I voted Republican for the first time in my life in 2008 after supporting as a teen and voting as an adult for every Democratic party nominee since Stevenson in 1956. These early years were a time of massive struggle for equality for Blacks and women, for a rightful share in prosperity for workers and a time of raised social consciousness for youth. The lofty rhetoric of Stevenson, the inspiration of a new generation with Kennedy, and the rise of the civil rights movement under Johnson's watch reinforced a natural tendency to liberalism especially as I was living in New York City.
It is not that one moves from liberal to conservative necessarily because one changes ones views on the important issues, rather it is because those issues have been settled to enough of a degree that further agitation for them on the previous heady level is perhaps counter productive.
Thus in 2008 there was, to my mind, little difference between the two parties on social issues such as the rights of minorities and women-that those issues need supporting by all is settled to a large degree. Right up until the economic crisis hit late in the 2008 campaign there was little perceived difference in any major degree on economic matters either. It was in foreign policy and specifically the Iraq/Afghanistan wars where the major differences lay.
In looking at the Iraq situation, the massive dislocation, loss of life, both Iraqi and American (and allies) the destruction of infrastructure and the lack of a political structure to govern the country, it appeared to me be be immoral for America to even consider abandoning the Iraqi people to an unknown fate.
Whether or not the decision to invade was right or wrong, was based on faulty intelligence or outright deception, was not the over arching concern. The facts are that the decision was made, massive casualties resulted and Iraq is in a perilous situation. The choice was clear-McCain/Palin with a commitment to staying the course beyond "victory' for America, but staying for as long as took to see a functioning, popular, honest Iraqi government in place .
The Obama/Biden alternative was an ending to the war as soon as possible, the leaving of a minimum amount of troops behind in an "advisory' capacity, with no commitment to the long term assistance in nation building which will be required to ensure stability, and that sectarian violence is ended. To see also that there is an equitable distribution of resources amongst the religious and ethnic groupings and there is power sharing after free and fair elections.
American has been holding the peace in Korea for 60 years.This commitment to stop aggression has seen a stable prosperous ally grow, and is a tribute to the various administrations who have supported the Korean people.Why should our commitment to the Iraqi people be any less than the Koreans? The possible aggressors are internal in the case of Iraq (and possibly external) but the possibility of descent into chaos is very much there and needs to be guarded against for as long as it takes and with whatever resources in men and material it takes.
The Obama administration has begun the process of abandoning the Iraqi people to their fate. To do so is unacceptable and the possibility of this happening was enough to change a lifetime of voting habits for me. A McCain/Palin administration would never allow the abandonment of Iraq to happen and I look forward to a Palin administration which will be solidly committed to Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan protecting them and the USA.
If before the election of the next, hopefully Palin led, Republican administration which will save and succour Iraq, the country descends into the maelstrom of ethnic violence, dictatorship or fundamentalism, the Obama administration that allowed that scenario would be forever castigated as a waster of American and Iraqi blood, treasure and nationhood-this must not be allowed to happen on the most clear of moral grounds.
As for the possibility of The Obama administration through the offices of Senator Kerry handing over Afghanistan to the Taliban in exchange for them promising to be good little boys as soon as the US troops leave, well the first woman to be stoned to death under the new improved Taliban government will be sheeted home to the conscience, or lack of it, of those who abandoned her and her country to be sacrificed on the altar of the radical left of the Democratic party.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
If Iran Makes Nuclear Weapons It Will Be Obama Admin's Responsibility.If Disaster Ensues-His Legacy.The McCain/Palin Alternative Looks the Right One Now.
Iran is reportedly a day away from starting up their nuclear facility. Israel and the world can be hugely comforted that the Obama administration has advised that "a year is a long time" and the threat is "not "imminent" and it would take "roughly a year to produce a ...dash for a nuclear weapon".
The administrations "get tough" actions i.e. sanctions have, at most, delayed the possibility of manufacture
but nowhere is the claim made that it has or would stop such manufacture. Israel, who would have to take action other than sanctions-as they did against Saddam's nuclear attempt-admit that the longer this goes on the more the possibility that Iran could disperse nuclear material making it "less likely an Israeli military strike would significantly cripple the program".
Israel is supposed to celebrate the Obama administrations triumph through sanctions of Iran only being able to, perhaps, make two nuclear weapons with current technology. Two would go a long way to producing the Holocaust which Ahmadinejad advises would be the first.
