J's Cafe Nette

Archive for October 9th, 2007

Aaron Klein from World Net Daily put together an on the record interview with terrorist leaders in order to get their thoughts on our upcoming presidential election.

According to Klein, here is a sample of their thoughts:

“I hope Hillary is elected in order to have the occasion to carry out all the promises she is giving regarding Iraq,” stated Ala Senakreh, West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group.

“The Iraqi resistance is succeeding,” stated Hamed. “Hillary and the Democrats call for withdrawal. Her popularity shows that the resistance is winning and that the occupation is losing. We just hope that she will go until the end and change the American policy, which is based on oppressing poor and innocent people.”

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is “emboldened” by Clinton’s calls for an eventual withdrawal from Iraq.

“It is clear that it is the resistance operations of the mujahideen that has brought about these calls for withdrawal,” boasted Abu Ayman.

Nasser Abu Aziz, the West Bank deputy commander of the Al Aqsa Brigades, declared it is “very good” there are “voices like Hillary and others who are now attacking the Iraq invasion.”

In “Schmoozing,” every terrorist leader out of dozens interviewed stated they hope a Democrat becomes president in 2008. Some terror leaders explained their endorsement of Clinton is not necessarily at the expense of other Democratic presidential candidates, whose policies are not as well known to them.

Ramadan Adassi, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in the Anskar refugee camp in the northern West Bank, said he, too, backs Hillary and hopes she will continue the “legacy of her husband” regarding support for a Palestinian state.

The above quotes give the appearance that these terrorists would be very comfortable with a Clinton presidency. I find it alarming that anyone who is a leader of a terrorist orgranization would feel so free to express an opinion as to the election of the leader of the free world. One would hope they would feel that no matter who was elected, they would face the wrath of the United States if they continue to promote their senseless violence.

I wonder if this article, the book or the author will receive much play in the major media. If it does not or at the very least if Mrs. Clinton is not questioned about these statements at some point, it will be a great disservice to the voters in this country.

Tweet This Post

Abortion is a very important issue to me. That’s why I have always supported Republican candidates for office.

It is not the only issue for me, though, as after 9/11 homeland security became just as important if not moreso.

I say if not moreso because I haven’t seen any president come along who was able to overturn Roe v Wade. We have our best chance at overturning that law and making it a state issue if we elect another Republican as president and he has to appoint another Supreme Court justice.

We have that chance we have been waiting for for over 30 years.

Now comes Dobson, who would throw away the election over the issue of abortion and assure us of pro-abortion justices being appointed by a Democratic president.

What kind of sense does this make?

Here’s a video of Dobson with Hannity. Please listen.

Definitely extend Roe v Wade or take a chance a conservative justice will be appointed and our national nightmare will be over and abortion questions will go back to the states?

Third party candidate—the wrong choice.

Hat Tip: Flopping Aces. <):)

Tweet This Post

Since I can’t seem to get my triglycerides down to a normal level my doctor has put me on a niacin pill called Niaspan.

Here are the side effects:

Flushing, defined as redness, warmth, itching, and/or a tingling sensaton on the face, neck, chest, and back.

You can help that situation supposedly by taking one aspirin or one ibuprofen tablet 1/2 hour before taking the Niaspan, which is taken when you go to bed.

Let’s put it this way: I feel like I’m having hot flashes again along with itching etc. As long as I don’t have labored breathing or fast heartbeats I’ll be OK, but I can’t get out of bed suddenly or I may faint or get dizzy.

The miracles of modern medicine. 8-|

Tweet This Post

Yesterday I spoke of disturbing news to me that Israel was considering giving up half of Jerusalem to the Palestinians to use as their capitol.

It seems the Israeli people are not that happy with this bone-headed idea either.

Israeli opposition leaders are stepping up their criticism in the face of the first real negotiations with the Palestinians in nearly seven years and government steps to prepare the public for “difficult decisions” ahead.

Opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu has assailed the ruling coalition — particularly Prime Minister Ehud Olmert”s conservative partners — for proposing to hand back most of the West Bank to the Palestinians. He predicts that the territory will eventually fall under the control of Islamic extremists from Hamas.

At the same time, a close Olmert associate, Deputy Prime Minister Haim Ramon, was subjected to a political lashing after he said in an interview that Israel has no choice but to share control of Jerusalem with the Palestinians.

Mr. Olmert himself told Israel’s parliament yesterday that “difficult decisions lie ahead of us” in peace negotiations with the Palestinians, which got under way yesterday.

“Do you really agree that Hamas will control neighborhoods in Jerusalem?” asked Mr. Netanyahu. “Do you really agree that they will sit on hilltops overlooking Kfar Saba, Ra’anana, and Tel Aviv?”

