Free Republic

"When Obama went to Kenya in August of 2006, he was hosted by Raila and spoke in praise of him at rallies in Nairobi"

Kenya, Islam and Obama Hussein

The Kenya Connection

http://www.nysun.com/opinion/kenya-connection/69273/

Whether Mr. Odinga has ordered his men to commit murder and arson is unclear. But his own background does not exactly suggest enthusiasm for democracy and the rule of law. Mr. Odinga’s father, Oginga Odinga, led the Communist opposition during the Cold War and Raila Odinga was educated in Communist East Germany.

Even more sinister has been Mr. Odinga’s electoral pact with the National Muslim Leaders’ Forum - a hardline Islamist organization that represents Kenya’s Muslim minority. According to this document, dated August 29, 2007, Mr. Odinga promised the Muslim leaders that, if elected, he would establish Sharia courts, not only in the northern and coastal regions where Kenyan Muslims are concentrated, but throughout the country.

Mr. Odinga even claims that Mr. Obama is his cousin, because the senator’s father was Mr. Odinga’s maternal uncle. Whether or not this true, the two men are friends and political allies.

In August 2006, Mr. Obama visited Kenya and spoke in support of Mr. Odinga’s candidacy at rallies in Nairobi. The Web site Atlas Shrugs has even posted a photograph of the two men side by side.

If Mr. Obama did not know about Mr. Odinga’s electoral deal with the Kenyan Islamists when he offered his support, then he should have known. If he did know, then he is guilty of lending the prestige of his office to America’s enemies in the global war on terror.

“This is a conservative forum, not a GOP forum. “

Silly me, to think that conservatives would be AGAINST leftist, Marxist, terrorist-loving B. Hussein Obama.

I don’t know how Brownback voted, but he was the most conservative Republican presidential candidate running in this primary.

“Is he implying that foreign prisoners detained ON American soil have habeas corpus rights?”

In previous rulings our “glorious SCOTUS” gave them those rights, now they just broadened and expanded them.

They had three previous pro-terrorist rulings, this 4th one is the crown jewel.

1. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, in 2004, pertained only to United States citizens detained as enemy combatants on American soil; the court held that they must get a “meaningful opportunity” to challenge the factual basis for their detention.

2. The second ruling, in Rasul v. Bush, came soon after the scandal at Abu Ghraib. Though momentous, it was still limited. The court found, 6-3, that Guantanamo Bay was within United States jurisdiction and subject to its laws, meaning detainees there were entitled to some sort of due process in American courts. It didn’t specify the process, nor suggest that Congress couldn’t amend a law through which detainees could access the courts.

3. The 2006 Hamdan case concerned the military commissions that President Bush established at Guantanamo Bay to try some detainees in the aftermath of 9/11. Here the court’s majority went further. It found that by creating the commissions without asking Congress to agree, the president had overstepped his authority under the Constitution’s separation of powers. Moreover, it held that the president was obligated to honor America’s commitments under the Geneva Conventions.

-

“In response, the administration succeeded in getting Congress to authorize the military commissions and stripping the Guantanamo detainees of the right to habeas corpus.”

Note:

The SCOTUS in their current ruling rebuked the other TWO branches of the US government, and ignored the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.

ONLY Obama or McCain have a chance to become president.

Third party candidates only serve to take votes away from the main candidates.

Any liberal voting for Nader takes votes away from Obama, helping McCain.

Any conservative staying home or voting third party takes votes away from McCain, helping Obama.

It’s just simple math and logic.

The bottom line that will determine whether we will have President Obama or President McCain will be the number of votes each gets in each state.

Apparently, the Perot voters, who gave us 8 years of Bill Clinton, learned nothing, they are getting ready to give us 8 years of a Barack Hussein Obama presidency with the Dems controlling all three branches of the government: Congress and stuffing the courts with leftist activist judges.

Barack's a good guy - I like him - but he's a very liberal Democrat," Brownback said. "If you have a liberal Democrat plus a Democratic House and Senate, that's a changed dynamic."

” I am going to vote for him and maybe even send him some money. Why? because he isn’t nObama. “

Exactly. Obama would be an unimaginable disaster for all of us and the country. Responsible conservatives will do everything in their power to stop President Obama with a Dem Congress and leftist SCOTUS. We would never recover from that.

The ONLY way to stop Obama IS to support McCain with votes, money, and any other help one can give.

More and more conservatives are coming to this realization and are supporting McCain. The primary is over and either Obama or McCain will become president of the US.

