Showing posts with label speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label speech. Show all posts
President Netanyahu at The U.N.: "The Truth Is..., I Cannot Make Peace Alone..."
Thanks to Atlas Shrugs here is the entire text of Benjamin Netanyahu's speech:
Ladies and gentlemen, Israel has extended its hand in peace from the moment it was established 63 years ago. On behalf of Israel and the Jewish people, I extend that hand again today. I extend it to the people of Egypt and Jordan, with renewed friendship for neighbors with whom we have made peace. I extend it to the people of Turkey, with respect and good will. I extend it to the people of Libya and Tunisia, with admiration for those trying to build a democratic future. I extend it to the other peoples of North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, with whom we want to forge a new beginning. I extend it to the people of Syria, Lebanon and Iran, with awe at the courage of those fighting brutal repression.
But most especially, I extend my hand to the Palestinian people, with whom we seek a just and lasting peace.
Ladies and gentlemen, in Israel our hope for peace never wanes. Our scientists, doctors, innovators, apply their genius to improve the world of tomorrow. Our artists, our writers, enrich the heritage of humanity. Now, I know that this is not exactly the image of Israel that is often portrayed in this hall. After all, it was here in 1975 that the age-old yearning of my people torestore our national life in our ancient biblical homeland — it was then that this was braided — branded, rather — shamefully, as racism. And it was here in 1980, right here, that the historic peace agreement between Israel and Egypt wasn’t praised; it was denounced! And it’s here year after year that Israel is unjustly singled out for condemnation. It’s singled out for condemnation more often than all the nations of the world combined. Twenty-one out of the 27 General Assembly resolutions condemn Israel — the one true democracy in the Middle East.
Well, this is an unfortunate part of the U.N. institution. It’s the — the theater of the absurd. It doesn’t only cast Israel as the villain; it often casts real villains in leading roles: Gadhafi’s Libya chaired the U.N. Commission on Human Rights; Saddam’s Iraq headed the U.N. Committee on Disarmament.
You might say: That’s the past. Well, here’s what’s happening now — right now, today. Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon now presides over the U.N. Security Council. This means, in effect, that a terror organization presides over the body entrusted with guaranteeing the world’s security.
You couldn’t make this thing up.
So here in the U.N., automatic majorities can decide anything. They can decide that the sun sets in the west or rises in the west. I think the first has already been pre-ordained. But they can also decide — they have decided that the Western Wall in Jerusalem, Judaism’s holiest place, is occupied Palestinian territory.
And yet even here in the General Assembly, the truth can sometimes break through. In 1984 when I was appointed Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, I visited the great rabbi of Lubavich. He said to me — and ladies and gentlemen, I don’t want any of you to be offended because from personal experience of serving here, I know there are many honorable men and women, many capable and decent people serving their nations here. But here’s what the rebbe said to me. He said to me, you’ll be serving in a house of many lies. And then he said, remember that even in the darkest place, the light of a single candle can beseen far and wide.
Today I hope that the light of truth will shine, if only for a few minutes, in a hall that for too long has been a place of darkness for my country. So as Israel’s prime minister, I didn’t come here to win applause. I came here to speak the truth. The truth is — the truth is that Israel wants peace. The truth is that I want peace. The truth is that in the Middle East at all times, but especially during these turbulent days, peace must be anchored in security. The truth is that we cannot achieve peace through U.N.resolutions, but only through direct negotiations between the parties. The truth is that so far the Palestinians have refused to negotiate. The truth is that Israel wants peace with a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians want a state without peace. And the truth is you shouldn’t let that happen.
Ladies and gentlemen, when I first came here 27 years ago, the world was divided between East and West. Since then the Cold War ended, great civilizations have risen from centuries of slumber, hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty, countless more are poised to follow, and the remarkable thing is that so far this monumental historic shift has largely occurred peacefully. Yet a malignancy is now growing between East and West that threatens the peace of all. It seeks not to liberate, but to enslave, not to build, but to destroy.
That malignancy is militant Islam. It cloaks itself in the mantle of a great faith, yet it murders Jews, Christians and Muslims alike with unforgiving impartiality. On September 11th it killed thousands of Americans, and it left the twin towers in smoldering ruins. Last night I laid a wreath on the 9/11 memorial. It was deeply moving. But as I was going there, one thing echoed in my mind: the outrageous words of the president of Iran on this podium yesterday. He implied that 9/11 was an American conspiracy. Some of you left this hall. All of you should have.
Since 9/11, militant Islamists slaughtered countless other innocents — in London and Madrid, in Baghdad and Mumbai, in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, in every part of Israel. I believe that the greatest danger facing our world is that this fanaticism will arm itself with nuclear weapons. And this is precisely what Iran is trying to do.
Can you imagine that man who ranted here yesterday — can you imagine him armed with nuclear weapons? The international community must stop Iran before it’s too late. If Iran is not stopped, we will all face the specter of nuclear terrorism, and the Arab Spring could soon become an Iranian winter. That would be a tragedy. Millions of Arabs have taken to the streets to replace tyranny with liberty, and no one would benefit more than Israel if those committed to freedom and peace would prevail.
This is my fervent hope. But as the prime minister of Israel, I cannot risk the future of the Jewish state on wishful thinking. Leaders must see reality as it is, not as it ought to be. We must do our best to shape the future, but we cannot wish away the dangers of the present.
And the world around Israel is definitely becoming more dangerous. Militant Islam has already taken over Lebanon and Gaza. It’s determined to tear apart the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Jordan. It’s poisoned many Arab minds against Jews and Israel, against America and the West. It opposes not the policies of Israel but the existence of Israel.
Now, some argue that the spread of militant Islam, especially in these turbulent times — if you want to slow it down, they argue, Israel must hurry to make concessions, to make territorial compromises. And this theory sounds simple. Basically it goes like this: Leave the territory, and peace will be advanced. The moderates will be strengthened, the radicals will be kept at bay. And don’t worry about the pesky details of how Israel will actually defend itself; international troops will do the job.
