Please Hit

Folks, This is a Free Site and will ALWAYS stay that way. But the only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers. PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going. SO HIT THE TIP JAR (it's on the left-hand column).

Friday, June 13, 2008

"Moderate" Saudis Pushing For UN Sanctions Against Israel

Here's a trivia question, what moderate country has funded more Palestinian terrorism than any other country in the world? Out of the five Arab League states that declared war against Israel in 1948 which is the only one that is considered a good friend of the US and still in an active state of war with the Jewish state? Here's a hint, the ruler has a funny beard that kind of looks like he accidentally dipped his chin in an inkwell, they are one of the worlds largest Oil producers, and they refuse to help keep down Oil prices. OK last question. In what country are Jewish people not allowed to live, or even visit? If you answered Saudi Arabia you win the "pink Camaro." Yes our friends in the apartheid state of Saudi Arabia are just aching to create world peace.

Our friends the House of Saud are busily pushing on a UN Resolution directed at Israel, but the real target is the United States:


Saudis Pushing U.N. Démarche Against Israel May Force an American Veto That Could Alienate American Allies in Europe By BENNY AVNI, Staff Reporter of the Sun
June 13, 2008

UNITED NATIONS — Amid reports of a widening rift between Saudi Arabia and America, Riyadh's diplomats at the United Nations are pushing for passage of a U.N. Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements, a move that would likely force an American veto, which in turn could alienate American allies in Europe.

When the Saudis initiated a recent meeting with Arab ambassadors and proposed a resolution denouncing an Israeli decision to build hundreds of new housing units in two Jerusalem neighborhoods, some diplomats here raised eyebrows.

The timing, for one, was inconvenient for the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, who is conducting direct negotiations with the Israelis, a Western diplomat who spoke on the condition of anonymity said. America traditionally has vetoed similar resolutions, saying they do not help such negotiations, the diplomat noted. "Maybe the Saudis, who are not council members, want to embarrass the Americans."

The White House has not said whether President Bush will attend an oil summit, billed as a meeting of major oil producers and consumers to address rising petroleum costs, on June 22 in the Saudi capital, Riyadh. Prime Minister Brown of Britain has said he will attend, and the Saudis are hoping that other high-level Western officials, including Mr. Bush, will follow suit.

"This is an idea that has kind of sprung on the international scene, and of course the president's first question is, what are we going to try to accomplish?" National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley told reporters yesterday in Rome. "There are expectations that have been generated, and it is important that those expectations not be unrealized, because that in itself will have an effect on oil prices in the market."

Washington has urged oil-rich countries such as Saudi Arabia to pump more oil to increase supply. But Saudi officials say the weak dollar and Israeli hints of an impending military attack on Iran, not declining production, are to blame for high prices.

The dispute over oil appears to be part of a larger rift between the two countries, with a London-based Arabic-language newspaper, Al-Quds al-Arabi, reporting recently that relations have reached their lowest point in years.

Some Riyadh watchers trace the shift to a National Intelligence Estimate on Iranian nuclear progress, published in December. The report convinced the Saudis that America was not going stop Iran, a Saudi foe, from obtaining a nuclear weapon, the president of the Jerusalem Policy Center for Public Affairs, Dore Gold, said.

"The Saudis seek strong American backing against Iran," Mr. Gold, a former Israeli U.N. ambassador who has written extensively on the kingdom, said. "They don't want to hear from Condi Rice about diplomatic progress between Abbas and Israel. They want to know what America is doing about Iran."

The Saudis, he said, base their policies on their strong alliance with America — or on Arab consensus.

When the Israeli government earlier this month announced that it was planning to build nearly 900 new housing units in two neighborhoods of Jerusalem, Givat Zeev and Har Homa, Secretary-General Ban issued a strong statement: Israel's "continued construction in settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory" violates international law and Israel's obligations under the road map and the Annapolis process. European countries and the U.S. State Department issued similar criticisms.

The Saudis, who consider themselves custodians of holy Muslim sites, including Jerusalem, have since initiated a drive to turn Mr. Ban's statement into a binding Security Council resolution. They want to keep the resolution "simple — just about settlements," an Arab diplomat close to the negotiations said.

