Right On Target
with Lance Hunter Voorhees
You’ve heard their names: Al–Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban and Islamic Jihad. What most haven’t heard is that these terrorist organizations are setting up shop in U.S. and Latin American prisons under the guise of ministry.
Counterfeit chaplains are converting prisoners to an extreme form of Islam with an eye to cultivate terroristic saboteurs and martyrs willing to wrap themselves in explosives and detonate on Main Street U.S.A. Their endgame is even more diabolical, which is to cause death and disease of biblical proportions to usher in the end of the world and their Messiah, the Al-Imam al-Mahdi, better known as the Anti-Christ.
Does that sound any more farfetched than Jihadist highjackers flying into the World Trade Center on their way to an eternal date with seventy-two virgins? Read on.
Dr. J. Michael Waller, Annenberg Professor of International Communication for the Institute of World Politics, warns of the inroads that radical Muslim chaplains are making in American prisons — North, Central and South America included.
Testifying before the Senate’s Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, Dr. Waller stated that Muslim chaplaincies are “one of several avenues of infiltration, recruitment, training and operation” for terrorist organizations who are backed by foreign governments like Iran and Syria, who want to gain a foothold in the Western Hemisphere.
What begins as a religious conversion may be adulterated into the cultish fervor that is prevalent in many Middle Eastern mosques and madrassas (Islamic schools & seminaries) radicalizing prisoners into a cadre of militant Muslims who will be soldiers in the ultimate Jihad, or Holy War. Prisoners are pressed into service by threat, or more effectively by bribe.
They are promised financial assistance upon release and the financial deep pockets of radical Islam have more than enough to make good on its promises.
Various U.S. intelligence sources, including the Israeli Mossad, warn that terror cells are being based throughout Latin America; the highest concentration being in the tri-bordered area of Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil, known as “The Muslim Triangle,” the Western Hemisphere’s terrorist-central.
From here, highly funded terror-brokers are systematically seeding almost eight million square miles of fertile recruiting ground. As this budding crop of trained terrorists are harvested, their goal will be to mix-in with the three to four million illegals that yearly cross our 1952-mile backdoor - the Mexican border.
Mark F. Wong, the State Department’s Acting Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism, testified before the House Committee On International Relations about the specific threat that Latin American Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah cells pose in “America’s Backyard.” These terrorist organizations are not only pooling resources among themselves but also building alliances with prison gangs, smuggling rings and drug cartels.
Afghanistan alone produces 92% of the worlds opium and 80% of the heroin, giving the Taliban great influence south of our border. Unfortunately, U.S. troops are restricted from destroying poppy fields for fear of alienating poppy farmers and workers who provide ground intelligence.
Army Gen. Dan K. McNeil, the American NATO commander in Afghanistan, was quoted in the Financial Times as saying that “Eradication done improperly is counterintuitive to running the counterinsurgency because it will alienate people and you may have more insurgent people appearing than you had before.
The result is that the U.S. is trying to fight a war with their hands tied by political correctness, which has allowed Afghanistan’s opium harvest to more than double since 2002, the proceeds of which are often used to purchase weapons that in turn kill U.S. troops.
For terrorist organizers, the millions of poor, hungry and uneducated common folk of Latin America are the new recruiting targets of choice. Latin Americans are especially susceptible to Islamist conversion because Spain was a Muslim country for over 700 years. Because of Latin America’s shared common ancestry with Spain, radical Islam can be made more appealing by marketing it as the religion of their ancestors. “Islam is in your blood.”
The problem of militant Islam has also become a hornet’s nest in U.S. federal prisons, where 9% of inmates request Islamic services, most of whom are African American. The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) is one of two officially recognized certifiers of Muslim chaplains and the only organization that has been authorized to endorse Muslim chaplains to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. This is the same ISNA that was named in a U.S. District Court in Dallas, TX as an un-indicted co-conspirator with the Holy Land Foundation for raising money for the terrorist group Hamas.
