Recently after watching the debates and going over what others wrote about Round 2 of the Bush/Kerry townhall style meeting, I got to thinking about what I’d just seen.

He kept saying that he has a plan. He has no plan….he has a lot of money, but he has no plan. He has more money than the rest of the Senators in Congress–he’s the richest Senator in the Senate. Yet he claims to be “for the people”. He doesn’t hang with the people, he doesn’t know the people, and as I saw last night when Teresa rushed into his arms, he wasn’t warmly received by the people like Bush was. Kerry is a rich snob who has a camera crew following him around to make sure they get a shot of his $1,000 haircut. I was watching him last night, wondering if his haircut was really better than Bush’s. Did that really look like a $1,000 haircut to you? Couldn’t they do something about the color? Man did Kerry look gray last night!

At any rate, I meant to talk about his ridiculous proposed “free” medical insurance for the nation. When he was talking, whenever he talked, I stood up. He irritates me. I was taught that “nothing is free”. Nothing comes for free; there’s always a price. If you’re going to get a ‘bonus gift’ somewhere along the way you pay for it; even if the cost is hidden in the product you are being suckered in to buy.

On the QFiles, and Steven Quayle’s website, there is a very interesting point that’s being made. Scientists have been picked off (murdered or met with unusual “accidents), all over the world, one by one.

And now we’re seeing a shortage of vaccines that could protect public health.

I’m just seeing this peculiar pattern emerging and it’s disturbing.

If Kerry gets into office and manages to throw health care onto the government bureaucracy, it will ultimately mean it will take longer to see doctors than now in the HMO system, and there will be fewer and fewer options in terms of medications. I won’t go into the specifics–read Michelle Malkin’s blog–

Kerry’s Radical Medicare Drug Proposal

Bottom line to me is–we are the world’s R&D program as far as new and cutting edge medications and technology.

With NAFTA, the proposed FTAA and nationalized health care, our health care system will deteriorate fast and end up worse off than Canada’s…we will essentially become another 3rd world country, only there will be no other bastion of Freedom, free enterprise or capitalism left in the world to head up new innovations in ANY area, including health care and medications.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina41007.htm

I watched the first round of the presidential debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry with a lot of interest. I am not an American but I believe the outcome of this election will affect not just America but the entire world. If you don’t accuse me of being hyperbolic I dare to say that this is the most important election in the history of mankind.

On this election may depend the future of the world and whether there would be another world war or perhaps it could be avoid. This was one debate I could not miss.

I have to acknowledge that Sen. Kerry was better prepared and was more eloquent than President Bush. But do eloquence and being articulate really equate to wisdom and statesmanship? Please do not misunderstand me, I am not drawing any comparison but merely trying to make my point. Hitler was an impressive orator but of course he was a very wrong person to lead his country.

So with this in mind I put aside the eloquence factor and tried to understand the message that each one of these candidates was delivering, peer into their character and appraise their capability as the commander in chief of the most powerful country in the history of mankind.

Sen. Kerry said many things that sounded logical. He said North Korea now has nuclear bombs and Iran is in pursuit of them and no one is doing anything about it. I agree with that.

He said that not enough is being done to buy the uranium-enriched stockpile that the Soviets had developed and this could fall in the hands of wrong bidders. I agree with that too.

He said American ports are not secure. This is true. But in reality terrorists do not need to send their destructive terror through the ports. There are so many ways they could hit America and the rest of the civilized world that only their diabolic imagination sets the limit. We really can’t protect ourselves everywhere. If you try to secure the airports by checking the passengers, they could blow themselves up in the crowded lines while waiting to be checked. They could attack schools, subways, busses, hospitals, restaurants, water-reservoirs, shopping malls…, the list is end less. Can we really secure all these places? So the point is moot. Yes it would be nice to secure the ports but does that make America any safer? What if atomic bombs are delivered to various ports and detonated simultaneously while waiting inspection? What Sen. Kerry is proposing will only make Americans spend more money for a false sense of security.Sen. Kerry also berated his rival and said that the war in Iraq was a wrong war at a wrong time. Then in that debate he said something different. He said that he agreed with the war but he would have fought it differently. In other words it wasn’t the wrong war at a wrong time but a war that was fought in a wrong way. The Senator however did not go into specifics to explain in what ways he would have fought this war differently. I wanted to know, and a google search brought me the answer: The following is part of an interview that Sen. Kerry gave in 1998:

“Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction and I support regime change, with ground troops if necessary. I am way ahead of the commander in chief, and I’m probably way ahead of my colleagues and certainly of much of the country.” (1)

It is clear that Sen. Kerry realized the danger that Saddam was posing and he wanted to remove him by sending ground troops to Iraq way before 9/11.