Here’s hoping and praying the political opposition is successful in stopping this outrage.

Tweet This Post

While speaking to a a Congressional Black Caucus audience two weeks ago Hillary Clinton seems to have made a political boo-boo when she said giving every newborn a $5,000 bond would be a good idea.

Mrs. Clinton said the biggest problem for black Americans is access to wealth and building wealth and that the “baby bond could be a good way to get them started on a lifetime of saving and growing wealth.”

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 27 percent support the concept, with 60 percent of likely voters opposed to it.

Mrs. Clinton quickly backed down from her initial endorsement of baby bonds, telling reporters shortly after her speech: “It’s just an idea I threw out,” and “I’m looking for a conversation.”

The Wall Street Journal reported her advisers were downplaying the idea as an offhand remark. She made no mention of them in an Iowa speech yesterday on economic prosperity. The speech was part of her “Rebuilding the road to the middle class” Iowa tour.

Now that we know the polls disagree with her, as well as the fact she is not addressing a predominantly black audience she’s singing a different song.

When will African-Americans who are married to the Democratic party “just because” wake up and see it’s the Democrats who want to keep them in a permanent welfare state in order to get their votes?

As more and more become better educated and start to earn a decent income I believe the scales are being lifted from their eyes. It’s just that it’s hard sometimes to break loyalty with someone you have thought was your friend for so long.

Tweet This Post

Nancy had big words to say the day after last year’s elections, but it seems they were only words and her base is not happy with the leadership of the Democrats in Congress.

From a Sept. 26 editorial in the Boston Globe we read this:

LAST NOVEMBER, Nancy Pelosi proclaimed, “The American people spoke with their votes and they spoke for change and they spoke in support of a new direction for all Americans . . . nowhere was the call for a new direction more clear from the American people than in the war in Iraq.”…

…”We know that ’stay the course’ is not working. It has not made our country safer, it has not honored our commitment to our troops, and it has not brought stability to the region. We must not continue on this catastrophic path . . . The American people with their votes yesterday placed their trust in the Democrats. We will honor that trust. We will not disappoint . . . Democrats are ready to lead. We’re prepared to govern.”…

I haven’t seen much governing coming from Congress, in either chamber since the last election. All I’ve seen is futile attempts to set timetables to withdraw from Iraq.

Even now, with the surge apparently working, Pelosi told the Globe on Sept. 24:

“It was George Bush’s war,” she told the Globe. “It is now the Republicans in Congress’s war. . . . This is a historic blunder of such magnitude that it boggles the mind.

I’ve heard her repeat that line so many times now it sounds like the phrase “Culture of corruption” she tried out last year so much. Is this what the Democrats are going to run on in the next election?

What if we are successful beyond their wildest imaginations by this time next year and they have pinned their hopes on a useless phrase giving the credit to the Republicans in Congress as well as President Bush for being successful?

Pelosi talked without perhaps realizing she was in her own quagmire, straining to repeat and amplify what she said last November. She called Iraq a “war without end” and a “catastrophic blunder . . . I feel poverty stricken for the words to describe what a mistake this was for our country, for our national security, for our reputation, for our young people first and foremost.”

The reality is that the Democrats remain poverty stricken to find the words that truly get Americans behind them to force Bush to get out of Iraq….

…The Democrats have not yet impressed the country. Last month, a CNN poll found that 55 percent of Americans thought the Democrat-led Congress has been a “failure.”…

…Pelosi promises that the Democrats are “taking off the gloves” on Iraq. It is clear that Americans would like to see more clearly what is behind the punch.

Or, to go with my analogy, I would like to see how strong her dentures are. I’m betting not very.

Tweet This Post

I questioned whether Chris Matthews should moderate tonight’s Republican presidential candidates’ debate here due to his mouth-foaming declaration that the Bush administration had “finally been caught in their own criminality”. The problem with the statement, other than being purely partisan, was he had nothing to back up his statement.

Now it seems Larry Kudlow of CNBC has been asked the same question.

I don’t know what position Mr. Kudlow holds with CNBC other than another talking head, but he is quoted as saying:

“It was a stupid, stupid thing to say,” …
…As for Matthews’ moderating Tuesday’s debate, Kudlow said, “I hope he will be on his best behavior.” Otherwise, Kudlow, who hosts the post-debate show on CNBC, said, “I’ll rap him very, very hard.”

Here’s an idea: Rap him very hard before the debate and put someone more fair in to moderate in his stead. Say, someone like Keith Olberman. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Tweet This Post

Yesterday when reading of Representative Waxman’s latest endeavor to silence conservative talk radio and anyone else who might get in the path of the democrats, I was both angered and saddened.

