by
Mary Chastain
30 Aug 2012
Monday, September 3, 2012
Romney Ad Shows Obama Recycling Speeches From 2008
The RNC has released an ad featuring President Obama using the exact same language and talking points from the 2008 campaign in his speeches in 2012. The ad highlights one of the Romney camp's strategies during the DNC Convention this week as they attempt to make the case that President Obama has been ineffective as a leader and is nothing more than an eloquent rhetorician with no actual accomplishments or plans.
Breitbart TV
The Rich versus Everybody Else in Obama's America
September 3, 2012
By Karin McQuillan
At last week's Republican Convention, Chris Christie, as keynote speaker at the Republican convention, proclaimed that voters are ready to hear the truth about needing to shrink government and stop politicians spending money we don't have. One admirable Republican governor after another stood up and told how in only a few years they were able to transform their bankrupt states. By taking on the Democrat special interests and cutting government spending, they balanced the budget, reduced taxes, and grew jobs.
Mitt Romney's policy will do the same for America, they proclaimed. Free Americans from the suffocating hand of government, so they can realize their dreams and make America prosper again.
Democrats are not listening. And why should they? The core Democrat constituencies are either so rich it doesn't matter to them, or else they don't pay taxes, they don't work, or they work for the government. The rest are there because they get their news from late-night TV comics and the New York Times, and they think Republicans are evil morons after their birth control. You couldn't make it up.
Christie says voters will respect the truth, and that respect will lead to love. Obama has a different approach. He tells Democrat voters that only rich people's greed and tax avoidance stands in the way of solvent government programs, including an unchanged Social Security and Medicaid. He invites them to resent Romney as a rich guy, instead of facing up to unsettling reform and small cut-backs in the handouts.
Who will be right on Election Day, Christie or Obama? The experts are telling us that it is neck-to-neck.
The sad truth is that Obama's false and mean-spirited attacks work well among all segments of Democrat voters. The thirty-five percent of our population who receive cash, food stamps, medical care, and housing from the government like to hear that the rich are selfish and owe them more support. They want the government largess to grow, no matter how our economy falters under the burden.
Our minorities who receive preferential treatment in jobs and education are happy to think the system is still unfair fifty years after the Civil Rights movement, and that they deserve more privileges and more money.
Single women, a major Democrat voting bloc, like the anti-rich message for several reasons. They are more likely to be poor and use government aid. Idealistic young women enjoy feeling kind -- how enjoyable it is to feel virtuous by being generous with other people's money.
Our government used to take tax money from all citizens but the destitute and spend it on national necessities, such as defense, basic research, education, and those roads and bridges we all need for a functioning economy. Taxes were seen as justified and fair because they went to common goods.
No more. Now, according to the New York Times, in 2010, the government spent 66 cents out of every dollar on direct benefits to individuals and families. This is what redistribution means. According to the CBO, in 2009, the top 10% of wage-earners (families with income above $112K) paid 70% of the taxes, most of which the government gives to other people's families. Obama calls America's top earners unfair and greedy -- he thinks they should pay more.
The weight of "takers" over "makers" has degraded our economic functioning. The money isn't there in the entire economy to give huge segments of the population free cash, food, housing, and medical care. The Democrat Congress has already cut defense and national security spending to dangerously low levels, and there is still not enough to float the growing entitlements, the Democrat nice-to-haves like NPR, and free contraception, not to mention the expensive payoffs to Democrat cronies.
What's killing the country is that even with deficit spending at record levels, the Democrats are not prioritizing tax money to pay for national defense, research, or even decent bridges, all crucial necessities for our national prosperity and safety. We are eating our seed corn.
The Democrat spending spree has created a tax burden that is impossible to pay. There aren't enough taxpayers left in the whole country to pay for all the things we need as a nation plus support half the nation's families. Obama would have to take 100% taxes from everyone earning more than $60,000 to maintain his spending levels.
All the taxpayers in America earn only $5.6 trillion of taxable income in total. Obama has been spending $4 trillion a year and wants spending to grow. We have a $14.6-trillion debt. We have a lowball estimate of $25 trillion in unfunded Social Security obligations for those now in the system. In addition to printing money and borrowing from China, we've "borrowed" $8 trillion of Social Security money we don't have. Under Obama's new norm, the government is spending more than 100% of everybody's income in the country.
"The Rich" are not Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. The money is not there. People really do have to support themselves. It's reality.
But this is an inconvenient and unwelcome reality to the Democrats, whose entire political raison d'être has become handing out the goodies.
Romney is someone who creates prosperity. He will shrink the government and grow our economy, and we will be able to afford a realistic social safety net. Obama is someone who destroys prosperity in the name of fairness and imagines that there will still be trillions to spend.
The members of every one of the Democrat constituencies feel comfortable -- even more, entitled -- to have the government take the income that other people earned for their own families and use it themselves.
Democrats reverse the moral equation. It is taking with moral righteousness. In a more perfect universe, people receiving government help might respect and try to learn from the hardworking, successful men and women whose tax dollars put food on their tables, set up a roof over their heads, and provide free doctors for their health needs. That's not how Democrats think.
In Obama's new America, it is the successful people who are the selfish, greedy ones. It is those who worked extra-hard, made sacrifices, took risks, and raised their families' standard of living to high levels -- creating jobs and prosperity for others along the way -- who owe other people something. Families who earn more than $112,000 pay 70% of federal taxes, but they're condemned as greedy and unfair by people who can't be bothered with numbers.
Obama wants to make Mitt Romney the poster boy of the selfish rich. Mitt Romney's successes are not well-known. His campaign should make sure voters know whom to thank for Staples, Sports Authority, Domino's Pizza, Pizza Hut, Steel Dynamics, Brookstone, AMC Entertainment, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Dunkin' Donuts, Sealy, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group, Totes, and The Weather Channel. One of Romney's first investments was in a single store called Staples. He helped them expand from one to over 2,000 stores and 89,000 employees in 2011. There should be no argument that Romney's personal ambition and success were good things for tens of thousands of working, and tax-paying, families.
No matter. According to Gallup, only half of Democrats think that people like Romney benefit the economy. Look at Romney. He looks rich. He's not one of us. He's no different from a felon! He doesn't talk like us, he's too polite, don't trust him.
America has come to a historic moment in which we will proclaim our identity. At the Republican Convention, speaker after speaker witnessed the American Dream realized in his or her own family -- by immigrant grandfathers or parents, or by personal sacrifice and hard work. Mitt and Ann Romney embody that American success story. So do Susana Martinez, Mia Love, Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley, John Kasich, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Bob McDonnell, and Artur Davis.
The American Dream is how poor people raise up their families and become middle-class -- and, yes, stinking rich. In our country, following your own ambition and gifts and hard work leads to levels of wealth for ordinary people unknown in world history. Each person's success enables the success of others, and so we prosper as a nation. It's a beautiful thing.
