9/11: Two Critical Lessons

Lesson #1: never forget . . .


Lesson #2: Never forgive

IRAQ: CRITICAL TO AMERICA'S FUTURE

If it comes down to guessing who'd prevail -- Hillary or the speeding train? -- I'd be inclined to bet on her.

Please help this site become one of the most influential on the Web. You can do that by sending a link to friends (and political sympathizers) and urging them to visit. It's: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com. The number of visitors on my "Hillary" site quintupled today. If we could keep that up for 30 days or so, the number of visitors would equal the population of China. :-) They do have computers there, don't they?

As many of you know, I'm deeply involved in a growing national movement to reach out to people who support Sen. Clinton in the presidential primaries -- and get them to vote for John McCain in the general election. As many as 10 million Clinton supporters nationally say they will -- or might -- vote for McCain. If he gets most of those votes, he will win the election. My view of Sen. Clinton is this: yes, I disagree with her on many (even most) issues. No, I don't regard her as "the Witch of Endor." In Pennsylvania, she impressed many of us -- however reluctant we might have been -- with her personal grit and the ferocity of her campaign. In short, in a street-fight I want her on my side. As for Obama, in said street-fight I want him to hold my coat (and Hillary's). I have an important column up today on my new -- and, to my amazement, popular! -- site: http://HillarySupportersforMcCain.blogspot.com ("Hatchets Hacking Away at Hillary"). Please visit and, if you'd like, let me know your thoughts. You can leave comments on the blog or write me at: TalkTop65@aol.com. There's also a lot of discussion of Hillary voters on the important new McCain site: http://mccainnow.com. Please check out "McCainNow."








A site you might truly enjoy -- and part of an important national movement -- is: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com/. Please visit (and return)

"I am in earnest; I will not equivocate; I will not excuse; I will not retreat a single inch; and I will be heard." -- William Lloyd Garrison


Dr. Paul Kengor, distinguished political scientist at Grove City College and expert on Ronald Reagan and many other subjects, asked me about my appearance last night on Eric Dondero BlogTalkRadio show LIBERTARIAN POLITICS LIVElibertarian, Republican, Libertarian Party, libertari

Paul, you can find an archived version by by going to Eric Dondero's site (click above). It's available for at least a week on "Podcast." It was one of the most amazing experiences I've had in many years.

Dr. Murray Sabrin, candidate for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate seat in NJ, is a nice man with great views on the economy, but he disagrees with McCain on Iraq. He cited poll numbers that showed 70% of NJ voters "want out" of Iraq. I told him that "70% of NJ voters are dead wrong on that."

Eric Dondero, talk show host and a Navy vet, and I attacked Sabrin's views rather ferociously. I told him (essentially) that if we flee Iraq and al Qaeda takes over in the MidEast the price of oil will be $250 a barrel and our economy and civil society will be destroyed.

I also said that the primary goal of Mideast extremists is "to kill Jews . . . and to destroy Israel." Dr. Sabrin is Jewish and his father was an officer in the Polish Army in WW II. I read a statement by Marina Kats (also a Jew and born in Russia), who's a Republican candidate for Allyson Schwartz's seat, where Marina says she'd like to get out of Iraq as soon as possible but only when it's "safe" to do so -- and serves our "national security" needs.

Eric and I both "accused" (not in a mean way) Dr. Sabrin, Obama, and others of wanting a "Fortress America," an approach that would only encourage terrorists and eventually result in more 9/11 disasters.

I asked Dr. Sabrin, "Don't you think John McCain knows -- more than any other American -- about the horrors and tragedies of war?'

Dr. Sabrin pointed out that we hadn't yet captured Osama bin Laden. I said that was true -- and a black mark on U.S. intelligence, but that we had captured Khalid Sheik Muhammed (KSM), "the architect of 9/11." I said there was some concern about the treatment of KSM, but I didn't give a hoot about what happened with him. I said, "If they boil him in oil, it's better than he deserves." I added that the ACLU was probably in Guantanamo seeing if KSM needed an additional pillow and extra copies of the Koran.

I mentioned with great respect the campaign of retired Marine Colonel Tom Manion (against Patrick Murphy). Col. Manion's son, Travis, a Naval Academy graduate, was killed in Iraq.Eric emphasized that there's a disconnect between war opponents and the soldiers who are serving in Iraq (and Afghanistan).

