Specter's Blog

Where no enemy has gone before [Good rip on leftist media]
Renew America ^ | June 11, 2008 | Erik Rush

There's an axiom in Recovery (as in from addiction) circles which asserts that addictions are but symptoms of deeper emotional or psychological problems. Leaving aside the debate as to whether this holds water, I submit that the tremendous success of Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama is but a symptom of the broader disease: The establishment media (which includes broadcast news and print sources as well as the entertainment media) has finally subverted enough of the collective mind of America to usher in the era of socialism toward which the far Left has been maneuvering us for the last 40 years.

Like the seizure that alerted Sen. Ted Kennedy's doctors that he was suffering from a grave condition, it is just a symptom — albeit a very nasty one.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals..."



- "Agent K," from the film Men in Black

Being convinced that the Republican Party is to blame for taking us to places we would rather not and shouldn't have gone, and that the George W. Bush presidency was a mistake that never should have happened, Americans are now shambling, glassy-eyed and drooling toward "Change," too transfixed by the captivating ultraviolet glow to hear the crackle of those who burst into nothingness in line ahead of them.

They have no idea what they've bought into, of course, the magnitude of the lies and the peril which awaits. They do not fathom that they are accepting a fundamental change in the paradigm of our social system from one in which the industrious and principled prosper versus one in which the indolent and capricious prosper.

As regards the political continuum in modern America, over the past 40 years the Democrat Party leadership transmogrified from elitist liberals into socialists. In the last 20, the Republican Party leadership became liberals, and the media has been a prime mover in this transformation. Having themselves been manipulated by those in the press to heed them rather than their constituents and conservative elements within the party leadership (which had brought past success), eunuchs in the GOP, driven by fear for their image and personal self-interest, sold America out to deviant parasites.

The walking mediocrities among the far Left (politically-active ideologues) and duped middle class voters believe the playing field will be "leveled" for them and "the downtrodden" once the faceless "rich" are brought under their leaders' sway. There is nothing in the historical record that indicates that they will have anything to look forward to but misery, abuse and pain, but logic is immaterial. By design, the power brokers of the far Left appealed to their emotions, not their intellect.

The power brokers and their operatives (such as those in the press, for example) believe that they will be among the unassailable elite. Once again, despite the historical record, they don't believe they will ever be counted among those who, in a fit of melancholy, climb into the trunk of an automobile and shoot themselves repeatedly in the head, as so many prominent figures in far Left regimes wind up doing.

Just a few of the dangerously dishonest representations in which the press has engaged over the last eight years:

• Television news bureaus withheld the more gruesome 9/11 footage — too graphic for their audiences, of course. The same criteria somehow doesn't apply to video of terrorists killed by American troops in Iraq. This was the beginning of their systematically propagandizing Americans into forgetting 9/11.
  
  

   

• Engendering sympathy for retrograde culture (at which they have excelled for some time) and radical Islamist killers are among other wild subjectivities put forth by the press concerning the War on Terror in general.
  
  

   

• The Iraq campaign was supposed to be over in half an hour. The scope and the frequency of the falsehoods, minimizations, manipulations and exacerbations conveyed by the press to Americans in this area are too numerous to address.
  
  

   

• Slandered, maligned and generally demonized President Bush and the Republican Party — unfortunately, with their help — on a scale never seen previously.
  
  

   

• Exhibited barefaced partiality for Sen. Barack Obama during the Democrat Party's primary process, evidenced by their downplaying glaring and perilous deficiencies in the candidate.
  
  

   

• The press knows that Mexican drug lords essentially own the U.S. — Mexico border. American women are being abducted from our southern border towns and spirited away south of the border to face unimaginable fates. Atrocities reminiscent of the Mongol invasion of China are taking place along the border every day. How many Americans (who don't live in border towns) are aware of these occurrences?
  
  

   

• While the far Left escalates its quest to stamp out Christianity in America, the religion is literally exploding in Asia and Africa, where believers hold to their faith despite persecution Christians have not experienced since the time of ancient Rome. One example is the genocide in Darfur, Sudan; the press conveniently neglects to include this component in its coverage of the crisis.
  
  

For better or worse, we have this thing called the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits government infringement upon the activities of the press. Little did the founders of our nation know that it would one day face a universally treasonous press that would, hell-bent on societal suicide, focus its energies toward bringing America to ruin.

