is nothing more than a self-serving politician and a classic example of why the Democrat Party is so dangerous. If Republicans (RINOs) would stop trying to be like Democrats, the country would move to the right where individual rights are respected and government is put in its proper place.
#422166

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:21 pm, StanW said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:13 pm, chapoutier said:

Again, and I will refrain from using nasty language here, I did not claim Hayes proved Kerry right or proved the swift boaters liars. I said that it was compelling evidence that the issue was still open. If you cannot grasp that please go back to school and learn how to read what is actually written instead of projecting your own biases on what you think I should have written.

I had to ask you a simple question three time before you were shamed into answering it. You claimed it was not possible to prove the SBVT as truth. Then I did and you still were not satisfied, nor were you able to admit that you were wrong about the issue and about the brave men of the SBVT. You even tried to claud the issue with Hayes and his ‘it’, as well as your unsubstantiated story about Pickens.

And the you have the gall to lecture me reading comprehension?

You were WRONG, Chap. I proved it using your criteria. And still you whine. My appraisial of your character was correct!
#422179

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:26 pm, mistressjustice said:

Will Obama go the way of Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry, or will he turn into the rabid pitbull we need him to be?

Where’s the full quote that “respectable” and “mainstream” come from? LOL. Whatever, screw it. It’s time to fight back.

Of course the Right is trying to make more out of this relationship than is actually there. How does one define “friend”? However it suits the smearer’s purpose, that’s how. You can’t go around trying to shut down these ads, because people just think you’re hiding something. You come out with an ad of your own explaining the flimsy relationship, and your feelings on Ayers.
Next, go on the attack. Gloves come off. Bring back the Keating 5 “misjudgements”. Remember how the rigthwing attack machine sank McCain in South Carolina? Well pick and choose what fits from that campaign also.

what’s Cindy hiding? Ties to corporations that will benefit from McCain’s health care plan? Investments in overseas sweat shops? $3.5 million in Iraqi exile cash? And out of court settlement for a crime committee by John? She must be hiding something, or she would have released them.”

It’s an easy game to play. Raise suspicion and then assume that a legitimate privacy right is actually a sinister cover-up.

Exactly. If people want to attack Michelle O’s charcter, then the Left can surely question Cindy’s. How much of America really knows about her stealing from a charity to feed her addiction. That sounds worse than Barack’s teenage drug use to me.

John McCain has had many election opponents over the years, so borrow from those ads. Moreover I’d play “bomb,bomb,Iran” with a version of the little girls picking daisies a few times a week.

Screw whining about this stuff. Nobody plays politics dirtier than the Republican party. The Left has to get even dirtier in return. This is just the beginning, and you can bet your a$$ that the Rev. Wright stuff will resurface. The Dems have to get on offense. They have to be brutal, and unmerciful. McCain had a lot taken out of him in the SC primary in 2000. Since then he sold out, and decided, “if you can’t beat em, join em”. It’s time to kick his teeth in, and beat some humiltiy back into Maverick McCain. It’s time to get ugly, hide the kids. As the Right understands, the object is to win. Let’s send the republican’s “chickens home to roost”.
Game on.
#422180

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:26 pm, RetFireman said:

For all of you who still think that the SBV were nothing but liars and were merely being evil and mean, just remember one thing:

There have been numerous people and groups that have come forward following the claims of the SwiftBoaters, calling them liars and saying that their claims were wrong.

Lots of people, and it has even been turned into a term meaning just that.

Escept for the fact that there is one person who has, as of today, NEVER stated that what the SBV have claomed was a lie. One person who has never denied any of their claims. One person who has never, not once, come forward to say, “The SwiftBoat Veterans have made claims that were false and wrong. They are liars”.

That person?

John F. Kerry
#422183

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:27 pm, chapoutier said:

You claimed it was not possible to prove the SBVT as truth.

No I did not. I said that it seems clear that neither side has proven the truth of their claims. Never said that it was not possible, just that that has not happened.

And you cannot pick one element of one of the many claims made by the SBV’s, give one piece of evidence that it is true and extrapolate from that that Kerry has “admitted” that the SBV’s were telling “the truth” and by that, I mean the entire truth about everything they claimed. That is just stupid and defies logic.
#422190

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:30 pm, WarEagle82 said:

Excuse me, but this ISN’T helping Michelle Obama’s children!
#422191

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:30 pm, englishqueen01 said:

Mistressjustice:

Fine. Let’s inundate the public with the facts – McCain’s service, his experience, his record.

And let’s look at Obama – his friendships, his mentor Rev. Wright, his unabashed love of baby killing.

The problem liberals have is that – when the truth of both sides is revealed, the conservative side wins out. Every time.

Which is why Michelle O’s speech last night was nothing if not thinly veiled conservativism. Gone is the “I’m ashamed of my country” rhetoric because camp Obama knows it’s detrimental to his campaign.

