Posted under Uncategorized
This post was written by bobsikes on June 22, 2010
The McChrystal hubub
From Jonathan Tobin:
“What on earth was McChrystal thinking, one wonders, when he decided to grant so much access to an anti-war reporter from an anti-war magazine? Michael Hastings’s animus against the war effort shines through every inch of his article. His conclusion is that “winning” in Afghanistan “is not really possible. Not even with Stanley McChrystal in charge.” Along the way he brands the counterinsurgency strategy that McChrystal is implementing “a controversial strategy” that is advocated only by “COINdiniastas” notorious for their “their cultish zeal.” When he quotes outside experts in the article, all of them express disparaging views about the prospects of success.”
Posted under Uncategorized
This post was written by bobsikes on June 22, 2010
Bob Sikes is on Facebook and Twitter
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Trying to get more hits again.
Posted under Uncategorized
This post was written by bobsikes on June 22, 2010
FLORIDA #2: Al Lawson running to the left of Allen Boyd
It should come as no surprise. Both candidates know the Dem primary will be won in Tallahassee. Here’s something from Lawson’s Facebook page that’s revealing:
We had a great day at the Watermelon Festival in Monticello. Our campaign had over a dozen volunteers in full force while our opponent Blue Dog Boyd had no volunteers even though it’s his home town. The momentum is on our side!
Lawson’s “Blue Dog Boyd” is clearly meant to be contemptuous. He’s obviously not worried about offending any moderate or conservative Democrats and knows that such taunts motivate his base. Maybe Lawson believes that traditional Blue Dog Dems won’t be voting in the primary and will likely vote for the GOP candidate or Independent Paul McKain in November. If he prevails over Boyd, he’ll move quickly to the center and remake himself as a moderate by emphasizing his record as a state legislator.
Posted under Uncategorized
This post was written by bobsikes on June 21, 2010
DEMOCRAT TAKEDOWN: Apologizing for Obama
Canadian author David Solway looks at what it will take the next American president to make it up to our allies:
He (or she) will need to apologize to Honduras for Obama’s backing of mini-Chavez, would-be dictator Manuel Zelaya who attempted to steal a country. He (or she) will need to apologize to Poland and the Czech Republic for Obama’s broken promises and his crude mishandling of the anti-missile program. He (or she) will need to ask forgiveness from the Iranian people whom Obama abandoned in the midst of their bloody uprising against a repressive and violent regime. He (or she) will need to soothe the ruffled feelings of the British electorate for having insulted their prime minister with the meager gift of unplayable CDs and for returning the bust of Winston Churchill. And he (or she) will need to make amends to Israel for Obama’s inexcusable conduct toward Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and for putting all the onus for the success of the so-called “peace talks,” whether “proximity” or “direct,” — or the blame for their failure — on the Jewish state while giving the Palestinians every benefit of the doubt and pandering to their insatiable demands.
This will be no easy task as the abjection of apology does not befit a great and admirable nation, but Obama has left his successor no choice but to apologize, both for his orgy of apologies to America’s enemies and competitors and for his churlish betrayal of America’s allies and friends.
We’ve never seen a President who’s world view is so detached, so seperate from out nation’s interests. Obama’s foreign policy pleases the Jeremiah Wright’s, Edward Said’s and Bill Ayers of the world. Many in his own party must be appaled. It’s hard to imagine any other Democrat candidate would have advanced similar agendas. We’d better hope that aplologies are all that will be needed.
Posted under Uncategorized
This post was written by bobsikes on June 19, 2010
OBAMA WATCH: Courting Hezbollah moderates?
The Obama administration runs frequenty to the left of the most liberal of his own party. He’s been silent on confronting Turkey about their sudden ties to Iran and Hamas, criticism that’s coming from both sides of the aisle:
Leading members of Congress have expressed concern that Turkey was drifting away from the United States and NATO and toward such adversaries as Iran and Syria, Middle East Newsline reported. They said Obama, regarded as close to Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, has refused to take a position regarding Turkey’s alliance with Iran and Hamas as well as Ankara’s hostility toward Israel.
“We can not allow these same old tactics to prevent us from taking the right position,” Rep. Frank Pallone, a New Jersey Democrat, said.
The concern in Congress has been bipartisan. Leading Republicans said Turkey’s hostility toward Israel raised questions regarding whether Congress should continue to support Turkey, a leading client of U.S. combat platforms such as the F-16 multi-role fighter.
In a letter to Obama in June, Pallone cited Ankara’s decision to organize a flotilla to break the Israeli and Egyptian siege on the Gaza Strip. The representative said Turkey, in wake of the bloody Israeli interception of the flotilla, has resorted to threats against Israel and formed an alliance with forces that threaten the West.
“Rather than engaging in an open dialogue, Turkey has chosen to recall their ambassador from Israel and disrupt diplomatic relations,” Pallone said in the letter. “Turkey has chosen to ignore the facts and force its own view of events through threat.”
