Thompson First Choice, Huckabee Second Choice


Huckabee with Copeland on BVOV

Mike Huckabee is a man of faith. Huckabee is running for the Republican nomination for President. In the recent polls of this posting he has passed my pick Fred Thompson in popularity. Huckabee’s poll numbers are nipping at Romney’s heels and have passed Giuliani in the most current polls for the Iowa Caucus.

I like Huckabee but I sense an ordained minister will be a target of Left Wing viciousness about religion and politics. I personally believe an injection of Faith into the political process would be a great shot to cure the cancer of Secular Humanism which is extinguishing Christian morality by replacing it with moral relativity. Moral relativity deviates and excuses depravity such as homosexuality or pornography as morals that are acceptable relative to a consensus of individuals instead as measured against a foundation of absolutes of the Creator.

Since the Left is dominant in the Mainstream Media I do not think Huckabee could win the Office of President with a team of the MSM and Leftists Democrats propagandizing the voters.

On the other hand Fred Thompson, regardless of an active participation of faith or a lack thereof, is favorable to many Christian moral principles and is a Conservative. Certainly Thompson has supported legislation that I highly disagree with – such as McCain-Feingold. However one can find a special interest subject of every Republican candidate’s past that is disavowed or down played now.

Huckabee has some serious ethics scandals in his past. As I said one can find a skeleton on every candidate – Republican or Democrat. So the issue for Republicans is can they find a candidate that not only fits their political philosophy but deliver on at least acting on their campaign platforms.

Like I said Huckabee fits generously into my social issues for candidate but is he electable? Thompson also fits into my social issues for a candidate (though not as dynamically as Huckabee) and I believe his electable in 2008.

I like Romney’s image on social issues now; however he belongs to a religion that I believe is cult masking as Christianity. Also Romney’s skeletons are about flip flopping on social issues of his Massachusetts days to his current image. I think that threatens his electability in 2008.

Giuliani is a very electable candidate for the Republicans and I think he would even be tough on Islamofascism overcoming Political Correctness. However Giuliani on social issues is a huge disappointment for me.

So again I am this spot now: Thompson first choice and Huckabee second choice.

Now the reason I was inspired to write this piece because a very influential person in my Christian life is having Huckabee on his televangelist program for a week. I don’t know how Kenneth Copeland is going to swing this without Leftist accusations of a 501(c)3 non-profit violations; however good for him. Brother Copeland’s under the table endorsement of Huckabee by having him on the Believer’s Voice of Victory has influenced me to have Huckabee into my number 2 choice.

Here is the email announcement that Huckabee will join Brother Copeland on the Believer’s Voice of Victory.

Tune in to see a special Believer’s Voice of Victory broadcast series with Kenneth Copeland and his guest, Governor Mike Huckabee, Sunday, November 25 through Friday, November 30.
Get a unique look at their life experiences as they explore two foundational teachings: The Need for Character and Integrity and The Integrity of Character. These powerful messages will encourage you to make godly, Word-based decisions in every area of your life.
For a list of program times in your area, click here. To watch online, visit www.kcm.org. And remember…JESUS IS LORD!

Thompson Will Rebound in Pre-Election Polls


Fred & Jeri Thompson, son, daughter

Fred Thompson for the Presidency of the United State of America; let me say it again: Thompson for President in 2008.

Now I have to be honest, Fred’s Hollywood charisma added to a self-proclaimed Conservative is the reason I first leaned toward a Fred08 candidacy. I realize many people might feel that is not how to pick National Leadership in a time of war and political polarization in America.

Indeed the recent polls are seemingly showing the same enticement followed by a soul searching re-think of what drew people to Fred.

When Fred’s name was bandied about as a potential Presidential candidate combined with Fred’s reluctance to announce a Presidential run enamored him to many Republicans as a man with Hollywood communication skills reminiscent to President Ronald Reagan (also an Actor who turned to politics).

Fred made people nostalgic for a new Great Communicator that could sway a nation back to unity and pride while making the Left appear loony.

President Bush is no great communicator. The strength of his two elections was the polarizing votes of the Christian Right out numbering the Left at the voting polls. GW had won the hearts of the Christian Right with words that made him appear one of them lock stock and barrel. Bush was not elected on his eloquence, rather he was elected on because of the representation that President Clinton was the picture of everything despised and Al Gore and John Kerry projected the same moral lunacy if not worse. So the Christian Right came to the Presidential election in droves hoping to outnumber the Leftists and was successful.