You want a war? Game on. You got it, sister.

Obama will destroy American and I’m ready to fight to prevent that from happening.
#422192

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:31 pm, RetFireman said:

The Left has to get even dirtier in return.

Yeah! maybe they can chase down and scream at and threaten news crews and women bloggers! That sounds great! masybe they can shout down any and all opposition when they are having their “rallies”. ooo, I know…maybe they can continually state that President bush is an idiot and the proof is in the gaffes he makes when talking, but say that everyone needs to ignore The Golden Calf’s and to do so only means that the person is a racist. In fact, just claim that the simple act of opposing The golden Calf and not voting for him makes the person a racist.
#422194

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:32 pm, chapoutier said:

Escept for the fact that there is one person who has, as of today, NEVER stated that what the SBV have claomed was a lie. One person who has never denied any of their claims. One person who has never, not once, come forward to say, “The SwiftBoat Veterans have made claims that were false and wrong. They are liars”.

That person?

John F. Kerry

“They lied and lied and lied about everything,” Mr. Kerry says in an interview in his Senate office. “How many lies do you get to tell before someone calls you a liar? How many times can you be exposed in America today?”
#422196

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:32 pm, BemusedLib said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 3:53 pm, twofoot said:

I’m not familiar with the term. Please clarify.

Probably because it wasn’t said that way. When asked how he won so many engagements with the enemey, Nathan Bedford Forrest once replied, “Get there first with the most men”.

It has been slaughtered over the years to either intentionally make him sound like an uneducated hick, or because those who heard it and passed it on simply didn’t know any better.

From a military philosophy of “get there the first with the most men” we get people who claim it is “firstest with the mostest”. It shows an ignorance of history and one of histories greatest military commanders.

By the way, contrary to his stated philosophy of getting there the first with most men, Forrest almost always faced overwhelming odds.

Despite all that, I am not sure what it has to do with this particular thread. More ignorance I suppose?

I in no way meant to make the esteemed general sound like an ignorant hick, it’s simply that that’s the way I’ve heard it and, in informal back-and-forth, it has a certain zest. Though no military historian, I am not unfamiliar with the general’s successes. Though the Yanks and the Rebs fought one another with ferocity, it is said — I’m sure you can verify this — that they crossed the picket lines at night to trade tobacco and coffee and commiserate with one another, a bit of civility we might want to consider before we begin labeling one another ignorant.

As to its relevance here, I was suggesting metaphorically that in a political campaign it is good tactics to move swiftly and respond strongly when attacked as, in this case, Obama has done.
#422199

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:33 pm, RetFireman said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:30 pm, WarEagle82 said:

Excuse me, but this ISN’T helping Michelle Obama’s children!

Shhhh…you cannot mention The Chosen Prodigy. You can get sued.
#422208

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:37 pm, StanW said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:27 pm, chapoutier said:

And you cannot pick one element of one of the many claims made by the SBV’s, give one piece of evidence that it is true and extrapolate from that that Kerry has “admitted” that the SBV’s were telling “the truth” and by that, I mean the entire truth about everything they claimed. That is just stupid and defies logic.

So John Kerry says his first Purple Heart was awarded for wounds sustained under combat conditions. The SBVT say that they could not have been, based upon Kerry’s own journal. Kerry then comes back and says his first Purple Heart may not have been earned in combat.

SBVT 1 – Kerry 0

Kerry said he spent Christmas in Cambodia under orders from Presidnet Nixon. The SBVT say that Kerry was not in Cambodia at Christmas and Nixon was not even President at the time Kerry claims it happened. Kerry finally admits that he was mistaken.

SBVT 2 – Kerry 0

Kerry claimed he threw his war medals over the fense during a protest. The SBVT say his medals are in a frame on his wall. Kerry admits that he threw someone elses medals.

SBVT 3 – Kerry 0

You cannot even provide a single example that the SBVT were lying about anything. I just gave you three where Kerry himself admited that he lied and the SBVT were telling the truth. It certainly means your quote “Certainly enough such that it is laughable to assert with any sort of legitimacy that their allegations were proven true.” is pure BS.

You are just to petty to admit it, Chap.
#422210

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:37 pm, T-Bone said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 3:21 pm, BemusedLib said:
Puts on drama queen hat: “what’s Cindy hiding? Ties to corporations that will benefit from McCain’s health care plan? Investments in overseas sweat shops? $3.5 million in Iraqi exile cash? And out of court settlement for a crime committee by John? She must be hiding something, or she would have released them.”

Put on Dunce hat and go put your nose in the corner.
#422211

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:38 pm, Dimsdale said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 3:21 pm, BemusedLib said:

Puts on drama queen hat: “what’s Cindy hiding? Ties to corporations that will benefit from McCain’s health care plan? Investments in overseas sweat shops? $3.5 million in Iraqi exile cash? And out of court settlement for a crime committee by John? She must be hiding something, or she would have released them.”