Were the extent of the media's manipulation of information to the political gain of the far Left in America known, it might well lead to the storming of news bureaus across the country. A conservative individual with, say, George Soros's resources could take care of America's "press problems" fairly handily. This columnist has intellectually considered certain initiatives; unfortunately, addressing them here would be imprudent.

Although it does bear mentioning that the First Amendment only applies to the government abridging the freedom of the press — not the people...

I’m not going to rattle on in my usual ‘domestic oil drilling’ rant. You’ve heard it all …

I just want to repeat how the American public is being allowed … ENCOURAGED to believe the price they are paying at the gas pump is because of the greedy oil companies … When in reality, it is the restrictions, regulations, and political and junk-science ideology of Congress that are directly effecting, and continuing to effect, prices.

The American public NEEDS to hear the truth …

Fortune talks to Sens. Orrin Hatch and Wayne Allard about the roadblocks to oil shale production.

By Jon Birger

NEW YORK (Fortune) — You’d think this would be oil shale’s moment.

You’d think with gas prices topping $4 and consumers crying uncle, Congress would be moving fast to spur development of a domestic oil resource so vast - 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming alone - it could eventually rival the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.

You’d think politicians would be tripping over themselves to arrange photo-ops with Harold Vinegar (whom I profiled in Fortune last November), the brilliant, Brooklyn-born chief scientist at Royal Dutch Shell whose research cracked the code on how to efficiently and cleanly convert oil shale - a rock-like fossil fuel known to geologists as kerogen - into light crude oil.

You’d think all of this, but you’d be wrong.

Last month, the U.S. Senate’s Appropriations Committee voted 15-14 to kill a bill that would have ended a one-year moratorium on enacting rules for oil shale development on federal lands (which is where the best oil shale is located). Most maddening of all - at least to someone like myself not steeped in the wacky ways of Washington - the swing vote on the appropriations committee, U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., voted with the majority even though she actually opposes the moratorium.

“Sen. Salazar asked me to vote no. I did so at his request,” Landrieu told The Rocky Mountain News. A Landrieu staffer contacted by Fortune doesn’t dispute this, but notes that Landrieu did propose a compromise which Republicans rejected.

Arghh!

She was speaking of U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., who has emerged as the Senate’s leading oil shale opponent. Salazar inserted the aforementioned moratorium into an omnibus spending bill last December, and in May he proposed a new bill that would extend the moratorium another year.

Salazar’s efforts have essentially pulled the rug out from under Shell (RDSA) and other oil companies which have invested many, many millions into oil shale research since the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which established the original framework for commercial leasing of oil shale lands. (Last year, oil shale represented Shell’s single biggest R&D expenditure.)

Salazar says he’s simply trying to slow things down in order to ensure environmental considerations don’t get trampled in the rush to turn western Colorado into a new Prudhoe Bay. But, ironically, his bid to extend the moratorium comes at a time when his fellow Senate Democrats have been blasting Big Oil for not reinvesting enough of their profits into developing new sources of energy.

I recently spoke with Republican U.S. Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Wayne Allard of Colorado, the two lawmakers working hardest to end the oil shale moratorium. Here are some excerpts from the interviews:

Fortune: Why do you consider developing oil shale such a high priority?

Sen. Hatch: We have as much oil in oil shale in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado as the rest of the world’s oil combined. Liberals and environmentalists can talk all they want about wind, solar and geothermal - all of which I’m for - but last time I checked, planes, trains, trucks, ships and cars don’t run on electricity. 98% of transportation fuel right now is oil. Ethanol is the only real alternative, and we’re seeing that ethanol has major limitations.

It’s pathetic. Environmentalists are very happy having us dependent on foreign oil. They’re unhappy with us developing our own. What they forget to say is that shipping fuel all the way from the middle east has a big greenhouse gas footprint too.

Fortune: Any hope of changing Sen. Salazar’s mind? After all, he says he’s not opposed to oil shale production in principle.

Sen. Allard: His mind seems pretty set. His argument is, if we delay this, it gives us an opportunity to phase it in gradually. But he’s got it turned around. We need the rules and regulations in place first. When the oil companies go to bid on their leases, they need have some idea what their royalties might be and what their remediation requirements might be [for restoring the land at spent drilling sites].

Fortune: Have you talked to Shell about this?