These people say to me constantly: Just make a sweeping offer, and everything will work out. You know, there’s only one problem with that theory. We’ve tried it and it hasn’t worked. In 2000 Israel made a sweeping peace offer that met virtually all of the Palestinian demands. Arafat rejected it. The Palestinians then launched a terror attack that claimed a thousand Israeli lives.
Prime Minister Olmert afterwards made an even more sweeping offer, in 2008. President Abbas didn’t even respond to it.
But Israel did more than just make sweeping offers. We actually left territory. We withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 and from every square inch of Gaza in 2005. That didn’t calm the Islamic storm, the militant Islamic storm that threatens us. It only brought the storm closer and make it stronger.
Hezbollah and Hamas fired thousands of rockets against our cities from the very territories we vacated. See, when Israel left Lebanon and Gaza, the moderates didn’t defeat the radicals, the moderates were devoured by the radicals. And I regret to say that international troops like UNIFIL in Lebanon and UBAM (ph) in Gaza didn’t stop the radicals from attacking Israel.
We left Gaza hoping for peace.
We didn’t freeze the settlements in Gaza, we uprooted them. We did exactly what the theory says: Get out, go back to the 1967 borders, dismantle the settlements.
And I don’t think people remember how far we went to achieve this. We uprooted thousands of people from their homes. We pulled children out of — out of their schools and their kindergartens. We bulldozed synagogues. We even — we even moved loved ones from their graves. And then, having done all that, we gave the keys of Gaza to President Abbas.
Now the theory says it should all work out, and President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority now could build a peaceful state in Gaza. You can remember that the entire world applauded. They applauded our withdrawal as an act of great statesmanship. It was a bold act of peace.
But ladies and gentlemen, we didn’t get peace. We got war. We got Iran, which through its proxy Hamas promptly kicked out the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority collapsed in a day — in one day.
President Abbas just said on this podium that the Palestinians are armed only with their hopes and dreams. Yeah, hopes, dreams and 10,000 missiles and Grad rockets supplied by Iran, not to mention the river of lethal weapons now flowing into Gaza from the Sinai, from Libya, and from elsewhere.
Thousands of missiles have already rained down on our cities. So you might understand that, given all this, Israelis rightly ask: What’s to prevent this from happening again in the West Bank? See, most of our major cities in the south of the country are within a few dozen kilometers from Gaza. But in the center of the country, opposite the West Bank, our cities are a few hundred meters or at most a few kilometers away from the edge of the West Bank.
So I want to ask you. Would any of you — would any of you bring danger so close to your cities, to your families? Would you act so recklessly with the lives of your citizens? Israel is prepared to have a Palestinian state in the West Bank, but we’re not prepared to have another Gaza there. And that’s why we need to have real security arrangements, which the Palestinians simply refuse to negotiate with us.
Israelis remember the bitter lessons of Gaza. Many of Israel’s critics ignore them. They irresponsibly advise Israel to go down this same perilous path again. Your read what these people say and it’s as if nothing happened — just repeating the same advice, the same formulas as though none of this happened.
And these critics continue to press Israel to make far-reaching concessions without first assuring Israel’s security. They praise those who unwittingly feed the insatiable crocodile of militant Islam as bold statesmen. They cast as enemies of peace those of us who insist that we must first erect a sturdy barrier to keep the crocodile out, or at the very least jam an iron bar between its gaping jaws.
So in the face of the labels and the libels, Israel must heed better advice. Better a bad press than a good eulogy, and better still would be a fair press whose sense of history extends beyond breakfast, and which recognizes Israel’s legitimate security concerns.
I believe that in serious peace negotiations, these needs and concerns can be properly addressed, but they will not be addressed without negotiations. And the needs are many, because Israel is such a tiny country. Without Judea and Samaria, the West Bank, Israel is all of 9 miles wide.
I want to put it for you in perspective, because you’re all in the city. That’s about two-thirds the length of Manhattan. It’s the distance between Battery Park and Columbia University. And don’t forget that the people who live in Brooklyn and New Jersey are considerably nicer than some of Israel’s neighbors.
So how do you — how do you protect such a tiny country, surrounded by people sworn to its destruction and armed to the teeth by Iran? Obviously you can’t defend it from within that narrow space alone. Israel needs greater strategic depth, and that’s exactly why Security Council Resolution 242 didn’t require Israel to leave all the territories it captured in the Six-Day War. It talked about withdrawal from territories, to secure and defensible boundaries. And to defend itself, Israel must therefore maintain a long-term Israeli military presence in critical strategic areas in the West Bank.
I explained this to President Abbas. He answered that if a Palestinian state was to be a sovereign country, it could never accept such arrangements. Why not? America has had troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea for more than a half a century. Britain has had an airspace in Cyprus or rather an air base in Cyprus. France has forces in three independent African nations. None of these states claim that they’re not sovereign countries.
And there are many other vital security issues that also must be addressed. Take the issue of airspace. Again, Israel’s small dimensions create huge security problems. America can be crossed by jet airplane in six hours. To fly across Israel, it takes three minutes. So is Israel’s tiny airspace to be chopped in half and given to a Palestinian state not at peace with Israel?
Our major international airport is a few kilometers away from the West Bank. Without peace, will our planes become targets for antiaircraft missiles placed in the adjacent Palestinian state? And how will we stop the smuggling into the West Bank? It’s not merely the West Bank, it’s the West Bank mountains. It just dominates the coastal plain where most of Israel’s population sits below. How could we prevent the smuggling into these mountains of those missiles that could be fired on our cities?
I bring up these problems because they’re not theoretical problems. They’re very real. And for Israelis, they’re life-and- death matters. All these potential cracks in Israel’s security have to be sealed in a peace agreement before a Palestinian state is declared, not afterwards, because if you leave it afterwards, they won’t be sealed. And these problems will explode in our face and explode the peace.