It’s an easy game to play. Raise suspicion and then assume that a legitimate privacy right is actually a sinister cover-up.

But you are the one playing it by asking for Cindy McC’s records. It brings to mind the Clinton sell off of pharmaceutical stocks just prior to their attacks on same. If you are referring to the Obama-Ayers papers, unlike tax records, these are, or were, public records, and as such, should have been released immediately.

A more pertinent question would be “who asked them to be kept under lock and key?

And I kind of think spouses should reveal — Ds and Rs — if candidates do. If there’s something nefarious going on, there’s no real line of separation between husband and wife.

I agree, if there is a possible conflict of interest, like Pelosi’s investments in the Pickens plan industries. If it is something like monies in trusts or inheritances etc., then it should be off limits.
#422213

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:38 pm, guitarplayer said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 3:33 pm, chapoutier said:

Because he is not primarily interested in them being found guilty of a crime or tort, even if they are. He is interested in getting the ads pulled as soon as possible.

So, whenever a politcian wants an ad pulled, the freedom of speech is suspended.
#422226

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:43 pm, sambo said:

mistressjustice said:
You can’t go around trying to shut down these ads, because people just think you’re hiding something. You come out with an ad of your own explaining the flimsy relationship, and your feelings on Ayers.

agreed…thats what we’re saying.

Nobody plays politics dirtier than the Republican party.

Are you sure MJ…I don’t know?

Next, go on the attack. Gloves come off. Bring back the Keating 5 “misjudgements”. Remember how the rigthwing attack machine sank McCain in South Carolina?…

what’s Cindy hiding? …

John McCain has had many election opponents over the years, so borrow from those ads….

The Left has to get even dirtier in return. …

The Dems have to get on offense. They have to be brutal, and unmerciful…

It’s time to kick his teeth in, and beat some humiltiy back into Maverick McCain. It’s time to get ugly, hide the kids.
#422228

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:44 pm, Misscheryl said:

Shhhh…you cannot mention The Chosen Prodigy. You can get sued.

By the way, speaking of the chosen children, did anyone notice the disgusting show of the “Hi Daddy…I love you..” last night? After seeing all that genuine love, I’m convinced – he is the one – I’m voting for Obama!
#422246

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:48 pm, chapoutier said:

So, whenever a politcian wants an ad pulled, the freedom of speech is suspended.

How exactly is freedom of speech suspended? Obama is not the government, which is the only entity that can interfere with freedom of speech, as defined in the Constitution. And if the DOJ chooses to get involved, they are the ones that make the determination as to whether a law was broken, not Obama. And gee, I wonder what way the current totally non-politicized DOJ would come out on that

Obama is using his influence to try to get the ad pulled, just like MM used her influence to get the Dunkin Donuts ad pulled. Unless you can point out some way in which he is using illegal influence.
#422247

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:48 pm, GJCorby said:

Obama the candidate with sinister associates to ~~hide~~ cover up.
#422257

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:51 pm, neocon527 said:

Two-tour Green Beret Ted Sampley of the 2004 “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” is now targeting the Republican nominee with the group “Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain.”

I assume you’ll are interested to hear what he has to say, right? Naturally, FOX News will put him on Hannity and Colmes, maybe midday with Cavuto too. Right, publius?
#422258

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:51 pm, trailortrash said:

saved this vid jic
#422259

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:51 pm, corkie said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 3:16 pm, chapoutier said:

I pointed out that there was clearly enough dispute and evidence about the issue that it is absurd to simply claim that what the swiftboaters said was “true.” It is a subtle, but important, distinction.

chapoutier, by your logic, then it is absurd to simply claim that what Kerry said was “true.”
#422264

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:54 pm, chapoutier said:

chapoutier, by your logic, then it is absurd to simply claim that what Kerry said was “true.”

You will note I never said that.
#422269

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:56 pm, guitarplayer said:

How exactly is freedom of speech suspended? Obama is not the government, which is the only entity that can interfere with freedom of speech, as defined in the Constitution. And if the DOJ chooses to get involved, they are the ones that make the determination as to whether a law was broken, not Obama. And gee, I wonder what way the current totally non-politicized DOJ would come out on that

Because by crying about the ad to the DOJ, it makes it appear that he doesn’t want the person or group who put out the ad the right to put the ad out. That is enough for me and most on this blog to wonder what he would do if he had presidential authority. If the ad is false, then refute it. If it’s libelous, then sue in court. Any court would hear case almost immediately because of the election.

Obama is using his influence to try to get the ad pulled, just like MM used her influence to get the Dunkin Donuts ad pulled. Unless you can point out some way in which he is using illegal influence.

