July 10, 2008
An Ally BetrayedTHE SPCD* CONGRESS PREPARING TO PUT THE FINALE NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF THE MONROE DOCTRINEWith this betrayal of Columbia the SPCD Congress prepares to give South America to the likes of Castro and Chavez as well as Control of the Panama Canal to China and access to the Gulf Of Mexico Oil, they continue to Deny their own country.This should not come as a surprise to anyone, lets face it, the Secular Progressive Communist Democrat (SPCD) Congress, led by the likes Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, Dodd, etc, etc are only supporting their true allies.It should be painfully obvious to any true American that the Secular Progressive Democrats and their leader the SPCD Obama are HELL BENT on turning our America into a weak miserable Secular Progressive Communist State.Bat_1_CloughAn Ally BetrayedBy
Jacob LaksinFrontPageMagazine.com 7/10/2008 Last week’s daring rescue of 15 Colombian hostages held by the Marxist FARC has been universally hailed as a triumph of military strategy. But at least one group besides the gulled guerilla jailers looks diminished in its aftermath: Congressional Democrats.While Colombia’s military will rightly reap praise for the rescue, the operation was in no small measure an American achievement. In addition to U.S. satellite intelligence that pinpointed the FARC guerillas’ jungle location, Colombian security forces have benefited from $4 billion in American aid since 2002.For this assistance – so vital in last week’s events – Colombia does not have Democrats to thank. To the contrary, since assuming control of Congress in 2006, Democrats have made a cynical practice of slighting Latin America’s most pro-American government, not least on the issue of military aid.Last year in particular saw an upsurge of anti-Colombian agitation on Capitol Hill. Goaded on by Vermont’s Patrick Leahy, head of the Senate subcommittee overseeing foreign aid, Democrats froze $55 million in military aid in April 2007. Al Gore, adding insult to injury, refused that same month to appear at an environmental conference with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. Why a respected head of state would even wish to be seen alongside a political washout and global warming hysteric was unclear. Nonetheless, Gore’s no-show was a stinging insult to Uribe. It was not the last.Nancy Pelosi, fresh from an April 2007 sit-down with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, threatened to withhold an audience with the democratically elected and widely popular Uribe during his May visit. Eventually agreeing to a talk with Uribe, Pelosi didn’t conceal her contempt. In stark contrast to her visit to the Hezbollah-sponsor Syria, where Pelosi gushed that the “the road to Damascus is a road to peace,” Pelosi berated Uribe, accusing his government of aiding “illegal paramilitary forces” and implicitly decrying him as the enemy of Colombians who want “to build a stronger democracy.” So much for Democrats’ vaunted diplomatic tact.Colombia’s delegation was so jarred by Democrats’ hostility that, according to journalist Robert Novak, Vice President Francisco Santos publically contemplated severing U.S.-Columbian ties.In response, Democrats only stepped up their attacks. Having previously rejected a free-trade agreement with Columbia, Democrats began bullying on financial aid. Connecticut’s Chris Dodd menacingly declared, in a letter co-authored with senate colleagues, that “maintaining current levels of assistance will be difficult to justify.” Pat Leahy blustered that “Congress is not going to be a rubber stamp” for Colombia. It was left to Bill Clinton to remind his party that President Uribe’s government was a top American ally, one that upholds the rule of law and wins free elections – by no means a given in Latin America. “We need to remember that we are friends,” Clinton urged.If Democrats have indeed forgotten that, their amnesia is highly selective. Take the charge that Uribe is in bed with rightist paramilitary militias. Echoed even more luridly by Amnesty International and kindred groups, it has little to commend it. If anything, Uribe has proven himself as much a foe of the paramilitaries as he is of the leftist FARC. On his watch, some 31,000 militiamen have surrendered their weapons. Uribe also has presided over the extradition to the U.S. of 600 paramilitary drug-traffickers. Choosing the rule of law