Hmmmm: Osama Bin Laden challenges Obama in a message

Interesting…..

Via ABC NEWS:

In a direct challenge to President-elect Barack Obama, Osama bin Laden questions whether America “is capable to keep fighting us for more years” in a new audio message attributed to him Wednesday morning on an internet website.

A senior U.S. official told ABCNews.com, “There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the tape.”

It is the first time bin Laden has been heard from in seven months and puts to rest speculation he is dead. The al Qaeda leader’s last audio message was posted on May 18, 2008…

Today’s message begins with a call for a jihad against Israel because of its attacks on Gaza but concludes with a challenge to the U.S., and implicitly the incoming Obama administration.

“Now America is begging the world for money,” bin Laden says, “and the USA will not be as powerful as it used to be.”

“This rapid failing for America was one of the reasons that the Israelis started their attacks against Gaza and just to make use of what’s left of the Bush term,” he says.

Bin Laden makes reference to Vice-President elect Joseph Biden, quoting him as saying “the financial crisis is bigger than we expected” and the al Qaeda leader counsels patience in continuing to fight the U.S.

Bin Laden appears to be referring to comments Biden made to ABC News’ George Stephanopolous in an Dec. 21 appearance on This Week. “The economy is in much worse shape that we thought it was in,” Biden said then.

“The majority of the U.S. people are happy to get rid of Bush, Bush left for his successor a heavy heritage, the hardest part of heritage is guerilla wars,” bin Laden says

Hmmm, isn’t that part I underlined what must Liberals say as well? 🙄

If course, many liberals think Obama Osama is dead, so this must be a fake. But you just know the Obambi-Messiah will raise him from the dead and mostly likely walk in water, while he’s at it.

Others: Sweetness & Light

The real question people should be asking is……

Why are Conservatives even wanting to dine with Obama?

Jonathan Chait opines as to why Liberals aren’t flipping out about the dinner date last night:

I actually don’t find it terribly surprising that liberals haven’t shown any outrage over Barack Obama’s dinner party with George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, and David Brooks. I’ll get to my hypothesis why liberals aren’t upset in a moment. But first imagine this counterfactual: George W. Bush (or maybe a victorious John McCain) sat down before his first inauguration with Paul Krugman, E.J. Dionne, and Frank Foer. Would conservatives have reacted with the same equanimity? No, I think they’d have gone nuts. And the reason is that they wouldn’t have confidence in Bush or McCain to be surrounded by liberal ideas without being deeply influenced by them. I don’t think they’d have reacted this way if, say, a President Mitt Romney did the same thing.

And that’s why liberals aren’t having a cow. They know that Obama understands far more about policy than any of his right-wing dinner companions, is used to being exposed to opposing ideas, and won’t come out of that dinner telling his staff, “Hey, did you know we cut half the capital gains tax and raise more revenue?”

A separate issue is why Obama didn’t pick some conservatives with a bit more intellectual integrity than, say, Kristol and Krauthammer. The problem, of course, is conservatives like that tend not to rise to positions of high influence.

As for his question, except for the idiot line at the end about high influence, I pretty much agree.

However, I feel, as a Paleo-Conservative, that the difference between a Democrat and a Neo-Conservative is about hair’s breadth. This is the reason for the Neo-Con’s relationship with Hillary. I mean, they all but sucked up to her.

Perhaps the Neo-Conservatives are trying to suck up, in order to save face in 2010 and 2012.

You notice though that on that guest list, Pat Buchanan or anyone from “The American Conservative” or “Reason” magazine was not there? Just Neo-Conservative talking heads.

It’s going to be a long four to eight years.

Update – Related Video: (H/T to AP)

Exit Comment/Question: I wonder if the Liberal watchdogs will make a big deal about the basketball playing comment? She was being funny, but it was a bit mean. I was shocked she said it. 😮

Others: The Daily Dish, Kevin Drum and Washington Monthly (Via Memeorandum)

BlogAds is an Anti-Conservative Owned Business

I haven’t had a good fight in a while, so, I decided to bring something up on this Blog.

Many of you know, that I use BlogAds on this Blog for Advertising. You’ll also notice that not many people have used the service for their advertising needs. I think I might have an idea why.