The difference is that MM is a private citizen fighting for a cause. Obama wants to be president. If he pulls this kind of crap when he’s just running for the office, I’d hate to think what he would do if he ever got into the office.
#422284

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:00 pm, Goldwater Knight said:

mistressjustice said:

Will Obama go the way of Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry, or will he turn into the rabid pitbull we need him to be?

Why don’t we send you and your black boot crew after McCain and you can stomp that old white man into the ground.
#422297

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:04 pm, englishqueen01 said:

Will Obama go the way of Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry, or will he turn into the rabid pitbull we need him to be?

Just a hint – a guy who’s willing to disarm a nation faced with threats from Islamic radicals is not a pitbull.
#422301

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:05 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 3:16 pm, Chief RZ said:
Quote from ItookTheRedPill:

Those who can’t handle the truth try to silence those who speak it

That is the MO of communists, of which many social/democrats are IMO.

Damn straight!
Senator Joe McCarthy was right:

Drawing on primary sources—including never-before-published government records and FBI files, as well as recent research gleaned from Soviet archives and intercepted transmissions between Moscow spymasters and their agents in the United States—Evans presents irrefutable evidence of a relentless Communist drive to penetrate our government, influence its policies, and steal its secrets. Most shocking of all, he shows that U.S. officials supposedly guarding against this danger not only let it happen but actively covered up the penetration. All of this was precisely as Joe McCarthy contended.

I believe the reason that the Democrat Party now wants to be called the “Democratic” Party is because they have been taken over by “Democratic Socialists/Communists”.

The problem is that they also have their fingers in the Republican Party.

Anthropogenic (Man-made) Global Warming (AGW) is a complete hoax, and is a tool of Communists and their “57 states” Arab alies to further rob the United States using AGW taxes.

Amnesty is a Communist plan to turn 20 million “proletariat” into new voters. It would also send shock waves through our economy as every employer who currently employs illegals would suddenly have to pay them minimum wage. It’s a recipie for disaster.

Now tell me why John McCain supports AGW taxes and Amnesty.

The man was brainwashed by Communists for years. Who is to say that he wasn’t made to believe that Socialism is a good idea?
#422303

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:07 pm, graysonret said:

This just shows me, once again, exactly how the democrats and Obama plan to run this country, once they have total control. It would make Stalin proud.
#422306

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:08 pm, Misscheryl said:

MJ said: Will Obama go the way of Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry, or will he turn into the rabid pitbull we need him to be?

Where’s the full quote that “respectable” and “mainstream” come from? LOL. Whatever, screw it. It’s time to fight back.

The problem here is Obama isn’t smart enough to pick his battles.
#422311

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:09 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

The Communist Party USA is real. They have written a new Constitution. They have a plan for “The Road to Socialism USA“.

President Ronald Reagan understood the communist threat.
#422320

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:12 pm, Gorebot said:

Arugula futures are hitting an all time low.
#422332

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:18 pm, twall said:

Just posted the video on Pressdemocrat.com

Waiting for personal attacks

From deep inside enemy territory in
Sonoma County California
#422334

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:18 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:07 pm, graysonret said:
This just shows me, once again, exactly how the democrats and Obama plan to run this country, once they have total control. It would make Stalin proud.

There is one thing for which I thank Barack Hussein Obama II (also known as Barry Soetoro when he lived in the world’s most populous Muslim nation):

He’s waking people up to the fact that the Russians still want to “bury” us.

I’d like to know what Obama discussed with the Russians during his three-hour summit meeting:

During the August recess of 2005, Lugar, who was the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, went with Senator Barack Obama to Russia to inspect nuclear facilities there. They were detained for three hours at an airport in the city of Perm, near the Ural Mountains, where they were scheduled to depart for a meeting with the President and the Speaker of the House of Ukraine. They were released after a brief dialogue between U.S. and Russian officials and the Russians later apologized for this incident.
#422338

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:21 pm, neocon527 said:

I don’t think the red pills are working.
#422354

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:25 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

I mistakenly gave the wrong link earlier (it went to just a picture of Reagan, not the page with the speech).

Here is the correct link to the speech:
President Ronald Reagan understood the communist threat.

Reagan said about that speech:

This is the “evil empire” speech that was so often quoted as defining my attitude toward the Soviets. At the time it was portrayed as some kind of know-nothing, archconservative statement that could only drive the Soviets to further heights of paranoia and insecurity.

For too long our leaders were unable to describe the Soviet Union as it actually was. The keepers of our foreign-policy knowledge – in other words, most liberal foreign-affairs scholars, the State Department, and various columnists – found it illiberal and provocative to be so honest. I’ve always believed, however, that it’s important to define differences, because there are choices and decisions to be made in life and history.

