2008 Presidential Elections

[vector7]

Friday, October 24, 2008
Colin Powell Is New Hero Of U.S. Muslims

I have to admit it - I missed this quote from Colin Powell when he made his endorsement of B. Hussein Obama on Meet the Press. See, I don't watch Meet the Press and when the video of his interview with Tom Brokaw was put up, after a few minutes I couldn't take it any longer. But according to the story at Haaretz, American muslims are rallying around a quotation from Colin Powell where he said:

"The correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America," Powell said. "Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, 'He's a Muslim and he might be associated (with) terrorists.' This is not the way we should be doing it in America."

Okay, first of all, Mr. Powell, Obama IS associated with terrorists - might not be a muslim one but indeed a bona fide, 100% admitted terrorist in William Ayers.

Here's what American muslims are saying about Powell's comments:

"We American Muslims have talked about our patriotism and the heroism of some American Muslims till we were blue in the face, and neither the media nor the people listen," said Seeme Hasan, a Pueblo, Colorado, Republican whose family has given tens of thousands of dollars to the Republican Party. "Gen. Powell made people listen and at a very humane level," said Hasan, who is backing McCain. "More people in leadership positions need to say this and recognize this - that American Muslims have worked very hard to fight this war on terror."

Now, let me take Colin Powell's statement and make a point out of it. Powell says, in essence, that if an American is muslim they should not be seen in any suspicious light. So let's look at Congressman Keith Ellison. Ellison became the first member of Congress to ever be sworn into office using the Qur'an. The Qur'an implores all of its followers to follow the orders of allah and mohammed and to literally work for world submission to islam. Keith Ellison, as a muslim, has sworn to work towards the goal of islam which is final submission of all infidels in America.

I call that a security risk. I call that a terrorist threat.

We have the majority of muslim leaders in America who have publicly ignored islamic terror attacks across the world...we even have some who have insinuated that it was U.S. policy in the Middle East that caused the 9/11 attacks. These muslims who are so eager to cling to Powell's comments, so infuriated at their perception of persecution....I'd like to ask each of them if they agree with the total support the U.S. has of Israel as one of our biggest allies. Search these people out and simply ask them if they agree with U.S. support of Israel and you will find out just how "American" these people are. They are muslims first, Americans second or third.

U.S. Muslims relieved by Powell's attack on anti-Islam rhetoric

American Muslims say they have been treated as dangerous outcasts in an election year when Barack Obama's opponents are spreading false rumors that he is Muslim and linking him to terrorists. So when Colin Powell, a Republican, condemned using Muslim as a smear - a tactic he said members of his own party allowed - there was an outpouring of gratitude and relief from American Muslims. "That speech really came out of left field and really shocked us," said Wajahat Ali, 27, an attorney and playwright from Fremont, California. "The sense is that it's about time. He said something that needed to be said."

The retired general, who was President George W. Bush's first secretary of state, made the comments on NBC television's Meet the Press, as he broke with his party to endorse the Democratic nominee for president. Powell noted in last Sunday's broadcast that Republican John McCain did not spread rumors about Obama's faith, but Powell said he was troubled that others did. "The correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America," Powell said. "Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, 'He's a Muslim and he might be associated (with) terrorists.' This is not the way we should be doing it in America." Powell said he felt especially strongly about the rumors because of a photo he saw in The New Yorker magazine of the mother of a Muslim soldier in Arlington Cemetery embracing her son's grave, which was marked with a Muslim crescent and star. The soldier, Kareem R. Khan of New Jersey, was 20 when he was killed in Iraq. "We American Muslims have talked about our patriotism and the heroism of some American Muslims till we were blue in the face, and neither the media nor the people listen," said Seeme Hasan, a Pueblo, Colorado, Republican whose family has given tens of thousands of dollars to the Republican Party. "Gen. Powell made people listen and at a very humane level," said Hasan, who is backing McCain. "More people in leadership positions need to say this and recognize this - that American Muslims have worked very hard to fight this war on terror." The inaccurate claims that Obama is secretly Muslim started as soon as he was mentioned as a potential presidential candidate. There were false rumors that he was educated at a radical Islamic school as a child in Indonesia and that he was sworn into the Senate on the Quran. His opponents emphasized his middle name - Hussein - and circulated a photo of him wearing traditional tribal garb on a 2006 visit to Kenya. Kari Ansari, a mother of three from Villa Park, Illinois, said the allegations upset her 10-year-old son. "It sort of made him feel like, 'If they won't elect him president just for trying on Muslim clothes, they will never elect me because I'm a real Muslim,'" said Ansari, a founder of America's Muslim Family, a quarterly magazine. "That's heartbreaking for us as Muslim parents." Obama has combatted the claims in speeches and on a campaign Web site dedicated to debunking inaccuracies about him. But the belief persists. A poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found 12 percent of voters believed the Illinois senator is Muslim. That poll was released Tuesday - coincidentally, the same day the head of a New Mexico Republican women's group called Obama a Muslim socialist and said Muslims are our enemies. County and Republican Party officials condemned the statements. "Muslims feel jaded by the 2008 election precisely because they see the smearing of their identity," Ali said. "Muslim or Arab is seen as a scarlet letter, political leprosy, kryptonite. There is that taint there. We're the lowest of the low." The experience isn't entirely new for American Muslims, who have struggled for acceptance in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The major parties have quietly courted them for years, yet presidential candidates have refused to publicly associate with them, leaders say.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031146.html