They also want to be flexible, to allow for broad support, including from Western European countries. "We'll see what they come up with," one European diplomat said. "Our position on the settlements is very clear: We oppose them."

If France, Britain, and other European council members voice their support, the resolution could drive a wedge between those countries and America, which has denounced the Israeli decision but is unlikely to allow the council to interfere with direct talks between the Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs.

America will evaluate any council proposal "on several criteria," an American U.N. ambassador, Alejandro Wolff, said. "Will it contribute to resolving the underlying problem or, conversely, is this designed simply to embarrass, to isolate, to impede, and to obstruct progress?"

How Obama Will Change America

For some reason, today was the day every pro-Obama nut came out of the closet and sent me an angry email. I even had one guy send me an email bashing me for what I said about the Illinois Senator on a post about the UN where no mention of the Senator was made. So in the interests of fair play I decided that I have to give Senator Obama SOME credit. After all if he does get elected I do think he make big changes in America. Changes including ending free trade, raising taxes, and putting America at risk:

Six Ways Obama Will Transform America

By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown

FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, June 13, 2008

What word does Barack Obama and his supporters keep chanting? “Change!” Like a drumbeat, Obama’s chant for change runs nonstop in an endless loop. But how does Obama want to change America if he becomes president? Here are six different areas he would like changed.

For starters, Obama received a 100 percent rating from NARAL (a pro-abortion group) in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Why do they hold him in such high esteem? Because he supports every pro-abortion bill that comes along. He wants tax dollars for abortions, he voted against notifying parents of minors about abortions, he supports partial-birth abortion, and he would withhold life-saving measures from babies born after botched abortions.

Obama wants no limits on abortion, ever, but he is completely out of step with the majority of Americans. For example, seven out of 10 are against partial-birth abortion -- which is a brutal procedure in the second or third trimester of pregnancy in which babies are pulled feet-first from the womb, stabbed through the skull with a scissor-like instrument and their brains are sucked out via a strong suction tube. Afterwards the dead baby’s collapsed head is removed from the mother. As ugly as it is, and as it sounds, in Obama’s America it would be routinely done all the way up to the time of birth.

Secondly, Obama is glaringly weak on national security. He advocates negotiating with terrorists. One week after he told AIPAC, a pro-Israel group, that Jerusalem “must remain undivided,” he backpedaled, did a shameless about-face, and now declares that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future talks. Obama naively wants to pull our troops out of Iraq without first ensuring stability in the area, which will put all of America at risk.

It has been less than four years since he became the junior senator from Illinois. Guess which foreign leaders have expressed their desire for him to win? Communist Fidel Castro recently called Obama, “the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency,” while an advisor from the terrorist group Hamas told WorldNetDaily, “We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the election.”

Third, Obama will dramatically raise taxes. In response to Bush’s 2008 State of the Union address, Obama said he is against tax cuts for Americans. “We heard the president say he wants to make tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans permanent, when we know that at a time of war and economic hardship, the last thing we need is a permanent tax cut for Americans who don't need them and weren't even asking for them."

Prior to clinching the nomination he proposed what he would do with your money: “And the Bush tax cuts -- people didn’t need them, and they weren’t even asking for them, and that is why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives.”

This leads to change number four, socialized medicine. "Well, look, I believe in universal health care,” Obama said at a presidential debate last February. “Every expert has said that anybody who wants health care under my plan will be able to obtain it.” Obama likes to call it “universal health care” because it sounds more palatable than what it is: socialized medicine.

Change number five is education. His far-left voting record voices his beliefs about education. In 2003, he cast his vote in Illinois to allow “age appropriate” sex education to be taught in elementary school. Planned Parenthood and the ACLU also supported this legislation.

In Illinois, Obama also supported “free” taxpayer funded college tuition for students as long as they maintained a “B” average. This sounds nice, but where does the money come from? You, of course, with higher taxes.

Finally, change number six is an end to free trade. USA Today wrote about Obama’s plans: "Modifying or scrapping NAFTA wouldn't create jobs or more skilled workers. The idea raises false hope and seeks to scapegoat Mexico and Canada." The possibility of a President Obama is making Wall Street nervous and the stock market reflects it.