The Soviet system over the years has purposely starved, murdered, and brutalized its own people. Millions were killed; it’s all right there in the history books. It put other citizens it disagreed with into psychiatric hospitals, sometimes drugging them into oblivion. Is the system that allowed this not evil? Then why shouldn’t we say so? Even the Soviets themselves are now admitting to annihilating their own people during Stalin’s era.

I could not in good conscience today call the Soviet Union an evil empire. As I write this, the Soviets have just conducted the most democratic elections since their revolution. Remarkable things are happening under Mikhail Gorbachev.

In addition to taking a hard line on the morality of the Soviet Union, this speech also outlines my opinions on a number of other moral issues.

-Source
#422366

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:32 pm, mistressjustice said:

Just a hint – a guy who’s willing to disarm a nation faced with threats from Islamic radicals is not a pitbull.

I guess they sell tinfoil in Wisconsin if you think Obama is going to disarm our country.
Tell me, remember when Obama talked about going into Pakiston if necessary if there is actionable intelligence to get Bin Laden. Remember when you conservatives cried foul. Of course all of Obama’s ideas are bad until the Right decides to do the same. What do you think he plans on going after Bin Laden with, spitballs?
Disarm American? Get serious, will you.
#422372

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:34 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

Everyone’s looking for the next Reagan, but they don’t really understand what made Reagan great, so they don’t know what to look for.

Read Reagan’s speeches and get an unfiltered understanding of the man.

I recommend starting with the “Evil Empire” speech, then “A Time For Choosing” and then read through his CPAC speeches.

Then, compare current candidates to that standard.
#422375

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:35 pm, sonofdy said:

mistressjustice, it is one of the few sensable things obama has said but I doubt he would do it. A man who refuses to act to prevent a nation from getting nukes(iran) isn’t going to invade one that has (pakistan) BTW Pakistan has 150 million people. Iraq has 24 million. Do the math.
#422381

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:38 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

The Soviet system over the years has purposely starved, murdered, and brutalized its own people. Millions were killed; it’s all right there in the history books. It put other citizens it disagreed with into psychiatric hospitals, sometimes drugging them into oblivion. Is the system that allowed this not evil? Then why shouldn’t we say so? Even the Soviets themselves are now admitting to annihilating their own people during Stalin’s era.

I believe an Obama Nation would be that bad. But I thank God (literally) that we will be spared that fate.
#422385

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:40 pm, mistressjustice said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:35 pm, sonofdy said:

mistressjustice, it is one of the few sensable things obama has said but I doubt he would do it. A man who refuses to act to prevent a nation from getting nukes(iran) isn’t going to invade one that has (pakistan) BTW Pakistan has 150 million people. Iraq has 24 million. Do the math.

It’s so sensible that the rightwing mocked him, including Michelle Malkin. She even showed protests in the streets of Pakistan as if Obama is to be blamed for the behavior of irrational jihadists.
For the record Obama as stated unequivically numerous times that Iran can’t have nuclear weapons. He just says that we should meet with their leadership. Of course that was a bad idea, until the Bush administration decided that it was a good idea.
#422387

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:42 pm, HappyGene said:

I posted this in another thread but I’m new, stupid, and I love this quote sooo much!!! I really think it shows the thoughtful nuanced arguments used by the left to thump vulgar rightwingers.
From Wonkette,
“It’s like two quarter-pound stools of alien space s*** (poo) crashed into a toxic-waste dumpster in Stamford, Connecticut, f***** (copulated), and out came their mutilated, blood-soaked carcass of a baby rat-child, Senator Joseph Lieberman.”
#422388

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:43 pm, englishqueen01 said:

I guess they sell tinfoil in Wisconsin if you think Obama is going to disarm our country.

From a video by Obama:

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems…

…I will not weaponize space…

…I will slow development of future combat systems…

…and I will institute an independent “Defense Priorities Board” to ensure the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending…

…I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons…

…and to seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons…

…I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material…

…and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert…

…and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals…

That sounds like the beginnings of disarmament to me.

Obama also opposes the Iraq war. What in the world makes you think he’ll go after terrorists anywhere? Or with half the force required to defeat them?

He won’t. Period.

He’ll hem and haw and try to “understand” the terrorists. To our detriment.
#422392

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:44 pm, sandyb said:

I’m on vacation, but had to stop in the hotel’s biz room to check MM’s site. Heard the ad on Rush this afternoon and it made the hair on my neck stand up. Rush also aired Odumpo’s rebuttal ad — didn’t come close to the impact of the Ayers ad. Even if YouTube pulls it, an extra few million folks were treated to it courtesty of Rush. If it’s yanked, maybe he can repeat it daily. Everytime I see the mugshot of that little pissant Ayers, I want to smack him.
#422395

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:45 pm, englishqueen01 said:

He just says that we should meet with their leadership.