Here is the thing. President Bush gave the appearance of strong leadership in a time of a National Crisis when al Qaeda murderers were flying jets into American buildings on American soil. In addition President Bush managed a robust economy for America. Unfortunately the Left hated and hated GW passionately. In a bond of unity the Mainstream Media and the Leftist Democratic Party publicly diminished GW’s strong points and disseminated to the public obvious weaknesses. In circling the wagons the Bush Administration made some correct decisions with catastrophic execution.

The War on Terror needed to be addressed; however the rules of engagement for the military were politically motivated instead of utilizing military rules of engagement designed to win. The political rules of engagement was afflicted with the virus of being politically correct which led to a stalemate that the MSM projected as a successful insurgency winning with a strategy of blended terror and attrition. The length of the attrition and the botching of finding WMD became fodder team MSM and Democratic Party whittle on Bush credibility.

Thus an anti-war movement began under fringe Left management that seemed to draw many people of the political center who listened to the distortions of the Left.

Then President Bush began to alienate the Christian Right (particularly after 2004) and the Conservative base by not attending Slanted Right moral agendas. The persecution of Christians in schools became rampant, references to God on public buildings became challenged by the Left, illegal immigrants sky rocketed with Border Agents being restrained or prosecuted for doing their jobs.

President Bush seemed to be getting way to cozy with Arab Mohammedans that have been the money bags of terrorists and the spread of terrorist ideology – such as the Wahhabi element of Saudi Arabia. Which in turn has influenced the Bush Administration to carve out a sovereign nation for Arabs calling themselves Palestinians at the expense of Israel: This path could threaten Israel’s very existence.

I could on with the disappointment of President Bush so let us focus on a post-Bush era.

Fred Thompson’s failure to maintain a surge of popularity may have to do with staffing decisions that were not popular with Conservatives. Coupling this with a late start turned eyes back to Republican candidates who have been duking out a bit longer than Fred.

Nonetheless Fred and his team have set forth some of goals of Thompson Presidency if so elected and I like them.

1. A border security plan:

A. No Amnesty

B. Attrition through enforcement; i.e. enforce the laws already on the books vigorously.

C. Enforce existing Federal laws; e.g. ending sanctuary cities, ending higher privileges to illegals that American citizens do not even receive; prevent the use of Federal Grants in States and localities to fund special benefits for illegal aliens.

D. Reduce illegal job incentives.

E. Rigorous entry/exit tracking.

2. Improving the legal Immigration process:

A. Maximize program efficiency; i.e. speed up the process determining if immigrant can immigrate, if there is a job market American citizens are reluctant to work then expedite the process of an immigrant willing to do the work.

B. Enhanced reporting of temporary working immigrants.

C. Modernize immigration law/policy; e.g. If an immigrant has definite skills that would benefit American society, encourage that immigration.

D. Make English the official language of America

E. Continue policy of welcoming political refugees.

F. Legal immigrants that are working a public service should be placed on a fast track to citizenship; e.g. those serve in the Armed Services.

3. Check out Thompson’s “Pro-Growth” record while in the Senate.

4. I have to tell you I really like Thompson’s ideas on revamping the American Military to make it even stronger and bigger than it is today. Pundits on the Left and the Right have been critical of this; nonetheless this is the very strategy used by President Reagan to crumble the Soviet Union.

Reagan beat Communism without firing a shot through military growth. Because of the nature of Islamofascism today I doubt a Thompson Presidency would be so lucky; however an extremely strong military with strategies and rules of engagement to win rather than not hurt people’s feelings would be a true shock and awe experience that would challenge terrorism globally.

So heck yeah, get back on the Fred Thompson bandwagon. Fred has a victory vision, a Conservative style pro-growth vision, a vision relating to immigration and illegal aliens and Fred has the social conservative vision in being pro-life.

That is a political package I can get behind and support and you should too.

 

Hillary’s War with the Pentagon


Apparently Hillary is attempting to make a connection of guilt by association with Bush on the operation of the War on Terror. Hillary sent a letter to the Pentagon asking about time tables and exit strategies. Hmm You would think that public Letter would go to Bush as the top dog of the Executive Branch.

 

Under Secretary of Defense Eric S. Edelman replied to Hillary’s Letter.

