Realmscapes

The Anti-America Prize

"The Nobel Peace Prize is a notoriously difficult award to predict, but yesterday's decision was clearly a political choice, with three of the past six peace awards going to Bush adversaries.

In 2002 the prize went to Jimmy Carter as an explicit rejection of the Bush presidency in the build-up to the Iraq war. In 2005 Mohamed ElBaradei, the UN atomic agency chief who had clashed with Washington over the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, was honoured. In 2007 Al Gore received the prize for his warnings on climate change, denounced by President Bush as a liberal myth." --Catherine Philp (The Times)

Gorbachev... Carter... Arafat... Thọ... Annan... Gore... ElBaradei... just a few of the con artists, terrorists, and tyrants to receive the "honour" of being a Nobel Peace Laureate. (Did you know that ElBaradei recently named Israel as the primary nuclear weapon aggressor in the Middle East?)

The Nobel Peace Prize stopped being serious in 1990 when it was awarded to Gorbachev. (Interesting that it was awarded to the man who capitulated to President Reagan, but Regan was never awarded one.) It became a joke when Gore received his for promoting bogus science as fact.

One thing that all these (and other) recent winners have in common is that they need the award to to legitimise their purpose. Beyond that, the agendas of all of these figures have failed, been rejected, or been defeated. Meanwhile Reagan and Bush II and Netanyahu fight (or fought) the good fight despite their critics. Their prize is victory over evil and freedom from oppression for their people and those they fought for.

What scares me about Obama receiving this award is that he will surely turn his back on the surge proposition needed for Afghanistan. Carter has called Obama's winning of the prize "bold". Obama signing off on the troop surge in the aftermath of receiving this award would truly be bold.

But somehow I have no expectations for this. How can I expect such bold action from a President who punts an opportunity to meet the Dalai Lama (now a fellow Laureate) in a effort to appease the Chinese? Or more to the point, how can Obama be expected to do what is needed in the Middle East after his administration's most recent assessment of that region, which now envisions a "role for the Taliban"(!) if Afghanistan is to have a future?

If this world wants true peace the world must first calm the human soul. This can only be accomplished one way.

The Spectre of McCarthy

“In August the lawmaker from Minnesota called on opponents of 'socialised healthcare' to 'pray to God' for Mr Obama to fail. Last year Ms Bachmann, a Christian conservative, provoked memories of the witch hunt days of Joe McCarthy when she called on the media to investigate 'un-American' sentiments in Congress.” --Financial Times (Online)

This paragraph from FT is a capsule of all the different accusations and misinformation that the left is guilty of, going all the way back to W.

Anyone calling to kill the nationalising of healthcare, or for Obama's socialist policy agenda to fail, is considered a racist (see Jimmy Carter) or a Nazi (see Nancy Pelosi).

And this fight over what is American or un-American clearly still sits in the craw of liberal Democrats--as if they have something to be guilty about to be so defensive.

Remember then Senator Hillary Clinton railing against her and the Dem party's critics over us calling said party "un-American" for their disrespectful and insensitive treatment of the U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq? She yelled back that it was very much American to be able to publicly oppose with a Presidential Administration.

First of all, the irony of that statement in today's political climate--when conservatives are being called (you guessed it) "un-American" by Pelosi and Steny Hoyer (see USA Today column) is so heavy one would think it is the premise to an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents.

But remember, the Democrat Party was blatantly undercutting the mission in Iraq and affecting the morale of American troops serving in that country in the pursuit of scoring political points with their radical left supporters in the blogosphere. In any decade, this behavior would be seen as un-American! The United States has always cherished its military heroes and any exploitation or criticism of these heroes for political gain has bordered on accusations of sacrilege.

Whenever liberals are afraid of conservatives they invoke the spectre of Joseph McCarthy. As overzealous as the he was, it's amusing to think just how some of these present-day Democrats would fare if Senator McCarthy was a contemporary. And even more amusing the thought of how President Obama do under the deceased Senator's accusations of Communism.

Yes, Senator McCarthy I think would not need to create any false cases against this Congress or Administration for un-American activity as they trample the Constitution in its pursuit of nationalising everything from health care to the banking industry, and all the while getting in bed with dangerous, anti-American foreign enemies as this Administration and Congress is blatantly doing.

9/24-9/28: Scary Run of Recent Int'l News Headlines & Quotes

Iran conducts third round of missile tests; 'Could reach Israel'...

