Wake up America

From Radarsite to the 'Persuadables': One Final Plea Posted: 01 Nov 2008 12:38 PM CDT A message from Radarsite: Is there some subtle distinction between the 'persuadables' and the 'undecideds'? If so, I guess I am not politically astute enough to discern it. However I will say this: if two days before this fateful election you are truly undecided, I find this utterly incomprehensible. Where in the world have you been? What more would it take to move you? If at this late date you are still undecided this means you have remained untouched by the enormous accumulative weight of all of those infamous Obama scandals. All of Reverend Wright's 'Goddam Americas', all of the sinister implications of Obama's Ayers/Weathermen associations, Obama's outrageously cynical manipulations of our troop withdrawal timetables in Iraq, the Rezko scandals, the 'New Party' scandals, his radical African connections, and on and on and on -- none of this had any effect on you whatsover. You still remain undecided. To me this is incredulous. However, the purpose of this essay -- this final essay -- is not to admonish you, but to appeal to you. And yet if none of the above outrages have moved you from your adamant indecision, what can I possibly bring up here that would do the trick? There is I believe one last argument, one final outrage that just might do it. And it is this: It is inarguable that our American troops are fighting and dying on the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan and even occasionally Pakistan. They are fighting our sworn enemies, enemies who go by multiple names but who are essentially the same people driven by the same bloodthirsty ideology -- Al Qaeda, the Taliban. etc. Whether or not you may have approved of these original military decisions is a moot point: our troops are there and the battles rage on. And our enemies have clearly defined themselves and their goals. They are not undecided, they are not persuadable. Now I don't know about you but if I found out that our enemy's goals were endorsed and promoted by one of our presidential candidates, if I discovered that our enemy's most respected leaders were calling for the destruction of the opposition party, the Republicans, it would most certainly give me pause. In fact I would find it highly embarrassing to say the least. How could I possibly support a candidate who was enthusiastically supported by our enemies, a candidate whose stated foreign policies would work to their advantage? These facts alone would obliterate my indecision. This then is my final plea. Please read the following two articles and decide for yourselves how you could in good conscience vote for Barack Hussein Obama. - rg ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Qaeda wants Republicans, Bush "humiliated": Web video From Reuters Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:15pm EDT DUBAI (Reuters) - An al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be "humiliated," without endorsing a party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to an Internet video posting. "O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him," Abu Yahya al-Libi said at the end of sermon marking the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr, in a video posted on the Internet. Libi, a top al Qaeda commander believed to be living in Afghanistan or Pakistan, called for God's wrath to be brought against Bush equating him with past tyrants in history. The remarks were the first from a leading al Qaeda figure referring, albeit indirectly, to the U.S. elections. Muslim clerics often end sermons by calling on God to guide and support Muslims and help defeat their enemies. Terrorism monitor SITE Intelligence Group said in a report on Wednesday that militants on al Qaeda-linked websites have for months been debating the significance of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama or Republican John McCain. Some posters have also argued over the merits of trying to attack the United States before the election or waiting until later, the report said. But SITE said it did not expect al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden or deputy Ayman al-Zawahri to openly favor a candidate. "To support a particular candidate would debase al-Qaeda's long-standing argument that the United States government is a corrupt institution no matter who is at the helm," SITE director Rita Katz said in the group's November newsletter. In 2004 bin Laden issued his first video in more than a year just days before the U.S. elections. It derided Bush and warned of possible new September 11-style attacks. Bin Laden made little mention of Bush's Democratic challenger, John Kerry, telling Americans: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe." Kerry has attributed his loss in part to the video's high-profile reminder of the terrorism issue. In 2006, after Democrats captured Congress, Zawahri issued an audio message saying all Americans remained al Qaeda's enemies regardless of party, SITE said. SITE said militant postings on al Qaeda-linked websites typically discuss Obama in terms of his race, or his religion and foreign policy. Some forecast a racial crisis dividing the United States if he wins. Others say his planned phased withdrawal from Iraq would be a boon to al Qaeda's affiliate and give it a base for Middle East expansion. Republican presidential nominee John McCain has been portrayed as likely to allow "the continuation of Republican control and aggressive policies toward the Islamic world." (Additional reporting by Randall Mikkelsen in Washington; editing by Chris Wilson) (dubai.newsroom@reuters.com) -------------------------------------------------------------- Obama on Iraq: Two Disturbing Alternatives 1. The Terrorists On The Importance Of Iraq: Osama Bin Laden: Baghdad Is "The Capital Of The Caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04) Bin Laden: "The Most Important And Serious Issue Today For The Whole World Is This Third World War … Raging In [Iraq]." BIN LADEN: "I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04) Bin Laden: "This Is A War Of Destiny Between Infidelity And Islam." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04) Bin Laden: "The Whole World Is Watching This War And The Two Adversaries; The Islamic Nation, On The One Hand, And The United States And Its Allies On The Other. It Is Either Victory And Glory Or Misery And Humiliation." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04 Ayman al-Zawahiri: We Must "Establish An Islamic Authority … Over As Much Territory As You Can To Spread Its Power In Iraq … [And] Extend The Jihad Wave To The Secular Countries Neighboring Iraq." ZAWAHIRI: "So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate – over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq … The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity." (Complete Text Of Al-Zawahiri Letter To Al-Zarqawi, 7/9/05, Available At: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20051011_release.htm, Accessed 9/5/06) Bin Laden: "The War Is For You Or For Us To Win. If We Win It, It Means Your Defeat And Disgrace Forever." BIN LADEN: "Finally, I would like to tell you that the war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever as the wind blows in this direction with God's help." (Bin Laden Threatens New Operations, Offers 'Long-Term Truce,' Posted On Al-Jazirah Net, 1/19/06) 2. Barack Hussein Obama on Iraq War: "Surge strategy has made a difference in Iraq but failed." Q: Is Petraeus correct when he says that the troop increase is bringing security to Iraq? A: There is no doubt that because we put American troops in Iraq, more American troops in Iraq, that they are doing a magnificent job. They are making a difference in certain neighborhoods. But the overall strategy is failed because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq's political leaders. That is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq. That's why I'm going to bring this war to a close. That's why we can get our combat troops out within 16 months and have to initiate the kind of regional diplomacy, not just talking to our friends, but talking to our enemies, like Iran and Syria, to try to stabilize the situation there. This year, we saw the highest casualty rates for American troops in Iraq since this war started. The same is true in Afghanistan. If we have seen a lowering violence rate, that's only compared to earlier this year. We're back to where we started back in 2006. Source: 2007 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Nevada Nov 15, 2007 Q: If you get us out of Iraq and somehow al Qaeda takes over anyway, what will you do then? A: Well, look, if we had followed my judgment originally, we wouldn't have been in Iraq. We're here now. And we've got no good options. We got bad options and worse options. The only way we're going to stabilize Iraq and make sure that al Qaeda does not take over in the long term is to begin a phased redeployment so that we don't have anti-American sentiment as a focal point for al Qaeda in Iraq. We can still have troops in the region, outside of Iraq, that can help on counterterrorism activities, and we've got to make sure that they don't establish long-term bases there. But right now, the bases are in Afghanistan and in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan; that's where we've got to focus. Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8,2007 A short message from Radarsite: Anyone who has read the captured correspondence of the Al-Qaeda leaders concerning the importance that they attach to Iraq, and the central role that Iraq plays in their scheme for a world-wide Caliphate knows how delighted they would be if we followed the advice of Barrack Hussein Obama, and shifted our focus and resources from the oil-rich center of gravity in Iraq, the universally acknowledged keystone to the Middle East, to the mountainous wastelands of Afghanistan. It is the opinion of this writer, that if we abandoned the Land of the Two Rivers to the enemy now, the long-term strategic consequences of this monumental blunder for our GWOT would be nothing less than disastrous. The idea that we could somehow return to the area if it at some point in the future it became infested with Al-Qaeda is at best naive and ludicrous, and at worst naggingly suspect. Nothing would suit our enemies in Iraq better than a publicly proclaimed schedule of withdrawal of our troops and their eventual complete pullout. To this particular observer the absurdity of this plan, which so obviously plays into our enemy's game presents us with one of two troubling alternatives: Either it was purposely designed to enhance the chances for our defeat in this crucial region of the Middle East and enhance the capabilities of our sworn Al-Qaeda enemies, or it is the dangerously delusional bumblings of a hopeless amateur. rg Original Radarsite article published 2/27/08 Voted by Fox News at GOP Hub