 

At the Democratic Debate Hillary twisted the Letter exchange alluding that the Pentagon had accused her of being unpatriotic for asking such questions. I am certain the Democratic fringe oohed and awed on how Hillary allegedly exposed the Pentagon of Right Wing diminishment of Senator Hillary Clinton the wife of a former President (skirt chaser).

 

Read the real story that exposes Hillary as a lying manipulator that may indeed be a horrible manager in the Executive Branch if elected President (God forbid!):

 

JRH 7/27/07

************************************************

Hillary’s War with the Pentagon

 

 

By Roger Aronoff

July 26, 2007

Accuracy in Media

 

 

Hillary Clinton has decided that, in order to look presidential, she needs to pick a fight. Her spat with Senator Barack Obama over meeting with foreign leaders is the latest example. Before that, she falsely claimed that the Pentagon had accused her of being unpatriotic. This phony controversy, fanned and inflamed by the media, says more about Hillary than it does about the Pentagon. Would she, as president, deliberately pursue policies that embolden the enemies of America?

 

 Is she too reckless and irresponsible in foreign affairs to be Commander-in-Chief?

 

During the CNN/YouTube debate, Mrs. Clinton claimed that "…I asked the Pentagon a simple question: have you prepared for withdrawing our troops? In response, I got a letter accusing me of being unpatriotic¯that I shouldn’t be asking questions." 

 

This is an exaggeration that tells us a lot about Hillary’s approach. She wants the public to believe that she is being picked on. Can’t she take the heat?

 

In fact, Under Secretary of Defense Eric S. Edelman had told Senator Clinton in a letter that the Pentagon is always "evaluating and planning for possible contingencies" but that "long-standing departmental policy" is that "operational plans, including contingency plans are not released outside of the Department."

 

He also told her that "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United states will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia. Such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks in order to achieve compromises on national reconciliation, amending the Iraqi Constitution, and other contentious issues." 

 

Today Secretary of Defense Robert Gates released a letter he wrote to Sen. Clinton in an attempt to ratchet down the controversy, stating that Congressional oversight is both "appropriate and essential," and does not "embolden our enemies." At the same time, he did not repudiate Edelman and insisted that Edelman had not impugned her motives or her patriotism.  

 

Tough Questions

 

Many questions about the war should be asked. For example, why isn’t the Bush Administration holding Iran accountable for killing our troops in Iraq? Why is the Bush Administration not confronting China about sending weapons to insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan through Iran? 

 

But these questions are based on the premise that the U.S. should win the war. The Hillary approach is to assume that we will lose it and that we should get out in a public way that signals to the rest of the world our demise as a superpower. 

   

Hillary’s May 22 letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates had asked that he provide Congress with briefings "on what current contingency plans exist for the future withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq." On the other hand, she said, if no such plans exist, "please provide an explanation for the decision not to engage in such planning." And rather than merely having asked, as she said on CNN, "a simple question" about withdrawing our troops, she declared that "it is imperative that the Department of Defense prepare plans for the phased redeployment of U.S. forces."

 

Two days later, she was one of just 14 Senators who voted against a bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, because the bill didn’t include a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.  

 

Media Controversy 

 

The Edelman July 16th response letter became a hot topic in the news and the blogosphere. For her part, Hillary sent a follow-up letter, complaining to Secretary Gates about Edelman and wondering whether Gates shared his view.  

 

Associated Press called the Edelman letter "a stinging rebuke" from the Department of Defense. The article said that DOD told her "that her questions about how the United States eventually plans to withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda."

  

But this was misleading. The Pentagon’s point was that public discussions about operational details of withdrawal are destabilizing and demoralizing to our allies.

 

Taking the Hillary line, Fred Kaplan of Slate.com said that Edelman "all but accused of her (sic) treason for asking to be let in," and suggested it was "an insult" to all Senators. On the low-rated CBS Evening News, Katie Couric erroneously reported that "the Pentagon is lashing out tonight at Hillary Clinton."

  

But if you read the actual letter, instead of the one paragraph that keeps getting quoted, it is not a stinging rebuke at all, but rather a statement of the administration’s policy and judgment. Kaplan’s piece in Slate actually linked back to a 2006 article of his own for the Atlantic magazine which documented that in fact contingency plans for withdrawal from Iraq already existed at that time.

 

Contingency plans are just that. There are lots of contingency plans that are made, but not acted upon unless certain developments occur.