Sen. Allard: We have, and they’ve indicated a great deal of frustration. They’ve put it this way: Look, we can’t continue to invest millions and millions of dollars in this kind of research without seeing some light at the end of the tunnel.

Fortune: Sen. Salazar insists he just wants to take things more slowly.

Sen. Hatch: Sen. Salazar and the Colorado governor [Democrat Bill Ritter] say they don’t want it to happen too fast. Well, the existing law that I sponsored [which became part of the 2005 energy act] makes it abundantly clear that each governor gets to decide how quickly developments should move forward in their respective states. [Salazar and Ritter] know that. What they’re really doing is making sure that the governor of Utah and the governor of Wyoming never gets to make that decision for themselves.

Fortune: One of Sen. Salazar’s environmental concerns involves water and the big draw on local water supplies required for oil shale production. Based on my reporting in western Colorado last year, this seems like a legitimate concern. What’s your take on this?

Sen. Hatch: Let’s compare it to ethanol. Corn needs about 1,000 barrels of water for the energy equivalent of a barrel of oil. That’s a crazy amount of water, but it’s worked out alright so far because corn is grown in rainy areas, for the most part. But if you want to increase the amount of ethanol, you’re going to have to go to irrigation, and then there will be major water limits on how much we can afford to grow.

On the other hand, the Department of Energy estimates that oil shale will require three barrels of water for every barrel of oil.

Fortune: Of course, water is a lot scarcer in western Colorado than it is in Iowa.

Sen Hatch: It is, but remember the oil companies are going to use and recycle the water. And while we’re on the environmental impact, let’s talk about land use and wildlife habitat. One acre of corn produces the equivalent of 5 to 7 barrels of oil. One acre of oil shale produces 100,000 to 1 million barrels.

Fortune: With gasoline at $4, why this isn’t this more of a front-and-center issue for consumers and voters?

Sen. Hatch: I’m generally the last guy to lambaste the media, but generally you do not hear these facts. We’re sending $600 billion annually to enemies of our country. If one acre of oil shale produces 1 million barrels of oil, that’s 1 million barrels that we would not be importing from Russia and the Middle East. People are going to go berserk when they find out that all along we had the capacity, within our own borders, to alleviate our dependency in an environmentally friendly way.

Ironically, the local governments in Colorado’s oil shale areas do support oil shale development, but it’s being stopped by the ski-resort elites. A couple months ago, an article came out about how the city of Aspen was being besieged with building applications equating to about $2 million in development a day. Now if those nice, rich people in Aspen really cared about the environment, they might save an acre or two of those beautiful forests they’re building on and support some oil-shale development in the not-so-nearby and not-so-beautiful oil shale areas of Colorado.

Fortune: Has oil shale development always been a partisan issue or is this something new?

Sen. Allard: It is something new. The issue with the Democrats now is they want to cut off any source of carbon. And there are those in the Senate who believe the more expensive you make gasoline, the less driving people do and you force conservation by making driving so expensive people can’t afford it.

If everybody in America saw this video -- that really makes it clear, in his own words, how much Barack Obama despises white people -- he'd lose in a landslide.

Nods to RWN

I saw this video about six months ago, it's all I need to know about the man.

I’m not going to rattle on in my usual ‘domestic oil drilling’ rant. You’ve heard it all …

I just want to repeat how the American public is being allowed … ENCOURAGED to believe the price they are paying at the gas pump is because of the greedy oil companies … When in reality, it is the restrictions, regulations, and political and junk-science ideology of Congress that are directly effecting, and continuing to effect, prices.

The American public NEEDS to hear the truth …

Fortune talks to Sens. Orrin Hatch and Wayne Allard about the roadblocks to oil shale production.

By Jon Birger

NEW YORK (Fortune) — You’d think this would be oil shale’s moment.

You’d think with gas prices topping $4 and consumers crying uncle, Congress would be moving fast to spur development of a domestic oil resource so vast - 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming alone - it could eventually rival the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.

You’d think politicians would be tripping over themselves to arrange photo-ops with Harold Vinegar (whom I profiled in Fortune last November), the brilliant, Brooklyn-born chief scientist at Royal Dutch Shell whose research cracked the code on how to efficiently and cleanly convert oil shale - a rock-like fossil fuel known to geologists as kerogen - into light crude oil.