Obama vs. the Virtue of Selfishness Posted: 01 Nov 2008 12:31 PM CDT Did Obama make a huge mistake by insulting Americans who want to hold on to the hard-earned money they have earned? According to Obama, if you don’t want to pay higher taxes, perhaps it’s because you are “selfish?” ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper took aim yesterday at Obama’s “attack” on those who want to keep their hard-earned tax dollars as "selfish." Obama said in Sarasota, Fla., Thursday in defense of his so-called “spread the wealth” tax policies: John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic," Obama continued. "You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness. John McCormack of Weekly Standard’s Blog pointed out that if Obama “loves rich people”, which he claimed to do while talking to the folks in Sarasota, then “opposition to Obama’s tax increases is based on greed rather than a good faith disagreement about what is best for the economy and our country.” McCormack recalled that this isn’t the first time that the Obama campaign has “questioned the motives of those who oppose tax hikes.” Joe Biden said that it is “patriotic” for rich people to pay higher taxes. Jennifer Rubin at Commentary thinks Obama’s “virtue out of selfishness” comment is insulting to voters who want to use their own money “to build businesses, raise children, and give to charity. . .” Rubin believes that Obama has displayed an “appalling lack of understanding” about the basics of wealth-building. The government is going to give people goodies and then they’ll have more money to spend? Wow. Who knew it could be so easy? No working, earning, saving, building businesses, hiring more people, investing and the like. Money just comes from thin air, from the government. Rubin suggests that McCain would do well to just run Obama and Biden sound bites of Obama’s ever changing dividing line between “the taxed and the saved.” Is it $250,000, $200,000, $150,000 or $120,000? The Dakota Voice wrote “Like a good Soviet, er, Marxist, er, socialist, er, Democrat, Barack Obama is trying to put a positive spin on his Marxist plans to spread your wealth around to those who haven't earned it.” I'd like to know when Barack Obama made a virtue out of envy and theft. . . .ABC reported that the Obamas are charity cheapskates . . . So is his running mate Joe Biden. The Hill reported. DV was quoting a March 2008 article by ABC’s Jake Tapper which found that the “Obamas Gave Less Than 1% of Their 2000-2004 Income to Charity.” The Hill reported that Gov. Sarah Palin, who makes far less than Sen. Joe Biden, gave more money to charity in the last two years than Biden gave in the “last eight combined.”!!! Technorati Tags: Barack Obama,Joe Biden,John McCain,spread the wealth,virtue out of selfishness,charity,donations

Obama Denies Knowledge Of His Aunt's Illegal Immigrant Status Posted: 01 Nov 2008 10:28 AM CDT Recent stories have come out showing that Barack Obama's 56 year-old aunt, Zeituni Onyango, was living in Boston in public housing. In Obama's memoir he referred to her simply as "Aunti Zeituni". The Associated Press released news yesterday that Zeituni Onyango is in the United States illegally after having been ordered to leave the U.S. four years ago after a U.S. immigration judge denied her asylum. Onyango's case—coming to light just days before the presidential election—led to an unusual nationwide directive within Immigrations and Customs Enforcement requiring any deportations prior to Tuesday's election to be approved at least at the level of ICE regional directors, the U.S. law enforcement official told the AP. The unusual directive suggests that the Bush administration is sensitive to the political implications of Onyango's case coming to light so close to the election. In a statement given to the AP by the Obama campaign they deny Obama's having known his aunt's illegal immigrant status, saying "Senator Obama has no knowledge of her status but obviously believes that any and all appropriate laws be followed." The campaign said he has seen her a few times since that meeting, beginning with a return trip to Kenya with his wife, Michelle, four years after the first trip. Onyango visited the family in Chicago on a tourist visa at Obama's invitation about nine years ago, the campaign said, stopping to visit friends on the East coast before returning to Kenya. She attended Obama's swearing-in to the U.S. Senate in 2004, but campaign officials said Obama provided no assistance in getting her a tourist visa and doesn't know the details of her stay. The campaign said he last heard from her about two years ago when she called saying she was in Boston, but he did not see her there. To top it off, Obama's Aunti Zeituni, who is not eligible for public housing being an illegal alien, somehow does and Federal Election Commission documents filed by the Obama campaign show that she has donated $260 to Obama's campaign in small donations over a period of time. Under federal election law, only U.S. citizens or green-card holders are legally permitted to give money to campaigns. Onyango, who listed her employer as the Boston Housing Authority, gave in small increments to the Obama campaign. Her latest contribution was $5 on Sept. 19. There is quite a bit wrong with this picture, first the move by the Bush administration to protect Onyango from having her butt arrested and deported right now. Sseond, being able to obtain public housing after having been ordered to leave America. Third, being able to donate to Obama's campaign showing that there are no protections set up by the Obama campaign to stop illegal aliens from donating to his campaign, thereby receiving illegal donations. Fourth, Obama knew this women enough to not only mention her in his book, but for to have been present at his swearing-in to the U.S. Senate in 2004, yet he is trying to claim he had no idea she was in this country illegally? Fifth, even if we believe he did not know his aunt's illegal status, he never offered to "spread his wealth" enough to help her from having to live in public housing? There is so much wrong with this on so many levels. .