Eric noted that the soldiers' job is, if necessary, "to die for their country." They don't want to die, but they are willing to pay that price. I cited some wonderful young Marines I know (Adam and Matt) who have served several tours in garden spots that include Fallujah and that absolutely fall into the category described by Eric.

I called attention to Barack Obama's statement that if things went to Hades in a handbasket if we withdrew precipitously from Iraq, then President Obama might "reinvade." I pointed out that his irresponsible statement showed Obama was totally detached from the realities in the MidEast and was pandering to the extreme Left.

Near the end of the program I talked about the candidacies of John McCain and (congressional candidates) Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, Michael Livingston, Tom Manion, and Marina Kats. I said that some of them might lose -- and in fact all of them might lose. But if they did, they would not be going "gentle into that good night," but rather go down with guns blazing. My support for them it total because they are absolutely outstanding human beings.(I've added some phrases above for clarification.

I haven't done justice to Eric's wonderful assertion of his own love for America and its servicemen and servicewomen. He said the VA, operating under very difficult circumstances, is doing a "wonderful" job treating American soldiers.

On a past show, Eric Dondero, who has some unusual guests, had me on as a guest with a transvestite "libertarian" from Kansas. At one point on that show I promised that I would move to Kansas to vote for him (her?). Actually, I plan to stay in Ambridge.

All in all, I was very proud to be on the show last night and to have a partner like Eric. I think we are both sick of the "fantasy debate" that usually goes on about the war in Iraq. People who oppose the war have a right to their opinions, but they must make every effort not to frame the debate in a way that endangers the lives of men and women defending this country.

MY OBAMA PROBLEM -- AND YOURS

"I can no more disown him (Rev. Wright) than I can disown the Black community. I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother." (Barack Obama)

Frankly, this is Barack doing the Okie doke, practicing deception. Rev. Wright is not synonymous with the Black community. His loony -- and hateful -- ideas are shared by SOME in the Black community but not even by a majority. There's no evidence the community believes that 9/11 was the fault of Americans, including the 3,000 innocent people killed. There's no evidence the community thinks the U.S. government "invented" AIDS in order to kill Black people.

Did Obama's grandmother share similar ideas? Obama never says she did. He brings her up apparently to justify his not disowning a hate-monger, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The grandmother, apparently a good human being, has almost nothing in common with Wright.

The grandparents seem to be people Obama can use to further his political ambitions. In his commercials, running now in PA, he speaks with reverence about the grandfather's service "in Patton's Army.”. In his first book (Dreams From My Father), he describes the grandpa as marching around "in the mud" and never seeing real combat. Which is it, Barack?

In his speech, he describes him grandmother as someone unnecessarily frightened of "big Black men" and given to making racial "stereotypes." But the book doesn't show that at all. She never even mentioned (apparently) that the man threatening her in one instance was Black. The grandfather supplies that detail. Which is it, Barack?

In his commercials Obama implies he's proud of his grandma's war service on "a bomber assembly line." But in the book he calls her "Rosie the Riveter," a demeaning term.

My frustration is that too many people hold Obama to very low standards. He's allowed to be inconsistent in what he says to us. His grandparents get criticized for holding less than enlightened views, but they get little credit for bringing up a grandson who went to Columbia and Harvard and became a U.S. Senator – and viable candidate for the presidency. Common sense tells us they must have done a lot of things right.

Is the media going to resolve the questions that remain about Obama? Don't be on it. They'd rather wave their pom poms in salute of a candidate who's supposed to be "post-racial," but seems to look at everything in life through a racial lens.

OBAMA SHOULD END HIS CAMPAIGN

If you want to know the reason for tonight's (Friday's) headline, just scroll down slowly through the columns below to read the kind of "spiritual" advice Barack Obama and his wife have been receiving from Jeremiah A. Wright.

On my blog tonight, I'm calling for Barack Obama to end his campaign. Because of the Wright situation, he is no longer a viable candidate for President. I also believe he should resign from the U.S. Senate.

For Obama to pretend, as he is tonight on FOX and CNN, that the national revulsion over Wright all came as a surprise to him is ridiculous. His Church gave Louis Farrakhan a "Lifetime Achievement Award." You will hear in response that is was Trumpet Magazine, which is no longer associated with the Church that gave it. In fact, Wright's daughter is the editor of Trumpet, a pro-Black, anti-White publication Wright started. Obama's reaction to the "Achievement" award was to ignore it.