While the Clinton Administration turned a politically correct blind eye to the problem of radical prison chaplains, President Bush has put a hold the ISNA’s ability to endorse Muslim chaplains for services. While that is a good first step, it has also reduced the number of moderate Muslim chaplains who move on and are not replaced.
The vacuum has created more inmate led services called “Prison Islam” that moderate Muslim chaplains are warning us about. Prison Islam, is an undirected form of extreme Islam that is influenced by prison gangs who pressure prisoners to come under it’s wing of protection through the use of threats.
The FBI warns that many prisoners are now leaving prison “with extreme Islamist views.” While they may not be converted to actual terrorists while in prison, the danger is that they will seek out extremist mosques upon release and be vulnerable to further radicalization. Being that history is known to repeat itself, we could soon experience our own wave of ex-con and illegal alien suicide bombings.
Saddam Hussein personally invested over $10 million U.S. dollars in bounties for the families of “successful suicide bombers” with awards ranging from $25,000 to $40,000. Imagine what would happen if we prematurely pulled out of Iraq and let insurgents control the world’s third largest oil reserves.
The billions of dollars terrorists would control could not only pay suicide bomber bounties, but also pay for a higher class of weapons, including nuclear and dirty bomb materials. Once smuggled into the U.S., the loss of life could be staggering and our economy would easily be brought to it’s knees before the altar of radical Islam, which fits comfortably within Mahdistic theology, the messianic doctrine of militant Islam, which also drives Iran’s current foreign policy, and probably its nuclear policy as well.
The Al-Imam al-Mahdi is the prophesized messiah of both the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam. While the Sunni’s believe the Mahdi has yet to appear, the Shiites believe that he appeared in past history and will again be revealed at his glorious advent.
In a nutshell, this apocalyptic branch of theology teaches: “The world will not come to an end until a man from the descendants of Husayn takes charge of the affairs of the world.” The Mahdi will “defend Islam" and first rule “over the Arabs” before becoming the global ruler.
“When the Master of the Age appears,” he will “rule for seven years” just before “The Day of Resurrection” and “will offer the religion of Islam to the Jews and the Christians; if they accept it they will be spared, otherwise they will be killed.” To assure that other nations do not become an obstacle, he will negotiate “a Treaty of Non-interference with the Rulers.”
While a growing number suspect that Barrack Hussein Obama is the descendent of Husayn spoken of here, I don’t agree. My various theological reasons for this are touched on in our Community Forum under the blog line “Is Obama the antichrist?”
One doesn’t have to be a biblical scholar to recognize the numerous and ominous parallels between Christian and Mahdistic theology. Most striking is the Christian belief in an Anti-Christ that reigns during Israel’s seven year tribulation and the Mahdi, which is also to rule seven years and bring tribulation upon Israel for its unbelief in Mohammed.
If Jihadist Islamists are successful at converting Latino and Black martyrs through Mahdistic theology, a race war could ignite within America’s borders that would make the days of segregation pale in comparison.
The U.S. waited for the tragedy of 9/11 before installing bullet-proof cockpit doors to help secure the cockpits of America’s airplanes. What tragedy awaits the U.S. before she is forced to truly secure America’s borders and federal prisons?
Lance Hunter Voorhees is a political columnist and former radio co-host of “A.M. Big Country.” Feel free to email Lance@TheLanceReports.com or visit his new Blog at http://www.thelancereports.com/ © 2008 Lance Hunter Voorhees
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Gay Marriage Isn't Fabulous?
Gay Marriage Isn't Fabulous?
What does Star Trek’s Mr. Sulu and talk show host Ellen DeGeneres have in common?
They plan on marrying this year, but not each other.
The two gay celebrities intend to tie the knot with their same-sex partners thanks to four California Supreme Court judges who overruled over 4 million voters that passed Proposition 22, a referendum which defined legal marriage as only between a man and a woman.
The court upheld San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer’s ruling that California statutes banning same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. Kramer added that “no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite sex partners.”