Isn’t this exactly what the President did? So in what ways Sen. Kerry would have fought this war differently?

In 2002 he reiterated his concern about the Iraqi dictator and warned, “he may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States”. (1)

But what we heard in this debate was completely a different story. The Senator said “Let me be as blunt and direct with the American people as I can be; the invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy — al Qaeda.”

Are we to understand that in previous occasions when the Senator made the above statements he was not blunt and direct with the Americans?

It seems that Sen. Kerry’s bone of contention with the President is that he acted alone without involving other countries in the process. In other words the Senator wants to be a team player and make sure that everyone is happy. How noble! But again we remember him saying that if push comes to shove he would act alone even if the UN Security Council fails to act.

2003 - “If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community’s already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act.”(1)

Wasn’t this exactly what the President did? So I can’t understand why the Senator is attacking the president for doing exactly what he [Sen. Kerry] said should be done.

In this debate, Sen. Kerry also said a lot of things that are clichés, like “reaching out to Muslims.”

What does reaching out to Muslims mean? Is that a new term for appeasement? How does he plan to do that? Build more Mosques in America? Give more special rights to Muslims? Make more compromises? Or perhaps offer them Israel as the sacrificial lamb?

He said that he wants to enlist the support of all other countries in the fight against terrorism. What if other countries do not want to come aboard? Would he sit on his hands and wait until the terrorists become stronger? The Europeans have totally different priorities. All they care for is to sign lucrative trade agreements with the rogue states. Terrorism and the stability of the world is the last thing in their minds. This is to them an American problem.

Yesterday (Oct. 6, 2004) the French carmaker Renault unveiled plans to build its new budget car, the Dacia Logan, in Iran. (2) On the same day Rafsanjani, the ex-President of Islamic Republic and the leading candidate in upcoming presidency elections of the Mullahdom, announced that “Iran’s missiles can now hit Europe” (3) and Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani said “Iran will not cede to international demands that it suspend all activities related to the enrichment of uranium and the country is prepared for both confrontation or negotiations”. In fact on October 5th, Iran ’s hardliner dominated parliament began pushing for resumption of uranium enrichment. (4) And in the middle of all this a German trader is suspected of selling nuclear secrets to Iran. (5)

Whether the Europeans are asleep or pretend to be asleep is unclear. But the fact is that America cannot fall asleep in this crucial time when history is in the making and the destiny of Mankind is at stake.

It seems that Senator Kerry is trying to adopt a more European approach vis-à-vis Islamic Terrorism. And like the Europeans, he seems also to want to win the favor of the rogue countries that support and even promote terrorism by appeasing them.

In a bid to “bribe” the Mullahs and perhaps to improve the relations between the two countries Sen. Kerry suggested supplying the Islamic state with nuclear fuel for power reactors if Tehran agrees to give up its own fuel-making capability. The offer was of course rejected (6) But this makes it clear that Sen. Kerry desires to “reach out” and tie the broken knots with the Islamic Republic, which means more power to Islamic Terrorism worldwide.

Sen. Kerry is a good man. He wants to please everybody. But we had another good man who tried to please everybody during 1930s in England. His name was Chamberlain and his policies of appeasement allowed Hitler to gain strength. Shouldn’t we learn our lessons from history?

Today Islam represents more danger to the world than Nazism presented 70 years ago. I don’t think “reaching out to Muslims” is a right policy. I think we should stand tough against Islam and its terrorism. Muslims interpret “reaching out” as the sign of weakness and this encourages them to continue with their quest to conquer the world.

The truth is that Iran’s missile program poses a serious threat to not just Europe but the entire Middle East and US interests, which is compounded significantly by Iran’s relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons. (7)

Senator Kerry plans to fight terrorism defensively. The problem is that no amount of defensive measures can eliminate the risk of being hit again. President Bush favors preemptive war, or in other words he wants to fight this war in the backyard of those who started it, instead of fighting it in the cities of the United States. Whether he will succeed or not remains to be seen. But the fact is that no war has ever been won by fighting defensively. So, although there is no guarantee that the President’s plan will succeed, the failure of Sen. Kerry’s plan in fighting terrorism defensively is foregone.