  

The unstable Keith Olbermann of MSNBC ranted on in defense of Sen. Clinton, with full quivering lip and trembling outrage. "A spokesman for the senator says Mr. Edelman’s remarks are ‘at once both outrageous and dangerous,’" said Olbermann. "Those terms are entirely appropriate and may, in fact, understate the risk the Edelman letter poses to our way of life and all that our fighting men and women are risking, have risked, and have lost, in Iraq."

 

A threat to our way of life? Olbermann is obviously over the edge, an embarrassment to MSNBC and parent company GE. 

 

Strangely, however, with his nightly dispensing of red meat to the Bush haters and the far left, and his unwillingness to bring on guests with opposing points of view, his show has become MSNBC’s highest rated prime time show, even though he gets only about a fourth of the viewers on average of his archenemy Bill O’Reilly. This is the market Hillary played to with her phony charge that the Pentagon was accusing her of being unpatriotic.

 

Joining the Hillary bandwagon, commentator Juan Williams responded that he felt the letter was "intended to chill the political discussion and debate over the war, and that’s anti-democratic." He called it scare tactics.

 

One who cut through the fog was Lt Col Bill Cowan, a Fox News consultant and former senate staffer, as well as a true military hero. He was on the O’Reilly Factor on July 20, and said, "The letter she [Hillary] got from Secretary Edelman was about as vanilla a letter as can be written in this town. There was nothing whatsoever directed at her personally. It was a typical, almost standard, form letter…Nothing at all in there to imply that he was impugning her motives, her intentions, or anything." 

 

Cowan said that Clinton had made an error. He said that "…she’s entitled to ask these kinds of questions. But to publicly ask these questions and to expect a public disclosure of the plan is unacceptable."  

 

The controversy casts doubt on Hillary’s qualifications to be president. She knows that operational details of military activities are not shared with Congress. But she asked for them anyway, in an attempt to act tough with the Pentagon brass. When they replied with the facts, she whined and cried foul. 

 

Demands from Hillary and other Senate liberals for military details like this undermine the effort to win the support of the Iraqis. The local people have to make calculations. Do they want to support us, at the risk of retaliation from those who want us to fail? Or do they want to join their enemies, or stay on the fence? The key for the U.S. and its allies is winning the Iraqis’ confidence.  

 

If Hillary were serious about this, and not trying to grandstand, she would approach the Pentagon privately and through the appropriate channels. But the asking of such questions publicly by a prominent senator who is running for president, and who might win, is a signal to the world of pending defeat. It says to Iraqis that if Hillary Clinton wins the White House, the U.S. is out of Iraq, no matter what the consequences.  

 

The indignation from Clinton and her backers to the Edelman letter is insincere and her request was irresponsible. It is apparently okay for them to attack the patriotism and judgment of President Bush and his administration. But when an official of the Pentagon makes a simple observation that disclosing national security information helps the enemy, this is considered offensive and improper and an unfair attack on Mrs. Clinton.  

 

This controversy comes at a time when Hillary has calculated that she needs to make her move to the left, pandering to the MoveOn and DailyKos far-left wing of the Democratic Party. In doing so, as a New York Newsday article points out, she is fudging the truth about when she made the shift from supporting the war to opposing it.

 

The Future 

 

It appears that Senator Clinton wants the U.S. to lose, while the Bush Administration continues to hold out the hope of winning in some fashion. Columnist Charles Krauthammer proposes The 20 Percent Solution, a plan to work with and arm the Sunnis so they can fight and defeat al Qaeda and the foreign Jihadists, and then be in a position to co-exist with the Shi’ite majority. Even the New York Times has acknowledged "astonishing success" in the predominantly Sunni Anbar province.

 

Journalist and historian Victor Davis Hanson explained the implications of a precipitous withdrawal. "It is not easy securing Iraq, but if we decide to quit and ‘redeploy,’ Americans should at least accept that the effort to stabilize Iraq was a crushing military defeat, that our generation established a precedent of withdrawing an entire army group from combat operations on the battlefield, and that the consequences will be better known even to our enemies than they are to us."

 

For his part, President Bush on July 24 in Charleston, South Carolina, called for "complete victory" in Iraq. But AIM Editor Cliff Kincaid points to evidence of a no-win strategy in which Iraq is turned over to the U.N. And the aforementioned Lt Col Bill Cowan points out that a loss in Iraq would be a victory not only for al Qaeda, but even worse, it would mean "an Iranian victory in Iraq." 