There are voices, e.g. former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, who have urged strong action by Israel-right down to counting down the days (now one) when a preemptive strike is possible He advised that if no strike happens then it would be a "great victory for Iran". The reason for the deadline is that once fuel is delivered (from Russia) to the reactor Israel will not be able to attack for fear of spreading radiation.Even in a life or death situation for Israel their innate moral imperatives overrule for them what might be the best military action.
If Iran does make a bomb even with weak U.S. sanctions that nuclear proliferation would be a huge blot on the Obama administrations legacy. If Israel is forced, for its very survival, to attack the Iranian facility and possibly causing a major conflagration, that too would be sheeted home to the weak Obama administration if Iran makes a bomb and uses it that would be a huge and tragic blot on the history of mankind and assign the Obama administration to the lowest rung of failed governments.
There is one thing certain in all this-if a McCain/Palin administration were in place this countdown would not be happening as it is-certainly it would not be the Israel counting down to when a possible enemy has the means to destroy her.
The administrations "get tough" actions i.e. sanctions have, at most, delayed the possibility of manufacture
but nowhere is the claim made that it has or would stop such manufacture. Israel, who would have to take action other than sanctions-as they did against Saddam's nuclear attempt-admit that the longer this goes on the more the possibility that Iran could disperse nuclear material making it "less likely an Israeli military strike would significantly cripple the program".
Israel is supposed to celebrate the Obama administrations triumph through sanctions of Iran only being able to, perhaps, make two nuclear weapons with current technology. Two would go a long way to producing the Holocaust which Ahmadinejad advises would be the first.
There are voices, e.g. former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, who have urged strong action by Israel-right down to counting down the days (now one) when a preemptive strike is possible He advised that if no strike happens then it would be a "great victory for Iran". The reason for the deadline is that once fuel is delivered (from Russia) to the reactor Israel will not be able to attack for fear of spreading radiation.Even in a life or death situation for Israel their innate moral imperatives overrule for them what might be the best military action.
If Iran does make a bomb even with weak U.S. sanctions that nuclear proliferation would be a huge blot on the Obama administrations legacy. If Israel is forced, for its very survival, to attack the Iranian facility and possibly causing a major conflagration, that too would be sheeted home to the weak Obama administration if Iran makes a bomb and uses it that would be a huge and tragic blot on the history of mankind and assign the Obama administration to the lowest rung of failed governments.
There is one thing certain in all this-if a McCain/Palin administration were in place this countdown would not be happening as it is-certainly it would not be the Israel counting down to when a possible enemy has the means to destroy her.
Friday, August 20, 2010
If 9/11 Mosque Imam Rauf Is A Jew As Claimed Then Palin As A Muslim Can Legitimately Ask For The Mosque Not To Be Built
Following on from the logic of Imam Dauf that believing in the unity of the "Abrahamic faith" entitles a Muslim, who states he holds to the, as he sees them, central tenants of the Christian and Jewish faiths
to claim that he then "is now and has always been" a Christian and a Jew then Sarah Palin could legitimately
claim her opposition to the proposed Mosque is that of a concerned Muslim.
If ones Christianity (or Jewish faith) is, as of course it is, a direct descent from God's promise to Abraham
and the subsequent monotheism and one holds in ones heart there is an all merciful God then a claim to be now a Muslim and having always been one has the same validity as Imam Dauf's claim to be a Jew.
Palin announced her opposition to the proposed Mosque by asking "peace-seeking" Muslims to understand that the mosque will interfere with recovery from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks;
"Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing" . She followed that statement with the strongly emotional (which the situation warrants) "Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate. "Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real."
She then called on the President to state his position clearly "Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamisists killed 3000 people?" Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade."
As expected not only did the President backtrack or rather obfuscate his original apparent support for the Mosque to go ahead but Palin's remarks unleashed a firestorm of negativity from the left (including the childish attention paid to a simple typo)-even though two thirds of the country agree with her.
Naturally charges of racism and the inability to distinguish between "peaceful Mosque and terrorists" (which misses the point altogether-it is not about asking for a peaceful Mosque (sic) not to be built rather it is asking for it to be built elsewhere to take cognizance of the sensitivities of those who lost loved ones in the non-peaceful Muslim activity in the area.