[vector7]

---

Frank envisions post-election stimulus from Democrats

October 24, 2008 6:00 AM

NEW BEDFORD — After the November election, Democrats will push for a second economic stimulus package that includes money for the states' stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday.

In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay.

The military cuts also mean getting out of Iraq sooner, he said.
"The people of Iraq want us out, and we want to stay over their objection," he said. "It's extraordinary." The Maliki government in Iraq "can't sell (the withdrawal deal with the U.S.) because it sounds like we're going to stay too long."

"I was teasing (U.S. Rep.) Jack Murtha (a key supporter of military budgets) and I said to him, 'For the first time, somebody else has got a bill that's almost as big as yours.' We don't need all these fancy new weapons. I think there needs to be additional review."

Rep. Frank called on President Bush to appoint a senior official to guide the economic stimulus packages through the transition to the Barack Obama or John McCain administration when it takes office in January.

And he said that if the Democrats can't find an adequate agreement on a stimulus package in the lame-duck Congress, they would rather wait until the new Congress takes over — likely with many more Democrats, if polling results bear fruit in the November voting.

The new package, he said, will be aimed at easing fears about lending and investing. "The psychological problem is even worse than the real problem," he said.

"There is money to lend and projects worth borrowing money to do. But people are afraid to lend. That's what we're trying to unfreeze."

States have many infrastructure projects — bridges, highways, etc. — that have been shut down because of a cash-flow problems, he said. So it is not the case that a stimulus will take months or years to wait for design and approval, since projects are already in progress or ready to go.

Also, he said, "we'll increase the federal share of medical care so states won't have to lay off people." Unemployment insurance benefits won't increase, he said, but the period of collecting them will, and eligibility requirements might be relaxed.

And, ultimately, there will be tax increases on the upper brackets. "We'll have to raise taxes ultimately. Not now, but eventually," he said.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/...0332/-1/NEWS10

[Ryan Ruck]

In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay.

Barney Frank needs a swift kick in the crotch.

The military already is choosing programs, NONE! Because they can't afford new systems and the ones they can are in small numbers.

Maybe if Frank's male brothel was paying its fair share of taxes, this wouldn't be a problem!

[samizdat]

BO bama birthday suit derailed. Berg to appeal
Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine "that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency," but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.
"Until that time," Surrick says, "voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring."

I haven't read the opinion yet, but why bother- jus anudder awistocwatic wudge- duh . I mean wuss. It appears as if he invited the FEC for a friend of bama brief, but failed to invite the RNC or- Ralph Nadar.

[Backstop]

Listened to Richard Land Live at 0’dark thirty this morning.

He had some very concise summations of actions the Obamanator will take if elected.

http://richardlandlive.com/

I’m not liking it one bit.

[Backstop]

Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

“I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

This guy is starting to scare me.

[Ryan Ruck]

Wow... Maybe McCain needs to buy 30 minutes before Obama's and loop this over and over.

[samizdat]

3 c's- capitulation-collusion-convergence-communism. I wonder how true this wonder boy story is?

In 2006, Barack Obama traveled to Africa on U.S. taxpayer money and for 6 days campaigned for Raila Odinga, who was running for the office of President of Kenya.

By the time Obama joined him on the trail, Odinga, who claims to be Obama's cousin, had already established a reputation as a powerful orator, running as the 'CANDIDATE of CHANGE' and drawing crowds who chanted in deafening unison, 'YES WE CAN!'

In '07 Odinga lost the election and on that day, hundreds of his followers spilled into the streets wielding machetes and launched a months long ethnic cleansing rampage on the opposition party followers, burning churches, raping women and hacking villagers to death which resulted in the mass genocide of over 1400 innocent men, women and children.

