Archive for the ‘world’ Category

McCain’s Principled Stand For Democracy Leads to Endorsement By Kasparov

March 7, 2008

John McCain heavily criticized the farcical ‘elections’ in Russia this week, while his Democrat opponents, Clinton and Obama, only felt disappointment at the vote because it was not fully fair in their opinion. How spineless of the Democrats!

Obama has openly admitted he wants Americans to be able to travel the world and state with pride that they are American. Most Americans living outside of the liberal bubble do feel proud to be American even if there are some countries around the world where the US has a ‘bad’ reputation. Obama wants everybody to love America. How will he achieve this? He will wave the white flag of surrender in the war on terror, he will only express disappointment when democracy is savagely violated by aggressive dictators, he will have tea with the enemies of freedom, and he will put at risk everything America and its allies have fought so hard for since the Second World War.

I have news for Obama, Clinton and the rest of those people living in the bubble… mere popularity is not an ideal towards which any great and noble country should strive. Great leaders make difficult decisions based on guiding principles and beneficial outcomes – they do not change opinions with the winds of popularity nor do they follow the whims of the voters. The Presidency, or the leadership of any influential country, is not part of some American Idol-style competition where one has to choose a popular song/message in order to be a successful leader. Who cares if Americans are not popular in some parts of the world right now because of their noble stand in the war on terror? Do most Americans? I doubt it. Americans (and its allies, eg the Brits) are not popular with those who cannot see the long-term consequences of inaction – we can be proud of the fact that we are trying to protect the future for generations to come.

John McCain understands that fact. He has no qualms about criticizing Putin and wiould never retreat in any situation just to appease those Europeans who are anti-American. Freedom is much more important than being liked by everybody. Obama probably strived to be a ‘popular’ at school. You know the type of person I’m referring to… the person who never criticized anybody, who always agreed with whatever was the opinion à la mode, and who invited everyone to his birthday party.

In world terms, Obama’s attempts to appease all and to ‘make’ Americans popular would besmirch the country’s noble history and go some way towards turning it into a giant Switzerland. We know how tarnished the Swiss nation is as a result of its attempts to be popular with all sides in WW2.

Garry Kasparov represents the real world that Obama and the Democrats seem to ignore. He is courageously fighting tyranny and wanting assurances from the Presidential candidates that they will support the Russian people in their efforts to head back towards democracy. He stated in the Wall Street Journal …

“John McCain has been outspoken on behalf of democratic rights abroad, including Russia. Regardless of the doubts about Mr. McCain’s conservative credentials at home, the thought of him in the White House strikes fear into authoritarian leaders everywhere.”

Kasparov cannot repeat this belief for the Democratic candidates, fearing instead that, “The Russian ruling elite is rooting for Hillary Clinton,” while Obama is “largely, an unknown quantity.”

Kasparov knows the game is at a dangerous point. If America elected Clinton or Obama, the risk is that they would be mere pawns in Putin’s gambit to hold onto power and remove any chance for freedom for the Russian people. McCain, on the other hand, would battle for control of the board and in doing so would provide Kasparov with the opportunity of helping Russian democracy back on its feet – it would be Kasparov’s greatest move.

Romney Lies

January 16, 2008

An interesting article highlighting Mitt Romney’s willingness to do anything to get votes, including flipflop and deceive.

McCain Remains Only Hope For Victory

January 16, 2008

The Republican race is wide open according to many in the mainstream media. When one looks at the national polls, however, it is clear that there is one candidate ahead of all Republican candidates and one candidate who can beat any of the Democratic candidates head-to-head.

Who is the candidate? John McCain. Despite media hopes that his campaign would collapse, McCain’s guts have seen him hold on and remain a frontrunner. At the moment local politics (economic recession in Michigan) are clouding voters’ judgement. What is at stake here is more significant that individual States’ concerns. Those voters in Michigan who think that Romney would prioritise their needs should his farytale ever come true are seriously misguided.

Voters in these primaries should be concerned with America’s future first and foremost. If the country is safe and in good hands, then individual states can prosper. If the Islamic extremists gain the upper hand and sense weakness in the White House, and if the rest of the world loses respect for American strength, individual states will suffer.

All voters in South Carolina must be urged to vote for national and international reasons and not local politics. The next leader of the Free World will come from this batch of candidates.

John McCain is the only candidiate suitably qualified to lead the Free World in the fight against radical Islam, to protect America’s interests, and to look after the interests of the people. He has always acted for the good of his country. Personal profit is not a factor. His country’s prosperity remains his priority.