over relatives, he has even arrested his own cousin, former senator Mario Uribe, on charges of aiding paramilitaries. Just this May, Uribe extradited 14 prominent paramilitary leaders to the U.S. in the hopes of winning Democrats’ support.No such luck. Frigid as ever, Democrats not only refused to approve a free-trade agreement with Columbia, as Uribe had long appealed, but they declined even to vote on it. Yet again, Columbia was snubbed.Human-rights concerns cannot explain the Democrats’ aversion to Uribe. Were that the sole issue, Democrats would have adopted a more severe line toward neighboring states like Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. Where Uribe has twice triumphed in free and fair elections, including a landslide reelection victory in 2006, Chavez has crushed what remained of Venezuela’s opposition, most recently moving to end presidential term limits and crown himself president for life. Tellingly, Chavez has dodged the Democrats’ wrath.Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady writes, FARC leaders fully believed that Nancy Pelosi would work with Chavez to free the hostages that the guerillas had no intention of releasing. Observing Democrats’ undisguised loathing of Uribe, one can easily see the source of the FARC’s confidence. At times, Uribe’s chief flaw, at least for Democrats, seems to be that he is not a man of the Left.But times may be changing. After last week’s rescue, Democratic nominee-to-be Barack Obama generously praised President Uribe, pledging to “do everything that I can to assure the success of future efforts to free the FARC’s hostages and to defeat this terrorist organization.” Obama might start by jettisoning his union-pleasing opposition to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Besides strengthening Colombia’s international stature, it would also be an economic boon for the U.S. (among other benefits, the agreement would push up American exports by $1.1. billion).In a region increasingly shading toward economic populism and anti-Americanism, Uribe’s leadership and loyalty – he was among the few Latin American leaders to back the Iraq war – has been a rare political glimmer. For that, no less than for his spectacular successes against the FARC, he surely deserves more than the partly-line disdain of the Democratic leadership.
Posted by Bat_1_Clough at
9:40 AM Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Senator Jessie HelmsToday I read that Senator Jesse Helms had passed away. What many people don't know is that he unlike most of his collogues in the Senate and the House, would help any American that brought a problem to his Attention. I and my son Van were some of those Americans.One morning as Van dressed for duty he experienced a great pain in the back and fell to the floor. He called to his wife and she called 911, in addition she notified the Corpsman on duty at the base Clinic. He was picked up and taken to a Civilian Hospital Emergency Clinic. Van recovered from this problem, though he has back problems still.While he was at the Hospital he was notified by the Doctor in charge of the base clinic (no base Hospital) that he would have to pay for all the services he received because there was an AF Regulation requiring him to get permission from the Corpsman on night duty to call 911. If this had been life threatening like say a Hear Attack or a Stroke, the time it took to call the base, wake up the Corpsman and get permission to call 911 would cost crucial minutes in his receiving emergency aid.When he told me about this situation I had him send me copies of this AF Regulation. I wrote every Member of the Senate and House, only Senator Helms offered to look into this situation, neither of my Senators or Representative responded, all others recommended I contact my Senators or Representative as if this didn't affect their Military constituents. Senator Helms said he would check into the situation and notified Van that their could be political fallout for him, Van told the Senator to go ahead.The Senator found that this AF Regulation, as I expected was in error and it was corrected to allow Military Personal that lived off base to call 911 in any emergency. This resulted in letter of Apology from the Air Force Chief of staff to my Son Van and to me.God Bless Jessie HelmsP.S. Please note that my Senators are Boxer and Feinstein, and my Representative is Susan Davis all very far left Democrats.