You’d think all of this, but you’d be wrong.

Last month, the U.S. Senate’s Appropriations Committee voted 15-14 to kill a bill that would have ended a one-year moratorium on enacting rules for oil shale development on federal lands (which is where the best oil shale is located). Most maddening of all - at least to someone like myself not steeped in the wacky ways of Washington - the swing vote on the appropriations committee, U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., voted with the majority even though she actually opposes the moratorium.

“Sen. Salazar asked me to vote no. I did so at his request,” Landrieu told The Rocky Mountain News. A Landrieu staffer contacted by Fortune doesn’t dispute this, but notes that Landrieu did propose a compromise which Republicans rejected.

Arghh!

She was speaking of U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., who has emerged as the Senate’s leading oil shale opponent. Salazar inserted the aforementioned moratorium into an omnibus spending bill last December, and in May he proposed a new bill that would extend the moratorium another year.

Salazar’s efforts have essentially pulled the rug out from under Shell (RDSA) and other oil companies which have invested many, many millions into oil shale research since the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which established the original framework for commercial leasing of oil shale lands. (Last year, oil shale represented Shell’s single biggest R&D expenditure.)

Salazar says he’s simply trying to slow things down in order to ensure environmental considerations don’t get trampled in the rush to turn western Colorado into a new Prudhoe Bay. But, ironically, his bid to extend the moratorium comes at a time when his fellow Senate Democrats have been blasting Big Oil for not reinvesting enough of their profits into developing new sources of energy.

I recently spoke with Republican U.S. Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Wayne Allard of Colorado, the two lawmakers working hardest to end the oil shale moratorium. Here are some excerpts from the interviews:

Fortune: Why do you consider developing oil shale such a high priority?

Sen. Hatch: We have as much oil in oil shale in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado as the rest of the world’s oil combined. Liberals and environmentalists can talk all they want about wind, solar and geothermal - all of which I’m for - but last time I checked, planes, trains, trucks, ships and cars don’t run on electricity. 98% of transportation fuel right now is oil. Ethanol is the only real alternative, and we’re seeing that ethanol has major limitations.

It’s pathetic. Environmentalists are very happy having us dependent on foreign oil. They’re unhappy with us developing our own. What they forget to say is that shipping fuel all the way from the middle east has a big greenhouse gas footprint too.

Fortune: Any hope of changing Sen. Salazar’s mind? After all, he says he’s not opposed to oil shale production in principle.

Sen. Allard: His mind seems pretty set. His argument is, if we delay this, it gives us an opportunity to phase it in gradually. But he’s got it turned around. We need the rules and regulations in place first. When the oil companies go to bid on their leases, they need have some idea what their royalties might be and what their remediation requirements might be [for restoring the land at spent drilling sites].

Fortune: Have you talked to Shell about this?

Sen. Allard: We have, and they’ve indicated a great deal of frustration. They’ve put it this way: Look, we can’t continue to invest millions and millions of dollars in this kind of research without seeing some light at the end of the tunnel.

Fortune: Sen. Salazar insists he just wants to take things more slowly.

Sen. Hatch: Sen. Salazar and the Colorado governor [Democrat Bill Ritter] say they don’t want it to happen too fast. Well, the existing law that I sponsored [which became part of the 2005 energy act] makes it abundantly clear that each governor gets to decide how quickly developments should move forward in their respective states. [Salazar and Ritter] know that. What they’re really doing is making sure that the governor of Utah and the governor of Wyoming never gets to make that decision for themselves.

Fortune: One of Sen. Salazar’s environmental concerns involves water and the big draw on local water supplies required for oil shale production. Based on my reporting in western Colorado last year, this seems like a legitimate concern. What’s your take on this?

Sen. Hatch: Let’s compare it to ethanol. Corn needs about 1,000 barrels of water for the energy equivalent of a barrel of oil. That’s a crazy amount of water, but it’s worked out alright so far because corn is grown in rainy areas, for the most part. But if you want to increase the amount of ethanol, you’re going to have to go to irrigation, and then there will be major water limits on how much we can afford to grow.

On the other hand, the Department of Energy estimates that oil shale will require three barrels of water for every barrel of oil.

Fortune: Of course, water is a lot scarcer in western Colorado than it is in Iowa.