Hannity’s (not so) Hidden Agenda

January 16, 2008

Following Mitt Romney’s expected victory in Michigan tonight, one had the equally expected ecstatic response from Sean Hannity on Fox News.

Hannity’s dislike for McCain knows no bounds. McCain’s New Hampshire victory was greeted with disdain as Hannity proceeded to belittle it by writing it off as a unique state that only went to the Arizona Senator owing to the Independent votes – conveniently ignoring the fact that the MAJORITY of Republicans voted for McCain.

Hannity should be careful what he wishes for. John McCain is the only candidate able to appeal across party lines – this will be vital against Clinton or Obama. Romney will flounder against either of these Democratic candidates – he is a businessman not a potential Commander-in-Chief.

If Romney wins the nomination, the Republicans can kiss goodbye to the White House. Does Hannity want a Democratic White House? If he does not, he should stop backing the candidate whose main policies seem to involve lining the pockets of big business and whose other opinions appear to have changed with the winds of public opinion.

Romney’s flipflopping reminds one of another famous flipflopper from 2004…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbdzMLk9wHQ

We all know how that story finished.

Chavez: Television Is Bad For You

May 28, 2007

What a surprise. The darling of the liberal, anti-American, pro-’anybody else’ brigade has continued to demonstrate his dictatorial, totalitarian heart by shutting down Venezuela’s most popular television station. Its crime? Free speech and not showing undying love for President Hugo Chavez.

Chavez is following a path laid down by others of his ilk sucha as Che Guevara and Fidel Castro – they claim or have claimed to be on the side of ‘the people’ but in reality they put themselves first and are quite happy to see the working classes (and everybody else, for that matter) struggle and suffer.

Hopefully, Americans such as Jesse Jackson and Harry Belafonte, along with many others, will take note of Chavez’s actions and condemn him. The rest of the world needs to send a message to Chavez, but that is unlikely to happen.

Oh, by the way, Chavez also turned the water cannons onto thousands of peaceful protesters. What next?

The way these Marxist dictators do business is not dissimilar to kings of France in the 1700s. They control all the wealth, they live in fine abodes, and they have scant regard for the lives of the people. We know what happened in 1789.

CNN’s coverage

Rosie’s Blog’s Damning Evidence.

May 27, 2007

Much of the furore surrounding the Rosie O’Donnell and Elisabeth Hasselbeck verbal entanglement centred on the notion that O’Donnell had described the US troops as terrorists. A charge that O’Donnell denies and one on which she forced Hasselbeck to defend her (eventually) during the now infamous row.

It is ironic that O’Donnell’s own blogsite contains the following quotation – a transcript of a discussion in which the ‘terrorist’ description pops up…

 “Dated: 2007-05-23
Did Rosie Call Our Troops Terrorists?

The [sic] is directly from the transcripts of The View for May 17th:

O’DONNELL: …… I just want to say something. 655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?
HASSELBECK: Who are the terrorists?
O’DONNELL: 655,000 Iraqis — I’m saying you have to look, we invaded –
HASSELBECK: Wait, who are you calling terrorists now? Americans?
O’DONNELL: I’m saying if you were in Iraq, and the other country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?
HASSELBECK: Are we killing their citizens or are their people also killing their citizens?  
O’DONNELL: We’re invading a sovereign nation, occupying a country against the U.N.”

Notice, O’Donnell refuses to answer Hasselbeck’s questions regarding clarifying her position on the identity of the terrorists in her opinion. It is clear from her initial statement (my bold) that she is implying that US troops are the terrorists. She is clever enough not to actually put those words in the same sentence but her implication is crystal clear. Hasselbeck gave her ample opportunity to clarify her postion – O’Donnell refused.

It is typical of O’Donnell that she tosses in the 650,000 figure for the amount of Iraqis killed and she even has a section for this stat on her blogsite. I say typical, because of course the number 650,000 is not based on any facts. It is fictitious. There is no proof. This does not deter O’Donnell from using it as if it were true to back up her argument.

It is equally bizarre that she would state that the US was acting against the UN while conveniently ignoring the fact that Hussein/Iraq had been acting in violation of the UN for over a decade. I hardly think the current massacres occuring in Iraq as a result of the fighting between rival Muslim groups is in accordance with the UN charter either – although the lack of action from the UN regarding Darfur might suggest otherwise.

The fact that O’Donnell’s own blog contained the incriminating evidence – and yet, O’Donnell’s people viewing the transcript through Rosie-tinted spectacles do not see it. This might explain why they don’t ‘get’ 9/11 or the War on Terror.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.