I was nosing around over on the official BlogsAds Blog and quite frankly, I was quite horrified to what is on that “Company Blog“. There is a great deal of Anti-Conservative, Pro-Obama screed over their Blog.

You can see examples of what I am referring to by going Here, Here, Here and Here.

What I find utterly amazing is the fact that Conservatives even use this service at all. I mean, I am part of the Conservative Hive on BlogAds.

My question is this, how is it, that Conservatives are using a Blog Advertising service who’s owner, (I presume that is who wrote those entries) partakes in the bashing the Republican Party and Conservative values in General?

Quite frankly, I’m sickened by what I read over on that Blog, the owner of BlogAds ought to ashamed of himself and should either remove the postings of Political Nature or close the business down, or at best only accept Liberal Advertising, because quite frankly, taking the money of Conservatives and bashing them on a Company website or Blog is totally hypocritical in this writers opinion.

I am almost sure that the owner of Blogads will most likely delete my account, as a result of bringing this to light. I am sure I will see an e-mail shortly tell me to get lost. But I will not pull this entry. Business owners who partake in this sort of Anti-Conservative rhetoric ought to be exposed and ran out of business.

Trackposted to Nuke’s, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Woman Honor Thyself, Adam’s Blog, The World According to Carl, DragonLady’s World, The Pink Flamingo, Democrat=Socialist, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Linkfest Haven, the Blogger's Oasis

The Obligatory Hillary Clinton "intervened in government issues directly affecting companies and others that later contributed to her husband's foundation" Posting

Seriously, why is anyone even remotely suprised by this?

Via AP:

Secretary of State appointee Hillary Rodham Clinton intervened at least six times in government issues directly affecting companies and others that later contributed to her husband’s foundation, an Associated Press review of her official correspondence found.

The overlap of names on former President Bill Clinton’s foundation donor list and business interests whose issues she championed raises new questions about potential ethics conflicts between her official actions and her husband’s fundraising. The AP obtained three of the senator’s government letters under the Freedom of Information Act.

Clinton was to begin her confirmation hearing Tuesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Under an agreement with President-elect Barack Obama, Bill Clinton recently released the names of donors to his foundation, a nonprofit that has raised at least $492 million — including millions from foreign governments — to fund his library in Little Rock, Ark., and charitable efforts worldwide on such issues as AIDS, poverty and climate change.

The letters and donations involve pharmaceutical companies and telecommunications and energy interests. An aide to the senator said she made no secret of her involvement in many of the issues. Bill Clinton’s foundation declined to say when it received the donations or precisely how much was contributed.

I mean, after all, we are talking the Clinton’s here. Democratic ties to corruption and lobbyists; especially among the Clinton’s and other well-heeled Democratic figures goes all the way back the Kennedy era. I know, Obama promised change, and with Hillary we did not get it. One must remember though, if she’s not seated, Obama could lose his popularity among Hillary’s supporters.

Still it would be quite juvenile of me not to observe that this does represent a “walk back” of the mantra of hope and change that Obama promised during the campaign. The Clinton defeat was supposed to represent a defeat of the old Clinton guard within the Democratic Party. So much for that little bit of drama. 🙄

I’ve written it here a great number of times, but I believe it to be quite true, it is going to be a very interesting four to eight years in politics. 😀

Others: The Moderate Voice, CNN, NO QUARTER, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, NPR, Booman Tribune, Reuters, protein wisdom, CBS News, Associated Press, JammieWearingFool and The Politico

(via Memeornadum)

Guest Voice: An Unreflective Man By Patrick J. Buchanan

An Unreflective Man
By Patrick J. Buchanan
January 13, 2009

With his public approval where Harry Truman’s stood when he left office, George W. Bush gave his last press conference yesterday.

And like that predecessor he often identifies with, Bush showed a Trumanesque defiance of his critics — and a Trumanesque failure to understand what ruined his presidency.

He denounced protectionism, as he has with dismissive contempt since he went to New Hampshire a decade ago. But nowhere in his defense of free trade was there any explanation for how Middle America lost 3 million manufacturing jobs in his first term and a million more in the last year.