The Palestinians should first make peace with Israel and then get their state. But I also want to tell you this. After such a peace agreement is signed, Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations. We will be the first.
And there’s one more thing. Hamas has been violating international law by holding our soldier Gilad Shalit captive for five years.
They haven’t given even one Red Cross visit. He’s held in a dungeon, in darkness, against all international norms. Gilad Shalit is the son of Aviva and Noam Shalit. He is the grandson of Zvi Shalit, who escaped the Holocaust by coming to the — in the 1930s as a boy to the land of Israel. Gilad Shalit is the son of every Israeli family. Every nation represented here should demand his immediate release. If you want to — if you want to pass a resolution about the Middle East today, that’s the resolution you should pass.
Ladies and gentlemen, last year in Israel in Bar-Ilan University, this year in the Knesset and in the U.S. Congress, I laid out my vision for peace in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state. Yes, the Jewish state. After all, this is the body that recognized the Jewish state 64 years ago. Now, don’t you think it’s about time that Palestinians did the same?
The Jewish state of Israel will always protect the rights of all its minorities, including the more than 1 million Arab citizens of Israel. I wish I could say the same thing about a future Palestinian state, for as Palestinian officials made clear the other day — in fact, I think they made it right here in New York — they said the Palestinian state won’t allow any Jews in it. They’ll be Jew-free — Judenrein. That’s ethnic cleansing. There are laws today in Ramallah that make the selling of land to Jews punishable by death. That’s racism. And you know which laws this evokes.
Israel has no intention whatsoever to change the democratic character of our state. We just don’t want the Palestinians to try to change the Jewish character of our state. (Applause.) We want to give up — we want them to give up the fantasy of flooding Israel with millions of Palestinians.
President Abbas just stood here, and he said that the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the settlements. Well, that’s odd. Our conflict has been raging for — was raging for nearly half a century before there was a single Israeli settlement in the West Bank. So if what President Abbas is saying was true, then the — I guess that the settlements he’s talking about are Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa, Be’er Sheva. Maybe that’s what he meant the other day when he said that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for 63 years. He didn’t say from 1967; he said from 1948. I hope somebody will bother to ask him this question because it illustrates a simple truth: The core of the conflict is not the settlements. The settlements are a result of the conflict. (Applause.)
The settlements have to be — it’s an issue that has to be addressed and resolved in the course of negotiations. But the core of the conflict has always been and unfortunately remains the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize a Jewish state in any border.
I think it’s time that the Palestinian leadership recognizes what every serious international leader has recognized, from Lord Balfour and Lloyd George in 1917, to President Truman in 1948, to President Obama just two days ago right here: Israel is the Jewish state.
President Abbas, stop walking around this issue. Recognize the Jewish state, and make peace with us. In such a genuine peace, Israel is prepared to make painful compromises. We believe that the Palestinians should be neither the citizens of Israel nor its subjects. They should live in a free state of their own. But they should be ready, like us, for compromise. And we will know that they’re ready for compromise and for peace when they start taking Israel’s security requirements seriously and when they stop denying our historical connection to our ancient homeland.
I often hear them accuse Israel of Judaizing Jerusalem. That’s like accusing America of Americanizing Washington, or the British of Anglicizing London. You know why we’re called “Jews”? Because we come from Judea.
In my office in Jerusalem, there’s a — there’s an ancient seal. It’s a signet ring of a Jewish official from the time of the Bible. The seal was found right next to the Western Wall, and it dates back 2,700 years, to the time of King Hezekiah. Now, there’s a name of the Jewish official inscribed on the ring in Hebrew. His name was Netanyahu. That’s my last name. My first name, Benjamin, dates back a thousand years earlier to Benjamin — Binyamin — the son of Jacob, who was also known as Israel. Jacob and his 12 sons roamed these same hills of Judea and Sumeria 4,000 years ago, and there’s been a continuous Jewish presence in the land ever since.
And for those Jews who were exiled from our land, they never stopped dreaming of coming back: Jews in Spain, on the eve of their expulsion; Jews in the Ukraine, fleeing the pogroms; Jews fighting the Warsaw Ghetto, as the Nazis were circling around it. They never stopped praying, they never stopped yearning. They whispered: Next year in Jerusalem. Next year in the promised land.
As the prime minister of Israel, I speak for a hundred generations of Jews who were dispersed throughout the lands, who suffered every evil under the Sun, but who never gave up hope of restoring their national life in the one and only Jewish state.
Ladies and gentlemen, I continue to hope that President Abbas will be my partner in peace. I’ve worked hard to advance that peace. The day I came into office, I called for direct negotiations without preconditions. President Abbas didn’t respond. I outlined a vision of peace of two states for two peoples. He still didn’t respond. I removed hundreds of roadblocks and checkpoints, to ease freedom of movement in the Palestinian areas; this facilitated a fantastic growth in the Palestinian economy. But again — no response. I took the unprecedented step of freezing new buildings in the settlements for 10 months. No prime minister did that before, ever. Once again — you applaud, but there was no response. No response.
In the last few weeks, American officials have put forward ideas to restart peace talks. There were things in those ideas about borders that I didn’t like. There were things there about the Jewish state that I’m sure the Palestinians didn’t like.
But with all my reservations, I was willing to move forward on these American ideas.
President Abbas, why don’t you join me? We have to stop negotiating about the negotiations. Let’s just get on with it. Let’s negotiate peace.
I spent years defending Israel on the battlefield. I spent decades defending Israel in the court of public opinion. President Abbas, you’ve dedicated your life to advancing the Palestinian cause. Must this conflict continue for generations, or will we enable our children and our grandchildren to speak in years ahead of how we found a way to end it? That’s what we should aim for, and that’s what I believe we can achieve.