We have traditionally applauded the success of others and emulated it, rather than envied it. That is not President Obama's way. It is not his family story. His leftist mother created a dream out his absent Kenyan father's Marxism and anti-colonial rage, a destructive dream that Obama embraced as his life cause. The American Dream is not his personal career path or his dream for our country. Obama was taught to blame, envy, resent, and punish success, and he is trying to pass those lessons on to his constituents. He does not see that, rich, poor, and middle-class, we all share the same dream, the same values, and we all benefit from America's formula for success.
Is Obama's class warfare indeed what Democrats want? Are they really willing to be conned that the party can go on indefinitely, and someone else will pay? Will today's progressive Democratic Party reject our unique and uniquely wonderful American path? Which vision of America will America choose?
Has the American Dream changed that much? We will decide in November.
By Karin McQuillan
At last week's Republican Convention, Chris Christie, as keynote speaker at the Republican convention, proclaimed that voters are ready to hear the truth about needing to shrink government and stop politicians spending money we don't have. One admirable Republican governor after another stood up and told how in only a few years they were able to transform their bankrupt states. By taking on the Democrat special interests and cutting government spending, they balanced the budget, reduced taxes, and grew jobs.
Mitt Romney's policy will do the same for America, they proclaimed. Free Americans from the suffocating hand of government, so they can realize their dreams and make America prosper again.
Democrats are not listening. And why should they? The core Democrat constituencies are either so rich it doesn't matter to them, or else they don't pay taxes, they don't work, or they work for the government. The rest are there because they get their news from late-night TV comics and the New York Times, and they think Republicans are evil morons after their birth control. You couldn't make it up.
Christie says voters will respect the truth, and that respect will lead to love. Obama has a different approach. He tells Democrat voters that only rich people's greed and tax avoidance stands in the way of solvent government programs, including an unchanged Social Security and Medicaid. He invites them to resent Romney as a rich guy, instead of facing up to unsettling reform and small cut-backs in the handouts.
Who will be right on Election Day, Christie or Obama? The experts are telling us that it is neck-to-neck.
The sad truth is that Obama's false and mean-spirited attacks work well among all segments of Democrat voters. The thirty-five percent of our population who receive cash, food stamps, medical care, and housing from the government like to hear that the rich are selfish and owe them more support. They want the government largess to grow, no matter how our economy falters under the burden.
Our minorities who receive preferential treatment in jobs and education are happy to think the system is still unfair fifty years after the Civil Rights movement, and that they deserve more privileges and more money.
Single women, a major Democrat voting bloc, like the anti-rich message for several reasons. They are more likely to be poor and use government aid. Idealistic young women enjoy feeling kind -- how enjoyable it is to feel virtuous by being generous with other people's money.
Our government used to take tax money from all citizens but the destitute and spend it on national necessities, such as defense, basic research, education, and those roads and bridges we all need for a functioning economy. Taxes were seen as justified and fair because they went to common goods.
No more. Now, according to the New York Times, in 2010, the government spent 66 cents out of every dollar on direct benefits to individuals and families. This is what redistribution means. According to the CBO, in 2009, the top 10% of wage-earners (families with income above $112K) paid 70% of the taxes, most of which the government gives to other people's families. Obama calls America's top earners unfair and greedy -- he thinks they should pay more.
The weight of "takers" over "makers" has degraded our economic functioning. The money isn't there in the entire economy to give huge segments of the population free cash, food, housing, and medical care. The Democrat Congress has already cut defense and national security spending to dangerously low levels, and there is still not enough to float the growing entitlements, the Democrat nice-to-haves like NPR, and free contraception, not to mention the expensive payoffs to Democrat cronies.
What's killing the country is that even with deficit spending at record levels, the Democrats are not prioritizing tax money to pay for national defense, research, or even decent bridges, all crucial necessities for our national prosperity and safety. We are eating our seed corn.
The Democrat spending spree has created a tax burden that is impossible to pay. There aren't enough taxpayers left in the whole country to pay for all the things we need as a nation plus support half the nation's families. Obama would have to take 100% taxes from everyone earning more than $60,000 to maintain his spending levels.
All the taxpayers in America earn only $5.6 trillion of taxable income in total. Obama has been spending $4 trillion a year and wants spending to grow. We have a $14.6-trillion debt. We have a lowball estimate of $25 trillion in unfunded Social Security obligations for those now in the system. In addition to printing money and borrowing from China, we've "borrowed" $8 trillion of Social Security money we don't have. Under Obama's new norm, the government is spending more than 100% of everybody's income in the country.
"The Rich" are not Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. The money is not there. People really do have to support themselves. It's reality.
But this is an inconvenient and unwelcome reality to the Democrats, whose entire political raison d'être has become handing out the goodies.
Romney is someone who creates prosperity. He will shrink the government and grow our economy, and we will be able to afford a realistic social safety net. Obama is someone who destroys prosperity in the name of fairness and imagines that there will still be trillions to spend.
The members of every one of the Democrat constituencies feel comfortable -- even more, entitled -- to have the government take the income that other people earned for their own families and use it themselves.
Democrats reverse the moral equation. It is taking with moral righteousness. In a more perfect universe, people receiving government help might respect and try to learn from the hardworking, successful men and women whose tax dollars put food on their tables, set up a roof over their heads, and provide free doctors for their health needs. That's not how Democrats think.
In Obama's new America, it is the successful people who are the selfish, greedy ones. It is those who worked extra-hard, made sacrifices, took risks, and raised their families' standard of living to high levels -- creating jobs and prosperity for others along the way -- who owe other people something. Families who earn more than $112,000 pay 70% of federal taxes, but they're condemned as greedy and unfair by people who can't be bothered with numbers.
Obama wants to make Mitt Romney the poster boy of the selfish rich. Mitt Romney's successes are not well-known. His campaign should make sure voters know whom to thank for Staples, Sports Authority, Domino's Pizza, Pizza Hut, Steel Dynamics, Brookstone, AMC Entertainment, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Dunkin' Donuts, Sealy, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group, Totes, and The Weather Channel. One of Romney's first investments was in a single store called Staples. He helped them expand from one to over 2,000 stores and 89,000 employees in 2011. There should be no argument that Romney's personal ambition and success were good things for tens of thousands of working, and tax-paying, families.
No matter. According to Gallup, only half of Democrats think that people like Romney benefit the economy. Look at Romney. He looks rich. He's not one of us. He's no different from a felon! He doesn't talk like us, he's too polite, don't trust him.
America has come to a historic moment in which we will proclaim our identity. At the Republican Convention, speaker after speaker witnessed the American Dream realized in his or her own family -- by immigrant grandfathers or parents, or by personal sacrifice and hard work. Mitt and Ann Romney embody that American success story. So do Susana Martinez, Mia Love, Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley, John Kasich, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Bob McDonnell, and Artur Davis.
The American Dream is how poor people raise up their families and become middle-class -- and, yes, stinking rich. In our country, following your own ambition and gifts and hard work leads to levels of wealth for ordinary people unknown in world history. Each person's success enables the success of others, and so we prosper as a nation. It's a beautiful thing.
