After watching part of the second Republican debate last night, things started to become very clear for me on at least one point: the Democrats shouldn’t win the White House.
Why?
The root answer is very simple, but still deserves explanation, so I won’t drag this out longer than necessary, but I will get into some detail: The only candidates that are talking about “Global Jihad” and “Radical Islam” and “Immigration” as being the most important issues reside on the Right, not the Left.
In addition to that, even Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who made his points last night on Iraq being a quagmire, wasn’t completely wrong. He’s wrong in reasoning that the “enemy” would have left us alone years ago, or would leave us in peace today if we suddenly became more empathetic to them and hadn’t ever dropped a bomb in Iraq prior to 9-11 or afterwards, but he’s not wrong in understanding that moving out of Iraq may very well be in our best interest. Colorado Congressman Tancredo, on the other hand, said basically the same thing as Ron Paul when it comes to leaving Iraq, but in less controversial language because Tancredo doesn’t perceive the United States as “starting” this war between the forces of Islam in the Middle East and the West. He simply sees what I and others (like Hugh Fitzgerald over at Jihad Watch) see — that trying to force a victory in Iraq by old rules isn’t going to work, and it if does, the cost will be too great in American, British and other Allied lives. And anyway, the Islamists aren’t ever going to leave us alone. They want the United States. They want Europe. The evidence of this pervades the news every single day.
The Republican candidates to watch right now are Romney and Giulliani. McCain won’t win.
John McCain means well, and I supported him strongly back in 2000, but I’ve since come to believe several things about John today. One thing I see is that he’s too old for the job ahead. He’s lost steam in his current campaign and it’s only going to get harder for him as the other candidates get stronger and more face time and as the really big dogs eventually enter the race (i.e. Fred Thompson, Newt). The biggest factor against McCain now though is that he’s simply not talking the strongest language on the War on Terror. He’s not willing to confront Islam like I feel Romney and Giuliani would. McCain uses terms like “radical Islamic extremists” and for anyone that’s been here long enough should know, I steer clear of such apologetic slogans when I talk about the Islamic enemy. There’s nothing “radical” about “good Muslims”, there’s simply something “lazy” and “disingenuous” about “moderate” ones.
McCain is also lackluster when it comes to Illegal Immigration and I can’t let that slide. I have a long memory.
And there’s something bigger about McCain that bothers me, something I can’t quite put my finger on but that I perceive none-the-less: I think that the former backers of Bush are now behind McCain. I know that this might seem crazy, but he’s the most likely dog for their “status quo” mentality. Yes, the very same “rich guys” that put out virulent campaign ads that smeared McCain back when he first attempted to get the Republican nomination back in 2000 are now most likely to be behind him for President before they’d support any of the other current contenders. I don’t want any strong Bush backers back in power in Washington with their fingers in the pie and their lobbyists at work. Sorry. It’s time to move on and it’s certainly time to cut ties with Saudi Arabian oil.
As for who looks the best right now? Once again, the surprise is Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney is like the “ice-man” of the current campaign. He’s never ruffled, never flustered, never off-message and never breaks a sweat. He looks like an American President. The man is simply a professional campaigner, no bones about it. He’s come from relative obscurity to the front of the polls in a very short time and I’ve been admiring his language. He is the only person in the campaign other than Tom Tancredo that is currently addressing “Global Jihad” and “Illegal Immigration” as being his primary concerns. And he’s extremely consistent on these topics. Now, this is a fairly big deal coming from me, because I’m a big fan of Rudy Giuliani from back when I was going through the 9-11 experience with rest of the country. And honestly, I’m starting to think that the idea of a “Rudy McRomney” ticket really isn’t just a funny slogan, though I’m thinking that leaving out the “Mac” might make a better burger. But Romney has gotten my full attention thus far.