In two and a half years, we met in Jerusalem only once, even though my door has always been open to you. If you wish, I’ll come to Ramallah. Actually, I have a better suggestion. We’ve both just flown thousands of miles to New York. Now we’re in the same city. We’re in the same building. So let’s meet here today in the United Nations. Who’s there to stop us? What is there to stop us? If we genuinely want peace, what is there to stop us from meeting today and beginning peace negotiations?
And I suggest we talk openly and honestly. Let’s listen to one another. Let’s do as we say in the Middle East: Let’s talk “doogli” (ph). That means straightforward. I’ll tell you my needs and concerns. You’ll tell me yours. And with God’s help, we’ll find the common ground of peace.
There’s an old Arab saying that you cannot applaud with one hand. Well, the same is true of peace. I cannot make peace alone. I cannot make peace without you. President Abbas, I extend my hand — the hand of Israel — in peace. I hope that you will grasp that hand. We are both the sons of Abraham. My people call him Avraham. Your people call him Ibrahim. We share the same patriarch. We dwell in the same land. Our destinies are intertwined. Let us realize the vision of Isaiah — (speaks in Hebrew) — “The people who walk in darkness will see a great light.” Let that light be the light of peace.
In Barack Obama's Own Words: Anti-White Rhetoric - Racist?
Does Obama sound just a little obsessed with Black America or blacks? What happened to Martin Luther King Jr's colorless America? Is this possible when the likes of Obama and Sharpton incessantly focus on race and make race *the* issue and not the content of the person's character?
It's Official: Rick Santorum Announces His Bid for the Republican Nomination - What a Powerful Speech!
The introduction by his wife lasts about 5 minutes. After that I believe you will be impressed with Rick Santorum's speech. He literally speaks to the heart of Americans, believes in American exceptionalism, believes in the freedom and greatness of the American individual and their right to make choices instead of giving the government the power to make choices for the individual. His speech lasts around 20 minutes but is well worth the listen. Enjoy!
Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu Addresses AIPAC, Interview With Hannity
Here is Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech at AIPAC
Here is Prime Minister Netanyau's interview with Sean Hannity
H/T The Sean Hannity Show
Opus from American Perspective has the entire speech that Prime Minister Netanyahu gave in front of Congress.
Here is Prime Minister Netanyau's interview with Sean Hannity
H/T The Sean Hannity Show
Opus from American Perspective has the entire speech that Prime Minister Netanyahu gave in front of Congress.
Israel Betrayed by Obama
Did Comrade Obama just fall off planet EscrewIsrale Kookdom? Did Obama's alter ego reveal his anti-semitic or anti-Israel sympathies? His suggestion that Israel ought to return to it's 1967 borders or for him to suggest that that is where the discussion ought to start is as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said "indefensible." This is outrageous!! Obama ticks me off to no end. The man may have been born in America but the man sure as heck doesn't understand American values one iota.
His ties to both Communists and Muslims also shows that he has a skewed view of America. Some people wonder why conservatives question Obama's loyalties to both America and our allies. It is because Obama usually gives preferential treatment to other countries who are disloyal to America and how he and hos cronies have been trying to "transform" America into a secular humanistic, Communist, Muslim sympathizing fiefdom. Both he and progressives have slowly been eating away at America's foundation, have been poisoning young minds, distorting history, and even have been eliminating very important parts of American history from the people. Obama & Co are promoting a friggin perverse America, one that is not aligned with our Founding principles.
He and others within his administration are power hungry to control our lives as evidenced by all the freedom-hating crap he has either signed into law (ex. Obamacare), by executive order or when he had the EPA do his dirty work since congress didn't pass into law his climate change bill he bypassed normal, reasonable channels just to get his way, like he is a wanna be dictator. This most recent incident where he gave a big slap in the face to Israel is just one example of why we question whether Obama's knows what it means to be an American and whether he is supportive of our allies or not. It is obvious that Obama's alter ego has chosen to box Israel in a corner demanding that they give up the ability to defend itself, has abandoned Israelis at a time when Israel could use our support but no instead Netanyahu is given the "special" treatment and gets stabbed in the back by Obama. Both Obama's father and stepfather were Muslims and in the early part of his life he was raised in a culture which primarily consisted of Muslims so in this latest "I don't give a crap about Israel speech" is evidence of his Muslim sympathies IMO. Obama is clearly not a real American but in fact an imposter from EscrewIsrale Kookdom.
Peter Roff says that Obama "has sold Israel down the river without even so much as a basket made of reeds." Obama's speech will only embolden Israel's enemies. Maybe Obama wants to escalate the violence in the Middle East and have it turn into a full blown war? I don't know... his speech was so nonsensical one can only grasp at straws for reasons why he said what he said.
Roff points out that "Israel is surrounded by enemies, especially Iran--whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly threatened its security in his speeches. Obama’s speech on the Middle East will only serve to encourage Ahmadinejad and his ilk; perhaps even provoking them to act rather than just talk."Bob of The Camp of the Saints has a great read called Leader of the free world vs. Leader of the me world and has a spot on quote from Bruce Hannify:
Since the 80s I’ve been saying, ‘They pass nationalized health care, it’s over.’
Last night comes a yet more obvious demonstration of our president’s willingness to betray Israel; to give her no choice but to surrender, or fight; and to precipitously bump the world toward war.
Once again, the same dread I’ve experienced just before the election; the first few months of his presidency, where he’s attacking Americans . . . . . and again and again and again.
Wouldn’t matter where he was born. He’s not an American.
Opus has Netanyahu's speech in case you missed it, which is seven minutes of coolness.
Libya: Why Are We There?
I haven't discussed the military operation (war) in Libya up until now because I was waiting to see whether we would go into Libya or not, then we went into Libya alongside NATO and I wanted to give our President a chance to give an explanation as to why we are in Libya as well as see how the operation was being handled.