We have traditionally applauded the success of others and emulated it, rather than envied it. That is not President Obama's way. It is not his family story. His leftist mother created a dream out his absent Kenyan father's Marxism and anti-colonial rage, a destructive dream that Obama embraced as his life cause. The American Dream is not his personal career path or his dream for our country. Obama was taught to blame, envy, resent, and punish success, and he is trying to pass those lessons on to his constituents. He does not see that, rich, poor, and middle-class, we all share the same dream, the same values, and we all benefit from America's formula for success.
Is Obama's class warfare indeed what Democrats want? Are they really willing to be conned that the party can go on indefinitely, and someone else will pay? Will today's progressive Democratic Party reject our unique and uniquely wonderful American path? Which vision of America will America choose?
Has the American Dream changed that much? We will decide in November.
American Thinker
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Clint Eastwood and Disrespect
By Nelson Hultberg
The political left in America is outraged at Clint Eastwood’s recent presentation at the GOP convention. The shock and disbelief of Rachel Maddow at MSNBC and the Blitzer gang at CNN is heavy with condemnation of this inimitable American icon.
The establishment media response has basically come down as follows: “Weirdest thing I’ve ever seen.” “What was he thinking?” “Have the Republicans gone daft?” “The Democrats must have sent Clint to the GOP so as to sabotage their convention.” “This was inexcusably disrespectful.”
Yes, indeed, it was disrespectful. But what kind of humans allow themselves to be enslaved by a Marxist mandarin and his bureaucratic henchmen with a smile on their face and kind words about their enslavers? Craven humans, that’s who! Obedient victims who, as Ayn Rand told us, “sanction their enslavement.” And unfortunately that is what the American people have become, obedient sanctioners who are willing to give up their freedom with a smile on their face and kind words for the usurpers in Washington who are so zealously destroying the freedom and sanity of our lives.
Did Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry play nice-nice with King George? Did they remain respectful to the tyrants who were ruining their lives? They most certainly did not. They declared the English tyrant to be a corrupt and criminal despot. They rallied their countrymen to spring up in rebellion. They stood up for their fundamental rights, as all courageous men and women do when faced with despotic bullies. They did what the valiant Chinese student did in Tiananmen Square when he stood in front of those monstrous approaching tanks.
If Jefferson, Adams, and Henry were alive today, they would have been cheering Clint on with vigorous enthusiasm. But what do we see from today’s mealy-mouth media? We see a rush to defend the tyrant mandarins in Washington and smear the rebel Eastwood. We see squawking and crying and yelps of protest. But what we really see is what lurks in the subconscious of the establishment media – fear that their Emperor is as buck naked as Dirty Harry portrayed him. This is why the vacuities at CNN and MSNBC are so outraged. Eastwood pierced deeply. He showed Mr. Obama and the empty suit Biden up for precisely what they are.
This is what disrespect is, and why it is so important when a people are confronting tyrants. Those who obey their masters and play nice-nice with tyrannical regimes live miserable lives as doormats. Those recalcitrant rebels who boldly proclaim their disrespect for the despots of history have a chance to live in freedom. They might still get squashed; the tanks might still roll over them. But they at least know that they stood up for freedom and honor in their time. They know that they did the right thing, the manly thing, not the craven, accommodative thing. When bullies are breaking the cardinal laws of life and exploiting their fellow man (which is what the statists in Washington have been doing for over 80 years now), then there is only one course of action for honorable men – disrespect – courageous, colorful disrespect.
This is what Clint Eastwood did on August 30, 2012 in Tampa. He did the honorable thing – the manly thing. He heaped contempt on the statist mandarins in Washington. He did not lay down and play nice-nice with them. He did not try to compromise with them. He did not pacify them so as to be popular. He excoriated them with his words and his attitude.
In his advice to America’s young men, the twentieth century poet E. Merrill Root wrote, “I would ask you again to dream and dare, and thus to ride again the stallion of manhood whose back is known only by those who with a brave heart grasp the mane of life and ride bareback and shouting even in God’s thunderstorm.”
Reality demands this from man, but the collectivists are at war with it. Thus their feminizing of our men today.
This is not by accident. The collectivists want a neutered man; it makes their drive for world domination all the easier. What is horrifying is that large numbers of obedient men now welcome this travesty. To be forceful, unflinching, and self-reliant in face of life’s vicissitudes no longer appeals. Modern psychology tells us that the virile Clark Gable / Clint Eastwood persona is unhealthy for society. Dustin Hoffman is to be preferred. Softness is correct; toughness is detrimental. But this is decadence masquerading as progress.
The crucible of life demands that men strive to fulfill their natures, that they stand heroically in face of adversity, that they defend the female and family with gallantry in face of the subtleties of evil. The real man welcomes this and refuses to apologize for his toughness and masculinity, his stoic steel will. For him egalitarianism and collectivism are living death. Early in life he knows instinctively that he hates the amoeba-like image of man with which Marxian-Freudian collectivism is trying to poison his soul. He loathes what the professors in college teach him. The real man senses early on that, in the words of General MacArthur, “there is a constant conspiracy against the brave” in this world. The herd mentalities of humanity wish to neuter manliness, for it stands in their way of collectivizing the world. Thus it must be purged from our lessons to the young. The real man resolves to fight this. He chooses to be in life what in essence he must be – a warrior for truth, a rock of granite, a seeker, a builder, a hero.
Clint Eastwood has exemplified such traits all his life. The weasels dislike him, and the naked emperors try to smear him with sociobabble. But there is a strain of man out there that knows his kind are the Atlases who hold up the world, that America was exceptional because she unleashed such men to climb as tall as they could dream. What we need so desperately today is for these kind of men to rise up and show massive disrespect toward the despots of Washington. Hoorah for Clint Eastwood.
Canada Free Press
The political left in America is outraged at Clint Eastwood’s recent presentation at the GOP convention. The shock and disbelief of Rachel Maddow at MSNBC and the Blitzer gang at CNN is heavy with condemnation of this inimitable American icon.
The establishment media response has basically come down as follows: “Weirdest thing I’ve ever seen.” “What was he thinking?” “Have the Republicans gone daft?” “The Democrats must have sent Clint to the GOP so as to sabotage their convention.” “This was inexcusably disrespectful.”
Yes, indeed, it was disrespectful. But what kind of humans allow themselves to be enslaved by a Marxist mandarin and his bureaucratic henchmen with a smile on their face and kind words about their enslavers? Craven humans, that’s who! Obedient victims who, as Ayn Rand told us, “sanction their enslavement.” And unfortunately that is what the American people have become, obedient sanctioners who are willing to give up their freedom with a smile on their face and kind words for the usurpers in Washington who are so zealously destroying the freedom and sanity of our lives.