Now however,with the discovery of Imam Dauf's being a Jew and Christian if we assign the same religious flexibility ability to Palin who is more Jewish than many liberal Jews given her unwavering support of Israel (which included having the Israeli flag in her office when governor) then all charges of "racism" against her on this issue must cease and she can join Muslims from all walks of life including the first Muslim Miss America who ask for the Mosque not to be built where it is proposed to be.
Let the issue be decided on the true fact of the matter, the sensitivities of the victims families and the vast majority of the American people-not the false arguments about constitution or racism nor the left looking for a "victory" for President Obama to prop up his falling poll numbers.
to claim that he then "is now and has always been" a Christian and a Jew then Sarah Palin could legitimately
claim her opposition to the proposed Mosque is that of a concerned Muslim.
If ones Christianity (or Jewish faith) is, as of course it is, a direct descent from God's promise to Abraham
and the subsequent monotheism and one holds in ones heart there is an all merciful God then a claim to be now a Muslim and having always been one has the same validity as Imam Dauf's claim to be a Jew.
Palin announced her opposition to the proposed Mosque by asking "peace-seeking" Muslims to understand that the mosque will interfere with recovery from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks;
"Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing" . She followed that statement with the strongly emotional (which the situation warrants) "Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate. "Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real."
She then called on the President to state his position clearly "Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamisists killed 3000 people?" Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade."
As expected not only did the President backtrack or rather obfuscate his original apparent support for the Mosque to go ahead but Palin's remarks unleashed a firestorm of negativity from the left (including the childish attention paid to a simple typo)-even though two thirds of the country agree with her.
Naturally charges of racism and the inability to distinguish between "peaceful Mosque and terrorists" (which misses the point altogether-it is not about asking for a peaceful Mosque (sic) not to be built rather it is asking for it to be built elsewhere to take cognizance of the sensitivities of those who lost loved ones in the non-peaceful Muslim activity in the area.
Now however,with the discovery of Imam Dauf's being a Jew and Christian if we assign the same religious flexibility ability to Palin who is more Jewish than many liberal Jews given her unwavering support of Israel (which included having the Israeli flag in her office when governor) then all charges of "racism" against her on this issue must cease and she can join Muslims from all walks of life including the first Muslim Miss America who ask for the Mosque not to be built where it is proposed to be.
Let the issue be decided on the true fact of the matter, the sensitivities of the victims families and the vast majority of the American people-not the false arguments about constitution or racism nor the left looking for a "victory" for President Obama to prop up his falling poll numbers.
A Proud Day-Confirmation Of Change Of Registration From Democratic Party To (Palin) Republican
A proud day indeed ! I received an absentee ballot for the New York Democratic Party primary and advised the NYC Board of Electors that I had sent in my change of registration from Dem to Rep which is now confirmed.
I regret it has taken so many years but we all see the light at different times and through a life journey of different circumstances. I believe I was right to have worked and voted for JFK no matter what his personal faults and right to have supported the LBJ of the civil rights movement time. As for all Democratic party presidential nominees from Carter to Kerry I draw a veil over my support.
It is an honor to be a registered G.O.P.'er and even more so for the honor and delight to support Sarah Palin no matter where her quest may lead her.
I regret it has taken so many years but we all see the light at different times and through a life journey of different circumstances. I believe I was right to have worked and voted for JFK no matter what his personal faults and right to have supported the LBJ of the civil rights movement time. As for all Democratic party presidential nominees from Carter to Kerry I draw a veil over my support.
It is an honor to be a registered G.O.P.'er and even more so for the honor and delight to support Sarah Palin no matter where her quest may lead her.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Associated Press Outdoes Itself With Grossly Biased Palin "Embarrassment" Hit Piece
Throwing all pretense at balance, much less moderation or lack of bias out the window the AP has let its barely disguised hatred of Sarah Palin be seen in all its repugnant unashamed yellow journalism.
In their latest anti-Palin diatribe headed "Republican pollster says Palin will be 'embarrassed' by Tuesday election results' they present Palin's ( and Huckabee's-for some reason he won't suffer any embarrassment) endorsement of Joe Miller, for what they admit, is a long shot run by in his effort to wrest the Alaskan Senatorial candidacy from current holder Lisa Murkowski as an upcoming 'embarrassing defeat in her own backyard'.
This is further described as part of a 'summer of setbacks for Palin' as her endorsed candidates have suffered what they describe as a string of defeats. There is no mention of the total results of Palin's endorsements to date which are running about even with the success ratio.