First, I don't think the situation in Libya qualifies as a legitimate humanitarian mission involving our military. If Iraq didn't qualify according to Obama, liberals, and the UN then how the heck could Libya possibly qualify as a legitimate humanitarian mission? To me it seems like the United States has little or no political interest in Libya. We only get 5 percent of our oil from Libya whereas Europe is much more dependent on Libya for oil. If France and the U.K. wanted to go into Libya to protect their oil supply and other national interests then that is their business but the U.S. should have let them go on this military operation without us.
President Obama was the absent, silent Commander-in-Chief for the first couple weeks of the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi. Then, Obama announced that he wanted regime change. Heck, I'd like another regime change LOL! In addition, President Obama and his foreign policy team were hardly ever, if ever, on the same page with regards on how they to handle Gaddafi. And now Obama only wants to aid the rebels, even though we don't know who they are, without forcing Gaddafi to step down. There is information to suggest that there are pockets of Al-Qaeda amongst the rebels. Why the heck are we aiding terrorists who want to kill us? So now the U.S. is a part of a no-fly zone, just like Iraq was under a no-fly zone for 12 years. Does NATO and the U.S. plan to have Gaddafi under a no-fly zone for anywhere near the length of time that Iraq was under a no-fly zone? I hope not.
Obama said our interests and values are at stake. How? American values are at stake because Libyans are engaging in a civil war? That is nonsensical. He says we have a responsibility to act. If we didn't have a responsibility to act in Iraq then surely we don't don't have even 1/10th the responsibility to act in Libya. Saddam Hussein came into power in 1979. Under Saddam Hussein there was government-approved mass murder, torture, forced disappearances, and rapes being committed. There were also chemical weapons. In 1988 Saddam led a brutal campaign which ended up slaughtering 50,000 to 100,000 Shiite Kurds. In 1991 Saddam committed widespread massacres which is estimated to have killed between 80,000 and 230,000 Iraqis. Those are only a few of the horrors committed by Saddam Hussein. Plus, Saddam violated 18 UN sanctions. The UN had found that he had blocked the arms inspectors from being able to do their jobs but he denied it. Saddam claimed that Iraq didn't have any banned chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes. You can view a list of human rights violations here. It was already known at the time that Saddam had previously used a wide array of chemical weapons against the Kurds including Sarin, mustard gas, and nerve agents that killed thousands but yet he denied possessing chemical weapons. Since he had already used chemical weapons on his own people, had obstructed the weapons inspectors from being able to find out whether he did in fact have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons or not there was no way we could trust a dictator's word. Since Saddam's denials of possessing weapons had been proven to be false many times before his denials of having WMD's in his possession lacked plausibility. If you look at all the brutality that Saddam ordered and did how the heck could liberals with a straight face possibly claim that the military action in Iraq was not justifiable, especially when most liberals voted to authorize the use of force?
And, what did Obama say about removing dictators in 2005? Shall we say hypocrisy?
Many liberals believe this military action in Libya to be the right thing to do because we went into Libya with the United Nations. For anyone to give credence to the U.N. is absurd, especially after the oil for food scandal. Obama said "Then we took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gadhafi's aggression." For about three weeks Obama was dilly-dallying as the rebels were winning and kicking butt against Gaddafi, taking control of cities but there was nothing but was inaction and mixed messages on the part of this administration. Now, I am not for this military action but I am just pointing out that I would hardly call this swift action.
In 1977 Gaddafi tried to buy a bomb, then a nuclear weapon, and weapons of mass destruction. In 2005 weapons inspectors found chemical weapons in Libya. Several people were indicted for assisting Gaddafi but why wasn't Gaddafi indicted also? He is suspected of being behind the Lockerbie bombing but was never brought up on charges. Why is that? Gaddafi had numerous clashes with other countries and there may have been a time when he killed some of his military when he first began his rule, and now he has killed some civilians but why are we using military force in Libya? I have no doubt that he's a bad, bad dude but I don't see how it is in the United States' best interest to be in Libya. So I ask why are we in Libya?
First, I don't think the situation in Libya qualifies as a legitimate humanitarian mission involving our military. If Iraq didn't qualify according to Obama, liberals, and the UN then how the heck could Libya possibly qualify as a legitimate humanitarian mission? To me it seems like the United States has little or no political interest in Libya. We only get 5 percent of our oil from Libya whereas Europe is much more dependent on Libya for oil. If France and the U.K. wanted to go into Libya to protect their oil supply and other national interests then that is their business but the U.S. should have let them go on this military operation without us.
President Obama was the absent, silent Commander-in-Chief for the first couple weeks of the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi. Then, Obama announced that he wanted regime change. Heck, I'd like another regime change LOL! In addition, President Obama and his foreign policy team were hardly ever, if ever, on the same page with regards on how they to handle Gaddafi. And now Obama only wants to aid the rebels, even though we don't know who they are, without forcing Gaddafi to step down. There is information to suggest that there are pockets of Al-Qaeda amongst the rebels. Why the heck are we aiding terrorists who want to kill us? So now the U.S. is a part of a no-fly zone, just like Iraq was under a no-fly zone for 12 years. Does NATO and the U.S. plan to have Gaddafi under a no-fly zone for anywhere near the length of time that Iraq was under a no-fly zone? I hope not.
Obama said our interests and values are at stake. How? American values are at stake because Libyans are engaging in a civil war? That is nonsensical. He says we have a responsibility to act. If we didn't have a responsibility to act in Iraq then surely we don't don't have even 1/10th the responsibility to act in Libya. Saddam Hussein came into power in 1979. Under Saddam Hussein there was government-approved mass murder, torture, forced disappearances, and rapes being committed. There were also chemical weapons. In 1988 Saddam led a brutal campaign which ended up slaughtering 50,000 to 100,000 Shiite Kurds. In 1991 Saddam committed widespread massacres which is estimated to have killed between 80,000 and 230,000 Iraqis. Those are only a few of the horrors committed by Saddam Hussein. Plus, Saddam violated 18 UN sanctions. The UN had found that he had blocked the arms inspectors from being able to do their jobs but he denied it. Saddam claimed that Iraq didn't have any banned chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes. You can view a list of human rights violations here. It was already known at the time that Saddam had previously used a wide array of chemical weapons against the Kurds including Sarin, mustard gas, and nerve agents that killed thousands but yet he denied possessing chemical weapons. Since he had already used chemical weapons on his own people, had obstructed the weapons inspectors from being able to find out whether he did in fact have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons or not there was no way we could trust a dictator's word. Since Saddam's denials of possessing weapons had been proven to be false many times before his denials of having WMD's in his possession lacked plausibility. If you look at all the brutality that Saddam ordered and did how the heck could liberals with a straight face possibly claim that the military action in Iraq was not justifiable, especially when most liberals voted to authorize the use of force?