Did Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry play nice-nice with King George? Did they remain respectful to the tyrants who were ruining their lives? They most certainly did not. They declared the English tyrant to be a corrupt and criminal despot. They rallied their countrymen to spring up in rebellion. They stood up for their fundamental rights, as all courageous men and women do when faced with despotic bullies. They did what the valiant Chinese student did in Tiananmen Square when he stood in front of those monstrous approaching tanks.
If Jefferson, Adams, and Henry were alive today, they would have been cheering Clint on with vigorous enthusiasm. But what do we see from today’s mealy-mouth media? We see a rush to defend the tyrant mandarins in Washington and smear the rebel Eastwood. We see squawking and crying and yelps of protest. But what we really see is what lurks in the subconscious of the establishment media – fear that their Emperor is as buck naked as Dirty Harry portrayed him. This is why the vacuities at CNN and MSNBC are so outraged. Eastwood pierced deeply. He showed Mr. Obama and the empty suit Biden up for precisely what they are.
This is what disrespect is, and why it is so important when a people are confronting tyrants. Those who obey their masters and play nice-nice with tyrannical regimes live miserable lives as doormats. Those recalcitrant rebels who boldly proclaim their disrespect for the despots of history have a chance to live in freedom. They might still get squashed; the tanks might still roll over them. But they at least know that they stood up for freedom and honor in their time. They know that they did the right thing, the manly thing, not the craven, accommodative thing. When bullies are breaking the cardinal laws of life and exploiting their fellow man (which is what the statists in Washington have been doing for over 80 years now), then there is only one course of action for honorable men – disrespect – courageous, colorful disrespect.
This is what Clint Eastwood did on August 30, 2012 in Tampa. He did the honorable thing – the manly thing. He heaped contempt on the statist mandarins in Washington. He did not lay down and play nice-nice with them. He did not try to compromise with them. He did not pacify them so as to be popular. He excoriated them with his words and his attitude.
In his advice to America’s young men, the twentieth century poet E. Merrill Root wrote, “I would ask you again to dream and dare, and thus to ride again the stallion of manhood whose back is known only by those who with a brave heart grasp the mane of life and ride bareback and shouting even in God’s thunderstorm.”
Reality demands this from man, but the collectivists are at war with it. Thus their feminizing of our men today.
This is not by accident. The collectivists want a neutered man; it makes their drive for world domination all the easier. What is horrifying is that large numbers of obedient men now welcome this travesty. To be forceful, unflinching, and self-reliant in face of life’s vicissitudes no longer appeals. Modern psychology tells us that the virile Clark Gable / Clint Eastwood persona is unhealthy for society. Dustin Hoffman is to be preferred. Softness is correct; toughness is detrimental. But this is decadence masquerading as progress.
The crucible of life demands that men strive to fulfill their natures, that they stand heroically in face of adversity, that they defend the female and family with gallantry in face of the subtleties of evil. The real man welcomes this and refuses to apologize for his toughness and masculinity, his stoic steel will. For him egalitarianism and collectivism are living death. Early in life he knows instinctively that he hates the amoeba-like image of man with which Marxian-Freudian collectivism is trying to poison his soul. He loathes what the professors in college teach him. The real man senses early on that, in the words of General MacArthur, “there is a constant conspiracy against the brave” in this world. The herd mentalities of humanity wish to neuter manliness, for it stands in their way of collectivizing the world. Thus it must be purged from our lessons to the young. The real man resolves to fight this. He chooses to be in life what in essence he must be – a warrior for truth, a rock of granite, a seeker, a builder, a hero.
Clint Eastwood has exemplified such traits all his life. The weasels dislike him, and the naked emperors try to smear him with sociobabble. But there is a strain of man out there that knows his kind are the Atlases who hold up the world, that America was exceptional because she unleashed such men to climb as tall as they could dream. What we need so desperately today is for these kind of men to rise up and show massive disrespect toward the despots of Washington. Hoorah for Clint Eastwood.
Canada Free Press
The Arabs of South America
September 2, 2012
By Mike Konrad
Most Americans are unaware of this, but there is a massive Arab community in Latin America. Overall, 5% of Latin America is Arab in origin, which corresponds to roughly 25-30 million people. This can vary from a low of 2% in Uruguay to an astounding 9% in Argentina; but still you rarely hear about it, except for the occasional arrest of an al-Qaeda member. There is a good reason for this.
Latin-American Arabs are overwhelmingly Christian; usually they are Syrian Orthodox or Roman Catholic, the older liturgical churches which blend in seamlessly in the area. Those who aren't have often converted to Evangelical Christianity. Islam, though found, is not so common among them. Overall, probably 97% or more of Latin-American Arabs are Christians, though this can vary from country to country.
The reason we rarely hear about these Arabs is because they are, for the most part, Westernized Christians. It was this Christianity which became the instrument of their assimilation and success.
The Arabs in South America tend to be elites. In many ways, their rise has mirrored the success of Jews in the United States, and even surpassed them.
The richest man in the world is a Lebanese-Mexican, Carlos Slim. A president of Argentina, Carlos Menem, was of Syrian origin. Three presidents of Ecuador were of Lebanese origin as well as one president of Colombia, Julio Tubay. A vice president in Uruguay and another in Brazil were Lebanese. At least two Central American presidents were of Palestinian origin, and this list is nowhere near complete. The famous actress Salma Hayek was born a Lebanese-Mexican. Shakira is part-Lebanese, and so on. Dissertations have been written on Latin Arabs, but sadly, few are in English.
The Arabs started arriving in the mid-19th century. Some, such as the Lebanese Maronite Catholics, were fleeing the genocidal assaults of Turkish and Druze Muslims, which would have exterminated them had it not been for French intervention in 1860. Later Maronites would flee PLO attempts at extermination. Others, such as Palestinian-Christians, fled Ottoman Turkish oppression and the military draft, where it was not safe to be a dhimmi in a Muslim Army. Syrian Christians left for similar reasons.
Almost none of this can be blamed on Zionists, whom the current fashion would accuse. The Arab flight started much too early. In the case of Palestinian-Christians, flight from Turkish rule removed a sizeable portion of the Christians out of the Holy Land before the Israeli-Muslim conflict even started. Yes, a few fled in 1948 and 1967, but these are not typical of the demographic.
In Brazil, the Arab presence is so ubiquitous that a Lebanese dish, kibbe, is now found all over Brazil, being sold by street vendors. A fast food restaurant chain called Habib's has 300 outlets all over the country and specializes in Lebanese food, along with basic fare. Arabic food is now considered part of Brazilian. cuisine, much as we Americans have adopted Italian pizza.
In Chile, which received massive Palestinian-Christian immigration, one family, the Yarur family, rose to produce 60% of Chile's textile manufacturing at one point. Palestinian-Christians are now 3% of Chile's population, slightly more than the percentage of Jews in the United States. Another 2% of Chile is either Lebanese or Syrian Christian. Most are now monolingual Spanish-speakers, with many marrying outside their communities into other ethnic groups to finish the melting pot dynamic. The process has gone both ways, and Chile's Syrian Orthodox Church now reports that "[t]here is also an increasing number of non-Arab Chileans who are joining Orthodoxy."