Now the truly ironic part here is that Romney is a Mormon — a branch of Christianity that by all rights is no-less cultist in its origins than Islam is. However, the big difference is, as I’ve pointed out in other discussions about attempts at equivalence between Islam and Christianity, is that whether or not some of us might have misgivings about the realities behind Mormonism, the fact remains that Jesus Christ and his teachings are the foundation of the Mormon Church, and Muhammad is the center of Islam. Perhaps it’s Fate at work that two heretical off-shoots from Judeo-Christian belief systems would now be possibly running straight at each other like steaming trains. Because, as you must see, it’s far better to have someone in Washington who believes in the peaceful and gentle “spirit” of Jesus than it ever would be to have a Muslim in charge. I think Romney gets that message loud and clear. He might not ever be able to wipe away the stigma of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young from Mormon history, but he certainly can prove that he’s a follower of the ideals of Jesus Christ, and that my friends, is never a bad thing.
No person needs to believe or disbelieve in a religion, God, Heaven or Hell to come to understand that the philosophies of Jesus Christ are worth emulating and that those of Muhammad are worth defeating.
The Democrats don’t have anything like we see on the Republican ticket. They don’t have any bulls in the ring or persons of solid values. They don’t have the fight, or the real conviction to fight against the Islamic threat. And this, gentle readers, is why the Democrats shouldn’t win in 2008.
Now, it’s up to us to make sure that the right people get into the White House. At this point it’s far too early to declare who I’m fully backing and hopefully most of you are still on the fence watching, too. But I hope that what I’ve written today helps you decide what you should be looking for. We have got to stop Islam from strangling the United States with its hidden agendas and openly hostile terrorist acts, and we also must seal the borders tightly against further incursions of illegals. These are the two greatest issues on the table, and anyone that says otherwise is a fool.
So, please, put aside some of your preconceived notions about these candidates and some of your own bias and listen to what they are saying. Listen to the issues and find those voices that ring truthful. And in the next few months, when you hear more of what I’m talking about today coming through those voices, you’ll know who to pull that lever for when the time comes. The very future of the country depends on our wise choice. You know it as well as I do.
Podcasts Archive
@Gramfan: And you’ve helped prove my previous point when I touched on that conflict as just one sure example of the flare the Arab Muslims have for deceit and duplicity. When we all simply come to expect lies from the Islamic world, we will be better prepared to defeat them. In my opinion, there has never been a more innately treacherous culture on planet Earth.
Do not forget that the word ‘Assassin’ is Arabic in origin.
Somewhat OT.
I’m not sure where I got this from but it is an interesting thing re the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Not my words, I stress:
In March 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here�s what he said:
�The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct �Palestinian people� to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.�
Don’t fall into the trap set by Ron Paul. We are not to blame for the incursions of Islam. Islam has been invading the rest of the world without provocation of any kind at differing stages in its waxing and waning strength for as long as it has existed.
The Iranian Ayatollahs manufactured the Hostage Crisis back after the ousting of the Shah in order to grab complete power over a fundamentally non-Islamic nation. It was a ruse and it worked. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a ruse of a different kind, but once again, it’s a sham designed to weaken a perceived enemy of Islam. There never has been a nation called Palestine — the Palestinians are predominantly Jordanian by heritage, and yet they are rarely shown anything but the palm of hand when seeking aid from the Arab world. Anything to cultivate false sympathies.
Has it not been the lazy, illiterate and flamboyant Arabs, depending on their class station in life, that have persistently turned to Westerners to do their dirty work for them (i.e. dig up oil)? Where were the complaints about infidels when we were so busy making them all rich?
The person most responsible for the violence we are reaping today is long dead, but I curse Muhammad every day.
The only thing that the Islamic world will truly understand is an iron fist. Allah will not save them.
Case in point: “Whether…Israel existed or didn’t, whether or not we were in Iraq or not, they would be trying to kill us, because it is a dictate of their religion…” -Tom Tancredo
Good points Sheila!
I think the CIA was formed due to the attack on Pearl Harbour and the US saying something like “never again are we going to be caught out like this”, hence global “interference” for want of a better expression.