Sen Hatch: It is, but remember the oil companies are going to use and recycle the water. And while we’re on the environmental impact, let’s talk about land use and wildlife habitat. One acre of corn produces the equivalent of 5 to 7 barrels of oil. One acre of oil shale produces 100,000 to 1 million barrels.

Fortune: With gasoline at $4, why this isn’t this more of a front-and-center issue for consumers and voters?

Sen. Hatch: I’m generally the last guy to lambaste the media, but generally you do not hear these facts. We’re sending $600 billion annually to enemies of our country. If one acre of oil shale produces 1 million barrels of oil, that’s 1 million barrels that we would not be importing from Russia and the Middle East. People are going to go berserk when they find out that all along we had the capacity, within our own borders, to alleviate our dependency in an environmentally friendly way.

Ironically, the local governments in Colorado’s oil shale areas do support oil shale development, but it’s being stopped by the ski-resort elites. A couple months ago, an article came out about how the city of Aspen was being besieged with building applications equating to about $2 million in development a day. Now if those nice, rich people in Aspen really cared about the environment, they might save an acre or two of those beautiful forests they’re building on and support some oil-shale development in the not-so-nearby and not-so-beautiful oil shale areas of Colorado.

Fortune: Has oil shale development always been a partisan issue or is this something new?

Sen. Allard: It is something new. The issue with the Democrats now is they want to cut off any source of carbon. And there are those in the Senate who believe the more expensive you make gasoline, the less driving people do and you force conservation by making driving so expensive people can’t afford it.

WASHINGTON, June 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — RNC Press Secretary Alex Conant released the following statement today:

“Barack Obama routinely rails against lobbyists and corporate insiders, yet his campaign is stocked with both. Now it turns out that the man leading his vice presidential selection team is receiving highly questionable loans. With millions of Americans struggling to pay their mortgages, it raises serious questions about Obama’s judgment when we learn members of his campaign leadership are receiving favors that the average American would never get. With Obama discussing the economy today, he needs to stand up and address the mortgage scandals within his campaign.”

During His Presidential Campaign, Barack Obama Has Criticized CEO Compensation And Countrywide Financial:

Obama: “[I]f you’re a Wall Street CEO today, it doesn’t seem to matter whether you’re doing a good job or a bad job for your shareholders and workers: You’ll be rewarded either way.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, 4/11/08)

Obama: “And so these are the folks who are responsible for infecting the economy and helping to create a home foreclosure crisis. Two million people may end up losing their homes. … Here’s the thing, though: When Countrywide Financial engineered a sale of its company, the two CEOs, the two people in charge of the company got $19 million bonuses. So they get a $19 million bonus while people are at risk of losing their home. What’s wrong with this picture?” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Lancaster, PA, 3/31/08)

But Jim Johnson, A Former CEO Of Fannie Mae And Top Obama Campaign Adviser, Received Special Loans From Countrywide:

Jim Johnson, A Former CEO Of Fannie Mae Chosen To Lead Obama’s Vice Presidential Search Committee, Received Special Loans From Countrywide Financial CEO Angelo Mozilo. “Countrywide Financial Corp. makes mortgage loans through a vast network of offices, brokers and call centers. But a few customers have gotten their loans a special way: through Countrywide Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo. These borrowers, known internally as ‘friends of Angelo’ or FoA, include two former CEOs of Fannie Mae, the biggest buyer of Countrywide’s mortgages, say people familiar with the matter. One was James Johnson, a longtime Democratic Party power and an adviser to Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign, who this past week was named to a panel that is vetting running-mate possibilities for the presumed nominee.” (Glenn R. Simpson and James R. Hagerty, “Countrywide Friends Got Good Loans,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/7/08)

– While CEO Of Fannie Mae, Johnson And Mozilo Worked Closely And Maintained A “Close Friendship.” “From 1991 to 1998, Mr. Johnson served as CEO of the Federal National Mortgage Association, also known as Fannie Mae, which worked closely with Countrywide, one of the nation’s leading lenders and loan servicing companies. In 1996, Mr. Johnson named Mr. Mozilo as chairman of Fannie Mae’s national advisory council. A 1999 article in the American Banker said the two men had a ‘close friendship.’” (Josh Gerstein, “Top Talent Scout For Obama Tied To Subprime Lender,” The New York Sun, 6/9/08) Hidden List