The Arabs are so thoroughly integrated into Chile that a commercial honoring their history ran during Chile's Bicentennial in 2010.
Chile's Palestinians, roughly 450,000-500,000, are the largest population of Christian-Palestinians on the planet, outnumbering their Christian cousins in Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank) by a ratio of 3 to 1. Chilean-Palestinians are over 99% Christian, and they constitute about half the world's Palestinian Christians. Only the Mideast has more Palestinians, but these are mostly Muslim. Chile is the world center of Palestinian Christianity.
So what can we learn from this?
The first thing we can learn is that in contravention of both prejudice and political correctness, Latin-American Arabs are proof that Arabs are not the problem; rather, Islam is. When the Arab is divorced from Islam, he cannot help but succeed; where he remains in Islam, he cannot help but fail. Even in the Mideast, apart from oil wealth, the Muslims are almost always poorer than the Christians. Only the demand for oil sustains them.
Latin America, until recently, was rarely a model of good governance; yet the Latin Arab prospered and excelled. He had native talent. During this same period, poverty was the norm in the Arab world outside a few oil plutocracies. The only difference between the two was religious affiliation, and this cannot be ignored. Nor is this racial prejudice, since we are talking about the same people. The only distinguishing feature is that Latin America's Arabs are overwhelmingly Christian.
The success of the Irish, Sicilians, and Jews in America demonstrated that their impoverished condition in Europe was the result of oppression, and not some endemic racial or religious characteristic. The distinguishing feature was liberty vs. tyranny.
But Latin-American governments were often as corrupt as any Arab one. The only distinguishing feature between successful Latin Arabs and Old-World Arabs was religion, and we are forced to conclude that Islam is the source of Arab backwardness.
This is obvious, yet it remains unspoken.
Christianity, until the 7th century, was the dominant religion among the Arabs. Over time, it has dropped off. Today, 90% of Syrians and Palestinians are Muslims. Lebanon, which used to be Christian, is now majority-Muslim, with the Christians fleeing. It has been offered that the Christians have a lower birth rate, but the fact is that most just fled. Were the Syrian Orthodox and the Maronites in Latin America reintroduced to the Mideast, Syria and Lebanon would be majority-Christian; but no sane Latin Arab would want to return, especially now that stable democracy is the norm in their Latin countries.
Twenty-five to thirty million highly successful Latin-Arabs who prospered under a range of governments which ran the gamut from tyranny to liberty, from European Argentina to Mestizo Mexico, prove that the only thing which can hold an Arab back is Islam.
However, something is arising which is troubling.
Iranian and Islamic oil money has waltzed in to South America on a campaign of Islamization and anti-Zionism. Being overwhelmingly Christian, one would expect Latin Arabs to be immune to Islamic persuasion, and every indication is that they are. Yet, though the Saudis and Iranians can't convert many of these Latin-Arabs to Islam, they have successfully converted a number of them to a virulent anti-Zionism.
The Saudis have financed the building of the King Fahd Mosque in Buenos Aires, even though only roughly 1% of Argentina is Muslim, and the vast majority of those are non-practicing, according to the Argentine academics Pedro Brieger and Enrique Herszkowich, who wrote, "a realistic guess for the Muslim population of Buenos Aires might be around 4,500, far fewer than the number projected by some Muslim officials."
From this mosque, the Islamic Center of the Republic of Argentina (CIRA) has already been instrumental in the cancelation of a popular secular Arab-Argentine program to make way for a Saudi-financed Muslim show called El cálamo y su mensaje (The Quill and Its Message). The show is now on Argentine Public TV, even though the Arab-Argentine community wanted no part of it and protested the cancelation.
The Iranians have now set up HispanTV, an Iranian propaganda network aimed at Latin America. Iran's English equivalent, PressTV, was banned from broadcasting to Britain recently because of it propaganda excesses. But HispanTV marches on.
We should not be surprised to find that Chile's Palestinian community is starting to be radicalized against Israel, and in favor of an increasingly Islamic Palestinian cause. Though their ancestors fled Islam, they have now become the Western Christian face of pro-Palestinian propaganda in South America.
What has to be remembered is that in Latin America, while there are Jewish communities, particularly in Argentina, they have nowhere near the clout of AIPAC or the ADL, and so this Islamic propaganda can float in uncontested -- and, in Venezuela's case, with the support of the Chávez government. If one thinks Zionist groups have too much power in America, one should examine South America, where Arab lies go unaddressed, and see the difference. It is quite ugly.
The West has to fight for Latin America. The Islamic groups came in almost unopposed to propagandize the area. While the USA and Israel slept, the propaganda machine marched in. We cannot lay blame for all of this on Hugo Chávez and his partnership with Iran. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and we ignored the arena. The Muslims knew they had kinsmen in the West -- albeit infidels -- and sent out feelers. Al-Jazeera regularly reports on South American news. Why don't our networks?
The USA, and Israel, must march in with a concerted effort. They must remind the Latin Arabs why they fled to South America in the first place. They must be as politically incorrect about it as the Muslims are.
The USA must dispense with religious neutrality on this issue, or we will lose.
Right now, Chile's Palestinians are an elite, and they should be disabused of their anti-Zionism. They have the potential of greatly helping or hurting Israel, as they are the standard-bearers of the Palestinian cause in South America. Some hard bargaining should be attempted.
Jewish organizations might consider sponsoring some Christians in the contested areas to emigrate to Chile.
These Christians are stuck in a nasty situation, between two camps to which they do not belong. Whichever side prevails in the Holy Land, the Christians have to know they will be a minority. Prosperity in Chile would be an attractive alternative.
Brazil has surpassed Britain in economic power. Chile is now first-world. Argentina is borderline first-world. South America is rising. It should not be left to Muslim propaganda to determine its worldview.
Mercifully, the history of the Arabs in South America is helpful. They need only be reminded of why they are in South America in the first place.
As for the West, we should be apprised that South America is living proof that Islam is what is destroying the Arabs. In South America, the Arabs, freed from Islam, have risen to an enviable elite status. This has to be trumpeted to the world ... and to the Islamic Ummah.
South America presents the world with a different view of what it means to be Arab: successful, rich, elite, and respected. All of this springs from their Christianity. There is no reason why the Muslim world should not be told the reason for their own failures, and the solution: Christianity.
There is one shining spot in all of this. There is a massive Evangelical revival going on in South America. It has even swept up some Arab Christians. Brazil is about ready to flip from Catholicism. Chile is now 15% Evangelical. Even Catholic Argentina is being affected. These Evangelicals are very pro-Israel, and Israel is starting to take notice, albeit far too late.
The author goes by the pen name of Mike Konrad. He is American -- not Hispanic, Latin, or Jewish -- and runs a website latinarabia.com, where he examines this Latin-Arab subculture. The website is in preliminary stages. He first has to improve his Spanish.