And, what did Obama say about removing dictators in 2005? Shall we say hypocrisy?
Many liberals believe this military action in Libya to be the right thing to do because we went into Libya with the United Nations. For anyone to give credence to the U.N. is absurd, especially after the oil for food scandal. Obama said "Then we took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gadhafi's aggression." For about three weeks Obama was dilly-dallying as the rebels were winning and kicking butt against Gaddafi, taking control of cities but there was nothing but was inaction and mixed messages on the part of this administration. Now, I am not for this military action but I am just pointing out that I would hardly call this swift action.
In 1977 Gaddafi tried to buy a bomb, then a nuclear weapon, and weapons of mass destruction. In 2005 weapons inspectors found chemical weapons in Libya. Several people were indicted for assisting Gaddafi but why wasn't Gaddafi indicted also? He is suspected of being behind the Lockerbie bombing but was never brought up on charges. Why is that? Gaddafi had numerous clashes with other countries and there may have been a time when he killed some of his military when he first began his rule, and now he has killed some civilians but why are we using military force in Libya? I have no doubt that he's a bad, bad dude but I don't see how it is in the United States' best interest to be in Libya. So I ask why are we in Libya?
Immigration Speech: President Obama Distorts Truth 7 Times in 54 Seconds
Obama is the master of deception and lies. Bryan Fischer points out that President Obama broke his own record for the number of times that he distorted the truth in the shortest duration in history. Obama distorted the truth 7 times in 54 seconds during his immigration speech. Maybe we should send Obama to Liars Anonymous?
Bryan Fischer points out Obama's distortions here:
"Into this breach, states like Arizona have decided to take matters into their own hands. Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable. But it is also ill conceived. And it's not just that the law Arizona passed is divisive — although it has fanned the flames of an already contentious debate. Laws like Arizona's put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable. It puts pressure on already hard-strapped state and local budgets. It makes it difficult for people here illegally to report crimes — driving a wedge between communities and law enforcement, making our streets more dangerous and the jobs of our police officers more difficult."
"ill conceived" — In the most significant parts of the Arizona law, its language is drawn word-for-word from federal immigration statutes signed into law by Democrat icons. The requirement that every non-citizen in the U.S. be required to carry documentation was passed by a Democrat Congress and signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1940. Other parts of the law mirror language from the immigration law signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, a bill championed by Sen. Ted Kennedy.
"divisive" — 71% of Arizonans support the bill. It has unified rather than divided. In politics, a 60-40 win is considered a landslide. For a law to get 71% support is an overwhelming mandate.
"unenforceable" — Just ask Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio exactly how difficult this law is to enforce. If other communities find it unenforceable, they need better sheriffs.
"budgets" — Just ask Arizonans about budgetary impacts. They are coughing up $2.7 billion a year for education, welfare, health care and law enforcement costs to deal with the illegal alien problem. A secure border would free up almost $3 billion dollars, either to be returned to the wallets of residents or spent on other programs. Mayfield, California, a city which declared itself a "safe haven" for illegal aliens, just closed down under the strain of budgetary pressures.
"report crimes" — This is just ridiculous. Nobody asks for your Social Security number when you call 911. They just send a squad car. And the Arizona law only allows law enforcement to check your immigration status if you are committing a crime, not if you are reporting one.
"streets more dangerous" — Ask the residents of Phoenix about this one. Phoenix is now second only to Mexico City as the kidnapping capital of the world. Home invasions, drug crimes and street crimes are up — "off the charts" to use Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu's words — because of illegal aliens. The federal government has virtually ceded large swathes of sovereign U.S. territory to the drug cartels, putting signs up warning U.S. citizens to stay of U.S. property because Mexican drug cartels control it. Mayfield, California, which declared itself a "safe haven" for illegal aliens, just closed down.
"jobs of our police officers more dangerous" — Ask Joslyn Johnson, the widow of slain Houston patrolman Rodney Johnson, who was shot to death in 2006 by an illegal alien who had already been deported one time and had been arrested at least three times before gunning Johnson down at a routine traffic stop. If our southern border were secure, Rodney Johnson would be alive today. Making their jobs more dangerous? Hardly. It's the other way round.
H/T RenewAmerica
Bryan Fischer points out Obama's distortions here:
"Into this breach, states like Arizona have decided to take matters into their own hands. Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable. But it is also ill conceived. And it's not just that the law Arizona passed is divisive — although it has fanned the flames of an already contentious debate. Laws like Arizona's put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable. It puts pressure on already hard-strapped state and local budgets. It makes it difficult for people here illegally to report crimes — driving a wedge between communities and law enforcement, making our streets more dangerous and the jobs of our police officers more difficult."
"ill conceived" — In the most significant parts of the Arizona law, its language is drawn word-for-word from federal immigration statutes signed into law by Democrat icons. The requirement that every non-citizen in the U.S. be required to carry documentation was passed by a Democrat Congress and signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1940. Other parts of the law mirror language from the immigration law signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, a bill championed by Sen. Ted Kennedy.
"divisive" — 71% of Arizonans support the bill. It has unified rather than divided. In politics, a 60-40 win is considered a landslide. For a law to get 71% support is an overwhelming mandate.