Posted by Bat_1_Clough at
10:18 AM Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Surrendering AmericaPay attention folks, there are at least 4 judges on the Supreme Court that have cited foreign law in their findings, that should be by far the most important reason not to elect Obama, along with surrendering in Iraq. His election will insure that the 2-3 positions that become open during his administration will be filled with Secular Progressive Communist Judges like himself, that will most defiantly follow in the lead of Lord Phillips.The facts speak for themselves, the Communist ACLU supports CAIR that represents the 6 million Wahhabi Islamic Community in America to get, thru the use of US Law, Special Privileges for this Religion that are not given to any others. Even, what used to be our most prestigious Colleges and Universities, have made available "Pray Rooms" for everyone. Note that while it purports to be for all religions, there are no pews or seats just an open floor for Pray Rugs just like a Mosque, tells you who they support. I highly recommend that you all check out "frontpagemag.com", learn about the reception that anyone that is not a Secular Progressive Communist or a Wahhabi Muslim is received at these colleges.I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't want my mornings polluted by some Wahhabi Muslim Imam spewing their hate for infidels from the Mosques as part of his call to prayer, when I'm denied the words "under God" in my pledge or for my children are denied the bible in schools while the Koran is required reading, or for my children are required to dress as Muslims and take a Muslim name and learn about the "Muslim Religion" and is not allowed to take a Christian Name or Jewish Name dress as a Christian or Jew and study their bible or Torah.Don't for a minute doubt that these things are happening every day, it happened here in San Diego, it happened in San Francisco and Berkley and attempts have been made in the State of Washington to establish Ghettos were Sharia Law would be practiced instead of US Law. All of these acts attacking American our Judo/Christian Society and our Nation are supported and encouraged by the Secular Progressive Communist Democrat Party, led by Obama, as well as the ACLU.Clough's TakeSurrender!Cal ThomasTuesday, July 08, 2008So this is how it ends: not with a bang, but a whimper.The most senior judge in England has declared that Islamic legal principles in Sharia law may be used within Muslim communities in Britain to settle marital arguments and regulate finance. Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said, "Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips said Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - comply with English law. Sharia law does not comply with English law. It is a law unto itself.And so the English who gave us the Magna Carta in 1215, William Blackstone and the foundation of American law are slowly succumbing to the dictates of intolerant Islam and sowing seeds of their own destruction.The Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organization (IKWRO), an umbrella group of activists who work in Muslim countries to liberate women from the dark side of this oppressive force, according to Womensphere.wordpress.com, identifies Sharia family law as the fundamental basis for discrimination against women in the Muslim world, including communities in the United Kingdom.Here are just some of the "benefits" British Muslim women can look forward to if Sharia law replaces English law: The Muslim woman cannot marry without parental approval, worsening the problem of forced marriage; marriages can be conducted without the presence of a bride, as long as the guardian consents, creating a climate for underage and early marriage; Muslim women may only marry Muslim men.It gets worse. A Muslim man can divorce his wife by repudiating her; they have no obligation to support a former wife, or her children after the divorce; women are prohibited from divorcing husbands without his consent; abuse is not grounds for a woman to end a marriage; in matters of inheritance, sons are entitled to twice as much of an estate as daughters.Divorced women must remain single. If they remarry they can lose custody of their children. There is no similar requirement for a man. Child custody often reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father has been abusive.It is impossible to reconcile this antiquated "law" with English law, so what could Lord Phillips mean when he says that Sharia law can be used in Muslim communities as long as such laws comply with English law? This will mean English law must become subordinate to Sharia law. This is Dhimmitude, an Islamic system of religious apartheid begun in the 7th century that forces all other religions and cultures to accept an inferior status once Muslims become the majority.Maryland's Court of Appeals recently denied a Sharia divorce to a Pakistani man. The man's wife of 20 years had filed for divorce. To circumvent having to share their $2 million estate and other marital assets, he went to the Pakistani embassy and applied for an Islamic divorce. The man wanted to invoke what is known as talaq, in which the husband says, "I divorce you" three times and it's done.The Maryland court said, "If we were to affirm the use of talaq, controlled as it is by the husband, a wife, a resident of this state, would never be able to consummate a divorce action filed by her in which she seeks a division of marital property" and the talaq "directly deprives the wife of the due process she is entitled to when she initiates divorce litigation. The lack and deprivation of due process is itself contrary to (Maryland's) public policy."British Muslims who wish to live under Sharia law might have stayed in the countries from which they came - or return to them. But their objective appears to be domination of England, not assimilation. This also seems to be the goal for Muslims in other countries with large and growing Muslim populations.There is no due process under Sharia law. Lord Phillips has signed the death warrant for his nation if his opinion becomes the law of England. It's one thing to fight a war and lose it. It's quite another to willingly surrender without a struggle.
Posted by Bat_1_Clough at
11:22 AM Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