By Mike Konrad
Most Americans are unaware of this, but there is a massive Arab community in Latin America. Overall, 5% of Latin America is Arab in origin, which corresponds to roughly 25-30 million people. This can vary from a low of 2% in Uruguay to an astounding 9% in Argentina; but still you rarely hear about it, except for the occasional arrest of an al-Qaeda member. There is a good reason for this.
Latin-American Arabs are overwhelmingly Christian; usually they are Syrian Orthodox or Roman Catholic, the older liturgical churches which blend in seamlessly in the area. Those who aren't have often converted to Evangelical Christianity. Islam, though found, is not so common among them. Overall, probably 97% or more of Latin-American Arabs are Christians, though this can vary from country to country.
The reason we rarely hear about these Arabs is because they are, for the most part, Westernized Christians. It was this Christianity which became the instrument of their assimilation and success.
The Arabs in South America tend to be elites. In many ways, their rise has mirrored the success of Jews in the United States, and even surpassed them.
The richest man in the world is a Lebanese-Mexican, Carlos Slim. A president of Argentina, Carlos Menem, was of Syrian origin. Three presidents of Ecuador were of Lebanese origin as well as one president of Colombia, Julio Tubay. A vice president in Uruguay and another in Brazil were Lebanese. At least two Central American presidents were of Palestinian origin, and this list is nowhere near complete. The famous actress Salma Hayek was born a Lebanese-Mexican. Shakira is part-Lebanese, and so on. Dissertations have been written on Latin Arabs, but sadly, few are in English.
The Arabs started arriving in the mid-19th century. Some, such as the Lebanese Maronite Catholics, were fleeing the genocidal assaults of Turkish and Druze Muslims, which would have exterminated them had it not been for French intervention in 1860. Later Maronites would flee PLO attempts at extermination. Others, such as Palestinian-Christians, fled Ottoman Turkish oppression and the military draft, where it was not safe to be a dhimmi in a Muslim Army. Syrian Christians left for similar reasons.
Almost none of this can be blamed on Zionists, whom the current fashion would accuse. The Arab flight started much too early. In the case of Palestinian-Christians, flight from Turkish rule removed a sizeable portion of the Christians out of the Holy Land before the Israeli-Muslim conflict even started. Yes, a few fled in 1948 and 1967, but these are not typical of the demographic.
In Brazil, the Arab presence is so ubiquitous that a Lebanese dish, kibbe, is now found all over Brazil, being sold by street vendors. A fast food restaurant chain called Habib's has 300 outlets all over the country and specializes in Lebanese food, along with basic fare. Arabic food is now considered part of Brazilian. cuisine, much as we Americans have adopted Italian pizza.
In Chile, which received massive Palestinian-Christian immigration, one family, the Yarur family, rose to produce 60% of Chile's textile manufacturing at one point. Palestinian-Christians are now 3% of Chile's population, slightly more than the percentage of Jews in the United States. Another 2% of Chile is either Lebanese or Syrian Christian. Most are now monolingual Spanish-speakers, with many marrying outside their communities into other ethnic groups to finish the melting pot dynamic. The process has gone both ways, and Chile's Syrian Orthodox Church now reports that "[t]here is also an increasing number of non-Arab Chileans who are joining Orthodoxy."
The Arabs are so thoroughly integrated into Chile that a commercial honoring their history ran during Chile's Bicentennial in 2010.
Chile's Palestinians, roughly 450,000-500,000, are the largest population of Christian-Palestinians on the planet, outnumbering their Christian cousins in Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank) by a ratio of 3 to 1. Chilean-Palestinians are over 99% Christian, and they constitute about half the world's Palestinian Christians. Only the Mideast has more Palestinians, but these are mostly Muslim. Chile is the world center of Palestinian Christianity.
So what can we learn from this?
The first thing we can learn is that in contravention of both prejudice and political correctness, Latin-American Arabs are proof that Arabs are not the problem; rather, Islam is. When the Arab is divorced from Islam, he cannot help but succeed; where he remains in Islam, he cannot help but fail. Even in the Mideast, apart from oil wealth, the Muslims are almost always poorer than the Christians. Only the demand for oil sustains them.
Latin America, until recently, was rarely a model of good governance; yet the Latin Arab prospered and excelled. He had native talent. During this same period, poverty was the norm in the Arab world outside a few oil plutocracies. The only difference between the two was religious affiliation, and this cannot be ignored. Nor is this racial prejudice, since we are talking about the same people. The only distinguishing feature is that Latin America's Arabs are overwhelmingly Christian.
The success of the Irish, Sicilians, and Jews in America demonstrated that their impoverished condition in Europe was the result of oppression, and not some endemic racial or religious characteristic. The distinguishing feature was liberty vs. tyranny.
But Latin-American governments were often as corrupt as any Arab one. The only distinguishing feature between successful Latin Arabs and Old-World Arabs was religion, and we are forced to conclude that Islam is the source of Arab backwardness.
This is obvious, yet it remains unspoken.
Christianity, until the 7th century, was the dominant religion among the Arabs. Over time, it has dropped off. Today, 90% of Syrians and Palestinians are Muslims. Lebanon, which used to be Christian, is now majority-Muslim, with the Christians fleeing. It has been offered that the Christians have a lower birth rate, but the fact is that most just fled. Were the Syrian Orthodox and the Maronites in Latin America reintroduced to the Mideast, Syria and Lebanon would be majority-Christian; but no sane Latin Arab would want to return, especially now that stable democracy is the norm in their Latin countries.
Twenty-five to thirty million highly successful Latin-Arabs who prospered under a range of governments which ran the gamut from tyranny to liberty, from European Argentina to Mestizo Mexico, prove that the only thing which can hold an Arab back is Islam.
However, something is arising which is troubling.
Iranian and Islamic oil money has waltzed in to South America on a campaign of Islamization and anti-Zionism. Being overwhelmingly Christian, one would expect Latin Arabs to be immune to Islamic persuasion, and every indication is that they are. Yet, though the Saudis and Iranians can't convert many of these Latin-Arabs to Islam, they have successfully converted a number of them to a virulent anti-Zionism.
The Saudis have financed the building of the King Fahd Mosque in Buenos Aires, even though only roughly 1% of Argentina is Muslim, and the vast majority of those are non-practicing, according to the Argentine academics Pedro Brieger and Enrique Herszkowich, who wrote, "a realistic guess for the Muslim population of Buenos Aires might be around 4,500, far fewer than the number projected by some Muslim officials."
From this mosque, the Islamic Center of the Republic of Argentina (CIRA) has already been instrumental in the cancelation of a popular secular Arab-Argentine program to make way for a Saudi-financed Muslim show called El cálamo y su mensaje (The Quill and Its Message). The show is now on Argentine Public TV, even though the Arab-Argentine community wanted no part of it and protested the cancelation.