The real issue is this: who exactly is Barack Obama? Is he just perhaps not this individual who wants to transcend race (except, of course, when he sops up 90%-plus of the Black vote in the South)? Or is he perhaps someone who looks at the world much like his "spiritual advisor," Jeremiah Wright? I have paid a lot more attention in the past few years to Obama than he deserved, but I have no idea what the correct answer is to that question.

His wife, Michelle, only became "proud" of American when it became clear her husband was (key word) a viable candidate for the Presidency. In that regard, Michelle Obama apparently learned a lot from Jeremiah Wright, who hates his native land.

Perhaps the most sickening thing on the video tapes of Wright ranting away is to look the audience, a bunch of Yahoos. When Wright blames America for 9/11, the congregants are standing, whooping, and ecstatic. Were Obama and Michelle perhaps there on that day? And did they perhaps join the applause? That is the "church community" Obama speaks so lovingly about in his fine baritone.

This is the man who would be President. He and his Pastor are disgraces to their race -- the human race.

Barack, go. Go in peace or go in anger, but just go. "Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us."

Bill Clinton and the Culture of Death

The following is a column I wrote for my friends at the Black Conservatives Group on Yahoo.


Steubenville, OH (LifeNews.com) -- Former president Bill Clinton made a campaign stop for Hillary in Steubenville, Ohio on Sundayand found himself greeted by more than 100 pro-life students from nearby Steubenville University. According to eye witnessesaccounts, Clinton lost his temper and lashed out at the pro-life students during the speech.

Full story: http://www.lifenews.com/state2908.html


The students from the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio, who confronted President Clinton on the issue of abortion are some of the best young people in our area -- I live not too far from Steubenville. Bill Clinton accused them -- falsely -- of wanting to "criminalize abortion, etc."

The students in fact were making the point that a society which has a high level of abortion such as ours diminishes the overall respect for life, leading to abuse, crimes against people, and the like. It's an issue that any decent human being -- a category that doesn't include the philandering, cynical President Clinton -- must grapple with. The students have an concern that Clinton should have dealt with respectfully and thoughtfully. He didn't.


In the period of the Great Society and after, many bad things have happened in America, particularly in the Black community. Two generations ago, the rate of abortion among Black teens was LOWER than in the white community. Now, it is much, much higher -- four times the rate with white teens. Essentially, we have a community that is "doing away with" its future. We need to love children, not discard them as if they were human garbage.


Bill Clinton probably knows this, but he doesn't care about it. For him, it's all about his wife getting elected -- period.


By the way, Barack Obama voted in the Illinois Senate for what's called "live birth abortions." His vote meant that physicians didn't have to care for children who were born alive as a result of "botched" abortions. Essentially, it was a vote for infanticide. He should be ashamed of himself, but unfortunately shame is not his strong suit.

Of course, Obama doesn't debate the pros-and-cons of such procedures. Instead, he relies on windy rhetoric ("Yes we can"). However, for infants in need of care and basically asking if they can live, his slogan is "No, you can't." So much for "universal health care."

As a society, we can't fall into the trap of saying, "Well, we respect life some of the time but not all of the time." What that leads to is what we have now, where the "Angel of Death" is a constant presence in Black communities. People like Bill Clinton aggravate that situation.

Is Iraq "Hillary Clinton's War?"

Note: In this piece I raise "the great unanswered question of 9/11." Read on.

In terms of her oratorical "style," Mrs. Clinton invariably risks frightening small children. She's the female analogue to Ted Kennedy, an angry, red-faced individual who shouts a lot.

To understand the phoniness of Hillary Rodham Clinton (and of tomorrow's subject, Barack Hussein Obama), it's important to understand their target audience: the far-left Democrats who actually participate in primaries and caucuses. These are Moveon.org types, the 20% of the Democratic Party -- one-in-five -- who tell pollsters that they hope America loses the war in Iraq. To reach such people, rhetorical extremism is an essential ingredient.

Two of my favorite Hillary-isms are as follows: (1) "George Bush doesn't care about people"; and (2) THIS IS GEORGE BUSH'S WAR!"

On the notion that GWB "doesn't care" about the people he represents and who elected him twice: Mrs. Clinton offers no evidence that she cares any more about "people" than does President Bush. She's a person who desires to become President, and to that end, she dumps verbal trash on the man who currently holds the office. Thus, she engages in political statements that don't go beyond hurling gratuitous insults -- an apporach her husband and others have called "the politics of personal destruction."