 

Meanwhile, a CBS-New York Times poll found that 62% agree that it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Slightly over half of those think we should have left shortly after completing that mission. But over half now want to give the surge a chance to succeed before deciding what step to take next.

 

The mischaracterization of this Edelman-Clinton exchange has been stunning in the pattern of consistency in which it has been reported. It is an example of the support Clinton has in the media, and the willingness to distort a story to make the Bush administration look bad and for Clinton to be both a victim and a foe of the administration on the war. While President Bush prematurely declared "Mission Accomplished" in May of 2003, after toppling Saddam and scattering his uniformed forces, Hillary Clinton is premature in her assertion that the war cannot be won and that all that’s left to decide is how we pull out.

 

___________

 

 

Roger Aronoff is a media analyst with Accuracy in Media, and is the writer/director of "Confronting Iraq: Conflict and Hope." He can be contacted at roger.aronoff@aim.org

 

© 2007 Accuracy In Media, All Rights Reserved. 

Hillary Allegedly a Lesbian?


Hillary Clinton (like hubby before her) utilizes a strategy to silence critics that have many ears to here. Apparently she uses dirty tricks to do so.

 

One of the things Kinkaid touches on is that Hillary allegedly is a Lesbian or Bi-Sexual. This goes a long way to explaining Slick Willie’s need to be a sexual predator of women.

 

I have to assert that this is the first I have heard of Hillary’s alleged sexual preference. Undoubtedly there is no smoking gun proof of such or the Mainstream Media would jump on the story (probably as apologists to excuse Hillary).

 

BUT THE SEX SCANDAL THE MEDIA WON’T TOUCH INVOLVES SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON’S alleged lesbianism. It is worth noting that our media, including Fox News, gave little attention to the explosive book, The Truth About Hillary, by Edward Klein, which raised questions about her "sexual preference." Conservative writer Jack Wheeler flatly asserted in a Washington Times column, based on his sources, that she is bisexual. This matter is as explosive as Senator Barack Obama’s mysterious upbringing as a Muslim in Indonesia and his quick conversion to Christianity. Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein’s book on Hillary is coming out in June and The London Sunday Times claims it will show how Clinton "has played fast and loose with the facts about" her life. We shall see what he digs up. Clinton, who was quick to condemn shock jock Don Imus for making disparaging remarks about the mostly black Rutgers women’s basketball team, raised $800,000 with the help of Timbaland, a rapper known for his vulgar and profane lyrics. (Excerpt Cliff Notes)

 

In all fairness to the alleged sexual perversion potentially practiced by Hillary Clinton, Media Matters comes to her defense citing Left Wing sources that discredit the rumor.

 

If the smoking gun proof could ever be found Hillary knows that the backbone of America is still Christian Morality by choice (even if rarely by acts of the majority). Any proof would destroy her Presidential aspirations.

 

See also Hillary’s Hit Man Strikes Again.

Homosexuals Target State Elections


Ever heard of Tim Gill? He is a computer geek that founded software company Quark. He is also a wealthy homosexual.

 

Gill has used his influence to create a network of influential homosexuals to target State legislatures to defeat anti-homosexual Congressman and replace them with Congressman with an affinity for alternate lifestyles.

 

Believe it or not the only real problem I have with this agenda is that big bucks are being donated from outside of the States the Congressmen are running for election. American citizens have the right to be immoral and promote an unholy lifestyle in America.

 

But get this! So do Christians. The Christian Right also has the right to fight for Godly morality in America. Now that the agenda of homosexuality is exposed, Christians need to organize to donate money to targeted Congressman of Gill’s homosexual network.

 

I know I will hear the Secular Humanist critics call me a homophobe. I do not fear homosexuals, I merely highly disagree the homosexual lifestyle is a legitimate morality in the sight of God Almighty the Creator.

 

If critics attempt to denigrate my stand as out of the mainstream and archaic, then the facts need to be looked at. Heterosexual beliefs are still the mainstream in America. Across the nation States have enacted laws defining marriage as between a male and a female, it has taken Leftwing Courts to counter this trend. Unfortunately for homosexuals, not all courts are dominated by Lefties.

 

That is why Gill is singling out Congressional races on the State and Federal levels to defeat Conservatives with Secular Humanists favorable to the homosexual agenda.

 

I would have to say people like Tim Gill are just as much Christophobes as Christians are homophobes. The difference is Christians are backing the Word of God and the Kingdom of God.