“On stage, a man sang, “While the storm clouds gathered ...”

So God Bless America is now a gathering storm in the eyes of this journalist.”

Excellent point!

God Bless America

“While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that’s free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer. “

God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.

http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/godblessamerica.html

—

The MSM wants divide the GOP, to help the Dems, that’s why this article is presenting the Texas GOP support of McCain in such negative terms.

“tax credits...like carbon credits?”

No, tax credit, as in income redistribution — tax “the rich” and hand tax “rebates” to those who already don’t pay any taxes.

“Go away.”

Shooting the messenger will NOT make REALITY go away.

The McCain Economic “Team”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/751tryie.asp

“But I as president, as every other president, rely primarily on my secretary of the Treasury, on my Council of Economic Advisers, on the head of that. I would rely on the circle that I have developed over many years of people like Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm, Warren Rudman, Pete Peterson and the Concord group.”

“CP: “if you don’t support McCain, you ARE supporting Obama.”

-

“NR: Oh really? uhh,, if you say so.”

—

I am not the only one saying so, the point is that more and more conservatives are saying so and recognize reality.

I just posted that Texas Evangelicals and Republicans are saying so, including Sen. Dan Patrick (mentioned in the article)

“I’m going to support McCain and try to help people see the reality of the total picture and how dangerous Barack Obama is,” said state Sen. Dan Patrick, a conservative talk-radio host with a strong evangelical following. “There is no other choice.”

ALSO, conservative Sen. Brownback is saying so.

(Sen. Sam) Brownback on McCain train

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2031467/

Barack’s a good guy - I like him - but he’s a very liberal Democrat,” Brownback said. “If you have a liberal Democrat plus a Democratic House and Senate, that’s a changed dynamic.”

That possibility is, he said, beginning to sink in among the social conservative movement.

“THE BOTTOM LINE is that, when we have a bad president, we don’t want to give them the tools to abuse us with.”

What you are forgetting is that a “bad president” doesn’t need the laws “to abuse us with” — just think of the Clintons and those FBI files and who knows what else, that we will never find out.

But we do need the laws to allow good presidents, like President Bush to be able to protect us. The threat of terrorism against us is severe and until the Patriot Act, we had no laws to help us deal with this threat.

Nuclear Power in France

France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.

France has 59 nuclear reactors operated by Electricité de France (EdF) with total capacity of over 63 GWe, supplying over 430 billion kWh per year of electricity, 78% of the total generated there. In 2005 French electricity generation was 549 billion kWh net and consumption 482 billion kWh - 7700 kWh per person. Over the last decade France has exported 60-70 billion kWh net each year and EdF expects exports to continue at 65-70 TWh/yr.

The present situation is due to the French government deciding in 1974, just after the first oil shock, to expand rapidly the country's nuclear power capacity. This decision was taken in the context of France having substantial heavy engineering expertise but few indigenous energy resources. Nuclear energy, with the fuel cost being a relatively small part of the overall cost, made good sense in minimising imports and achieving greater energy security.

As a result of the 1974 decision, France now claims a substantial level of energy independence and almost the lowest cost electricity in Europe. It also has an extremely low level of CO2 emissions per capita from electricity generation, since over 90% of its electricity is nuclear or hydro.

“How about because they are a completely lawless court, blind freaking drunk with power and arrogance? “

I think you summed it up well.

Charles Krauthammer made some excellent remarks on FoxNews:

“This is not just perverse. The arrogance of this decision is astonishing. It overturns - it proudly says that for the first time ever it is granting the rights of habeas corpus to enemy aliens who are not on American soil.

It overturns a 1950 decision, which, in and of itself, had said that in all of American history this right had never been accepted or recognized, and before that, in all of the British common laws. So this is an invention.

The worst part of it is that it is in previous decisions when the court had chastised the administration over its detention policy, it had said that the Congress and the president ought to work together and find a remedy, which is what the Congress and the president have done in the Military Tribunal Act.

But what the court has now done is to overturn everything in that act before it even went into effect or practice. As Scalia wrote in commenting on this, he said it looks as if in urging the president and the Congress to actually solve this, the court was kidding in its previous decisions.

And according to one scholar I read, this is the first time in American history that in the middle of the war the court has overturned decision that the two political branches together, the president and Congress, had agreed upon in the conduct of the war. It has never happened. You could overturn a president’s decision, but never a joint decision of the political branches.

What the court has said is that that it stands above all the other branches in granting a right that never existed and does not exist in this constitution.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,366346,00.html