“Property Records Show Mr. Johnson Has Received More Than $7 Million In Loans From Countrywide Since 1998, The First Coming In The Waning Days Of His Fannie Mae Tenure.”(Glenn R. Simpson and James R. Hagerty, “Countrywide Friends Got Good Loans,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/7/08)

– At Least Two Of The Mortgages Were At Rates “Below Market Averages.” “The Journal said at least two of the mortgages, among a series of loans made available to people Countrywide officials called ‘friends of Angelo,’ were at rates below market averages, though it is difficult to predict a market rate without access to nonpublic information about a borrower’s credit history and other factors that can reduce interest charges on a loan.” (Josh Gerstein, “Top Talent Scout For Obama Tied To Subprime Lender,” The New York Sun, 6/9/08) Hidden List

As Recently As 2003, Johnson Has Praised Mozilo’s Leadership Of Fannie Mae, Calling It “Remarkably Impressive.” “Since leaving Fannie Mae, Mr. Johnson has lavished praise on Mr. Mozilo’s performance, calling it ‘remarkably impressive’ in a 2003 interview with BusinessWeek. ‘By strengthening servicing in good times, Countrywide has done a brilliant job of insulating itself for the down cycle,’ Mr. Johnson told Fortune in 2003.” (Josh Gerstein, “Top Talent Scout For Obama Tied To Subprime Lender,” The New York Sun, 6/9/08)

– NOTE: “In Recent Months, The Job Has Been Looking Less Than Brilliant, As Countrywide Reported Billions In Losses, Much Of It From So-Called Subprime Loans Made To Borrowers Unqualified For Typical Loans.” (Josh Gerstein, “Top Talent Scout For Obama Tied To Subprime Lender,” The New York Sun, 6/9/08) Hidden List

NOTE: Johnson Is Also A Bundler For Obama’s Presidential Campaign And Has Committed To Raising $100,000 To $200,000.(Obama For America Web site, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 5/19/08)

SOURCE Republican National Committee

So here we see Barack Hussein the Liar Obama’s plan for Iraq. Nothing about consulting with leaders on the ground over there. A wreckless “Diplomatic Surge” in the region, which more than likely means talking to Iran without pre-conditions. And these war criminals…I guarantee you he’s not talking about any Jihadis.

You can find the PDF file for this by clicking here.

UPDATE: It went back up on YouTube, I grabbed it, so now I permanently own that thing…

The story goes like this…in January of 2007, Barack “Hussein the Liar” Obama said “You can’t throw thirty thousand troops into Iraq and win this thing”….basically (paraphrasing here)…then, just today, David Axel-grease-my-rod, his chief campaign guy comes on Morning Joe and says “He never said that…”

Liars simply cannot get away with this CRAP in this day and age…check it out…

YOUTUBE YANKED THE VIDEO

World Net Daily:

An organization dedicated to the mission of protecting and defending individual freedoms and rights under the U.S. Constitution is criticizing presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama for promising to cut, and possibly gut, U.S. military defense spending.

The Center for Individual Freedom, a non-partisan, non-profit, has posted one version of a YouTube video of Obama “inexplicably” pledging” to “unilaterally jeopardize American military superiority.”

“When you find yourself in a hole, just keep digging,” the organization said in its accompanying commentary. “That appears to be the logic of Sen. Barack Obama, who already finds himself in the proverbial hole on defense and national security issues. At this pace, he’ll reach China by November.”

The organization said the Obama video, which originally was posted online by BarackObamadotcom in late 2007 but has been reproduced in other versions too, he tells an audience at a group called Caucus4Priorities he would cut “tens of billions of dollars” in spending.

This would come at a time “when our armed forces are already stretched and in need of new weapon technologies and armor,” said CFIF.

The original video is here:

He also guarantees he will “cut investments in unproven missile defense systems,” and he “will not weaponize space,” and that “unnecessary” spending will be eliminated.

“Most alarmingly, however, Sen. Obama literally promises to ’slow development of future combat systems,’” CFIF said.

“Think about the frightening implications of this pledge for a moment.

“Future combat systems are the cornerstone of American military modernization and superiority. As America fights the war on terror and deters potential military aggression by rogue nations cross the world, advanced combat systems provide us with better equipment, unmatched situational awareness and communication systems that result in American battlefield domination. Other ascendant nations such as China and Russia seek to match our prowess, but we continue to outpace them,” CFIF said.