"unenforceable" — Just ask Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio exactly how difficult this law is to enforce. If other communities find it unenforceable, they need better sheriffs.
"budgets" — Just ask Arizonans about budgetary impacts. They are coughing up $2.7 billion a year for education, welfare, health care and law enforcement costs to deal with the illegal alien problem. A secure border would free up almost $3 billion dollars, either to be returned to the wallets of residents or spent on other programs. Mayfield, California, a city which declared itself a "safe haven" for illegal aliens, just closed down under the strain of budgetary pressures.
"report crimes" — This is just ridiculous. Nobody asks for your Social Security number when you call 911. They just send a squad car. And the Arizona law only allows law enforcement to check your immigration status if you are committing a crime, not if you are reporting one.
"streets more dangerous" — Ask the residents of Phoenix about this one. Phoenix is now second only to Mexico City as the kidnapping capital of the world. Home invasions, drug crimes and street crimes are up — "off the charts" to use Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu's words — because of illegal aliens. The federal government has virtually ceded large swathes of sovereign U.S. territory to the drug cartels, putting signs up warning U.S. citizens to stay of U.S. property because Mexican drug cartels control it. Mayfield, California, which declared itself a "safe haven" for illegal aliens, just closed down.
"jobs of our police officers more dangerous" — Ask Joslyn Johnson, the widow of slain Houston patrolman Rodney Johnson, who was shot to death in 2006 by an illegal alien who had already been deported one time and had been arrested at least three times before gunning Johnson down at a routine traffic stop. If our southern border were secure, Rodney Johnson would be alive today. Making their jobs more dangerous? Hardly. It's the other way round.
H/T RenewAmerica
Ronald Reagan's Address to the Nation on Independence Day 1986
I thought that this speech given by Ronald Reagan would be good to listen to as we approach Independence Day. God Bless America!
Reflections on the Oil Spill, the Cleanup & Obama's Speech
The President’s speech on the oil spill was boring and quite uninspiring at a time when our nation, especially the residents near the Gulf, need reassurances and words of encouragement. His words fell flat and short of that necessity. Barack Obama and the federal government’s inaction in response to the oil spill has exacerbated the problem and now Obama is drowning in oil and red ink. Did bureaucracy and red ink cause such ineptitude on the part of the Federal government’s response efforts (or lack thereof) to halt the oil spill? Is our president really doing everything he can when thirteen entities had offered their assistance in the oil cleanup and yet the United States refused their help? That does not make sense to me. You would think that we would be welcoming others ideas and accepting any help offered in order to minimize the ramifications that this oil spill will cause on our environment.
The president’s speech indicates that the Obama administration’s central preoccupation has been in taking advantage of the oil crisis and advancing his radical cap & trade agenda instead of stopping the oil spill from gushing which should be their top priority. You know things are getting really bad for Obama when more people are disapproving of the Obama administration’s response (or lack thereof) than they were of the Bush administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina. The language Guru, Paul J.J. Payack, president of Global Language Monitor makes the claim that Obama is too ‘professorial’ for his target audience. The language guru also claims that Obama’s phraseology makes him seem aloof and out of touch. I do believe that the President is detached, aloof, and out of touch. He has had a hands off approach to this oil spill. The Obama administration seems to be showing their true colors in letting their allegiance to unions to get in the way of the oil cleanup by refusing to waive the Jones Act, which would then allow outside help from other nations into the Gulf. Many of God’s creatures are being killed and hurt because of this disastrous oil spill and fisherman’s livelihoods are being affected greatly too. Let us keep these creatures and fisherman in our thoughts and prayers. Let is hope and pray that the oil leak is stopped ASAP.
Below, here is a video showing a mass Democrat defection as liberals attack Obama’s response to oil spill.
The president’s speech indicates that the Obama administration’s central preoccupation has been in taking advantage of the oil crisis and advancing his radical cap & trade agenda instead of stopping the oil spill from gushing which should be their top priority. You know things are getting really bad for Obama when more people are disapproving of the Obama administration’s response (or lack thereof) than they were of the Bush administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina. The language Guru, Paul J.J. Payack, president of Global Language Monitor makes the claim that Obama is too ‘professorial’ for his target audience. The language guru also claims that Obama’s phraseology makes him seem aloof and out of touch. I do believe that the President is detached, aloof, and out of touch. He has had a hands off approach to this oil spill. The Obama administration seems to be showing their true colors in letting their allegiance to unions to get in the way of the oil cleanup by refusing to waive the Jones Act, which would then allow outside help from other nations into the Gulf. Many of God’s creatures are being killed and hurt because of this disastrous oil spill and fisherman’s livelihoods are being affected greatly too. Let us keep these creatures and fisherman in our thoughts and prayers. Let is hope and pray that the oil leak is stopped ASAP.
Below, here is a video showing a mass Democrat defection as liberals attack Obama’s response to oil spill.
Ronald Reagan -- Speech on Socialized Medicine
I think that this speech is appropos today. We must keep our chins up. We can fight against Obamacare-socialized medicine- and stop it from infecting our population. We can repeal this in the courts. This was adopted against the will of the people and we will round up the troops, like good patriots and reinstitute conservatism, like our Founders intended. We will prevail and gain back both our freedom and liberty.
Historic Speech by John Boehner on Bloody Sunday
Democrats VOTE YES and ignore the will of the people.
Marco Rubio Speech at CPAC
This is a brilliant speech! Marco Rubio lifts up America instead of apologizing for America. He talks about America's exceptionalism. He is a true conservative. We must help him win the GOP nomination against Charlie Christ to become the next senator from Florida. Then, we must help him the general election so that he can become the next senator from Florida.
H/T goes to The Right Scoop
H/T goes to The Right Scoop
Labels:
CPAC,
Florida,
Marco Rubio,
speech
Sarah Palin Unleashed -- National Tea Party Convention Speech
Sarah Palin was the keynote speaker at The National Tea Party Convention. This is a fabulous speech. She slams Obama and the Obama administration for their nonsensical policies. This is the Palin NO SPIN ZONE. She espouses American values and promotes America's greatness and the American way of life in her speech. Enjoy!