Later in 2007, as a way of bringing about compromise and ending violence, Odinga was able to muscle his way into a second top spot as Prime Minister, a new position created especially for him, and granted full Executive Priviledges over the government of Kenya.

Odinga, who denied that he was a muslim for years, has only recently went public with it, is against the extradition of Muslim terrorists and has vowed to bring Sharia Law to Kenya. In 2007, he traveled to the U.S. to visit and support his friend Obama in his bid for the Democratic nomination.

Obama campaign insiders have reported that Obama has continued to remain in contact with Odinga throughout his own Presidential campaign.

Although reports abound on the internet about the Obama/Odinga relationship, the mainstream Press has silenced this story.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/obama-odinga/
http://mediamatters.org/items/200810220014

Additionally, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted, PolitiFact.com wrote in an August 20 article that the claim that Obama "supported" Odinga during his bid for the presidency of Kenya is "false." PolitiFact wrote that it "scour[ed] the public record for evidence that Obama supported Odinga" and concluded that "Obama has remained neutral in Kenyan politics."
In the same article, PolitiFact also wrote that Obama "did not support Odinga during his trip" to Kenya in 2006 and quoted from an interview Obama gave a Kenyan newspaper during the trip:

Question: "As you prepared to travel to Kenya you were obviously conscious of two things. One was about being drawn into local politics. The other was the high expectations of what you could do for Kenya now that you are a senator. How did you handle both?"
Obama: "One of the things we try to do is meet with all parties. I met President [Mwai] Kibaki, I met [Kenyan party leader] Uhuru Kenyatta, I was with Raila Odinga. We met the government, met the opposition and met other groups such as human rights activists. What I try to do is give a consistent message on what I think U.S.-Kenya relations should be, but not to suggest somehow that I think one party is better than the other. That's for the Kenyan people to decide."

[vector7]

Obama On Tape In 2001: Warren Court Not Radical Enough

October, 26, 2008 — nicedeb

Says it’s a “tragedy” that the constitution wasn’t reinterpreted to force redistribution of wealth, and discusses the best way to bring about redistributive justice for blacks, (Joe the Plumbers all across this nation should perk up their ears):

You know what’s a tragedy? That this guy has more than 20% of the vote. It’s a tragedy for us all if he gets the liberal supermajority he needs for his grand scheme of “redistributive change”.


http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/10...adical-enough/

[Ryan Ruck]

Holy crap Backstop! Fox News is covering that soundbite right now!

ETA: Bob Beckel trying to cover and say he was referring to the school system! HA!HA!HA!

[vector7]

At the U.N., Many Hope for an Obama Win
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 26, 2008; A17

UNITED NATIONS -- There are no "Obama 2008" buttons, banners or T-shirts visible here at U.N. headquarters, but it might be difficult to find a sliver of territory in the United States more enthusiastic over the prospect of the Illinois senator winning the White House.

An informal survey of more than two dozen U.N. staff members and foreign delegates showed that the overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body.

Obama supporters hail from Russia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere. One American employee here seemed puzzled that he was being asked whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was even a consideration. "Obama was and is unstoppable," the official said. "Please, God, let him win," he added.

"It would be hard to find anybody, I think, at the U.N. who would not believe that Obama would be a considerable improvement over any other alternative," said William H. Luers, executive director of the United Nations Association. "It's been a bad eight years, and there is a lot of bad feeling over it."

Conservatives who are skeptical of the United Nations said they are not surprised by the political tilt. "The fact is that most conservatives, most Republicans don't worship at the altar in New York, and I think that aggravates them more than anything else," said John R. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "What they want is the bending of the knee, and they'll get it from an Obama administration."

The candidates have said little about their plans for the United Nations, but Obama has highlighted his desire to pursue diplomacy more assertively than the Bush administration, whereas McCain has called for the establishment of a league of democracies, which many here fear is code for sidelining the United Nations.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has avoided showing a public preference about the presidential campaign -- although he has hinted at a soft spot for Obama in private gatherings, according to U.N. officials. His top advisers say they think McCain and Obama would support many of Ban's priorities, including restraints on production of greenhouse gases that fuel climate change.

"The secretary general and the Secretariat of the United Nations take no position on the U.S. election," said Ban's chief spokeswoman, Michele Montas. "The secretary general deeply respects the democratic process, and he looks forward to working with whomever the American people choose."

Many U.N. rank and file are less circumspect, saying they see in Obama's multicultural background -- a Kenyan father, an Indonesian stepfather and a mother and grandparents from Kansas -- a reflection of themselves. "We do not consider him an African American," said Congo's U.N. ambassador, Atoki Ileka. "We consider him an African."