Nowhere does there seem an awareness that the ideas he absorbed at his father’s knee and the Harvard Business School had resulted in the de-industrialization of his country, an enormous and growing dependency on Japan, China and Asia for the essentials of our national life, and, now, for the borrowed money to pay for them.

Someone once defined tragedy as what happens when a beautiful theory collides with a fact. And this is what has happened every time a great empire — be it the Spanish, British or American — embraced free trade as its salvation.

President Bush says it was freedom that prevailed when he rejected the pleas of weak-sister Republicans and backed the surge. But what spared us a debacle in Iraq was an infusion of 30,000 combat troops, an uprising against the murderers of al-Qaida and a U.S. decision to buy off the Sunni tribes, a strategy besieged empires have pursued for centuries.

Nor does there appear in Bush’s self-assurance any awareness of the cost of his Freedom Agenda. In Iraq, it is 4,000 U.S. dead, 30,000 wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, millions of refugees, a pogrom against an ancient Christian community, and a strategic victory for Iran and its Shia allies across the Middle East. When last heard from, the Ayatollah Sistani — the chief Shia cleric in  Iraq, who has welcomed Iranian but not American visitors — was calling for Muslims to stand up against Israeli criminality in Gaza.

Like Woodrow Wilson before him, Bush appears to believe that the nobility of his goals — expanding freedom and bringing an end to tyranny in our world — validates and will sanctify his decisions.

Like Wilson, he is a utopian. He fails to understand that idealism has its delusions and disasters.

The war Wilson led us into “to make the world safe for democracy” gave us Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and 70 years of the most barbaric empire in all history. The peace Wilson brought home led straight to Adolf Hitler, the Third Reich and a second world war far worse than the first.

The West’s road to hell has been paved with good intentions.

President Bush rightly denounces Europeans who see Israel as always wrong. Yet he behaves as though Israel can do no wrong. Sixteen days into the Gaza war, with the Palestinian dead and wounded near 5,000, and a humanitarian catastrophe at hand, has our “compassionate conservative” president uttered one word of compassion for those whose losses outnumber the Israelis’ 100 to one?

In defending his rejected immigration reform, President Bush clearly sees himself as in the vanguard of decency, and admonishes his party against being perceived as anti-immigrant.

But is this president oblivious to what is happening in his country  because of his and his father’s failure to secure the border? Even in rich, liberal Montgomery County, Md., one reads over the weekend that there is a hardening of attitudes toward illegal immigration after a spate of crimes and killings. Working-class Americans pay the price of the idealism around the dinner table at the Crawford ranch.

In his first five years, Bush himself has admitted, 6 million aliens were arrested at the border, breaking into this country. One in 12 — 500,000 — had criminal records. Is it anti-immigrant to demand a halt to this invasion, even if it means troops on the border? Is it truly compassionate, or an act of cravenness, to insist that the answer is amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegals and absolution for the businesses that hired them?

Choleric and cocky Harry Truman may be Bush’s role model. But it was Dwight D. Eisenhower who had to clean up the mess Harry left behind.

Six months into office, Ike had ended the Korean War. He had the courage no president has since shown to tell the Israelis they must get off occupied land. They did.

While surely repelled by Nikita Khrushchev, especially for the Hungarian bloodbath of 1956, Ike had him up to Camp David in 1959 because, wicked as the Bolsheviks were, they had nuclear weapons, and one must talk to them.

Prudence is the mark of the true conservative. Ike and RonaldReagan had it. Neither Bush nor Truman did. And that is why the former left the country so much better off than did the latter.

Goodbye, Mr. President, and God bless.

Original Article here

Pat Buchanan’s Website

Obama to close Gitmo?

Will someone please tell Barry to make up his flippin’ mind already?

Via the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Advisers to President-elect Barack Obama say one of his first duties in office will be to order the closing of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay.

That executive order is expected during Obama’s first week on the job — and possibly on his first day, according to two transition team advisers. Both spoke Monday on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Obama’s order will direct his administration to figure out what to do with the estimated 250 al-Qaida and Taliban suspects and potential witnesses who are being held at Guantanamo.