They then to go on a describe Palin as a 'favorite target of mockery (for whom-they don't say but the AP/leftist bloggers would be a good guess) as a 'unifying figure-for Democrats', then quote (vaguely critical) comments about her by a Republican whom she did not endorse (whilst leaving out favorable comments such as those by Clint Didier 'Palin couldn't have worked harder for me' in Washington and the many who have expressed delight at her endorsement).
They then leave the topic altogether and bring up the ridiculous (and a genuine target for mockery) EMILY's List bear suit video attacking Palin. Their snideness drips off the page in their caption comments on a Palin photograph describing Palin as having converted a "failed run for the vice-presidency into a job, more or less as a driving force for ultraconservatism."
The only bit of balance in their long hatchet job is to quote Palin who realistically states "regardless of whether the many candidates I've had the honor of endorsing win or lose...I support them because they boldly shake things up in their primary races:".
As presented previously the facts are exactly as Palin sets out-which I commented on as I saw it .
"She made it outstandingly clear during her resignation speech that she would endorse candidates who she felt were standing on back to basics conservative principles and "If I die I die". If 100% of her endorsements failed to win but they presented to the American people a program of renewal for our country then that would be a principled stand worthy of someone of the highest consideration to lead America.
The leftist media can't get it through their collective heads that, with Palin, they are dealing with someone who puts principle above expediency. Of course Palin supporters would wish to see a 100% winning result for all her endorsements (and of course some have done very well) but we "Get it" because our thinking is conditioned by Palin to put what is right before self "
If the AP would have taken that premise and expanded on it then, even with the gross imbalance of the rest of the article their might be a degree of fairness, but with the AP where Palin is concerned fairness is not a doctrine they subscribe to. Only a vigilant Palin supporter bloggership and those willing to comment on these sort of biased articles in the 'readers comments' area can counter the power of this MSM/LSM/Leftist bloggership distortion.
In their latest anti-Palin diatribe headed "Republican pollster says Palin will be 'embarrassed' by Tuesday election results' they present Palin's ( and Huckabee's-for some reason he won't suffer any embarrassment) endorsement of Joe Miller, for what they admit, is a long shot run by in his effort to wrest the Alaskan Senatorial candidacy from current holder Lisa Murkowski as an upcoming 'embarrassing defeat in her own backyard'.
This is further described as part of a 'summer of setbacks for Palin' as her endorsed candidates have suffered what they describe as a string of defeats. There is no mention of the total results of Palin's endorsements to date which are running about even with the success ratio.
They then to go on a describe Palin as a 'favorite target of mockery (for whom-they don't say but the AP/leftist bloggers would be a good guess) as a 'unifying figure-for Democrats', then quote (vaguely critical) comments about her by a Republican whom she did not endorse (whilst leaving out favorable comments such as those by Clint Didier 'Palin couldn't have worked harder for me' in Washington and the many who have expressed delight at her endorsement).
They then leave the topic altogether and bring up the ridiculous (and a genuine target for mockery) EMILY's List bear suit video attacking Palin. Their snideness drips off the page in their caption comments on a Palin photograph describing Palin as having converted a "failed run for the vice-presidency into a job, more or less as a driving force for ultraconservatism."
The only bit of balance in their long hatchet job is to quote Palin who realistically states "regardless of whether the many candidates I've had the honor of endorsing win or lose...I support them because they boldly shake things up in their primary races:".
As presented previously the facts are exactly as Palin sets out-which I commented on as I saw it .
"She made it outstandingly clear during her resignation speech that she would endorse candidates who she felt were standing on back to basics conservative principles and "If I die I die". If 100% of her endorsements failed to win but they presented to the American people a program of renewal for our country then that would be a principled stand worthy of someone of the highest consideration to lead America.
The leftist media can't get it through their collective heads that, with Palin, they are dealing with someone who puts principle above expediency. Of course Palin supporters would wish to see a 100% winning result for all her endorsements (and of course some have done very well) but we "Get it" because our thinking is conditioned by Palin to put what is right before self "
If the AP would have taken that premise and expanded on it then, even with the gross imbalance of the rest of the article their might be a degree of fairness, but with the AP where Palin is concerned fairness is not a doctrine they subscribe to. Only a vigilant Palin supporter bloggership and those willing to comment on these sort of biased articles in the 'readers comments' area can counter the power of this MSM/LSM/Leftist bloggership distortion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)