Kerry: I WAS FOR THE JOKE BEFORE I WAS AGAINST IT


Democrat Senator Kerry has offered an official yet weak apology for his comments to a student body in California. He "personally" apologizes to "… to any service member, family member, or American who was offended."

Kerry weakly claimed he forgot a word (TV) or words (wire services) for a "joke" intended as a rebuke to President Bush. This is weak because if it was true, the apology and truth would have come immediately. Contrarily, Kerry gave a blustery retort saying he would never apologize for President Bush’s broken policy. Then Democrats began to desert Kerry. Then Shazzam! Here comes the weak apology.

For the Anti-McCain Right, Romney in 2008?


Mitt Romney is a very enticing figure for the Christian Right and moral Conservatives. He has all the credentials that could make them happy on most stands.

I am one of those Christian dinosaurs that wish to err on the side of Christ.

Mitt Romney may be a great moral guy, however he is a Mormon. Although Mormons have fooled many Christians that they are Christian, they have not in the slightest in common. Mormons do not believe Jesus is the Son of God as part of the Trinity – Father, Son and Holy Spirit (three persons in ONE God). Mormons believe that Jesus is a created son of God. They believe Satan is Jesus’ brother. In contradiction to the Revelation to John, old Joseph Smith wrote another gospel.

The Charlie Brown Democrats


Typically the Democratic Party is attempting to spin North Korea’s nuclear testing and threats as a Bush and Republican failure in foreign policy. The Democrats are attempting tag North Korea’s roguishness to President Bush being distracted by an Iraq war the Democrats believe should not be happening.

 

The Democratic Party should in fact reflect in a little self-examination. North Korea having a nuclear program in itself was due to the help of President Carter and critically President Clinton. Hmm… Both are Democrats.

 

Examine this analysis by Jeffrey Lord:

 

**********************************************

 

The Charlie Brown Democrats
By Jeffrey Lord Published
10/10/2006 12:08:43 AM

They never learn, do they? Return with me now to those days of yesteryear, the days when Bill Clinton was in the White House and the Democrats controlled the House and Senate.

The date: October 22, 1994.

The headline in the liberal bible, the New York Times, read as follows: "U.S. and North Korea Sign Pact to End Nuclear Dispute: Many Details are Kept Secret." Said the story confidently: "Under the broad agreement concluded here late Monday, North Korea will freeze its nuclear activities, [and] renounce any ambition to become a nuclear power…" In addition, the Times trumpeted what the North Koreans would get in return for these two concessions. "In exchange, an international consortium will replace North Korea’s current graphite nuclear reactors, which are considered less dangerous because they produce little weapons grade plutonium.

"Said the North Korean chief negotiator of the deal: It is "a very important milestone document of historic significance" that would resolve his country’s nuclear dispute with the United States "once and for all." Kang Sok Ju went on some more about this new agreement he had negotiated with the Clinton Administration, and it’s worth reprinting in full. Reports the Times:

"He said the agreement, once put into effect, would resolve "all questions of the so-called nuclear weapons development by North Korea" that have raised "such unfounded concerns and suspicions. We have neither the intention nor the plan to develop nuclear weapons," Mr. Kang said.


And Bill Clinton believed him. The Times reported it this way: "At a news conference in Washington, President Clinton said the treaty ‘was a good deal for the United States.’"

There was one other player in all of this as well. The Times took care to say that "former President Jimmy Carter held talks in Pyongyang with North Korea’s dictator Kim Il Sung, that defused the crisis and led to new negotiations with the United States." For his part, Carter went on record earlier in the year in meetings with the North Koreans to say that "I personally believe the crisis is over." What did the North Korean leader (the current dictator’s father, Kim Il Sung) think of Carter’s efforts? "He told me," said Carter, that "he was very grateful I had gone [to North Korea], and thought it [Carter’s effort to make peace and help give the North Koreans light-water reactors] was a very fine accomplishment."

The Times concluded that "Bill Clinton will be the biggest winner, a master negotiator on a critical security issue." Five days later, when the North Koreans expressed skepticism the United States would really give them what they wanted, the Times headlined this story: "Clinton, in Letter, Assures North Koreans on Nuclear Reactors." Said the President in a letter to Kim Jung Il: "I will use the full powers of my office" to assure that the dictator got what he wanted.

Clinton, the "master negotiator" of "a good deal" did just that. And on October 8, 2006, the world learns that in spite of everything that Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and their respective Democratic national security teams believed, the North Koreans have just exploded their first nuclear weapon.