As one friend put it, “you cannot just sit with a swatter waiting to hit the mosquitoes that come into your house. You have to drain the swamp where the mosquitoes breed”.The real battle against Islamic Terror is the ideological battle and this is not even being fought yet. To destroy Islamic Terrorism we must destroy the ideology behind it. Neither one of the candidates addressed this crucial point. Although the President mentioned once “the ideology” of the terrorists, he fell short of saying what he intends to do about it.There is a saying, “Tell me who is your friend and I will tell you who you are”. One interesting way to learn which side each of the two candidates stand is to look at their friends and see who supports them.

Yesterday, the Arab-American Political Action Committee in Dearborn announced their endorsement for the Sen. John Kerry-Sen. John Edwards ticket in the 2004 presidential election.

“We believe Senator Kerry will make America stronger, safer and more respected throughout the world,” said AAPAC president Abed Hammoud in a written statement. (8)
Really?!!

Since when, the Arabs became so interested in the strength and safety of America? Last I remember, they were dancing in the streets after watching 3000 Americans die in 9/11.

But that is not all. Among Sen. Kerry’s top fundraisers are three Iranian-Americans who have been pushing for dramatic changes in U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Most prominent among them is Hassan Nemazee, 54, an investment banker based in New York.

Nominated to become U.S. ambassador to Argentina by President Bill Clinton in 1999, Nemazee eventually withdrew his nomination after a former partner raised allegations of business improprieties.Nemazee was a major Clinton donor, giving $80,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the 1996 election cycle and attending at least one of the famous White House fund-raising coffees.

In 2001, at the invitation of Mobil Oil Chairman Lucio Noto, whom he counts as a “personal friend,” Nemazee joined the board of the American-Iranian Council (AIC), a U.S. lobbying group that consistently has supported lifting U.S. sanctions on Iran and accommodating the Tehran regime. Nemazee told Timmerman of Insight magazine he “now regrets” having joined the AIC board and resigned his position after 12 months when he was vilified by Iranian exile groups. (9)

Another Iranian fundraiser in Sen. Kerry’s campaign is Susan Akbarpour who was a journalist in Iran, where she was close to Faezeh Hashemi, the daughter of former president Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, the man who said in a nuclear confrontation Israel will be totally destroyed while Muslims will only suffer casualties. She made programs attacking the Iranian dissidents abroad and their anti regime activities.

In an Interview with Kenneth Timmerman Akbarpour boasted: “I am an actor in U.S. politics. I am a fund-raiser for all candidates who listen to us and our concerns.” (9)

My congratulations to Americans for having an actress of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the same country that called America the “Great Satan” and took their embassy workers as hostage for 444 days, that masterminded the bombing of Israeli consulate in Argentine and in 1983 killed 241 U.S. Marines in a terrorist attack near Beirut airport, now starring in their political theater! This must be nominated for the most hilarious show award.

Akbarpour is not even a U.S. citizen. She came to America in 1997 as a tourist and remained as an illegal immigrant until last year when she married to another Islamist Iranian-American and now she is a green card holder and an “actor in U.S. politics”.

One thing we can be sure of is that the Islamists are no friends of America. They certainly have no desire to see America become strong or safe. They are the enemies of America. It seems that the enemies of America have chosen their candidate. Now we have to wait and see who the American voters will choose as their next president.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Recent reports indicate that 3 kurds were killed (oh, what surprise, they were beheaded) by the Islamist terrorists in Iraq earlier this week, and that 18 more from the Iraqi National Guard were captured. The Kurds’ slaying was claimed by the Ansar al-Sunna Army, the group that said it killed 12 kidnapped Nepalese workers last month.

The video shows three young men, two of them holding identity cards. Seconds later, each has his throat slit. A man is seen cutting off each hostage’s head, which is then placed on the victim’s back.

The bodies of the “apostate military men, affiliated with the traitor Kurdistan Democratic party” were left on the road, the statement said, “for them to be an example to others, and for us to avenge our women, children and elderly who die daily from American raids.”

According to the terrorists, the young Kurdish men were soldiers, but according to my sources, these unfortunate young men were just students.

A statement posted with the video said the three were abducted as they transported military vehicles to a base in Taji, 25 kilometres north of Baghdad.

The people who have the nerve to fight the terrorists are the kurds, who are standing with us in this fight.

American news media stands with Al-Jazeera (the “Voice of al-Qaeda) and has turned away from this; it’s a virtual media blackout.

Saddam Hussein killed over time, in a genocidal frenzy, 90 % Kurdish villages in Iraq, and over twenty small towns and cities–completely wiped them off the map. The countryside was riddled with 15 million landmines, intended to make agriculture and husbandry impossible. A million and a half Kurdish peasants had been interned in camps. Since 1974 over 400,000 died in Baghdad’s war against the Kurds. Almost half had disappeared without trace. About 10 % of the total Kurdish population of Iraq perished.