The Iranians have now set up HispanTV, an Iranian propaganda network aimed at Latin America. Iran's English equivalent, PressTV, was banned from broadcasting to Britain recently because of it propaganda excesses. But HispanTV marches on.
We should not be surprised to find that Chile's Palestinian community is starting to be radicalized against Israel, and in favor of an increasingly Islamic Palestinian cause. Though their ancestors fled Islam, they have now become the Western Christian face of pro-Palestinian propaganda in South America.
What has to be remembered is that in Latin America, while there are Jewish communities, particularly in Argentina, they have nowhere near the clout of AIPAC or the ADL, and so this Islamic propaganda can float in uncontested -- and, in Venezuela's case, with the support of the Chávez government. If one thinks Zionist groups have too much power in America, one should examine South America, where Arab lies go unaddressed, and see the difference. It is quite ugly.
The West has to fight for Latin America. The Islamic groups came in almost unopposed to propagandize the area. While the USA and Israel slept, the propaganda machine marched in. We cannot lay blame for all of this on Hugo Chávez and his partnership with Iran. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and we ignored the arena. The Muslims knew they had kinsmen in the West -- albeit infidels -- and sent out feelers. Al-Jazeera regularly reports on South American news. Why don't our networks?
The USA, and Israel, must march in with a concerted effort. They must remind the Latin Arabs why they fled to South America in the first place. They must be as politically incorrect about it as the Muslims are.
The USA must dispense with religious neutrality on this issue, or we will lose.
Right now, Chile's Palestinians are an elite, and they should be disabused of their anti-Zionism. They have the potential of greatly helping or hurting Israel, as they are the standard-bearers of the Palestinian cause in South America. Some hard bargaining should be attempted.
Jewish organizations might consider sponsoring some Christians in the contested areas to emigrate to Chile.
These Christians are stuck in a nasty situation, between two camps to which they do not belong. Whichever side prevails in the Holy Land, the Christians have to know they will be a minority. Prosperity in Chile would be an attractive alternative.
Brazil has surpassed Britain in economic power. Chile is now first-world. Argentina is borderline first-world. South America is rising. It should not be left to Muslim propaganda to determine its worldview.
Mercifully, the history of the Arabs in South America is helpful. They need only be reminded of why they are in South America in the first place.
As for the West, we should be apprised that South America is living proof that Islam is what is destroying the Arabs. In South America, the Arabs, freed from Islam, have risen to an enviable elite status. This has to be trumpeted to the world ... and to the Islamic Ummah.
South America presents the world with a different view of what it means to be Arab: successful, rich, elite, and respected. All of this springs from their Christianity. There is no reason why the Muslim world should not be told the reason for their own failures, and the solution: Christianity.
There is one shining spot in all of this. There is a massive Evangelical revival going on in South America. It has even swept up some Arab Christians. Brazil is about ready to flip from Catholicism. Chile is now 15% Evangelical. Even Catholic Argentina is being affected. These Evangelicals are very pro-Israel, and Israel is starting to take notice, albeit far too late.
The author goes by the pen name of Mike Konrad. He is American -- not Hispanic, Latin, or Jewish -- and runs a website latinarabia.com, where he examines this Latin-Arab subculture. The website is in preliminary stages. He first has to improve his Spanish.
American Thinker
Thursday, August 30, 2012
The Braying of the Donkeys
By Judi McLeod
Jim Messina, Obama for America Campaign Manager didn’t get much sleep last night. Sleepless donkeys began braying.
At 4:42 a.m. EST, Messina sent an email to all, subject line: “What Paul Ryan said”.
In that wee hour telling email, Messina came right out and claimed the Obama regime’s utter ownership of the mainstream media:
“If you’ve seen any coverage of Paul Ryan’s speech in Tampa, you know that the consensus among journalists and independent observers is that it was…factually challenged.” (See email below).
“The consensus among journalists?”
Now the Obama team not only owns the MSM, they openly brag about it.
Obama recently claimed he wasn’t tuning in on any of the Republican National Convention (RNC), but Messina at 4:42 a.m., and David Axelrod, before him at the stroke of midnight, were trying in desperation to pull the Obama campaign out of its noisy nosedive.
The campaign, which recently upped its contribution request from grassroots little folk, from $3 to $5 is running scared.
But donkeys are more legendary for braying than they are for their speed in races.
If there is one thing the Obama 2012 Reelection campaign has proved is that negativity is a dead end street.
With 23 million Americans now actively seeking work, the Democratic heresy that the Republicans are anti-women and are out to get the elderly, is falling on mostly deaf ears. Under the Obama administration, most Americans are living in the negative world the Dems have created and are just trying to get by.
Republican candidate for vice president Paul Ryan couldn’t have been more on the mark when he talked about how out-of-work young people who have returned to the bedrooms of their parents’ houses looking up at fading Barack Obama posters deserve better.
The Democrats failed in their treacherous efforts to drown the RNC.
Hurricane Isaac left Tampa behind, but Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm thought that God was seeking ways to “shut down the whole” convention (Warner Todd Huston, Aug. 29, 2012.)
Obama’s Hollywood enablers could have kept the sleepless Messina and Axelrod company last night.
Actress Ellen Barkin hoped aloud that all the Republicans would be killed by the coming hurricane.
Samuel L. Jackson thought God was being unfair to hit New Orleans while he “spared” the GOP.
And as Huston points out, “the Left has been so ginned up over the claims that Katrina is God’s punishment of America that a Wikipedia page was started to chronicle the
claims.
In the end, Hurricane Isaac was soundly trumped by GOP’s own hurricane, the one they call candidate for vice president Paul Ryan.
At this stage of the ticking clock: All donkeys are braying loudly. The Obama campaign is dead but won’t lie down.
Meanwhile the irony of all ironies in Obama’s promised Hope and Change is unfolding before our very eyes.
Obama’s Hope and Change backfired on the man nobody knows but went on to pave the way for real Hope and Change: The Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan rescue of America.
From: Jim Messina, BarackObama.com info@barackobama.com
Subject: What Paul Ryan said
Date: 30 August, 2012 3:45:57 AM EDT
To: cfp@canadafreepress.com
Reply-To: info@barackobama.com
Friend—
If you’ve seen any coverage of Paul Ryan’s speech in Tampa, you know that the consensus among journalists and independent observers is that it was ... factually challenged.
He lied about Medicare. He lied about the Recovery Act. He lied about the deficit and debt. He even dishonestly attacked Barack Obama for the closing of a GM plant in his hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin—a plant that closed in December 2008 under George W. Bush. He also failed to offer one constructive idea about what he would do to move the country forward.
Don’t roll your eyes. We can’t just groan and shrug and remark to our like-minded friends that this is ridiculous, because this is a significant moment in this campaign.
The fact that this speech, on this huge stage, is this blatantly false represents a huge bet by the Romney campaign—they’ve decided that facts, truth and reality will not be a brake on their campaign message. And they just signaled to the extremist billionaires and corporate interests that support them that they should go ahead and spend their hundreds of millions of dollars attacking Barack Obama with whatever lies can work.