Logical reasons exist on both sides of most arguments from abortion to zoophilia. To imply no rational reasons exist for preserving the traditional institution of marriage exposes Kramer’s lack of objectivity and bias. Judge Kramer is guilty of legislating from the bench — one more in a line of justices that have come out of the gay rights closet wearing pink colored glasses though which the view the law.
While the average citizen isn’t in the position to reason with a judge on these issues, we are capable of presenting reasonable positions to our friends and associates. When attempting to do so, it’s good to remember that religion over reason isn’t usually your best bet.
Quoting the homosexual prohibitions in 1 Corinthians 6:9 or Romans 1:27 could lead to a debate over whether you believe planting “a field with two kinds of seed” violates the decree of God (Lev 19:19) or whether you support stoning children who curse their parents (Lev 20:9). The adage that “the Bible says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” just won’t cut it in today’s culture war.
People whose arguments rely on cultural catch phrases like, “it’s wrong to discriminate” and “you can’t legislate morality” are relatively easy to handle if they’re open minded. They forget that laws by their very nature are designed to discriminate.
Laws against nudism — a victimless crime — discriminate against people who prefer to hang out in their birthday suits. Most would support laws that force the school crossing guard to wear more than a hand-held stop sign. Laws against necrophiliacs and cannibals also discriminate, defining through legislation as to what is and is not moral for our culture.
Consider the case of the Rotenburg Cannibal, Armin Meiwes, who advertised on his “Cannibal Café” website for a gay man willing “to be slaughtered and then consumed.” His victim was arguably not a victim, folks, he was a “volunteer” who allowed the entire process to be captured on video.
While this is an extreme example, it can be argued that laws against this breed of behavior violate the gay and civil rights of consenting adults. If you support laws against voluntary cannibalism then you, my friend, believe in legislating morality as do most Americans. We live in a democratic republic where society resolves what is legally immoral, it doesn’t mean our collective views are valid for every culture.
When I worked in Hollywood’s entertainment industry, I made many gay friends. They were some of the most compassionate, fun and intelligent people I have ever met. The gay couple that lived next door consisted of an executive who worked for Playboy (he said about 25% of the men at Playboy are gay) and his boyfriend who would sometimes dress like a woman and sing show tunes.
The couple often took care of one of their nephews and were attentive, warm and encouraging to the youngster. While I don’t hold that gay people can’t make even better parents than many heterosexual couples, I just don’t believe these types of marriages are best for our society as a whole.
My experience is that children raised by both biological parents have advantages over their counterparts. These children historically have higher self-esteem, do better in school and stay out of jail at a higher rate. Nuclear families are a dying breed thanks to high divorce rates and out of wedlock births. Approximately 21% of U.S. households are traditional nuclear families, which is down from the 1970 statistic of 40%. It’s simply in our best interest to support and promote the traditional family model.
Allowing gay marriage or forcing counties or states to recognize such marriages promotes the gay agenda, further chipping away at the traditional family. Youngsters that are beginning to mold their sexual identities are no longer that surprised when they see the openly lesbian couple in school, or that Danny has two daddies. Children who are on the fence sexually are more likely to experiment with same-sex relationships if they are told by educators and entertainers that this is normal and natural.
When I was in Jr. High, my friends and I wanted to model The Fonz on the “family friendly” show Happy Days by making out with any girl who was willing and then divulge the details to our chums — that was how to prove we were real men. Today’s teens have even more extreme examples of masculinity to follow.
The late night Girls Gone Wild infomercials are perfect examples of an entertainment centered culture that graphically pushes teen promiscuity, lesbianism and overall drunken debauchery. Today’s example of Superman bedding Lois Lane and fostering a child out of wedlock is considered mild in comparison. Can you imagine Ward and June Cleaver getting away with something like that on Leave It To Beaver?
Today’s TV shows and movies lower the bar every year. Cross-dressers and gay characters passionately kissing are the new norm; an in your face trend which is championed by a swelling list of rock stars and Hollywood celebrities — remember Brittany Spears and Madonna?