Ok,, a lot of the muslim world has not doubt experienced pain due to colonialism, especially from the British, but it must also be noted there would be no oil industry there if the west hadn’t developed it. Oh well,,,,maybe that is a shame, in hindsight.
From what I have seen of Gingrich I am impressed by him also. (And that is the odd occasion on FoxNews).
We have compulsory voting here: at least you don’t have to vote if no one appeals to you. I am still not sure which system is better.
The Accuracy in Media article by Clifford Kincaid may be read at http://www.aim.org/aim_column/5461_0_3_0_C/
I hope all will read this very accurate account of last night’s Republican Debate broadcast by FoxNews.
Sheila
I attempted to post today’s Accuracy in Media article by Cliff Kincaid regarding the accuracy of Ron Paul’s comments and Ciulliani’s supposed “surprise” - Granfan, thank you for your comments re’ the US keeping the Japanese from the Pacific area, and my husband was among those who spent 3.5 years of his young life fighting in that theatre.
However, last night’s debate, to attempt some degree of enlightenment to Rich’s puzzlement, clearly showed me Ron Paul hit the nail on the head by his mentioning Western bombings of Iraq. Not to be forgotten any longer should be Carter’s elevation of the Shah of Iran against the wishes of Iran itself, plus our US Marines, all 240 of them, who were bombed by Islamics in Lebanon - not to mention Clinton’s bombing of Kosovo/Servia/Bosnia, killing Muslims, while next we see Bush, Sr. invading Kuwait and Iraq to liberate Kuwait, but not to end on this point, we next see Clinton’s frequent bombing of iraq, or was that “Wagging the Dog”? followed by GW Bush’s invasion of Iraq. I do not say there was no justification for any of these actions, but it would seem an apt reason for Ben Laden’s remark to the effect that the West had caused 9/11; meaning the West did NOT implement that attack, but was responsible for it due to the retaliation radical Islamics brought to bear upon our soil as a response to US bombings of Islamic countries. A further mention might be to bring to light Giulliani’s entanglement with Arab interests in Saudi. Regardless, I shall vote Republican no matter who runs on that ticket, but I am praying for Newt Gingrich, who alone has the wisdom, foresight and courage to make a great president.
I’ll keep this short. I wish people would listen to Duncan Hunter and that the MSM didn’t choose our top candidates for us. Hunter is really the most well rounded candidate. He is perfect. He is a patriot American who served in Vietnam - though he says he did nothing heroic (like Kerry;). He is smart, humble, experienced, pro-life, anti-jihad, and his son is serving his second tour of duty in Iraq. I think this speaks volumes.
I hope I’m not bursting any bubbles with this, but while watching Ron Paul and the other 9, including Giulliani, “debate” their stands, I was shocked by Giulliani’s response to RonPaul. I even remember when Carter et al backed the Shah of Iran, infuriating that country, then Carter’s fiasco involving American’s being killed trying to rescue some US citizens taken hostage by Iran, then Bush,Sr.’s Kuwait offensive against Iraq, followeed by Clinton’s bombing of Kosovo/Bosnia/Iraq, all of which were in turn followed by GW Bush invading Iraq. At the time of all these happenings, I saw logic and sound reasoning in both Bushs’ actions, but Carter and Clinton’s were diversions forcing Christians in Kosovo/Serbia, etc. to surrender their homes to Muslims. On top of all this is the “baggage” so many politicians on both sides carry for their own benefit, and while I shall most definitely vote for a Republican to be our next President, I will not remain blind to reality. Giulliani’s “shock” was a sham as was FoxNews’ loud hints of banning Ron Paul, whom I had never heard of until the MSNBC debate, so I am not a Ron Paul fan since I know nothing of him except he has keen insight and tells the truth.
