La gaffe de McCain

« The book lays out in detail how this period began in a way that should shock some of Mr Obama’s supporters: he won the Democratic nomination for his Illinois seat by getting a team of lawyers to throw all the other candidates off the ballot on various technicalities. One of those he threw off was a veteran black politician, a woman who helped him get started in politics in the first place. »

on Monday, September 08, 2008 – By: Silverstein, Richard
Abe Foxman is now shillin’ for Sarah Palin. Many of you know that just a few weeks ago Sarah Palin’s church, with her in attendance, welcomed the director of Jews for Jesus into its midst. In his sermon he said, among other hurtful things, that Israelis killed in terror attacks died because of God’s judgment against them for not accepting Jesus. After listening to this hateful nonsense, the Church took up a collection for the group’s deceitful proselytizing among Jews.

Palin’s handlers have told JTAthat while she was there when he spoke that she didn’t agree with his sentiments. I wish Ben Harris had asked the handlers whether Palin chipped in when the collection plate came around. Did she give to Jews for Jesus? Apparently, for the campaign, this denial is sufficient and they think the issue will go away. But I’d like to know why she attends a Church whose pastor believes that Jews for Jesus actually does Jews a favor by providing them an opportunity to return to the embrace of “Our Lord and Savior?”

…We wish to extend your grace back to your [Jewish] people. And we pray and we ask that as a result of this time here, and as a result of this offering [for Jews for Jesus], there will be people among the Jews today who come to say the name ‘Jesus’ with faith.”

And why does she belong to a Church which believes that gay people can be turned back into heterosexuals?

Equally disturbing, was Abe Foxman’s hypocritical dismissal of the danger of such evangelical proselytizing:

The Anti-Defamation League, which has been deeply critical of Jews for Jesus…said it had no problem with Palin’s membership in a church that supported efforts to convert Jews.

The ADL’s national director, Abraham Foxman, told JTA that Protestant evangelizing to Jews was entirely different from Catholics praying for Jewish conversion, which the ADL has sharply criticized.

“They did not have the Inquisition. They did not go on a Crusade. They did not kill Jews for 2,000 years,” Foxman said. “They have a belief; they’re entitled to their belief.”
Besides, he said, there is no evidence that Palin shares Brickner’s views.

“If you could tell me that she approves of this guy, she invited him, I’m not aware of any of that,” Foxman said. “The fact that she belongs to a church that believes in it, I don’t have a problem.”

Somebody ought to read Abe his own organization’s press releasecriticizing Jews for Jesus as being “deceptive and offensive.” How can he criticize the group and then turn around and say that evangelical churches that host Jews for Jesus are doing nothing wrong?

And how ignorant can one be in dividing up Christianity into good and bad? Protestants have been just as anti-Semitic historically as Catholics. The only difference is that Protestantism has existed for a shorter time and thus been able to do less damage. Martin Luther, who turned against the Jews when they didn’t convert en masse as he hoped, wrote The Jews and Their Lies. And does one need to remind Abe that plenty of German pastors endorsed Hitler’s murderous policies?

Clearly, Abe’s covering for Palin and trying to deflect legitimiate criticism from Palin and her church. Let it not be said that the ADL is a non-partisan operation. Somehow Barack Obama’s black church was anti-Semitic and the candidate had to take personal responsibility for the hate spoken there; while Palin is treated to an entirely different standard.

Abe must’ve been persuaded that Palin is a friend of the Jews by the state’s Chabad rabbi who called her a great friend of Israel. On what basis? She signed a bill recognizing Israel’s 60th anniversary! I kid you not:

Gov. Palin signed a resolution in June of 2008 recognizing Israel’s 60th anniversary and the unique relationship between Alaska and the Jewish State, especially the fact that Alaska Airlines played a critical role in the rescue of 40,000 Yemenite Jews in 1948 and 1949.

All I can say is that if this is enough to convince the good rabbi that Sarah Palin loves us, he’s a very cheap date.

I wonder if Abe is at all concerned with Sarah Posner’s report that as governor, Palin signed a bill recognizing Alaska Christian Heritage Week. So much for separation of church and state. One wonders whether there was an Alaskan Jewish Heritage Week. Or why a state should recognize any particular religion’s heritage.

On a slightly different note, remember all that “executive experience” Palin touted in her convention speech? Well, if you read longtime Wasilla neighbor Anne Kilkenny’s long critiqueof Palin’s career, you’ll find that she tried to fire the town librarian for refusing to ban books; for which she was nearly recalled. She also successfully fired the town’s police chief, who sued for wrongful termination. While she won the case, the price was that a town of 5,000 had to hire a professional administrator to run the town because her “executive” decision-making was so deficient.