And do what? Sing “Kumbaya”? Iran’s I’m-A-Nut-Job wants to wipe Israel (”Little Satan”) off the map, followed by the Big Satan – the United States.

Talking with terrorist thugs only exposes your jugular.

But – then again – you might want to live under a caliphate, right?
#422397

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:45 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

In my opinion, it appears that Barack Obama is Russia’s candidate for POTUS, and Hillary Clinton is China’s canidate for POTUS.

There’s a Sino-Soviet war going on for control of the Democrat[ic Socialist] Party.
#422400

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:48 pm, mistressjustice said:

BTW Pakistan has 150 million people. Iraq has 24 million. Do the math.

It wouldn’t be an invasion. As stated sensibly by Obama it would be a calculated strike to get Bin Laden and or Al Queda operatives. He also said that he would seek the cooporation of Pakistan’s leadership. The math is irrelevant. The invasion of Iraq was an apple. A military strike in Pakistan to get Bin Laden is an orange. You know this, and that is why you called the judgement sensible.
#422401

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:49 pm, tiredofit08 said:

I am not surprised in the least that the ad is not being aired and the obamination has complained about it…the MSM is enamored with the obamination who seemingly walks on water..truthfully neither he nor “fist-bumping” michelle can tolerate any kind of criticism whatsoever…if this is how he acts before he’s even officially nominated and won a Presidency what will this country be like when he is? Not pretty that’s for sure. Stalin will look like a saint….

#240…doing precisely the opposite is what has kept the world at relative peace since the cold war began and now look at what is happening with us mired in Iraq/Afghanistan and other places around the world….if the obamination is to pull out of Iraq, then put the troops on the border and secure it by any an all means not only from the drug lords but the criminal aliens who invade this country on a daily basis…
#422407

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:53 pm, mistressjustice said:

And do what? Sing “Kumbaya”?

But – then again – you might want to live under a caliphate, right?

Yes, that’s exactly what I want. How’d you guess? All liberals want to live under a caliphate. Can’t you understand simple policy and ideological differences by rational people? What’s tinfoil running at BigLots up there? How about Target? If you are against such meetings, contact the Bush Administration. It seems as though they changed their tune, and disagree with EQ.
#422412

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:55 pm, bear1909 said:

#156
Again, I ask, why not just take this to court? Think of the publicity Obama would get if he wins. Why resort to this tactic that 1) makes it look like he trying to hide something, 2) makes him look scared, and 3) has all the appearance of wanting to turn the government against free speech?

One word: Cha-CHINGY_CHINGY_Dinghy. Dee NAY roh.

That suit would be tied up in court for years and bankrupt whatever money pots he has to tap.

Also, he doesnt like to get dirty. Flinchy is a punk at best and a complete yard bird worst case. Flinchy doesnt have the stomach for conflict. And he has really poor taste in suits, which he would need a lot of if he were to take this mess to trial.

There is also the remote possibility that American Issues has a bullet proof position that is highly defensible in an American Court (Flinchy could always take it up with the World Court given his lack of standing as a verifiable US citizen).

A trial might raise the nasty question of whether or not the 1st Ammendment applies to non-citizens. Oh heavens….that would bring up another python sized pecadillo.

Flinchy has too many holes in his underwear to start lobbing lawsuits at anyone. He has a lot to prove to the voters as it is, let alone some judge out there who knows Flinchy doesnt understand the US Constitution in the first place.

I dunno. Maybe i just raised more questions. (If read aloud this statement doesn’t have a voice inflection as if it were a question. But you should hear the MoonBats on tv at the convention speaking to “Action News” at 5. MY GOD! We are so ready to be taken over.)

Bear1909 out
#422432

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:11 pm, mistressjustice said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:51 pm, neocon527 said:

I hope this fella has some good damaging stuff on McCain. He’ll have to tread carefully becauce JohnnyMac has the “Hanoi Hilton” card. A smear could backfire unless he has some really damaging and irrefutable material. I do like the mentality of smearing the hell out of McCain’s record, but the stuff has to be juicy, and it has to stick.

I dig your screen name,(sir/mam?)
#422450

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:26 pm, TuskAmerica said:

HOW TO START EACH DAY WITH A POSITIVE OUTLOOK

1. Open a new file in your computer.
2. Name it ‘Barack Obama’.
3. Send it to the Recycle Bin.
4. Empty the Recycle Bin.
5. Your PC will ask you: ‘Do you really want to get rid of ‘Barack Obama?’
6. Click ‘Yes.’
7. Feel better?