Remember, a favorite word liberals use to describe themselves is “progressive,” and this means change. Every time you hear the roar “change,” remember that this chant translates into elitist, left-wing, socialized change -- change for which you will dearly pay

Democrats Distancing From Obama- The Start of Something BIG?

Little by little you can see it happening, one donor here, one congressman there, some of the more "moderate" democrats are starting to distance themselves from Barack Obama. There is an "uncomfortable" feeling about the The Senator's Liberalism:

David Boren, the only Democratic congressman from Oklahoma, told reporters yesterday he's not ready to endorse Mr. Obama. "Unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion," he told reporters. Mr. Obama's designation by the nonpartisan National Journal magazine as the Senate's most liberal member may be catching up with him.

Then there is Rep. Tim Mahoney of Florida, who says he will remain an uncommitted superdelegate and may not even attend the party's convention. Asked how he felt about running with Mr. Obama as his party's nominee, he told the Palm Beach Post: "I'm a Democrat, but am I going to have a pep rally or something like that? No I'm not going to do that."

Another potential dissident is Rep. Jim Marshall of Georgia. He has refused to tell reporters if he thinks Barack Obama would make a better president than John McCain. Finally, Rep. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee has been outed by his state's governor, Phil Bredesen, who told the Philadelphia Inquirer that a Democratic congressman from this state, who could only be Rep. Davis, had told him both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were "poison" politically to him. Source WSJ

But my favorite of all, is the letter I found at Truth Caucus. The letter was written by the Chair of Iowa Students for Hillary Bashing the hell out of Obama and urging Hillary supporters to vote for McCain:

Fellow Hillary supporters,

First, we all owe Dylan Lampe a great deal of thanks for his hardwork on this endeavor.

Hillary Clinton, the woman we admire so much, suspended her historic presidential campaign this past weekend to endorse Senator Barack Obama. She did this to obviously keep her promise to the voters to unite behind the nominee.

Hillary Clinton has received the worst treatment of any candidate in recent history in a primary from a largely pro-Obama media and from supposed liberals supporting Senator Obama. There has been rampant sexism and race baiting going on throughout this campaign. Whether it be the call by Keith Olbermann to have a superdelegate take her in to a room and “only he come out”, or when Chris Matthews insisted Hillary Clinton was not elected to her senate seat on merit, but because her husband cheated on her.

Barack Obama’s campaign and some of his supporters have been very dirty in the way they attacked Hillary Clinton this season. She has been labeled a “monster”, “D-Punjab” (for her strong support from the Indian American community), and has several times been compared to Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction, all of this from Obama surrogates and advisors. We her supporters have witnessed nasty things on the streets here in Iowa City too; We have been labeled racist, we have heard the word “cunt” used to describe our candidate from supposed liberals, and I was actually called a “fag” by a worker on the Obama campaign, in fact a precinct captain.

Senator Obama is unqualified for the job of Commander in Chief. He has said this himself at a press conference after the 2004 election after winning his Illinois seat. He has said he would invade Pakistan if necessary to attack al-Qaeda elements, which is a bad idea seeing how Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is unstable right now. His remarks on Pakistan sparked rioting there last year.

Finally, Senator Obama was not nominated as we see it, but appointed by the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC. He took his name off of the ballot in Michigan in order to pander to voters here in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, and Dennis Kucinich did not. She received over 50% of the vote there and he received zero votes. However, an unprecedented thing happened, the RBC of the DNC took the uncommitted votes of those that did not vote for Hillary and gave them to Senator Obama, votes he DID NOT WIN. And to deepen the wound, they stripped 4 delegates from her and gave them to him. Had this been done right, with her getting her share and him getting his zero, she would have led in pledged delegates and the popular vote (and she still does), and would be the nominee.

Someone who lost all 4 of the big battle ground states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan) and won his delegate lead in caucuses, in red states we will never win in november anyways, will be the nominee. We will put up someone who has been to Iraq once for a photo-op against someone who has a son serving in Iraq and has been there countless times, with Senator Clinton in some instances.