One U.N. official threw a party over the summer and asked guests to place stickers of either an elephant or a donkey on the front door to show their political preference. At the end of the night, the door was covered with about 30 donkeys and two elephants. "We found out that one of the Republicans was an American and the other couldn't vote," according to a U.N. official who attended. "So we convinced the American to vote for Obama."

"I have not heard a single person who will support McCain; if they do, they are in hiding," said another U.N. Obama booster from an African country.

"The majority of people here believe in multilateralism," he said. "The Republicans were constantly questioning the relevance of the United Nations."

For the small minority of U.N. officials who have stuck with McCain -- only two of 28 U.N. officials and diplomats questioned said they favored the Arizona senator -- life in Turtle Bay can seem lonely. "I keep my mouth shut," said one American official here who plans to vote for McCain.

"Everyone is knocking on wood, counting the days to the elections. Some Americans here are planning to move to Washington," in search of jobs in an Obama administration.

"It will be devastating if Obama loses," the official said. "There has been such an amount of faith placed on the outcome."

The official, who like all other Secretariat staffers spoke on the condition of anonymity, recalled that Democrats have not always been so supportive of the United Nations, citing the Clinton administration's lone 1996 campaign to block the reelection of then-Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

And some foreign delegations, including Georgia, have been outspoken in their support of the foreign policy approach of McCain, who reacted quickly and sharply to Russian intervention in Georgia.

Still, the Obama candidacy has enormous emotional resonance among delegates from developing countries, particularly for what it says about race in America. They recall that one of the United Nations' most famous civil servants, Ralph Bunche -- an African American who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his Middle East mediation -- could never have risen to the same heights in U.S. foreign policy circles. And Kofi Annan, the first black U.N. secretary general, said the prospect of an Obama presidency would be "phenomenal."

Even while critics of the Bush administration here root for Obama, they acknowledge that the U.S. attitude toward the United Nations has improved dramatically in recent years, citing cooperation on Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.

They say President Bush deserves much credit for supporting U.N.-backed initiatives, including the provision of billions of dollars in funding to fight AIDS and malaria in Africa as well as support for the largest expansion of U.N. peacekeeping in history. And they expect that whichever candidate prevails will be compelled by the United States' falling financial fortunes to work more cooperatively with foreign governments.

"We don't have voting rights," said Yukio Takasu, Japan's ambassador to the United Nations.

But, he added, "We expect whoever [wins] in Washington will have a fresh look at the U.N. and the utility of working through the U.N. And, of course, we have to adjust to them."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...502011_pf.html

[vector7]

Here is another reason I voted for Bush,
During 2001 Bush's 1st year in office he sent a couple of representatives to the UN conference on gun control.

They refused and walked out of that conference.

"The United States made clear from the outset that it would oppose any plan that interfered with citizens' rights to own guns and would reject any measure barring governments from supplying small arms to ''nonstate actors,'' such as rebel groups."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...54C0A9679C8B63

You can bet that Mr. O's team will embrace UN gun control.

People won't see it coming until it's too late.

[Ryan Ruck]

Stunning Results in Early Voting in California. Smile Redstaters!

California has begun early voting already as well as mail-in balloting. The number of people who have gone in to vote in person has been extensive. The results so far prove what we had always suspected. The polls are being proven as totally unreliable. Although the results of early balloting have not been disclosed,of course,how many Republicans and how many Democrats have voted has been revealed.

The results are simply shocking. The polls showed Barack Obama with an 18 point lead in California just a few days ago. The results thus far are the complete opposite. In the most liberal state in the entire country,the results are that 99,000 Republicans have voted and 96,000 Democrats voted. In the mail-in balloting the results so far are that 9,000 Democrats sent in their ballots and that 5,000 Republicans did so. So with nearly 210,000 people having voted,the Democrats have only a 1,000 vote advantage !

If we take the liberty of assuming that all Republicans will vote for John McCain and all Democrats will vote for Obama,then the race is incredibly close. I'm sure that Obama will eventually win in California,but if he is struggling here after he pushed so hard for early voting,then he will lose the election ! Everybody thought he would win California in a landslide,but so far anyway,it's very tight. That means that in the less liberal states he is in real trouble.

Ignore the pundits. Forget the polls. Get out there and vote for John McCain. The results in California show the wisdom of Yogi Berra who said, "It's not over until it's over."

[vector7]

Obama says "Constitution flawed"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4

[vector7]

Everyone better get out and VOTE!!!

[vector7]

Republican fears of historic Obama landslide unleash civil war for the future of the party

Senior Republicans believe that John McCain is doomed to a landslide defeat which will hand Barack Obama more political power than any president in a generation.