Are these not the same democrats who support the likes of Michael Moore, Al Franken, many in Hollywood, Code Pink, Media Matters, George Soros and countless others claiming that they are entitled to Freedom of speech? Is this not the same Congressman who has wasted both taxpayer time and money on senseless hearing which have proven absolutely nothing?

It is time for conservatives to band together now and fight this latest attempt by Mr. Waxman to abolish the same rights for those on the Right.

Via The American Spectator:

Bad grammar and ill-informed opinions aside, the DNC hopes to raise millions of dollars of Limbaugh. “If we can’t silence him, we should at least make some money to make his life more miserable in a Democratic-controlled Washington in 2008,” says a Senate Democrat leadership aide.

Others on the Democrat side are pushing ahead with other plans. Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.”

“Limbaugh isn’t the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio,” says a House leadership source. “We don’t have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this all political, and we’ll do what we can to gain the advantage. If we can take them off their game for a while, it will help our folks out there on the campaign trail.”

[Emphasis: Mine]

For a party which seems so confident that they have the 2008 elections in the bag to resort to investigating the opposition at this level is rather drastic. Let’s make them pay because they don’t think or believe like us. Let’s not debate them on the issues, but demand they cowtow to our manner of governing or we will destroy them. Is that the message Americans should be supporting or for that matter encouraging?

I waited through yesterday to post on this topic hoping that one of the Republican candidates for President would take this head on and I might have something to post further. I must say, I was pleased to read this at Fred Thompson’s website:

The real issue here is not what you “can” see or hear — which is what the Fairness Doctrine was about originally. It’s what you’re “choosing” to see or hear.

Insiders say it was the collapse of the radio station “Air America” that led to this attempt to retool the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. I guess the idea is that, if you can’t compete in the world of ideas, you pass a law that forces radio stations to air your views. In effect, it would force a lot of radio stations to drop some talk show hosts — because they would lose money providing equal airtime to people who can’t attract a market or advertisers.

The funny thing is that the success of the current crop of radio talk show hosts is due, in part, to a lot of people’s perception that broadcast television doesn’t give the views of their audience a fair shake. Maybe I shouldn’t admit it, since I dabble in radio myself, but this media used to be viewed as a kind of broadcast ghetto. The bicoastal elite had such a grip on the major newspapers and television networks; they pretty much ignored the hinterlands. It was media flyover country.

Now congressional leaders say they want to “level the playing field” there too – meaning they want to diminish the importance of conservative talk radio. In other words, they don’t trust the results of freedom and the marketplace. Why am I not surprised?

This is not an issue which only affects Conservative talk show hosts. It should be a major concern to all citizens. We are not a one party country. The media should not be a cheerleader for one side of the aisle. Whether we “like” Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Mike Gallagher or Michael Medved or countless others should be of no consequence.

The fact that one political party would attempt to silence the views of another for political gain is not what the United States stands for but it is what we could become should Representative Waxman succeed.

Tweet This Post

Michael Totten’s latest dispatch from Iraq deals mainly with various police forces inside the country. It is interesting that in moving from one province to another, not only are the matters of safety unique to one another but the scenery and cleanliness seem to be very distinct.

In late July when I visited a police station in the town of Mushadah just north of Baghdad I worried that Iraq was doomed to become the next Gaza. As many as half the police officers, according to most of the American Military Police who worked as their trainers, were Al Qaeda sympathizers or agents. The rest were corrupt lazy cowards, according to every American I talked to but one. No one tried to spin Mushadah into a success story. By itself this doesn’t mean the country is doomed. How important is Mushadah, anyway? I hadn’t even heard of it until the day before I went there myself. But Military Police Captain Maryanne Naro dismayingly told me the quality of the police and their station was “average.” That means one of two things. Either Mushadah is more or less typical, or roughly half the Iraqi Police force is worse.

I had a much better experience when I embedded, so to speak, with the Iraqi Police in Kirkuk. I trusted the Iraqi Police in that city enough that I was willing to travel with them without any protection from the American military, even though Kirkuk is still a part of the Red Zone. Kirkuk, though, is an outlying case. The Iraqi Police there are Kurds. The Kurds of Iraq are the most pro-American people I have ever met in the world. They are more pro-American than Americans. There is no Kurdish insurgency, and the only Kurdish terrorist group – Ansar Al Islam, which recently changed its name to Al Qaeda in Kurdistan – is based now outside a town called Mariwan in northeastern Iran. The Iraqi Police in Kirkuk may be corrupt, but they aren’t terrorists or insurgents.

Michael’s detailed reporting is far superior to that which we receive through most major publications. Up close, truthful and personal is a great combination for delivering the message, whether it be positive or negative.

These embeds are dispatching some great photography also and this post is no exception.

Tweet This Post