====================================================================
Accuracy in Media
Fox News’ Pro-Giuliani Conflict of Interest
By Cliff Kincaid | May 16, 2007
The exchange with Paul over 9/11 might have been seen in a different light if Hannity had asked Giuliani about why, according to the AP report, his firm represented Saudi Arabia.
Rudy Giuliani’s much-publicized but misleading put-down of Ron Paul during Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate should have been tempered by a report that Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned most of the 9/11 hijackers, has been one of Giuliani’s lucrative foreign clients. However, Fox News questioners Chris Wallace and Wendell Goler did not bring it up.
Perhaps this can be explained by the fact that the same Associated Press story that named Saudi Arabia as a Giuliani client listed News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News, as another Giuliani client. This AP story, which was not disputed by Giuliani or News Corporation, was carried on the Fox News website.
This writer had raised questions about Fox News’ co-sponsorship of the debate, based on the fact that the company had a relationship with Giuliani when he was mayor of New York City. But now we know that the relationship has continued into the period of time that Giuliani has been planning a presidential run. It is an obvious conflict of interest.
It was during a discussion of foreign policy that Paul, a Texas congressman, identified U.S. involvement in the Middle East, especially in Iraq, as a factor in the 9/11 attacks. Giuliani pounced on that, saying the claim was worse than absurd. “Rudy’s Wrath” was the headline as Fox News proclaimed Giuliani the winner of the exchange. However, the Fox News text-message poll, with 40,000 votes, gave Paul 25 percent over Giuliani’s 19 percent. Mitt Romney came in first with 29 percent.
Giuliani was the first Republican candidate to come on Fox News after the debate and talk about his performance. Co-host Sean Hannity wanted to focus on Giuliani’s comments on 9/11 and his attack on Paul. Later, Michael Steele, Maryland’s former Lieutenant Governor, was on Fox News, declaring that Giuliani had destroyed Ron Paul. “It’s done,” Steele said of Paul’s campaign. It wasn’t mentioned that Giuliani had campaigned for Steele when he ran for a Maryland Senate seat.
The exchange with Paul over 9/11 might have been seen in a different light if Hannity had asked Giuliani about why, according to the AP report, his firm represented Saudi Arabia. But that was a taboo topic.
Equally important, it turns out that Paul’s point-that the 9/11 attacks were linked to U.S. involvement in Iraq and the Middle East-was factually correct. Osama bin Laden’s 1996 “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places” specifically mentioned the situation in Iraq, blaming the U.S. for the impact of economic sanctions on the Saddam Hussein regime. Bin Laden accused the U.S. of “aggression” against Iraq and the record shows that his anti-Americanism was motivated, at least in part, by the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia.
Yet, Giuliani claimed “I don’t think I’ve heard that before,” in reference to Paul’s citation of some of these facts. One would think that “America’s Mayor” and “Mr. 9/11″ would understand the genesis of the attacks that took almost 3,000 American lives.
Despite the facts of the case, Fox News correspondent Steve Brown said it was a matter of “Mission Accomplished” for Giuliani because of his exchange with Paul. Of course, “Mission Accomplished” has become associated with a war in Iraq that has no end in sight. Paul has been against the Iraq War from the beginning. He made the point, as he had during the first debate on MSNBC, that the war had cost the GOP control of Congress. Senator John McCain tried to insist that Republicans had lost Congress because they had been spending too much federal money. He didn’t explain why the public had replaced the Republicans with bigger spenders from the Democratic Party.
Conceding Paul’s point about 9/11, however, doesn’t mean that the U.S. should withdraw from the Middle East, as bin Laden demanded, or as Paul advocates. But U.S. involvement in the Middle East should be debated and discussed. The Texas Congressman noted that President Reagan inserted U.S. troops into the civil war in Lebanon but that when 241 lost their lives in a suicide bombing he withdrew them, citing the irrationality of the region. The unanswered question of the debate was what President Reagan would do about Iraq. Only more debates, with war critic Ron Paul, will smoke the candidates out on this critical issue.