Some of the representatives, including Pallone, demanded that Obama condemn Turkey’s IHH, the Islamist organizer of the flotilla. IHH has been linked to Al Qaida and Hamas and was said to have recruited scores of fighters to resist the Israel Navy. Nine people, eight of them Turks, were killed in the Israeli seizure of the Turkish-flagged Hava Marmara on May 31.
“I also ask that you condemn Turkey’s reaction to the incident involving the flotilla,” Pallone said.
Obama is not likely to do that.
His counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan says that “Hezbollah is not purely a terrorist organization“. Rep. Pete Hoekstra believes that it is Brennan whom encouraged the Turks to foster a relationship with Hezbollah in the first place.
Mr. Hoekstra added: “I think people will start looking at Turkey differently because the Obama administration is providing latitude for Turkey to do things differently. Israel ought to be really worried about this. I think you are going to find members of Congress worried about this. … I don’t think it’s an anti-U.S. strategy. I think Turkey believes, watching Obama, this is not necessarily inconsistent with the Obama administration.”
I doubt there’s little support among the Democrat caucus for seeing Hezbollah as moderate.
War in the Middle East this summer after Obama’s Hezbollah outreach program will prove to be an embarassment of monumental proportions for Democrats. If the Brennan gambit turns into a Turkey-Iran-Hezbollah flotilla to Gaza, we’ll have just that.
Posted under Uncategorized
This post was written by bobsikes on June 19, 2010
Democrat Alan Dershowitz endorses a Republican in Illinois congressional race
Richard Baehr is the cheif political correspondant for the American Thinker and provides this commentary regarding Professor Dershowitz’ endorsement:
Dershowitz was a supporter of Barack Obama in 2008, but he made clear in his remarks that Obama’s policies with regard to Israel, and to the projection of American power abroad, were worrying him. He attacked the President’s attachment to international organizations that are virulently anti-Israel, and often anti-Semitic. He cautioned that there was no substitute in the West for American leadership, and argued that America should stand with Israel, as it has for decades.
Dershowitz’s biggest concern about Obama centered on Iran’s nuclear program, and his fear that the US would stand aside, and allow Iran to become a nuclear power. He argued that a containment strategy designed to deter Iran after it became a nuclear power, would not work — that a regime such as Iran’s was fundamentally different from those the United States confronted in the Cold War, opponents who behaved rationally, and wanted to avoid a nuclear war.
Dershowitz said the Iran issue was the single most important issue for which Obama will be judged. If Iran succeeded in becoming a nuclear power, then Obama would be a colossal failure, regardless of any other achievements. Dershowitz hinted that in the future, he would be more open to supporting Republicans, particularly in races, where the Democratic nominees were so far out in left field that they were unable to understand or appreciate any of the strategic realities he had discussed.
Dershowitz endorsed Joel Pollack to run against someone “so far out in left field,” in Jan Schakowsky.
Pollak is running against Jan Schakowsky, who has been closely connected to the Chicago and Illinois Democratic machine for her entire political career , whose voting record makes her one of the most left wing members of Congress, and who has willingly served as the queen bee of J-Street, the new group formed to give political cover to Barack Obama among liberal Jews as he pounds away at Israel. J-Street is a group that professes to be pro-Israel, and pro-peace, but a close look at its public pronouncements during its brief two year history makes clear that its modus operandi has been to regularly attack the policies of the Israeli government, and back any and all pressure directed at Israel by the Obama administration.
So two key Jewish Democrat political figures have come out in clear opposition to their own party. Ed Koch long ago stopped drinking the Obama kool-aid. There is some anecdotal evidence that American Jewry is beginning to change. Dershowitz’ endorsement signals a sort of moral and mental ok for Jewish voters to vote contarty to the way they have been.
Posted under Uncategorized
This post was written by bobsikes on June 18, 2010
Obama’s deception and Louisiana’s loss
Writing in The Hayride, the President of the Louisiana Oil & Gas Association, details the manner in which the Obama administration deceived the nation about it’s deep water drilling ban. Here’s a bit of Don Brigg’s piece:
On April 30, 2010, ten days after the tragic sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig, President Obama directed Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to conduct a thorough review of the accident. The intention of the report was to recommend any precautions and new technologies that should be required to improve safety of offshore oil and gas operations. In order to provide the President with an adequate report, a seven member expert panel was assembled to give advice and recommendations for these increased safety measures.
On May 27, 2010, Secretary Salazar submitted his report to the President noting that the panel of seven experts reviewed his recommendations, which included a six-month moratorium on all-new deepwater drilling. In response to Salazar’s report, members of the expert panel are now expressing that the Administration has falsely implied that they supported any moratorium on offshore drilling. In fact, members of the panel stated that the decision to place the moratorium was added after the final review and not agreed to by the parties involved. In a letter directed to the White House, members of the panel made it clear that although they agreed with the detailed recommendations in the report, in no means did they support a moratorium. The letter noted, “A blanket moratorium is not the answer. It will not measurably reduce risk further and it will have a lasting impact on the nation’s economy which may be greater than that of the oil spill.”