It’s still unlikely the prison would be closed any time soon. Obama last weekend said it would be “a challenge” to close it even within the first 100 days of his administration.

I guess this might have been due to the pushback he got from the statement on the weekend. Either way, it’s a stupid idea. But then again, we are dealing with Liberals here. 🙄

Others: Riehl World View, Macsmind, Macsmind (Via Memeorandum)

The Painfully Obligatory, Cat in the Hen House sounding, Ann Coulter does The View video posting (Whew!)

I’m posting this, because it will most likely get me hits here. (I’m such a Blog hit whore)

I haven’t watched this, except for the excerpt on Keith’s show earlier. I couldn’t bear it, nothing annoys me more than listening to a bunch of harpy broads arguing. (Don’t look at me like that, you know I am damned right. (About the broads, not my politics…) )

Anyhow, Here you are:

Here is my offical Political Byline political opinion on Coulter doing “The View”:

Ann Coulter going on The View to pimp her book, makes about as much sense as a cat going into a pen of Pitbulls and expecting an audience. I mean, the pitbull’s don’t give a crap about what that cat is going to say, they just want to eat him for lunch! Likewise, Coulter going on “The View” is about as dumb; those women do not give a crap about what Ann Coulter thinks, they just wanted to jump her butt because she’s a lightening rod Conservative harpy.

I can understand the desire to sell her book, but cripes does she have to run in front of a damned amtrack to do so?

….and in a blatant attempt at bastardy Capitalism, here’s Ann’s book via Amazon:

(H/T HotAir)

The Obligatory Obama has a Socialist Communist in his Cabinet

The only reason I am blogging about this, because I happen to think it is that silly.

Via Washington Times:

Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama’s pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for “global governance” and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.

By Thursday, Mrs. Browner’s name and biography had been removed from Socialist International’s Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group’s congress in Greece was still available.

Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world’s social democratic political parties such as Britain’s Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.

The group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, the organization’s action arm on climate change, says the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Obama, who has said action on climate change would be a priority in his administration, tapped Mrs. Browner last month to fill a new position as White House coordinator of climate and energy policies. The appointment does not need Senate confirmation.

Mr. Obama’s transition team said Mrs. Browner’s membership in the organization is not a problem and that it brings experience in U.S. policymaking to her new role.

Here why that I think that the Republicans  are making too big of a deal about this.  The Republican Bloggers are making a huge deal about this and it’s stupid; they had a chance to run a candidate that represented a clean break from the Neo-Conservative polices of George W. Bush. They failed miserably. Because of this, we ended up with a Socialist President. Way I see it, the Republicans do not have a dimes worth of bitching rights at all.

Others: Townhall.com, Gateway Pundit, Wonk Room, Salon, AmSpecBlog, Sister Toldjah, JammieWearingFool, RedState and Fausta’s Blog


shocka!: Obama walks back closing Gitmo

Obama was on This Week With George Stephanopoulos and told him the following:

President-elect Barack Obama said this weekend that he does not expect to close Guantanamo Bay in his first 100 days in office.

“I think it’s going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do,” Obama said in an exclusive “This Week” interview with George Stephanopoulos, his first since arriving in Washington.

“It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize,” the president-elect explained. “Part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it’s true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo-American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn’t result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.”

But Obama said unequivocally that it will close. “I don’t want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our Constitution. That is not only the right thing to do but it actually has to be part of our broader national security strategy because we will send a message to the world that we are serious about our values.”

Talk about walking a campaign promise back. WOW! 😮

Of course, because he’s the Obamassiah, it’s just fine.

Liberal Heads exploding and calling for his impeachment in 5…..4……3…..2…..

Update:  Wait a second here! “Anglo-American Legal system’? What the hell is this asshole trying to say? Because America was founded by White people, and because we happen to have laws against murder, that this makes us a racist Nation? Man, for someone who did not run a Campaign based upon race, Obama sure does like to remind people that American is a “Anglo Saxon”. Race Baiting tool. 🙄

Others: Washington Monthly, PoliGazette, theheretik.us, TIME.com and JammieWearingFool

(Via Memeornadum)