The gay lifestyle is a physically and emotionally dangerous lifestyle, especially for children. In one study, 47% of teens that identified as gay or lesbian have seriously considered suicide and 36% have made suicide attempts. Certain sexually transmitted diseases are especially rampant in the gay teen community, such as HIV and AIDS.
The Advocate, probably the most well known gay publication, published the following admission:
“Our community, the gay and lesbian community – and I particularly fault gay men here – has done nothing to try to help our youth. Gay men view these boys as recreational toys to be used. I have heard many stories of HIV-positive men having sex with boys. They don’t think it matters.”
If gay marriage becomes the norm, adolescent males could look at experimenting with an adult male the same way they would look at expermienting with an adult female — “just another sexual experience.” The thing is, there are not a lot of adult women knocking on the doors of more than willing, hormone driven boys looking for such an experience.
Those that truly believe the law has no right to interfere with same-sex marriages should be consistent in their beliefs and support the rights of polygamists who desire multiple wives and women who prefer to marry man’s best friend over the man — I’m talking Rover here.
By resisting efforts to legalize gay marriage, you are protecting not just the institution of marriage, but you’re also sheilding our youth from getting caught up in the pro-gay media blitz — a purposeful campagin that seeks to destroy the institution of tradional marriage, which will in the end reduce the chances of future generations from experiencing a tradional family of their own.
Lance Hunter Voorhees is a political columnist and former radio co-host of “A.M. Big Country.” Feel free to email Lance@TheLanceReports.com or visit his new Blog at www.TheLanceReports.com © 2008 Lance Hunter Voorhees
What does Star Trek’s Mr. Sulu and talk show host Ellen DeGeneres have in common?
They plan on marrying this year, but not each other.
The two gay celebrities intend to tie the knot with their same-sex partners thanks to four California Supreme Court judges who overruled over 4 million voters that passed Proposition 22, a referendum which defined legal marriage as only between a man and a woman.
The court upheld San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer’s ruling that California statutes banning same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. Kramer added that “no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite sex partners.”
Logical reasons exist on both sides of most arguments from abortion to zoophilia. To imply no rational reasons exist for preserving the traditional institution of marriage exposes Kramer’s lack of objectivity and bias. Judge Kramer is guilty of legislating from the bench — one more in a line of justices that have come out of the gay rights closet wearing pink colored glasses though which the view the law.
While the average citizen isn’t in the position to reason with a judge on these issues, we are capable of presenting reasonable positions to our friends and associates. When attempting to do so, it’s good to remember that religion over reason isn’t usually your best bet.
Quoting the homosexual prohibitions in 1 Corinthians 6:9 or Romans 1:27 could lead to a debate over whether you believe planting “a field with two kinds of seed” violates the decree of God (Lev 19:19) or whether you support stoning children who curse their parents (Lev 20:9). The adage that “the Bible says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” just won’t cut it in today’s culture war.
People whose arguments rely on cultural catch phrases like, “it’s wrong to discriminate” and “you can’t legislate morality” are relatively easy to handle if they’re open minded. They forget that laws by their very nature are designed to discriminate.
Laws against nudism — a victimless crime — discriminate against people who prefer to hang out in their birthday suits. Most would support laws that force the school crossing guard to wear more than a hand-held stop sign. Laws against necrophiliacs and cannibals also discriminate, defining through legislation as to what is and is not moral for our culture.
Consider the case of the Rotenburg Cannibal, Armin Meiwes, who advertised on his “Cannibal Café” website for a gay man willing “to be slaughtered and then consumed.” His victim was arguably not a victim, folks, he was a “volunteer” who allowed the entire process to be captured on video.
While this is an extreme example, it can be argued that laws against this breed of behavior violate the gay and civil rights of consenting adults. If you support laws against voluntary cannibalism then you, my friend, believe in legislating morality as do most Americans. We live in a democratic republic where society resolves what is legally immoral, it doesn’t mean our collective views are valid for every culture.