IN SHORT, WITH A WIDE-EYED, the best and the brightest the Democratic Party had to offer went down the road of appeasement with North Korea. Like Charlie Brown always believing Lucy will hold the football, Clinton and Carter raced to the kick-off of peace with a murderous dictator — only to find out that they had (surprise!) been lied to.

The Clinton legacy, already shredding because of his inability to deal with al Qaeda and terrorism, has just been dealt yet another — perhaps mortal — blow by Clinton and Carter’s foolish trust in the North Korean father and son dictators. But more importantly, the problem now is that Democrats are running for House and Senate seats all over the nation supporting some version of this very same appeasement policy towards Iraq, the War on Terror, and critically, Iran.

>From one end of this country to the other this fall, Democrats are campaigning on pledges to trust them on national security issues. These are Democrats in Senate races with names like Bob Casey, Jr. in Pennsylvania, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, James Webb in Virginia, Claire McCaskill in Missouri, and Jon Tester in Montana. In House races they are people like Pennsylvania’s Jack Murtha (who wants to get out of Iraq and redeploy in Okinawa), Illinois’ Tammy Duckworth (who pledges to leave Iraq "sooner rather than later"), Indiana’s Brad Ellsworth (who is so tight-lipped about Iraq his website simply doesn’t list the issue at all) and, again in Pennsylvania, Patrick Murphy ("we need to start bringing our men and women home now"). All of this before we get to Connecticut’s famously pacifist Senate candidate, Ned Lamont.

Page scandal or no page scandal, the reason not to entrust Democrats with a majority in Congress again has just been vividly illustrated with an underground nuclear explosion by a North Korean dictator who was trusted by Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter for his fervent promise never to do what he has now just done.

The question Americans who are understandably furious over the page scandal must now ask is a simple one.

Should America’s national security be turned over to a Congress full of Charlie Browns?

Jeffrey Lord is the author of The Borking Rebellion. A former political director in the Reagan White House, he is now a writer in Pennsylvania.

Hat tip to Don Moore.

Hamas Ascendant


Anti-Chomski Blog

I agree with Benjamin of the Anti-Chomski Blog. It is irrelevant who won the Palestinian Authority election. As long as Palestinians only reason to exist is to destroy Israel, those paritcular Arabs are irrelevant.

 

The only relevance for the West is how to respond Islamofascism. It is time to dip into reality and end the violence of the terrorists. It is time for the West to respond to Jihad with a 21st Century Crusade. It is time to force an open society by terminating Mohammedan Islamofascists once and for all.

 

If there truly are any so-called moderate Mohammedans, let us replace the Islamofascists with the moderates. I hear all the time that moderate Mohammedanism is the rule not the exception. I personally doubt it, so let us put political correctness to the test. Terminate appeasement, devastate Islamofascism and prop up the Moderate Mohammedan.

————————————

Benjamin

Anti-Chomski Blog

1/28/06

 

Hamas Ascendant

Several people have written to me asking my opinion of the Palestinian elections.  I hate to be the odd man out of the general hysteria, but I don’t think they make much difference whatsoever.  I have always held to the same position regarding the possibilities of peace between us and the Palestinians.  In my opinion, for what it’s worth, I believe peace is impossible between us at the moment.  What is not impossible is a status quo in which two states live side by side in mutual hate and enmity with a minimum of violence on both sides of the divide.  With the passing of a generation or two, this may or may not lead to a rapprochement of sorts.  I frankly don’t know.  I also don’t think it particularly matters.  Israel has spent far too long hinging its future on the possibility of Arab acceptance.  It is time for us to return to ourselves and to concentrate on the future of Israel and Zionism.   Peace is not the fulfillment of Zionism.  A living, prosperous, culturally creative and nationally proud Jewish state is the fulfillment of Zionism.  Neither peace nor acceptance is a requirement for this.  What is a requirement is our disengagement from the Palestinians and our setting of permanent borders.  This can only be done, at the moment, if ever, by unilateral Israeli action.  Who rules the Palestinians is, frankly, no concern of mine except to the extent that it threatens Israel and Israelis.  From this point of view, the difference between Hamas and Fatah is minimal to non-existent.  The only possible distinction I can see is that Hamas actually comes out and says what Fatah clouds in diplomatic doublespeak.  We now have an enemy who looks us in the face and says what he means.  So be it.