GOOD – Tomorrow we’ll do Nancy Pelosi!
#422454

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:30 pm, neocon527 said:

I tried that with Bush, Tusk. And the satisfaction was fleeting. Y’know, when reality set in.
#422466

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:42 pm, travlinman said:

Barack Obama on his relationship to Ayers:

“Mr. Ayers is a 60-plus-year-old individual who lives in my neighborhood, who did something that I deplore 40 years ago when I was 6 or 7 years old,” Obama said then. “By the time I met him, he is a professor of education at the University of Illinois. We served on a board together that had Republicans, bankers, lawyers, focused on education.”

travlinman on Barack’s excuse:

If we except Barack’s logic, we could expect him to view Charlie Manson in the same light should Charlie make parole, get hired at a local University as a professor and move into the Obama neighborhood. Even if Charlie was unapologetic for his crimes from almost 40 years ago. I can only assume for BHO, time heals all wounds.

And when did it become illegal for a private American citizen to use personal funds to air an ad showing the link between BHO and Ayers?
#422470

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:43 pm, corkie said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:54 pm, chapoutier said:

chapoutier, by your logic, then it is absurd to simply claim that what Kerry said was “true.”

You will note I never said that.

I will happily note that you never said that. And you will note that your logic implies that it’s absurd for anyone to claim that Kerry told the truth about his war experiences.
#422482

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:50 pm, MNUSMCDavid said:

mistress justice
You are aware, of course, that the Pakistani government has collapsed as a result of Musharraf’s resignation. Just what cooperation could O’Bama expect? The naivety of this skinny little runt is beyond comprehension
#422486

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:52 pm, corkie said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:40 pm, mistressjustice said:

She even showed protests in the streets of Pakistan as if Obama is to be blamed for the behavior of irrational jihadists.

No, we don’t blame strong statements by Americans for the behavior of irrational jihadists. You’re thinking of liberals.

I’m sure Michelle showed protests in the streets of Pakistan for the purpose of demonstrating the futility of trying to appease irrational jihadists.
#422488

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:54 pm, T-Bone said:

You mean this Ted Sampley?

Following is quoted from Prisoners of Hope, by Susan Katz Keating, pages 193 – 205.

“Navy Lieutenant Robert Wetzel was an A-10 intruder pilot during the first Gulf War and was listed as missing in action.

According to Sampley, that designation was just a cover for the grisly truth. Wetzler had survived the shootdown only to parachute into a crowd of angry Iraqis, who all happened to be carrying knives and carved him up on the spot.

The Pentagon doesn’t want anybody to know this Samply confided, but its all right. I already told his family.

Wentzel eventually came home, alive & intact. Sampley later admitted that he never really believed the story but had told it anyway to publicize the plight of POWs”.

Liberals love crapweasels like this. Anything to promote the cause, right Comrade?
#422494

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:56 pm, bear1909 said:

Of course that was a bad idea, until the Bush administration decided that it was a good idea.

The problem with comments like the one quoted is that the comment presumes that a statement drafted from within a Clinton infested state department, led by the feckless Condi Rice, reflects the will of the Bush executive leadership cadre, and that the Condi farce reflects the military strategy no one wants to admit is unfolding in front of their eyes.

I dont know of any trueblood conservatives who hold opinions that discussing anything with the rats in Tehran is either necessary or prudent. And Dick Cheney is among them

The die was cast a long time ago with Iran. “Words” from a Bush administration are not the same as the postmodern subjectivism of Flinchy Binghole and the Marxist minions who seek to “talk” their “change” into the hearts and minds of a Muslim “governments” across the Middle East. (I’ve taken the liberty of assigning a new name to BHo since his real one is in dispute. Flinchy works and captures his twitchy political demeanor)

Military preparedness and logistical coordination in the region *suggest* that Israel and the United States are prepared and ready to take out Syria and Iran, while empowering the world’s largest ethnic minority (Kurds) to play a key role in the ground war inside and on the border with Iran.

Also, guided missile defense systems imported to Syria and Iran have either been destroyed (Syria courtesy of Israel) or hopelessly jammed (courtesy of US espionage and Israeli execution.) Those are both verified achievements. And these speak more about “good ideas” than diplomatic Foggy Bottom horse hockey at Dept of State.

Bear1909 out.
#422496

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:57 pm, BuckeyeSam said:

Here in SW Ohio, Fox has evidently said “screw Obama.” Fox ran the Ayers ad in a commercial break during The Hume Report.

Giddy up!
#422499

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:58 pm, neocon527 said:

Corkie, there’s a convenient search box up top. This is the story:

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/05/way-to-go-barack/

The nuance you’ve credited it with seems to be lacking.
#422501

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:59 pm, T-Bone said:

Link to Ted Sampley quote above

http://www.miafacts.org/prankster.htm
#422503

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:00 pm, corkie said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:53 pm, mistressjustice said:

Yes, that’s exactly what I want. How’d you guess? All liberals want to live under a caliphate. Can’t you understand simple policy and ideological differences by rational people? What’s tinfoil running at BigLots up there?