It can’t be any wonder after firing Wasilla’s police chief that she went after the state’s chief law enforcement officer after she became governor. All because he rightfully refused to fire her brother-in-law who was in the middle of divorcing her sister.

What becomes clear in Kilkenny’s assessment is that Palin has no strong ideological identity. She is not wedded to any particular philosophy. She throws an idea out and if the public embraces it she takes credit. If not, it was somebody else’s idea.

But her politics are very personal. Anyone who has ever crossed her becomes an enemy for life (I guess she hasn’t heard about Christian forgiveness). Kilkenny even muses that she will pay a price for her candor in writing her e mail. But because of her disenchantment with Palin it is a price she is willing to pay.

In the spirit of Christian forgiveness, perhaps Sarah would now like to nominate Mary Ellen Baker, Wasailla’s librarian (yes, the one she tried to fire) for the I Love My Librarian Award.

Palin a été bien démontée par le New York Times.
J´aime beaucoup le New York Times.

Palin claims Alaska “produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy.” That’s not true.

Alaska did produce 14 percent of all the oil from U.S. wells last year, but that’s a far cry from all the “energy” produced in the U.S.
…
I don’t give a Kadrik.

Calmez vous , dans deux mois vous irez voter Obama et ca vous soulagera ……

Il votera avec la main ?

L’auteur de l’article cité par Sittingbull ose dire:
“Obama would like people to believe all this terrorist activity ended in 1969 when he was eight years old. In fact, it continued well into the eighties.”
Quels étaient donc ces activités terroristes que Obama auraient faites jusqu’à ce qu’il ait 8 ans? L’auteur n’en dit rien.
+++++++++++++
Et pour cause ! Il s’arrache les cheveux de voir votre niveau de comprehension du texte ! C’est « l’activite terroriste  » qui a continue  » well in the 80’s  » , pas Obama ! Quelqu’un l’a accuse d’avoir pose des bombes ? Vous delirez , mon pauvre Kadrik ! Calmez vous , dans deux mois vous irez voter Obama et ca vous soulagera ……

Le tintamarre médiatique pro-Obamesque est tel que Mc Cain n’aura aucune chance de gagner en novembre, même si la question raciale est un peu trop minorée dans les intentions de vote. Le moindre doute de Mc Cain sera taxé d’un début d’Alzheimer, la plus petite mimique l’évolution d’un Parkinson, bref tout sera interprété sous l’aune du lent naufrage de la vieillesse. Quand je parle avec mes amis et collègues de travail américains, cette élection me fait penser aux élections de 2002 en France, les gens masquent leurs intentions pour avoir la paix et l’assentiment du groupe. Ceci dit, les US ont besoin d’un rappel de vaccination démocrate pour vitaliser les fondamentaux miltoniens…La victoire d’Obama sera une chance pour les républicains, mais malheureusement la nullité d’Obama deviendra une telle évidence que dans 2 ans le Congrès passera à droite…

@ Zoubor
En parlant de Segolâneries, vous vous souvenez du débat autour de la quantité d’énergie nucléaire dans la consommation énergétique française?

Palin et McCain font autant fort au sujet du pétrole d’Alaska!
____________________________
Palin claims Alaska « produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy. » That’s not true.

Alaska did produce 14 percent of all the oil from U.S. wells last year, but that’s a far cry from all the « energy » produced in the U.S.

Alaska’s share of domestic energy production was 3.5 percent, according to the official figures kept by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

And if by « supply » Palin meant all the energy consumed in the U.S., and not just produced here, then Alaska’s production accounted for only 2.4 percent.

c’était bien réel.

Comme son association et son amitié avec des terroristes

Ben les prêches de son pasteur cinglé, c’était bien réel.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?page=0
OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS’ IRAQ WITHDRAWAL
By AMIR TAHERI, New York Post, September 15, 2008

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

« He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington, »

Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops – and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its « state of weakness and political confusion. »

« However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open. »

Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is « illegal, » he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the « weakened Bush administration, » Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a « realistic withdrawal date. » They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama’s administration wouldn’t be fully operational before February – and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament – which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.

According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years – departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.

Even then, the dates mentioned are only « notional, » making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as « a man of the Left » – who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq’s liberation. Indeed, say Talabani’s advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Maliki’s advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win – but the prime minister worries about the senator’s « political debt to the anti-war lobby » – which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was « the biggest strategic blunder in US history. »

Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show « a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues. »

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn’t want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of « pre-emptive » war – that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.