When I worked in Hollywood’s entertainment industry, I made many gay friends. They were some of the most compassionate, fun and intelligent people I have ever met. The gay couple that lived next door consisted of an executive who worked for Playboy (he said about 25% of the men at Playboy are gay) and his boyfriend who would sometimes dress like a woman and sing show tunes.
The couple often took care of one of their nephews and were attentive, warm and encouraging to the youngster. While I don’t hold that gay people can’t make even better parents than many heterosexual couples, I just don’t believe these types of marriages are best for our society as a whole.
My experience is that children raised by both biological parents have advantages over their counterparts. These children historically have higher self-esteem, do better in school and stay out of jail at a higher rate. Nuclear families are a dying breed thanks to high divorce rates and out of wedlock births. Approximately 21% of U.S. households are traditional nuclear families, which is down from the 1970 statistic of 40%. It’s simply in our best interest to support and promote the traditional family model.
Allowing gay marriage or forcing counties or states to recognize such marriages promotes the gay agenda, further chipping away at the traditional family. Youngsters that are beginning to mold their sexual identities are no longer that surprised when they see the openly lesbian couple in school, or that Danny has two daddies. Children who are on the fence sexually are more likely to experiment with same-sex relationships if they are told by educators and entertainers that this is normal and natural.
When I was in Jr. High, my friends and I wanted to model The Fonz on the “family friendly” show Happy Days by making out with any girl who was willing and then divulge the details to our chums — that was how to prove we were real men. Today’s teens have even more extreme examples of masculinity to follow.
The late night Girls Gone Wild infomercials are perfect examples of an entertainment centered culture that graphically pushes teen promiscuity, lesbianism and overall drunken debauchery. Today’s example of Superman bedding Lois Lane and fostering a child out of wedlock is considered mild in comparison. Can you imagine Ward and June Cleaver getting away with something like that on Leave It To Beaver?
Today’s TV shows and movies lower the bar every year. Cross-dressers and gay characters passionately kissing are the new norm; an in your face trend which is championed by a swelling list of rock stars and Hollywood celebrities — remember Brittany Spears and Madonna?
The gay lifestyle is a physically and emotionally dangerous lifestyle, especially for children. In one study, 47% of teens that identified as gay or lesbian have seriously considered suicide and 36% have made suicide attempts. Certain sexually transmitted diseases are especially rampant in the gay teen community, such as HIV and AIDS.
The Advocate, probably the most well known gay publication, published the following admission:
“Our community, the gay and lesbian community – and I particularly fault gay men here – has done nothing to try to help our youth. Gay men view these boys as recreational toys to be used. I have heard many stories of HIV-positive men having sex with boys. They don’t think it matters.”
If gay marriage becomes the norm, adolescent males could look at experimenting with an adult male the same way they would look at expermienting with an adult female — “just another sexual experience.” The thing is, there are not a lot of adult women knocking on the doors of more than willing, hormone driven boys looking for such an experience.
Those that truly believe the law has no right to interfere with same-sex marriages should be consistent in their beliefs and support the rights of polygamists who desire multiple wives and women who prefer to marry man’s best friend over the man — I’m talking Rover here.
By resisting efforts to legalize gay marriage, you are protecting not just the institution of marriage, but you’re also sheilding our youth from getting caught up in the pro-gay media blitz — a purposeful campagin that seeks to destroy the institution of tradional marriage, which will in the end reduce the chances of future generations from experiencing a tradional family of their own.
Lance Hunter Voorhees is a political columnist and former radio co-host of “A.M. Big Country.” Feel free to email Lance@TheLanceReports.com or visit his new Blog at www.TheLanceReports.com © 2008 Lance Hunter Voorhees
Will Conservatives Help Obama Win?
Right On Target
With Lance Hunter Voorhees
For all intents and purposes, it’s a two-man race for the presidency. John McCain and Barrack Obama will rally the majority of their respective party members behind them, but both will have to temper their rhetoric to siphon off independents.
The danger for McCain is that many social conservatives are planning to abandon the Republican ship and either vote Libertarian or simply sit this one out. Die-hard conservatives are in a quandary over whether to support the lesser of two evils (McCain) or to sit back and watch Obama bag himself a RINO (Republican in Name Only).