Why would she make such improper statements about Bush -- ones that "rise" to the level only of schoolyard taunts? Because she understands that he's an easy political target -- and because the most important thing in the world to her is winning the nomination. Her target audience, Americans who generally don't like their country very much, wants red meat, so she stuffs it down their throats.

Specifically, what about the "this is George Bush's war" comment? Again, it's a demagogic accusation. Hillary Clinton wants to become commander-in-chief. If as President she has to go to war, does she want many Americans to condemn it as "Hillary Clinton's war?" OrWorld War II "Franklin Roosevelt's War?" Or Korea "Harry Truman's War?" Or Vietnam "Lyndon Johnson's War?"

Some enterprising media type should ask her those questions, although no one will. She might accuse the questioner of being part of "a vast right-wing conspiracy."

Mrs. Clinton has a bad habit of speaking without thinking. Apparently, if she believes some statement will generate votes from left-wingers, the words just fly out of her mouth.However, is the conflict in Iraq really GWB's war, or is perhaps in a sense "Hillary Clinton's War?" One could make the case -- if one were so inclined -- to say that it is.

In October, 2002, Senator Clinton voted for the Iraq war resolution. In November, 2003, she also voted for the $87 billion supplemental appropriation to fund the war. A month later, December, 2003, she said the following: "The fact is we're in Iraq and we're in Afghanistan, and we have no choice but to be successful." For some reason, she's stopped making that important -- and accurate -- point.

In the spring of 2004, Hillary Clinton called Saddam Hussein "a potential threat [to America]." She added that the Iraqi dictator had been "seeking weapons of mass destruction . . . whether or not he actually had them." There's no real debate on this points.

In other words, back in the period from 2002-2004 Iraq was not "George Bush's war." It was America's war -- and hers. She noted correctly that if Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs, he certainly intended to get them at the earliest possible time. Of course, she wasn't a candidate for President then.

Nowadays, of course, her comments on Iraq are much different. She indicates -- falsely -- that the Bush Administration somehow "misled" her about WMDs. What she neglects to say is that the CIA director appointed by her husband -- George Tenet -- had said to President Bush that Saddam's having WMDs was "a slam-dunk." Mrs. Clinton (and her husband) apparently agreed.

George Bush clearly is a convenient scapegoat for Mrs. Clinton to use in her single-minded quest for the Democratic nomination. However, she fails to note that, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she had the same information about WMDs as the President. She cast her war authorization vote with the same knowledge GWB had when he made the decision to go to war.

The approach Mrs. Clinton is taking allows her to be for a war when it's going well -- and against it when it's not. To paraphrase Kyle Smith, it turns politics and elective government into a circular firing squad, where ultimately no one is left standing.

The events of 9/11 were the reason the U.S. went to war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The fear that Saddam Hussein had -- or was seeking -- WMDs that he wouldn't hesitate using was the main reason the country went to war in Iraq. Of course, Saddam had possessed -- and used -- WMDs against Iran and the Iraqi Kurds.

The catastrophe of 9/11 represented a major failure of intelligence by the CIA, headed by Bill Clinton's appointee. They also reflected a failure on the part of the FBI, headed by Clinton appointee Louis Freeh. (William Mueller, Bush's appointee, had been in his office for only about a week when 9/11 occurred.)

A great unanswered question of that time is this: Why didn't GWB blame the failures of his predecessor, Bill Clinton, for 9/11? No one knows the precise answer. However, it appears that Bush -- unlike people such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- didn't want to play the blame game. Instead, he gave Bill Clinton a pass so as not to divide the country.

As we've seen, Mrs. Clinton has no such concerns about dividing the nation, or any real grasp of her husband's role in letting 9/11 occur. Instead, she has the old Democratic strategy of divide the nation -- calling Iraq GWB's war -- in order to conquer as her Party's nominee. The phoniness is as transparent as it is malicious.

A cynic might ask: What else is new?


Tomorrow, I'll be writing on the phoniness of Barack Obama, who never quite reaches the total inauthenticity of Mrs. Clinton but at times comes perilously close. Obama said today, "We are at a defining moment in our history." That's not really profound. Rather, it's in the category known as cliches. He's good at them.

On TV, he just said, "Change does not happen from the top down. Change happens from the bottom up." I guess that's why he's running for President. He wants to start at the bottom. The emptiness of the man's rhetoric is truly awesome.