By Tim Shipman in Durango, Colorado
Last Updated: 3:25PM GMT 26 Oct 2008

Mr McCain is now facing calls for him to sacrifice his own dwindling White House hopes and focus on saving vulnerable Republican Senate seats. Photo: EPA

Aides to George W.Bush, former Reagan White House staff and friends of John McCain have all told The Sunday Telegraph that they not only expect to lose on November 4, but also believe that Mr Obama is poised to win a crushing mandate.

They believe he will be powerful enough to remake the American political landscape with even more ease than Ronald Reagan did in 1980.

The prospect of an electoral rout has unleashed a bitter bout of recriminations both within the McCain campaign and the wider conservative movement, over who is to blame and what should be done to salvage the party's future.

Mr McCain is now facing calls for him to sacrifice his own dwindling White House hopes and focus on saving vulnerable Republican Senate seats which are up for grabs on the same day.

Their fear is that Democrat candidates riding on Mr Obama's popularity may win the nine extra seats they need in the Senate to give them unfettered power in Congress.

If the Democrat majority in the Senate is big enough - at least 60 seats to 40 - the Republicans will be unable to block legislation by use of a traditional filibuster - talking until legislation runs out of time. No president has had the support of such a majority since Jimmy Carter won the 1976 election. President Reagan achieved his political transformation partly through the power of his personality.

David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, told The Sunday Telegraph that Republicans should now concentrate all their fire on "the need for balanced government".

"It's hard to see a turnaround in the White House race," he said. "This could look like an ideological as well as a party victory if we're not careful. It could be 1980 in reverse.

"With this huge new role for federal government in the economy, the possibility for mischief making is very, very great. One man should not have a monopoly of political and financial power. That's very dangerous."

In North Carolina, where Senator Elizabeth Dole seems set to loose, Republicans are running adverts that appear to take an Obama victory for granted, warning that the Democrat will have a "blank cheque" if her rival Kay Hagen wins. "These liberals want complete control of government in a time of crisis," the narrator says. "All branches of Government. No checks and balances."

Democrats lead in eight of the 12 competitive Senate races and need just nine gains to reach their target of 60. Even Mitch McConnell, the leader of Senate Republicans, is at risk in Kentucky, normally a rock solid red state.
A private memo on the likely result of the congressional elections, leaked to Politico, has the Republicans losing 37 seats.

Ed Rollins, who masterminded Ronald Reagan's second victory in 1984, said the election is already over and predicted: "This is going to turn into a landslide."

A former White House official who still advises President Bush told The Sunday Telegraph: "McCain hasn't won independents, nor has he inspired the base. It's the worst of all worlds. He is dragging everyone else down with him. He needs to deploy people and money to salvage what we can in Congress."

The prospect of defeat has unleashed what insiders describe as an "every man for himself" culture within the McCain campaign, with aides in a "circular firing squad" as blame is assigned.

More profoundly, it sparked the first salvoes in a Republican civil war with echoes of Tory infighting during their years in the political wilderness.

One wing believes the party has to emulate David Cameron, by adapting the issues to fight on and the positions they hold, while the other believes that a back to basics approach will reconnect with heartland voters and ensure success. Modernisers fear that would leave Republicans marginalised, like the Tories were during the Iain Duncan Smith years, condemning them to opposition for a decade.

Mr Frum argues that just as America is changing, so the Republican Party must adapt its economic message and find more to say about healthcare and the environment if it is to survive.

He said: "I don't know that there's a lot of realism in the Republican Party. We have an economic message that is largely irrelevant to most people.
"Cutting personal tax rates is not the answer to everything. The Bush years were largely prosperous but while national income was up the numbers for most individuals were not. Republicans find that a hard fact to process."

Other Republicans have jumped ship completely. Ken Adelman, a Pentagon adviser on the Iraq war, Matthew Dowd, who was Mr Bush's chief re-election strategist, and Scott McClellan, Mr Bush's former press secretary, have all endorsed Mr Obama.

But the real bile has been saved for those conservatives who have balked at the selection of Sarah Palin.

In addition to Mr Frum, who thinks her not ready to be president, Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's greatest speechwriter and a columnist with the Wall Street Journal, condemned Mr McCain's running mate as a "symptom and expression of a new vulgarisation of American politics." Conservative columnist David Brooks called her a "fatal cancer to the Republican Party".
The backlash that ensued last week revealed the fault lines of the coming civil war.