U.S. commander in Afghanistan talked with Obama only once; Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan...

Venezuela exploring uranium deposits with Russia, Iran...

India raises nuclear stakes; Can make high-yield weapons...

Prez. Obama: 'We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth.'; Prez. Sarkozy: 'President Obama dreams of a world without weapons but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.' ...

China to display upgraded missiles in parade...

Gadhafi Strengthens Ties With Chavez...

Obama heading to Copenhagen to fight for Chicago (to host Olympic Games)...

FBI arrests Jordanian for downtown Dallas bomb plot... TERROR RAIDS: Probe of DENVER cell planning 9/11-like ATTACK... Illinois man charged in plot to bomb federal offices... Terror suspects accused of targeting Marine base in Quantico...

Obama Administration Frees Three More Gitmo Detainees...

NYT: 'No Reason To Fear Terror Attacks'...

More Than Just National Security

With the Obama Administration scrapping alliances--some decades old--with the UK, Israel, Germany, Canada, and Honduras it comes as no surprise that Iraq is next on the list of crossed-off countries. Vice President Biden has taken the opportunity of his arrival to greet the troops, but not just to see how they are doing. A passing comment made to Prime Minister Maliki reported by Bloomberg is laying subtle structure for the Obama Administration to pull out of Iraq. The situation in Iraq is a key issue from the campaign and one that Obama has not indicated (to the consternation of his supporters) that he will fulfill. Afterall, in his mind he doesn't want failure in a war hated by liberals to be a mark on his presidency like the Johnson-bungled Vietnam War was on Nixon's.

But there is more at stake in Iraq than just the political and sectarian stability of that country. There is a growing Christian community there; although God's work can bear fruit under any circumstance a democratic Iraq will certainly make that work in Iraq go much smoother.

The same can be said in Honduras where there is a lot of ongoing Christian work including from my own church organisation. But the Obama Administration's decision to withold military support from Honduras because he supports the outed and former Honduran President, Manuel Zalaya does not bode well for the Christian missions there. Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, a fierce opponent of the democratic Honduran gov't, and a manipulator of God's Word, is considering military involvement of his country to restore Zalaya to power. Without U.S. military backing, which has been part of U.S. policy since the 80s, Honduras stands little chance against Chavez's military strength.

Bolton, On Current Foreign Policy Initiaves

A great column by John Bolton re: the Obama Admin foreign policy, "Obama continues Bush's 2nd term -- badly":

"Conservative foreign policy is unabashedly pro-American, unashamed of American exceptionalism, unwilling to bend its knee to international organizations, and unapologetic about the need for the fullest range of dominant military capabilities. Its diplomacy is neither unilateralist nor multilateralist, but chooses its strategies, tactics, means and methods based on a hard-headed assessment of U.S. national interests, not on theologies about process. Most especially, conservatives understand that allies are different from adversaries, and that each should be treated accordingly.

...

Overseas "apology tours," public displays of empathy and inviting the likes of Iran to Fourth of July receptions at our embassies will not alter these underlying realities. Nor will reducing national-security budgets on such key items as missile defense and advanced weapons systems (while dramatically increasing unnecessary and inevitably inflationary domestic spending) make our adversaries more amenable to sweet reason. Sadly, such gratuitous indications of self-doubt and weakness only encourage the very adversaries whose favor we are currying."

Saddam & WMDs

There were many good and solid reasons to go into Iraq in 2003 beyond just the WMD issue. But since this question is a favourite of whiny liberals, I'd like to give them this media-buried quote to chew on that I found. (He repeated the same on "Hannity & Colmes".) It is from General Georges Sada (ret.), one of Saddam Hussein's senior military advisers and Iraq's Air Vice-Marshal for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait campaign:

"There was a time when Saddam possessed chemical weapons. I am so sorry that Americans and many in authority said there were never weapons of mass destruction."

His comments of course contradict the Duelfer Report, to which I respond with read his personal memoir, Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied And Survived Saddam Hussein for the full context of this man and his service to the Iraqi people, as well as consider that Saddam used chemical weapons during his rule. (Sada's story and role in the rebuilding of Iraq post-Saddam is briefly recounted in Joel Rosenberg's Epicenter.)