John McCain is an honorable man. He is good personal friends with Hillary Clinton. He is qualified to be president. We do not agree with him on everything, and this is why we urge you to strongly support Democrats up for re-election to congress. He served our country, he is right on immigration, right on global warming, and he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have banned Marriage Equality.

Nikki and I have decided that now is a good time to get this overwith. Barring a DREAM TICKET scenario or a scenario in which HILLARY WINS THE NOMINATION, which we see as unlikely at this time, we endorse John McCain for President.

This was a VERY tough decision, those of you that know me know I am extremely passionate about our party. I feel that it has moved away from me. We will not campaign for John McCain, but we will vote for him, and urge others to do the same.

For those of you who just can’t stomach McCain, we suggest you look into Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party candidate. She is an African American woman from Georgia and is a former member of the House.

We think the endorsement will make more impact if it goes to John McCain, but we see Cynthia McKinney as a viable alternative and someone more qualified than Senator Obama to be President having served for longer in Congress.

We know not all will agree with this, and we respect your decisions.

Thanks for your considerations and support for Hillary Clinton.

-Cody and Nikki

Hopefully this trickle will continue an grow.

Send Jack Cafferty Back to Local TV


I hate to admit it, but I grew up watching Jack Cafferty on local TV news. Even then Jack had this pretentious air about him. His attitude was always "the viewer is an idiot." I don't watch him on CNN, I guess I smartened up.

Jack always tries to act the "hard nosed reporter." I always thought that a true reporter was supposed to be impartial but that was the case, Cafferty wouldn't be calling for Congress to Impeach President Bush. Which Begs the question, why is this pretentious Clown on National TV? More Below:
Jack Cafferty Ponders 'Why Won’t Congress Consider Impeaching Pres. Bush?' By Terry Ann Rendon
Created 2008-06-12 19:15

Sounding like an impeachment obsessed left-wing blogger Jack Cafferty asked
on CNN.com "Why won’t Congress consider impeaching Pres. Bush?" [1] In his June 12th blog posting he writes, "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi long ago made it known that impeachment is “off the table.” This is a joke. We have a president who has abused the power of his office over and over again. It’s what got the Democrats elected to the majority in Congress in 2006." It's funny how he never mentions exactly how George W. Bush has abused his power. It should somehow be evident to all of us. If a contributor to a news organization and their professional Web site is going to claim the president of the United States has abused his power and therefore should be impeached then shouldn't Cafferty back it up with some tangible proof. That's what a person with journalistic integrity would do. Impeachment talk by liberals is designed to rile up anger in people and if the comments attached his post are any indication that is exactly what Cafferty did.

Cafferty is not the only cable news personality talking about impeachment. On
Tuesday's episode of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann, " the host theorized that perhaps the impeachment trials of Bill Clinton were in some way done to immunize George W. Bush. Here's [2] a partial transcript:

OLBERMANN: But one political history, recent history, when President Clinton was impeached, the Republicans not only hobbled the sitting president, but they seemed to have succeeded in putting the Democrats on the defensive to the point that they would not even consider hearings on such a thing now, in the face of, at least, large volumes of evidence if not overwhelming evidence.

It‘s almost as if the impeachment of Clinton, if you want to be
utterly conspiratory (ph) on - I‘m not saying I‘m doing it this
way - but see, it reads as history, reading backwards, as if the
Clinton impeachment was arranged to preclude the impeachment of the, you know, completely malevolent Republican president who followed him.

Did the Republicans achieve pretty much everything they‘ve wanted, they could have dreamt of or maybe something couldn‘t have dreamt of by impeaching Bill Clinton?

FINEMAN: Yes. Well, I don‘t even think the most conspiratorial of them could have thought this scenario up. But it is true that we have about one impeachment in this (ph) generation, it seems.

Wow, Keith. So the evil Republicans knew George W. Bush was going to come in and commit "high crimes and misdemeanors," therefore, they decided to put Bill Clinton trial. Did these clairvoyant Republicans also know about the 9/11 terrorist attacks before they happened?


Links: [1] http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/12/why-won%e2%80%99t-congress-consider-effort-to-impeach-bush/ [2] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25098178/