The terrorists believe nobody’s life has any value, even their own. They are sick. What the Qu’ran teaches is sickness. The horrible “Anfal campaign”’s name refers to a verse of the Qu’ran, Surah Al-Anfal , authorising the plunder and slaughter of infidels.

This is from an interview (which, BTW never hit the American media) with Saywan Barzani, who represents the Kurdish government in Europe….

Terror “aims to plunge us all in world of darkness”; governments of the west must not give in to fear. Barzani asks that those who do not want to send soldiers to Iraq help in other ways: by training Iraqi soldiers, by helping “in the field of intelligence and in putting pressure on those countries of the area that support terrorists”. Pointing his finger at Sunni Baathist factions that want to destabilize Iraq, Barzani stresses the need for elections, on which the Iraqi government’s full legitimacy depends. Dictatorships and authoritarian countries in the region are in fact aiming at destroying such legitimacy. In expressing his hopes that Simona Torretta and Simona Pari are freed, Balzani expresses the hope that Europe is spared the “barbarity of kidnappings and decapitations”.

Here is the interview he granted to AsiaNews.

Who are the Kurds who were decapitated?

According to the terrorists, the young Kurdish men were soldiers, but according to our information, they were students who had recently gone to Baghdad to sign up for university. They were young men between the ages of 18 and 20. And they were executed as spies of the Americans. They had done nothing. Their only “fault” was to be Kurdish and to have been from the Zakho region. In that region, the Kurdistan Democratic Party enjoys majority support, but these young men were just students.

What explains such violence against the Kurds?

There’s more: some days ago, in the city of Kanaqin, whose inhabitants are mainly Kurdish, a group of policemen were on their way to Jordan for a training program. A vehicle pulled alongside their bus and asked where they were from. When Kanaqin was mentioned, those in the car began firing on the bus and 12 policemen were killed.

There are various reasons for violence against the Kurds: first of all, it is the only stable area in Iraq and there are those who want to destabilize it, like the rest of the country; furthermore, the Kurds are considered allies of the West and for this reason they are targetted for elimination.

But in all truth, this slaughter, this anti-Kurdish chauvinism reveals who is behind this violence: the old nationalistic Baathists, Arabs, who in the past, under Saddam Hussein, killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds, at least 200,000 people. The more Western governments look at the situation in Iraq, the more they think of turning away… I wonder if there is a single country in the civilized world that can accept the barbarity that exists in Iraq…All this violence keeps the economy from taking off and hits the enterprises of other countries: their citizens are kidnapped too. But instead of being afraid, the West should put pressure on those countries who support terrorism, those countries that send kamikazes, that open their borders so that Iraq is invaded by these kamikazes. Intelligence services must be coordinated among Iraq, Europe, the United States to be able to eradicate this problem of global proportions. Terrorism risks plunging us all in a world of darkness. I hope that the barbarity of kidnappings and decapitations does not reach Europe. On my part, I hope that the two kidnapped women, Simona Torretta and Simona Pari, can return home safe and sound. And that all hostages are freed…

Is not a stronger military presence needed in Iraq?

Certainly, and those who wish not to send troops could at least help to train ours, or could give support through political action. Countries like Germany can help in the field of intelligence and by putting pressure on those countries in the region that support terrorists. After all, these terrorists have their bases, their internet sites, sources of financing, media help in Europe. There is much to be done and everyone can do their part even without sending troops in a direct way.

Will it be possible to hold elections in January 2005?

We all hope so. But greater security is needed and the return of deportees must be guaranteed. The Baathist policy was to deport the Kurdish population and replace it was Arab (Sunni) immigrants. As long as the Arab colonies remain in Kurdistan, it was be difficult to organize elections: Kurds must be allowed to return to their land. For the census to be accurate, a minimum level of security is needed in the Arab areas as well. Without security, evacuees will not be able to return to Fallujia or Baquba. Following elections, no one will be able to say — as the Arab press and Al Jazeera is doing — that the Iraqi government has no legitimacy and is not representative. Actually, it is already the most representative government in the Arab world because it includes members from every ethnic, religious and political group. Yet, the dictatorships and the authoritarian governments of the region continue to say that the Iraqi government is not legitimate. When there was Saddam, with tanks defending the centre of power and only one community represented, that was a legitimate government. Now that everyone is represented, they say “it’s not legitimate”. Elections are essential so that the government can work in complete legitimacy and security.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.