I don’t believe that you want to live under a caliphate, but there’s a big difference between being a tin-foiled conspiracy theorist and believing in a “falling domino” principle.

How is that not obvious to you?
#422513

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:05 pm, neocon527 said:

Aww, guys, I thought you liked Ted Sampley. Y’know, when John Kerry was the target. But now he’s a big meanie, huh?
#422514

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:05 pm, corkie said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:58 pm, neocon527 said:

Corkie, there’s a convenient search box up top. This is the story:

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/05/way-to-go-barack/

The nuance you’ve credited it with seems to be lacking.

Michelle clearly starts her post by poking fun at the “Obama for Change” slogan. Get it? She was making fun of the claim of change.
#422522

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:11 pm, mistressjustice said:

#258, Thanks for saving me the time.

#253, Musharraf was in power when Barack made the statement. Of course a change in circumstances may cause a change in opinion. You know that.

The problem with comments like the one quoted is that the comment presumes that a statement drafted from within a Clinton infested state department, led by the feckless Condi Rice, reflects the will of the Bush executive leadership cadre, and that the Condi farce reflects the military strategy no one wants to admit is unfolding in front of their eyes.

Bush is the COM. It’s his administration. No “talking” would be done without his appoval. If you’re saying he has no say so, well than the elephants’ president is more inept than I could ever imagine. There’s no way you can give him a pass on reversing course, even if it means following Obama’s ideology.

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:57 pm, BuckeyeSam said:

I hope USC takes care of the Buckeyes, so that they don’t have to humiliate themselves in January. I’m tired of them wasting everyone’s time. OVERRATED. clap clap clap clap clap
#422523

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:12 pm, neocon527 said:

Why refer to them as Macho Man remarks? Or that the protests were what he had “wrought?” I mean, presumably, a strike on Pakistan to thwart a terrorist plot or nab Osama Bin Laden, would be something Michelle would agree with? No? I mean, are we so partisan that even when we agree with something the opposition says, we have to mock it for being similar to something we would say? I mean, I know that’s basically true, but, still, the implication is that this flag burning and these protests were prompted by Obama’s statements, which would imply exactly what you says it doesn’t.
#422525

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:14 pm, mistressjustice said:

Michelle clearly starts her post by poking fun at the “Obama for Change” slogan. Get it? She was making fun of the claim of change.

Huh?

MM says.

Condoleezza Rice tries to douse the flames Barack poured fuel on.
#422530

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:19 pm, mistressjustice said:

I don’t believe that you want to live under a caliphate

Well thanks, I guess. I suppose you’re more rational than some.
#422543

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:33 pm, bear1909 said:

Bush is the COM. It’s his administration. No “talking” would be done without his appoval. If you’re saying he has no say so, well than the elephants’ president is more inept than I could ever imagine. There’s no way you can give him a pass on reversing course, even if it means following Obama’s ideology.

Why would anybody try to make a ridiculous argument that Bush has no say so? Oh, i forgot. That is a rhetorical device intended to switch the argument from the simple truth that war is politics by other means (which includes using misdirection of using Fops at State to mislead one’s enemies or at least confuse them).

Bush has let State do one thing while the military and Israel do another. It’s a time-tested strategy for kicking the ass of one’s enemies.

It is a bit of a stretch to say that the Bush doctrine is influenced by the random and inconsistent musings of Flinchy Binghole, the international relations major running for President of the United States.

Bush doesnt need a pass. The course has not been reversed one iota even though he has allowed State to concoct some bogus pandering move to the Rats of Tehran. He’d rather kick ass.

Lay your money on the table. Syria and Iran- both governments will be crippled in the months to come (along with Bush signing over the oil rich lands within the US to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, thus wrecking the economies of both and Russia with the stroke of a pen).

Bear1909 out.
#422546

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:35 pm, neocon527 said:

Gee, Bear, when’s the parade? Will there be banners?
#422557

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:46 pm, bear1909 said:

Gee, Bear, when’s the parade? Will there be banners?

LOL. funny. Ya know something? This whole debate over offshore drilling was precipitated by Bush’s hint that he would sign that executive order if Congress did not act. One of the fruits has been the severe weakening of Pelosi Galore and Bending Reid as majority leaders. Part of the same trend i speak of in the post you refer to.

The countries of Iran and Syria have been severely weakened defense-wise and have not been able to repair the damage wrought by US and Israeli joint actions.

Add this current carrier battle group on its way to the Gulf and smart money says things are moving in a very straightforward direction while the masses quibble over whether Flinchy is right or wrong in his drivelings on foreign policy.

Should that milque-toast get elected (God Forbid) his first sitting in the sitch room with the joint chiefs will be an eye opener for him. What he says now doesnt mean chit.

The train has already left the station. One carrier battle group can give any air defenseless country a significantly bad day.

But dont let me keep you from your fun. Debate away.

Bear1909 out.