In the end, I know that liberals can't be convinced of WMDs because they cannot be convinced that there is real evil in the world. Georges Sada is one of the good guys, he is a lifelong committed Christian, and he is grateful for what the U.S. and coalition forces have accomplished for the Iraqi people.

Foreign Relations (Updated)

I seem to recall that a major part of Obama's campaign was to "rebuild" our supposed terrible relations with our allies. So said Obama; so said his supporters.

Well:

Exhibit A | Exhibit B | Exhibit C

It seems that his administration is too busy with cozying up to our allies' enemies as well as our own:

Exhibit A | Exhibit B | Exhibit C

Ironically enough, it is the Iranians and the Russians who are giving Obama a taste of his own domestic "bi-partisan" medicine: If Obama wants a deal with us (Iran/Russia) then he will have to meet our demands.

Don't think these countries will settle for anything less, Mr President.

UPDATE:

Exhibit D (I am officially embarrassed, and I am hardly a fan of PM Brown.)

RE: Republicans abandon founding principles (Updated)

In response to an opinion piece by a local lawyer printed in the Bangor Daily News:

Frankly, given the title of the piece, I was somewhat hoping this would be a opinion piece chastising Maine's two Republican Senators. Alas...

So: When Republicans are willing to bow to the ideology of liberals we are hailed as heroes; when we stand against "stimulus" packages laced with socialism, we are "divisive"; when we point out all the numerous economic problems, government expansion, and unrelated spending (e.g. 30m for a mouse habitat in Pelosi's district) that will be result of this bill we are "negative". What I don't understand is why take interest in us at all when the Democrats control everything and don't need the GOP. Perhaps because the Dems are as nervous about the porkulous bill as Republicans are? Of course they are. Even VP Biden said the passage of the bill would likely come back to haunt the Donkeys in 2010. Let's hope we get solid, principled candidates to prove him right.

As for the Iraq comment... I have come to expect such empty, ignorant rhetoric from the opposition. What makes it somewhat more deplorable for it to come from someone living/working in Bangor is that such a person can very easily trek themselves down to either of the National Guard bases in the city and learn for themselves what the situations and experiences of the War on Terror - Iraq are.

UPDATE: I had a bit of a discussion with one of the resident leftists on the BDN commentary boards. Here is how it went down...

Senator Dodd... again?

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has turned up once again in the middle of a major financial controversy, this time connected to the alleged $8 billion fraud scheme charged to Stanford Int'l Bank.

"The Stanford Financial Group, through its political action committee and employees, has contributed $2.4 million to political candidates, parties and committees in the U.S. since 1989, with nearly two-thirds going to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a group that tracks campaign spending.

Most of that cash flowed during the 2002 election cycle, when Congress was debating a financial services antifraud bill that would have linked the databases of state and federal banking, securities and insurance regulators. The bill ultimately died in the Senate, where the biggest recipients have been Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. ($45,900); Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. ($28,150); Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn. ($27,500); and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas ($19,700). Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas also received $41,375.

Stanford and his wife Susan also donated $931,100 of their own money, with 78 percent going to Democrats, including $4,600 to President Barack Obama's presidential campaign last May 31. Records show $2,300 of that was returned on the same day."

First his sweetheart deal with Countrywide Mortgage that was part of his not supporting President Bush's initiatives to reign in Freddie and Fannie before the real estate bubble burst. And now this? Senator Dodd needs to face an oversight and ethics committee. Seriouslly. (He won't of course--not while the Dems are in control.)

In any case, I am glad he's not my Senator anymore. The guy is first-class slime, second only to Senator Schumer (D-NY) (who himself caused a run on a CA bank last Summer, remember).

Correspondance with Senator Collins ("R"-ME)

I wrote both my U.S. Senators to vote against the non-stimulus bill. Instead Maine had the dubious honour of having both of its RINO ("Republican In Name Only") Senators vote for the bill, giving it just enough votes to pass. Here is the third paragraph of Senator Collins response e-mail:

"Every day, we hear more reports of massive job losses in communities all across America, and Maine is no exception. Our state's unemployment rate has risen to seven percent, the highest level in 16 years."

It's nice to know that such a high-ranking Senator believes I am ignorant simply because I am only a voter.

Maine's unemployment problem is due to the excessively high state-based corporate tax rates (the latest economic studies place our state as the 4th worst state for a business to be). It is a problem that can only be rectified by Augusta and not a DC-written budget bill.