The only thing that can beat this back is you:
More soon.
Messina
Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
Canada Free Press
Jim Messina, Obama for America Campaign Manager didn’t get much sleep last night. Sleepless donkeys began braying.
At 4:42 a.m. EST, Messina sent an email to all, subject line: “What Paul Ryan said”.
In that wee hour telling email, Messina came right out and claimed the Obama regime’s utter ownership of the mainstream media:
“If you’ve seen any coverage of Paul Ryan’s speech in Tampa, you know that the consensus among journalists and independent observers is that it was…factually challenged.” (See email below).
“The consensus among journalists?”
Now the Obama team not only owns the MSM, they openly brag about it.
Obama recently claimed he wasn’t tuning in on any of the Republican National Convention (RNC), but Messina at 4:42 a.m., and David Axelrod, before him at the stroke of midnight, were trying in desperation to pull the Obama campaign out of its noisy nosedive.
The campaign, which recently upped its contribution request from grassroots little folk, from $3 to $5 is running scared.
But donkeys are more legendary for braying than they are for their speed in races.
If there is one thing the Obama 2012 Reelection campaign has proved is that negativity is a dead end street.
With 23 million Americans now actively seeking work, the Democratic heresy that the Republicans are anti-women and are out to get the elderly, is falling on mostly deaf ears. Under the Obama administration, most Americans are living in the negative world the Dems have created and are just trying to get by.
Republican candidate for vice president Paul Ryan couldn’t have been more on the mark when he talked about how out-of-work young people who have returned to the bedrooms of their parents’ houses looking up at fading Barack Obama posters deserve better.
The Democrats failed in their treacherous efforts to drown the RNC.
Hurricane Isaac left Tampa behind, but Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm thought that God was seeking ways to “shut down the whole” convention (Warner Todd Huston, Aug. 29, 2012.)
Obama’s Hollywood enablers could have kept the sleepless Messina and Axelrod company last night.
Actress Ellen Barkin hoped aloud that all the Republicans would be killed by the coming hurricane.
Samuel L. Jackson thought God was being unfair to hit New Orleans while he “spared” the GOP.
And as Huston points out, “the Left has been so ginned up over the claims that Katrina is God’s punishment of America that a Wikipedia page was started to chronicle the
claims.
In the end, Hurricane Isaac was soundly trumped by GOP’s own hurricane, the one they call candidate for vice president Paul Ryan.
At this stage of the ticking clock: All donkeys are braying loudly. The Obama campaign is dead but won’t lie down.
Meanwhile the irony of all ironies in Obama’s promised Hope and Change is unfolding before our very eyes.
Obama’s Hope and Change backfired on the man nobody knows but went on to pave the way for real Hope and Change: The Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan rescue of America.
Paul Ryan’s Speech
From: Jim Messina, BarackObama.com info@barackobama.com
Subject: What Paul Ryan said
Date: 30 August, 2012 3:45:57 AM EDT
To: cfp@canadafreepress.com
Reply-To: info@barackobama.com
Friend—
If you’ve seen any coverage of Paul Ryan’s speech in Tampa, you know that the consensus among journalists and independent observers is that it was ... factually challenged.
He lied about Medicare. He lied about the Recovery Act. He lied about the deficit and debt. He even dishonestly attacked Barack Obama for the closing of a GM plant in his hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin—a plant that closed in December 2008 under George W. Bush. He also failed to offer one constructive idea about what he would do to move the country forward.
Don’t roll your eyes. We can’t just groan and shrug and remark to our like-minded friends that this is ridiculous, because this is a significant moment in this campaign.
The fact that this speech, on this huge stage, is this blatantly false represents a huge bet by the Romney campaign—they’ve decided that facts, truth and reality will not be a brake on their campaign message. And they just signaled to the extremist billionaires and corporate interests that support them that they should go ahead and spend their hundreds of millions of dollars attacking Barack Obama with whatever lies can work.
The only thing that can beat this back is you:
More soon.
Messina
Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
Canada Free Press
Mexican Police Attacked CIA Officers, Ambush Likely: Sources
The two experienced officers were just south of the capital on their way to a Mexican Marine base on Friday, working with local authorities on a training mission, when federal police riddled their armored van bearing diplomatic plates with bullets.
The men, traveling with a Mexican Marine captain, were wounded and taken to a hospital for treatment, though their injuries were not life-threatening. Their vehicle's tires and rear windshield were shot out.
A dozen federal police officers detained and questioned over the attack have been ordered held in custody for 40 days. In initial statements to federal prosecutors, they claimed they confused the Americans for criminals.
However, witnesses who saw the shooting at a bend in the road outside the small town of Tres Marias told Reuters the gunmen were dressed in plain clothes and pursued the Americans firing from unmarked cars and on foot -- a classic style of gangland hits in Mexico.
"We had no idea at all they were police. They looked like criminals," said one woman who witnessed the incident but asked not to be named for fear of repercussions.
A Mexican government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the evidence suggested gang members and corrupt police had carried out the attack before other police arrived at the scene and prevented the men being killed.
"This was not an accident," the official said.
Witnesses said the CIA driver made impressive evasive maneuvers which likely saved the lives of those inside the car, and they believe they heard hundreds of bullets fired, estimating the incident lasted around six minutes.
The Mexican official said the vehicle was chased for about 4 km (2.5 miles) before it was halted, and that shell casings from AK-47s, which are not used by Mexican police and are a weapon of choice for drug cartel members, were found at the scene.
A total of four vehicles were involved in the incident, though only the shot-up van was found at the scene, the official added. One of the vehicles identified by eyewitnesses has been linked to other crimes, the official said.
Tres Marias is close to the city of Cuernavaca, a popular weekend retreat for Mexico City residents that has been badly hit by drug violence in recent years. In 2009, Mexican Marines shot dead leading cartel boss Arturo Beltran Leyva, alias "The Beard," in Cuernavaca in an operation based on information from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
Read the rest of the story at Reuters.com.
Big Peace
Holder Meets with Tucson Victims, Presses Stricter Gun Laws
Attorney General Eric Holder met with the survivors of the tragic Tucson shooting from January 2011 to discuss stricter gun laws. Twelve people survived, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and six others died. There was a tragedy a month before -- December 14, 2010. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered by smugglers using high-powered weapons supplied by the United States government in
Operation Fast & Furious. On February 14, 2011, ICE Agent Jaime Zapata was murdered in Mexico by drug cartels using weapons supplied by our government in a gunwalking operation out of Texas.
Mr. Holder has not met with either family. He did not reach out to the Terry family until he was called out during a congressional hearing. A letter to Brian’s mother penned by AG Holder was leaked to the media before she received it.
Holder's visit to Tucson victims centered on passing new anti-gun laws. Sharyl Attkisson at CBS News revealed emails last December that proved Fast & Furious was used to support stricter gun control laws.
Holder has given no indication he will visit the Terry or Zapata families any time soon.
Big Government
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