It cited new satellite technology that “allows us to pinpoint and eliminate the enemy, unmanned drones that promise amazing advances in battlefield safety and effectiveness, bunker-buster weapons that penetrate deep into the caves in which remote terrorists hide and communications systems that allow lightning-quick troop deployment and rescue missions.”

“They ultimately protect the lives and health of our troops, just as they protect us,” CFIF said. “Despite this, Sen. Obama bizarrely pledges to jeopardize our battlefield superiority.”

The group cited the nation’s stealth aircraft, which penetrated Saddam Hussein’s air defenses, precision-guided weaponry that has reduced harm to non-combatants and the Strategic Defense Initiative, “which forced Mikhail Gorbachev’s negotiating hand and helped end the Cold War.”

Obama uses the speech to emphasize that he is “the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning.”

He says:

Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you’ve been doing. As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington.

First, I’ll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I’m the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.

Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

I will not weaponize space.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

And I will institute an independent “Defense Priorities Board” to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

“In what realm does Sen. Obama’s ideology dwell, that he would expect his promises to somehow endear him to American swing voters?” CFIF asked. “What makes Sen. Obama’s statement most perplexing is the fact that he already faces an uphill battle to convince American voters that he won’t be the second coming of Jimmy Carter in undermining our military forces.”

WHen you are lectured on the Bush hate and how we were lied to watch this:

This one's for you LII!

A Real Change Campaign to Lower Your Gas Prices

As gas prices continue to increase, Congress continues to blame others while ignoring practical steps to stop the pain Americans are feeling at the pump. To lower gasoline prices and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we need real solutions to our energy challenges.

Watch Newt Gingrich provide an update to our new Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less. campaign:

Background

The average price for a gallon of gas is now $3.93, this is $.72 higher than a year ago.

The U.S. Congress has acted, but in the wrong direction. Last week, the Senate voted narrowly against reversing a moratorium on oil-shale development.

Federal officials and industry experts estimate that up to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil is trapped in the region’s oil shale, or three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia.

Laws and policies that restrict access to America’s abundant energy drive up the price of fuel and electricity. They cause widespread layoffs and leave workers and families struggling to survive, as the cost of everything they eat, drive, wear and do spirals higher.

Research from the Platform of the American People

73% of the American people agree that with appropriate safeguards to protect the environment, we should drill for oil off America’s coasts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Head to the American Solutions site for more data and info.

As gas prices continue to increase, Congress continues to blame others while ignoring practical steps to stop the pain Americans are feeling at the pump. To lower gasoline prices and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we need real solutions to our energy challenges.

Watch Newt Gingrich provide an update to our new Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less. campaign:

Background

The average price for a gallon of gas is now $3.93, this is $.72 higher than a year ago.

The U.S. Congress has acted, but in the wrong direction. Last week, the Senate voted narrowly against reversing a moratorium on oil-shale development.

Federal officials and industry experts estimate that up to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil is trapped in the region’s oil shale, or three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia.

Laws and policies that restrict access to America’s abundant energy drive up the price of fuel and electricity. They cause widespread layoffs and leave workers and families struggling to survive, as the cost of everything they eat, drive, wear and do spirals higher.

Research from the Platform of the American People

73% of the American people agree that with appropriate safeguards to protect the environment, we should drill for oil off America’s coasts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Head to the American Solutions site for more data and info.

Al-Arabiya TV says he is hiding in the K2 Mountains of Northern Pakistan. My neighbor says he’s hiding out in a bunker on life support inside Iron Mountain.

But top Taliban commander Baitullah Mehsud says that Bin Laden is dead…

Question: Does it even matter anymore? How important is it to you to know whether he is dead or alive?

A top Taliban commander Baitullah Mehsud has rejected reports that al-Qaeda leader, Osama Bin Laden, and other leaders are hiding in his region.

“The al-Qaeda leader, Osama Bin Laden is dead, and the Afghan Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, are not in our territory,” he said in an interview broadcast by a satellite television network.

Funeral prayers have been said for Osama bin Laden over the years with one reported by a Pakistani news organisation, and another in an Egyptian newspaper as far back as December 2001.

This report quoted an official of the Taliban saying that he had suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death.

Men like these are why we will win.

Men like these are why we will win!