Charles Krauthammer Speaks on The Age of Obama & The Decline of Obama
In this video, Charles Krauthammer speaks is in front of a crowd at The Heritage Foundation, and delivers a most fascinating and brilliant speech. This speech is on The Age of Obama, and the decline of Obama. I don't want to give away too much of what's in the video but I agree with the way Krauthammer characterizes Obama's pacifism, actually all pacifism, as being a childish notion. The fact that Obama thinks that Iran is a diversion is absurd. Iran is a threat that we must take seriously, instead of tossing it aside like a hot potato and forgetting about Iran's nuclear threat. That hot potato may come back to blow up in our faces (literally- BOOM!!!) if the Obama administration ignores this grave threat to our country. The Republicans need to bring up the issue of Iran often, so Obama cannot ignore this threat that Iran poses to the citizens of this great country. This speech itself is about 35 minutes long and starts (guessing here) about 5 minutes in from where the video begins. Enjoy!!! Grab a coffee or soda, and a snack and relax.
Warning: Get ready for a lot of cleavage.
Charles Krauthammer Speech
Warning: Get ready for a lot of cleavage.
Charles Krauthammer Speech
My Thoughts on The State of the Union Address
I hope that Obama and the Congress do focus primarily on job creation. But, with policies like Cap & Trade and Government run health care, I fear that they will be job killers. Obama played the blame game on many fronts. This has to stop!! There has been no president in history that has played the blame game so much like Obama has over the past year. He is such a freaking crybaby. Waaa!! Waaa!! That is not acting presidential, but rather like a whiny child. It is clear that the first stimulus failed. The Stimulus did not produce any new jobs. This country has lost around 2.8 million more jobs since the Porkulus was signed by Obama. Obama thinks that the economy is doing better and that we are out of a recession. That is a bunch of hooey. Is Obama living in some delusion? Or a quasi-reality? Just recently, there have been two bad signs that the economy has not recovered from this awful recession- the biggest decline in existing home sales in over 40 years. Existing home sales fell 17% and new home sales dropped more than expected, also. These are not signs of a recovery!! Obama is obviously not living in reality. Maybe, its wishful thinking on his part?
I thought Bob McDonnell's Republican response was quite impressive. He looked and sounded top notch. He talked about the common ground between Democrats and Republicans, while also pointing out the substantial differerences in policies like national security. McDonnell also pointed out how Republicans have offered common sense alternatives to the Democrats health care bills. I love how McDonnell invoked Jefferson in his speech -- “It was Thomas Jefferson,” McDonnell said, “who called for ‘A wise and frugal government which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry .... and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.’ He was right. Today, the federal government is simply trying to do too much.” I can't wait to hear more in the future from Bob McDonnell.
Freedom of Speech Went the Hell Out the Window
Freedom of Speech Went the Hell Out the Window
Mall Politics at its worst: The Liberals have taken over one North Carolina Mall and made it known that it forbids any freedom-loving, pro-America, anti-Obama, Christian and conservative ideas in this Simon Mall.
NO OPPOSING POINTS OF VIEW AT THIS MALL
The only conservative anti-Obama company's kiosk is getting kicked out of the Concord Mills Mall in North Carolina
"Free market Warrior" gets kicked outta Mall for at least one passerby that complained about these so-called racist
and bigoted bumper stickers.
The owner, Loren Spivack, says these bumper stickers and
posters are meant to be "biting" :
1)“Impeach Obama. “
2)“Al Qaeda’s favorite days: 9/11/01 and 11/04/08.”
3)“Work Harder. Obama needs the money.”
These are not racist sayings!! In fact, I think there totally hilarious. But, the Liberal who owns Simon Malls kicked out the only conservative kiosk that expressed a different point-of-view. I guess the socialist or communists have entered this country and are starting to take over our malls all across this country.
"The kiosk chain’s owner shared e-mail correspondence with Newschannel 36 that explains that the mall management has decided that the items sold are not “neutral” enough. The lease will be allowed to expire July 31, 2009 without an option to renew."
Excuse me. . .
What would a left-wing extremist like Melvin Simon consider "neutral?"
Probably, anything promoting a leftist agenda that says F**k America
Anything that promotes murdering innocent unborn babies
Anything that is Anti-Military
Anything that promotes a Communist/Socialist government
This stinks. . .
Melvin Simon has provided large political contributions to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Al Franken, John Edwards, the DNC and many other Democrats and Democrat organizations.
The blue tinted fog fills the air with an awful stench . . .
Melvin Simon is the same person who shut down the Atlanta Tea Party. The Tea Party was going to be held at a parking lot next to Gwinnett Mall in Atlanta, which just happens to be a Simon Mall. This man was so sneaky and evil that he didn't give the tea party organizers notice until it was too late to find another location.
I pledge that I will not enter a SIMON MALL(unless forced to under duress) in the United States of America. I refuse to support the socialists of America who are tearing down our right to free speech.
Hasn't the owner of Simon Malls heard of the 1st Amendment? Obviously the guy doesn't give a rats a$$ about the freedom of speech. Or he's another Liberal who thinks that the freedom of speech only applies to Liberals. Well, Dammit it doesn't. It applies to EVERYONE!!! I am sick of the hypocrisy of the Left!!! Now it is time to rebel or fight back with everyone holding back their money from supporting this corrupt enterprise called SIMON MALLS.
So now, are conservatives going to have to start up and build their own malls to counteract the culture of corruption within the liberal malls? This Liberal takeover MUST BE STOPPED!!!!
So I say Freedom of Speech has been shattered to Pieces!
Now, we conservatives must fight to put these pieces back together.
Here is Free Market Warrior's website:http://freemarketwarrior.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