Ken Salazar was the one who was thrown under the bus on this one and apologized to the scientists afterward. But the clear attempt to deceive everyone was revealed. If it had been a Republican administration, Harry Waxman would have hauled Salazar before his Oversight Committee by now. More from Briggs:
Using the typical bait-and-switch maneuver, it’s obvious that it was the President’s intention to implement the moratorium regardless of the results of the report. Simply put, the report served as cover for a decision the President was already prepared to make. This action is just another example of this Administration’s continual deception of the American people.
It is disingenuous for President Obama to come to Louisiana showing intentions of goodwill while at the same time imposing sanctions that will cost thousands of good paying jobs. In a time of significant unemployment across the country, the President has chosen his political agenda over the viability of over 100,000 direct and indirect American jobs.
As Briggs said, Obama continues to act illogicaly. But it’s never let a crisis go to waste time at the WH and it was revealed in last night’s address. Obama has no intention of allowing those rigs to operate again. His ethically challenged Energy Czar Carol Browner was right in the middle of the deception and has been part of the cap and trade scheme for some time.
Crisis, meet opportunity.
Posted under Uncategorized
This post was written by bobsikes on June 16, 2010
“The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America”
Pamella Geller’s book can be ordered here.
Few writers have shown the courage in combating the enemies of freedom as has Geller. Here’s what some important voices are saying:
“Sheer brilliance! Sharp, well-written and to-the-point. The ultimate patriot’s handbook. Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer lay bare Barack Hussein Obama’s radical agenda and how to stop it. No true American’s library will be complete without this book.”
–Brad Thor, #1 New York Times bestselling author of Foreign Influence
“This book is a chilling analysis of how the policy of President Barack Obama is chipping away at the very foundation of America’s leading role in the world. It exposes his philosophy of near universal ‘moral equivalency’: a philosophy that is a dead ringer for the cultural relativism that has been poisoning Europe for the past decades. America is the last man standing and it is vital that the people of Europe adopt the attitude of proud American citizens and learn that it is not shameful to be proud of one’s heritage. This book is incredibly fascinating and at the same time holds a deeply disturbing message we should all take to heart.”
–Geert Wilders, Dutch MP
“Barack Obama is the most radical individual ever to occupy the White House. This excellent book by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer explains exactly what that means and why its implications are fraught with such dangers for this great Republic.”
–David Horowitz, author of Radical Son“Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are two of the most incisive analysts of events at home and abroad, and you could not ask for better guides to where ‘hope,’ ‘change’ and czars are taking us — and what Americans can do about it.”
–Mark Steyn, New York Times bestselling author of America Alone
“In The Post-American Presidency, Pamela Geller shines her laser on President Barack Obama — his life, his values, his friends and his perceptions of the country he leads. What she reports will disturb not only every American who believes in that America is the Shining City on the Hill and that the American people are what Abraham Lincoln referred to as ‘the almost chosen people.’ It should also disturb people around the world who recognize that the international system stops working when the American Atlas shirks the burden of its uniqueness.”
–Caroline Glick, author of The Shackled Warrior
“With their characteristic attention to detail, clarity and fearlessness, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer assay the wreckage. The Post-American Presidency is must reading for every concerned American who needs to know why we’re in this perilous moment, and where we’re headed if we don’t take our exceptional country back.”
–Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review legal affairs editor, author of Willful Blindness and Grand Jihad
Posted under Uncategorized
This post was written by bobsikes on June 15, 2010
The most grotesque example of Democrat Party and media hypocrisy…EVER!
North Carolina Dem Congressman Bob Etheridge’s on camera mugging is worthy of one thing…his resignation. Yet the media and his own party give him a pass. It’s ok, says the DNC, to blame your misbehavior on someone else.
Here’s what Etheridge’s opponent says:
If a teacher or principal treated a student this way – it would raise serious questions and he would be suspended. This kind of behavior is equally unacceptable in a Congressman. Bob Etheridge needs to make a full, complete and candid public explanation for this behavior. His describing his behavior as “a poor response” is not adequate. Most important of all, Congressman Etheridge should apologize – in person – to the two students.
As teachers we’re told we are not even supposed to raise our voices. If we put our hands on a kid like did Etheridge we’d be arrested, frog marched, prosecuted and jailed. If a kid comes in and blames what someone else says on their choice to start a fight they are suspended.
But there, there everyone.
Erheridge is a Democrat you see.
Let’s look at it another way:
Perhaps if we just see Etheridge as a Turkish humanitarian and the kid as a Jew it will make it more palatable for everyone.
Posted under Uncategorized
This post was written by bobsikes on June 14, 2010