Rush Limbaugh, the doyen of right wing talk radio hosts, denounced Noonan, Brooks and Frum. Neconservative writer Charles Krauthammer condemned "the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama", while fellow columnist Tony Blankley said that instead of collaborating in heralding Mr Obama's arrival they should be fighting "in a struggle to the political death for the soul of the country".

During the primaries the Democratic Party was bitterly divided between Barack Obama's "latte liberals" and Hillary Clinton's heartland supporters, but now the same cultural division threatens to tear the Republican Party apart.
Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to the first President Bush, dismissed Mrs Palin's critics as "cocktail party conservatives" who "give aid and comfort to the enemy".

He told The Sunday Telegraph: "There's going to be a bloodbath. A lot of people are going to be excommunicated. David Brooks and David Frum and Peggy Noonan are dead people in the Republican Party. The litmus test will be: where did you stand on Palin?"

Mr Frum thinks that Mrs Palin's brand of cultural conservatism appeals only to a dwindling number of voters.

He said: "She emerges from this election as the probable frontrunner for the 2012 nomination. Her supporters vastly outnumber her critics. But it will be extremely difficult for her to win the presidency."

Mr Nuzzo, who believes this election is not a re-run of the 1980 Reagan revolution but of 1976, when an ageing Gerald Ford lost a close contest and then ceded the leadership of the Republican Party to Mr Reagan.

He said: "Win or lose, there is a ready made conservative candidate waiting in the wings. Sarah Palin is not the new Iain Duncan Smith, she is the new Ronald Reagan." On the accuracy of that judgment, perhaps, rests the future of the Republican Party.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...the-party.html

[Backstop]

I realize this is off topic, but you broached an important point - and I'd like to expound a bit.

During 2001 Bush's 1st year in office he sent a couple of representatives to the UN conference on gun control.

Here is the gentleman that President Bush sent to the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects: John R. Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security

This is an important letter - please it read with unwavering attention.

http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/janjuly/4038.htm

UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects

John R. Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security

Plenary Address to the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons

New York City
July 9, 2001

Excellencies and distinguished colleagues, it is my honor and privilege to present United States views at this United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects.

The abstract goals and objectives of this Conference are laudable. Attacking the global illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (SA/LW) is an important initiative which the international community should, indeed must, address because of its wide ranging effects. The illicit trade in SA/LW can be used to exacerbate conflict, threaten civilian populations in regions of conflict, endanger the work of peacekeeping forces and humanitarian aid workers, and greatly complicate the hard work of economically and politically rebuilding war-torn societies. Alleviating these problems is in all of our interest.

Small arms and light weapons, in our understanding, are the strictly military arms -- automatic rifles, machine guns, shoulder-fired missile and rocket systems, light mortars -- that are contributing to continued violence and suffering in regions of conflict around the world. We separate these military arms from firearms such as hunting rifles and pistols, which are commonly owned and used by citizens in many countries. As U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has said, "just as the First and Fourth Amendments secure individual rights of speech and security respectively, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms." The United States believes that the responsible use of firearms is a legitimate aspect of national life. Like many countries, the United States has a cultural tradition of hunting and sport shooting. We, therefore, do not begin with the presumption that all small arms and light weapons are the same or that they are all problematic. It is the illicit trade in military small arms and light weapons that we are gathered here to address and that should properly concern us.

The United States goes to great lengths to ensure that small arms and light weapons transferred under our jurisdiction are done so with the utmost responsibility. The transfer of all military articles of U.S. origin are subject to extremely rigorous procedures under the U.S. Arms Export Control Act and International Traffic in Arms Regulations. All U.S. exports of defense articles and services, including small arms and light weapons, must be approved by the Department of State. Assurances must be given by the importing country that arms will be used in a manner consistent with our criteria for arms exports: they must not contribute to regional instability, arms races, terrorism, proliferation, or violations of human rights. Arms of U.S. origin can not be retransferred without approval by the United States. To ensure that arms are delivered to legitimate end-users, our government rigorously monitors arms transfers, investigating suspicious activity and acting quickly to curtail exports to those recipients who do not meet our strict criteria for responsible use. In the past five years, the United States has conducted thousands of end-use checks, interdicted thousands of illicit arms shipments at U.S. ports of exit, and cut-off exports entirely to five countries due to their failure to properly manage U.S. origin defense articles.

All commercial exporters of arms in the United States must be registered as brokers and submit each transaction for government licensing approval. Our brokering law is comprehensive, extending over citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, and also U.S. citizens operating abroad.