There is no issue more important than American involvement in the Middle East. At least in this regard, the Paul-Giuliani exchange was welcome and long-overdue. We need more of this, not less. But Fox News seems determined to run Paul and other candidates out of the race.
Steve Doocy of Fox News called Ron Paul the “Sanjaya” of the Republican presidential debate, a reference to the American Idol contestant many believe stayed in the national competition for too long. But this is reality turned upside down. Fox News didn’t want its audience to know the facts behind the exchange. Especially with his controversial Saudi and other foreign connections, Giuliani may end up looking like the real “Sanjaya” of the race.
The bottom line is that Giuliani’s applause-winning response to Ron Paul was beside the point. Giuliani should have been on the spot, but he wasn’t.
Indeed, Giuliani was completely spared any tough questions about his controversial dealings with foreign clients. Neither Wallace nor Goler brought up the growing controversy over the Giuliani law firm representing a Spanish company that is privatizing a Texas road in the proposed “NAFTA Superhighway.” The same firm, Bracewell & Giuliani, represents Citgo, the oil company owned by Venezuela’s anti-American ruler Hugo Chavez.
Fox News had attempted to limit participation in the debate to the so-called “serious” candidates before a public outcry forced all of them to be included. That ploy was seen as an effort to cement Giuliani as the frontrunner. After the debate, Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron was again trying to limit the field, declaring that the “second-tier candidates” had slowed down the exchanges. He implied that candidates like Paul, Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee should be left out of future debates.
Fox News has a reputation as a conservative news channel and many Republicans rely on it for news and information. But its handling of this debate raises serious questions about the channel’s commitment to being “fair and balanced.” It seems to be emerging as an arm of the Giuliani-for-president campaign. Honest conservatives should demand better coverage.
Nice Post. I wanted to make a comment about McCain. Although I’d vote for him if he is the nominee, I don’t much like him and I think he did a lot to disrupt the Bush agenda on a lot of fronts. I didn’t like him in 2000 and don’t much now either. The thing that scares me about him is not his so called tough stance on the war on terrorism, but the fact that I don’t quite buy it. He wants to close down GITMO and pass laws limiting the interrogation of terrorists. I suppose he would only have two choices if he closed GITMO. First to release the terrorists
or bring them to the states for the typical kangaroo defense rope-a-dope we get with the liberal judges and stupid Jury Panels. He sure confused the issue of what was permissable and what was torture in the debate last night and if I were a military officer incharge of interrogation I would be scared to death of what is permisable and what is not.
Generally his perspective is when in doubt, it is not a permissible interrogation technique (including water boarding). His argument that the information gathered from such techniques are of little value anyway flys in the face of the direct report of the CIA on the matter that enhanced techniques have delivered more information and stopped more attacks than any other techniques combined. I think he is politicizing the issue for campaign reasons.
His defacto position that since he was a POW he somehow has more credibility on this matter is obsurd. McCain is a perfect example of why they don’t put family members of crime victims in the Jury Panel. …….They are too close to the issue to be objective and therefore effective.
He makes the inane but self-serving point that the people in favor of enhanced interrogation never served in the military and those opposed to it have and he cites the likes of the dovish Colin Powells. sheesh…….. So what….. if they haven’t served, if those that have served don’t get it that we are at war with terrorists that don’t subscribe to the Geneva convention, we are headed for defeat in the entire war on terrorism.
Another thing is the Geneva Accords. I’d announce to the WORLD that the USA will honor its committments under the accord to other signees of the document that are also honoring it and that we will not be bound to it if the enemy isn’t signed and honoring it. He was a fool to state that he is afraid that the enemy will mistreat our prisioners if we treat them rough. Where has he been……..? We shouldn’t let the left brow beat us into competing on a uneven playing field on this issue. This is also another prescription for defeat, but those that are hamstringing the USA in the war on terror are INVESTED in our defeat and will settle for nothing less. We’ll never appease them and trying to get along will just cost U.S. lives. . . . . . . stevereenie
I’d never vote for the Anarchist Party for the simple fact that they back all the wrong things. This party claims Thomas Jefferson as one of its own but something tells me he would not be pleased by the way this party has gone for the last several decades. I have no faith at all that this bunch will even remotely tackle Islamania but I do have faith that it will make it easier for Islamania to make even more inroads in the US.