McCain Takes Lead in Zoby Poll Posted: 31 Oct 2008 10:53 PM CDT Crossposted from Stop the ACLU Its a shocker for sure, but Drudge says Zogby puts McCain one point ahead. ZOGBY SATURDAY: McCain outpolled Obama 48% to 47% in Friday poll. He is beginning to cut into Obama's lead among independents, is now leading among blue collar voters, has strengthened his lead among investors and among men, and is walloping Obama among NASCAR voters. Joe the Plumber may get his license after all... Who knows if it means anything, since Gallup gives a gain to Obama with an eight point lead, but it is nice to see for a change. I'm afraid to announce it, cuz I'm sure it is somehow racist. Lisa Schiffren wonders...What if it's really close? Related: Rush's Gut talks 10 Reasons McCain Might Win

'Persuadables' At 14 Percent Posted: 31 Oct 2008 01:19 PM CDT Just days before the presidential election and we see there are a large number of what is considered "persuadables", which are people that either have not decided or lean one way or another but can still be "persuaded" toward one of the two presidential candidates. With the sand in the 2008 campaign hourglass about depleted, Campbell is part of a stubborn wedge of people who, somehow, are still making up their minds about who should be president. One in seven, or 14 percent, can't decide or back a candidate but might switch, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll of likely voters released Friday. Who are they? They look a lot like the voters who've already locked onto a candidate, though they're more likely to be white and less likely to be liberal. And they disproportionately backed Hillary Rodham Clinton's failed run for the Democratic nomination. For now, their indecision remains intact despite the fortunes that have been spent to tug people toward either McCain, the Republican, or the Democrat Obama. Fueling their uncertainty is a combination of disliking something about both candidates and frustration with this campaign and politics in general. Those who have already made up their minds for either John McCain or Barack Obama are not the target audience in the last days before the election. The target audience are the 14 percent that can still be persuaded to get out to vote for one candidate or another. This is the reason it is still very important to get all the information out there, pound it home, hammer the points we find to be key to helping those undecided voters decide. Two pieces in Washington Post today bring that to bear, speaking to those that have not decided yet with their arguments of why they believe those "persuadables" should vote for John McCain on Tuesday, November 4, 2008. The first titled "In Final Stretch, McCain to Pour Money Into TV Ads," shows that McCain is going to make a final 72 hour push targeting those folks and the second is Charles Krauthammer's piece called "McCain for President, Part II." Sen. John McCain and the Republican National Committee will unleash a barrage of spending on television advertising that will allow him to keep pace with Sen. Barack Obama's ad blitz during the campaign's final days, but the expenditures will impact McCain's get-out-the-vote efforts, according to Republican strategists. Charles Krauthammer's piece deals with economics and kitchen-table items. The only people really listening to the candidates speeches and arguments right now, paying attention to help them decide instead of simply looking for one or the other to make a major gaffe, are those that have not yet determined who they will vote for in a manner where their minds cannot be changed. Those are the target right now. .

You are subscribed to email updates from Wake up America To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner
Inbox too full? Subscribe to the feed version of Wake up America in a feed reader.
If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Wake up America, c/o FeedBurner, 20 W Kinzie, 9th Floor, Chicago IL USA 60610