Believing that it is in our interest to stem the illicit trade in military arms, the United States has avidly promoted and supported such international activities as the Wassenaar Arrangement and the UN Register of Conventional Arms. Bilaterally, we offer our financial and technical assistance all over the world to mitigate the illicit trade in SA/LW. We have worked with countries to develop national legislation to regulate exports and imports of arms, and to better enforce their laws. We have provided training, technical assistance, and funds to improve border security and curb arms smuggling in many areas of the world where this problem is rampant. And in the past year, we have instituted a program to assist countries in conflict-prone regions to secure or destroy excess and illicit stocks of small arms and light weapons.

We are proud of our record, and would hope that the Program of Action would encourage all nations to adopt similar practices. Our practical experience with these problems reflects our view of how best to prevent the illicit trade in SA/LW. Our focus is on addressing the problem where it is most acute and the risks are highest: regions of conflict and instability. We strongly support measures in the draft Program of Action calling for effective export and import controls, restraint in trade to regions of conflict, observance and enforcement of UNSC embargoes, strict regulation of arms brokers, transparency in exports, and improving security of arms stockpiles and destruction of excess. These measures, taken together, form the core of a regime that, if accepted by all countries, would greatly mitigate the problems we all have gathered here to address.

There are, however, aspects of the draft Program of Action that we cannot support. Some activities inscribed in the Program are beyond the scope of what is appropriate for international action and should remain issues for national lawmakers in member states. Other proposals divert our attention from practical, effective measures to attack the problem of the illicit trade in SA/LW where it is most needed. This diffusion of focus is, indeed, the Program's chief defect, mixing together as it does legitimate areas for international cooperation and action and areas that are properly left to decisions made through the exercise of popular sovereignty by participating governments:



We do not support measures that would constrain legal trade and legal manufacturing of small arms and light weapons. The vast majority of arms transfers in the world are routine and not problematic. Each member state of the United Nations has the right to manufacture and export arms for purposes of national defense. Diversions of the legal arms trade that become "illicit" are best dealt with through effective export controls. To label all manufacturing and trade as "part of the problem" is inaccurate and counterproductive. Accordingly, we would ask that language in Section II, paragraph 4 be changed to establish the principle of legitimacy of the legal trade, manufacturing and possession of small arms and light weapons, and acknowledge countries that already have in place adequate laws, regulations and procedures over the manufacture, stockpiling, transfer and possession of small arms and light weapons.

We do not support the promotion of international advocacy activity by international or non-governmental organizations, particularly when those political or policy views advocated are not consistent with the views of all member states. What individual governments do in this regard is for them to decide, but we do not regard the international governmental support of particular political viewpoints to be consistent with democratic principles. Accordingly, the provisions of the draft Program that contemplate such activity should be modified or eliminated.

We do not support measures that prohibit civilian possession of small arms. This is outside the mandate for this Conference set forth in UNGA Resolution 54/54V. We agree with the recommendation of the 1999 UN Panel of Governmental Experts that laws and procedures governing the possession of small arms by civilians are properly left to individual member states. The United States will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures abrogating the Constitutional right to bear arms. We request that Section II, para 20, which refers to restrictions on the civilian possession of arms to be eliminated from the Program of Action, and that other provisions which purport to require national regulation of the lawful possession of firearms such as Section II, paras 7 and 10 be modified to confine their reach to illicit international activities.

We do not support measures limiting trade in SA/LW solely to governments. This proposal, we believe, is both conceptually and practically flawed. It is so broad that in the absence of a clear definition of small arms and light weapons, it could be construed as outlawing legitimate international trade in all firearms. Violent non-state groups at whom this proposal is presumably aimed are unlikely to obtain arms through authorized channels. Many of them continue to receive arms despite being subject to legally-binding UNSC embargoes. Perhaps most important, this proposal would preclude assistance to an oppressed non-state group defending itself from a genocidal government. Distinctions between governments and non-governments are irrelevant in determining responsible and irresponsible end-users of arms.

The United States also will not support a mandatory Review Conference, as outlined in Section IV, which serves only to institutionalize and bureaucratize this process. We would prefer that meetings to review progress on the implementation of the Program of Action be decided by member states as needed, responding not to an arbitrary timetable, but specific problems faced in addressing the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. Neither will we, at this time, commit to begin negotiations and reach agreement on any legally binding instruments, the feasibility and necessity of which may be in question and in need of review over time.



Through its national practices, laws, and assistance programs, through its diplomatic engagement in all regions of the world, the United States has demonstrated its commitment to countering the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. During the next two weeks, we will work cooperatively with all member states to develop a final document which is legitimate, practical, effective, and which can be accepted by all nations. As we work toward this goal over the next two weeks, we must keep in mind those suffering in the regions of the world where help is most desperately needed and for whom the success of this Conference is most crucial.