@ A Plague on Both Houses
I am probably telling you something you already know but I sometimes copy and paste things I want to keep into a word document, re-format and then print. (Just trying to help:))
@ Rich
I don’t know the answers either. From my perspective I see that whenever something goes wrong in the world people expect the US to come and save them. If the US is going through an islolationist period as it has done in the past, and I think would be now had 9/11 not happened, people get mad also. Damned if you do - damned if you don’t.
E.G. the celebs now screaming for the US to help in Darfur.
I know for a fact I would either not be alive right now or else I would be speaking Japanese had the US not become involved in WW2. The British did NOT help Australia in WW2 although we are still part of the British Commonwealth, and the Queen is still our constitutional head of state.
Having said that I also think the muslim world would be very active no matter what now. I can’t help but feel there has been a ramping up of muslim activity since the 1970’s when all the immigration started to non-muslim countries.
I see it here, Europe and in the USA. They say they want their laws and concessions, yet why immigrate to an alien place if that is the case? I think there is an agenda going on.
Of course the muslim “excuse” is the US support of Israel.
I don’t buy this. It is something they like to say to justify what they do.
I believe Foehammer knows a lot more about this than I do so I hope he will add something to this.
(Never used your writings for toilet paper,lol!)
Hi Foehammer,
During the 2nd GOP debate, Rep. Paul gave a few examples of how US foreign policy may have caused “blowback” (e.g. Iran hostage crisis). Regarding 9/11, the FBI stated “One of the primary goals of Sunni extremists is the removal of U.S. military forces from the Persian gulf area, most notably Saudi Arabia.” It seems that US entanglements in foreign affairs may be at least partially responsible for terrorist attacks.
Do you have any data that disproves the cause-effect relationship between US entanglements in middle east affairs and frequency of attacks against the US by terrorists? More specifically, I’d be interested to see how many terrorist attacks against the US since perhaps 1900 could be attributed (at least in part) to US foreign policy. Thanks in advance for any insights!
Rich
@A Plague on Both Houses: Unfortunately, I do not currently have a plugin installed that might make printing of one of my articles less of a chore. I’ll look into that and see if I can make it happen, even though I’m sure some people would print out what I have to say just to use it as toilet paper.
@Gramfan: Well, if you agree with me on all that, then hopefully I was making good sense in my writing this morning.
Foehammer - I’d like to be able to print some of your articles, but can’t seem to find the link to do this? Am I missing something?
“No person needs to believe or disbelieve in a religion, God, Heaven or Hell to come to understand that the philosophies of Jesus Christ are worth emulating and that those of Muhammad are worth defeating.”
Foe:
couldn’t agree with you more.
I, of course, don’t vote in the USA, but was wondering how you felt about this issue.
My mind was on Guiliani. I don’t really know a lot of Mitt Romney other than the occasional glimpses on FoxNews.
I’ll take your word on it as the issues of radical islam and (legal or illegal) immigration apply in Australia just the same. Well,,we don’t have Mexicans: just the odd “boat people” coming via Indonesia which, by and large, have been discouraged.
My feeling when I look at John McCain is that he appears a little “tired” for want of a better word. No high energy there, or so it seems to me.
I wouldn’t want you to get a democrat leader, the same as I hope our “democrat-equivalent” , the Labor party don’t get in here either. So far they are leading in the polls and our election will be this year:(
Whoever leads the US has huge impact on Australian foreign policy and that is why I comment.
We don’t need any cringe-worthy people as evidenced by Pelosi. I know she isn’t running, and thank heavens for that!