[Toad]

Republican fears of historic Obama landslide unleash civil war for the future of the party

Senior Republicans believe that John McCain is doomed to a landslide defeat which will hand Barack Obama more political power than any president in a generation. ...

There is so much truth in here I don't even know where to begin.

If, IF, Obama wins. The GOP will undergo a civil war for it's very identity as a party. The new school moderates vs. the old school conservatives. And even within the conservatives you see the battle between the elites and power brokers vs rank and file. Sarah Palin is the perfect example of this battle. Just last Sunday I was still reading in the paper conservative colomnists trashin her as ill prepared and ill equiped to be any kind of party leader, meanwhile rank and file hold her up as the new incarnation of what the want the GOP to be.

There's practically 3 sides to the GOP, they don'y much care for eachother, and they barely see eye to eye. The party is in for some very very rough road to find itself again over the next 4 years, win or lose, but especially lose.

[American Patriot]

I'll stand next to Sarah Palin, with my gun and defend her ANY time. Obama needs to earn my respect.

[Beetle]

Barack Obama's Dream Cabinet
By Doug Patton
October 28, 2008

If the elite media and their skewed polls are to be believed, Barack Obama will be the 44th president of the United States. If that is the case, let us imagine for a moment what an Obama administration might look like if this radical leftist actually were to follow his heart and appoint people to his cabinet who share his view of the world. Here, then, are some highlights of some key members of Barack Obama's possible dream cabinet (in alphabetical order).
Secretary of Agriculture -- U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin would be the logical choice here. Harkin, a far-left Iowa Democrat who has served as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, has never met an ag subsidy he didn't love.
Attorney General -- If Obama thought he could get away with it, he probably would place his wife, Michelle in this position, just as President John F. Kennedy did with his brother, Bobby. However, U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy of the Peoples' Republic of Vermont would be equally vigilant on behalf of the rights of criminals and would therefore be a suitable second choice.
Secretary of Defense -- How about U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who, while running for president himself, once proposed a "Department of Peace"? (What Dennis the Menace has never understood is that the funny-looking five-sided building across the Potomac is our department of peace.)
Secretary of Education -- The obvious choice for this post is Professor William Ayers from the University of Illinois. This man is considered to be an expert in the field of education. He has written 17 books and is highly respected within the academic community. He is well known to Barack Obama, having served on at least two boards with him. He is also a self-proclaimed Marxist, anarchist and domestic terrorist who brags about having set off bombs at the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol building and at New York City police headquarters. He and Barack Obama share a desire to pollute young American minds with leftist propaganda.
Secretary of Energy -- Perhaps President Obama could get former Vice President Al Gore to fill this important post. Gore could just shut down what's left of our refineries and grind the nation to a halt. Of course, it's going to be hard to blame that on the Republicans if they are not in power. Oh well, they'll think of something.
Secretary of Health and Human Services -- Is Jack Kevorkian still alive? Old Jack really would be perfect to carry out Obama's creepy anti-life policies.
Secretary of Homeland Security -- As long as we have Bill Ayers in the cabinet, why not include his lovely wife, Bernadine Dohrn? Another domestic terrorist, Dohrn actually did prison time for her crimes.
Secretary of State -- Without question, the state department is the most visible cabinet post in any administration, and no one personifies Barack Obama's view of American foreign policy better than Noam Chomsky, professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chomsky is widely known as a political dissident, anarchist and socialist intellectual. Beginning with his opposition to the Vietnam War, Chomsky has established himself as a harsh critic of American foreign policy. He would be the perfect secretary of state to carry out Barack Obama's feeble foreign policy initiatives.

Secretary of the Treasury -- Although Obama has mentioned Warren Buffet as a potential treasury secretary, why go with George Soros light when you can have the real deal? Given the opportunity, why wouldn't Obama offer the job to the crazy, Hungarian-born billionaire who has invested so much in getting him elected?
For White House Budget Director, Prez Obama might have a tough choice between two highly qualified members of the U.S. House of Representatives, namely Charlie Rangel and Barney Frank. Rangel, of course, is the black congressman from Harlem and current chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. He once equated tax cuts with racism. His appointment would fill a race quota. Then there's Frank, of Massachusetts, who was at the heart of the debacle with sub-prime mortgages that eventually brought down Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. His presence in an Obama administration would fill a gay quota. (Appearances are everything to Dems, you know.)
Then there are the eventual Supreme Court appointments, but I can't even allow myself to focus on any names beyond Hillary Clinton. Who knows? Obama might even get this motley crew approved by a Democrat Senate.