To do nothing to thwart Obama and simply pray that a conservative messiah will appear in 2013 to establish a Republican White House just doesn’t cut it.
True-blue conservatives realize McCain is hawkish on foreign policy but dovish on the environment and weak on immigration and First Amendment rights, which leaves a bad taste in Republican palates.
McCain has raised the blood pressure of many Republicans by his salty, cafeteria-style conservatism. “I’ll have a green global warming sandwich — hold the tax cuts, an order of Middle Eastern war and a child’s portion of free speech smothered in campaign finance reform.”
Senator McCain’s ping-pong style voting record has bounced between conservatism and liberalism for years causing the American Conservative Union in 2006 to rank 46 other U.S. Senators as more conservative.
McCain’s conservative repelling statements are becoming infamous and his history of sponsoring big government legislation flies in the face of basic Republican ideals. McCain could easily double as a Democrat and according to many, McCain considered switching parties to become John Kerry’s Democratic vice presidential running mate in 2000. But McCain’s Dem tendencies didn’t stop there.
According to columnist Arianna Huffington, an angry McCain and his wife Cindy admitted to her that they didn’t even vote for fellow Republican George Bush in the 2000 general election — McCain’s definitely not a team player, he’s a maverick.
During the primary season, McCain sold himself as a super-hero conservative. Now that he has won the Republican contest, it is all about winning over independents and moderate Democrats. McCain is now in the market for donkeys, not pachyderms.
McCain knows no conservative in his right mind will vote for Obama so he is hedging his bets that he can tread deeper into leftist waters to fish for independents, but stay just shallow enough to not deeply offend most Republicans. For McCain, it’s a numbers game.
McCain now packages himself as The Green Lantern, selling himself as a tree-hugging crusader lighting the way to eco-friendliness, who equates drilling in Alaska’s ANWR to drilling in the Grand Canyon, “This is one of the most pristine and beautiful parts of the world.”
If that isn’t hard enough for conservatives to swallow, McCain tarnished his pro-life voting record by filing a legal brief with the Supreme Court in a failed attempt to silence Wisconsin Right To Life and to keep other corporations like them from mentioning a candidate by name within 60 days of an election. McCain basically said, “to hell with the First Amendment!”
McCain has demeritoriously damaged the cause of conservatism and as a result, many won’t be willing to grit their teeth and cast a vote for him in November. That being said…
I’m voting for John McCain.
Right wing Republicans that abstain from voting or choose to throw their strategical ballot away on a third party candidate may vault Obama to victory come November. Conservatives who don’t employ solid political strategy to defeat Obama could indirectly assist Obama’s dangerous agenda and cost millions of American lives.
The two most important responsibilities of a U.S. President are to appoint federal judges and to be commander in chief. Obama is quite open in that he is willing to fail miserably at both of these pivotal responsibilities — my words, not his.
America is just one Supreme Court justice away from overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion. For conservatives to discount this fact and let Obama slide in to home plate without even attempting to throw him out is to risk the future lives of millions of unborn children.
If given the opportunity, McCain promises to appoint Supreme Court justices in the vein of “strict constructionists” like Samuel Alito and John Roberts. While I don’t trust McCain to make good on his word, I do trust Obama in that he will appoint justices who like himself support partial-birth abortion and even the killing of children who survive their mother’s abortion procedure.
Obama failed to support the Illinois Born Alive Protection Act that would have outlawed abandoning infants that survive an abortion, leaving them to die. He did this even after hearing the testimony of Jill Stanek, a registered nurse who witnessed babies “being aborted alive and shelved to die in the soiled utility room.”
Obama has proven to be heartless on the abortion issue, but with McCain, we at least have an opportunity to alter the complexion of the Supreme Court just enough to rescind Roe v. Wade. Pro-lifers have waited 35 years for this chance and to sit this one out or vote for someone other than McCain could set the pro-life movement back indefinitely.
Many blame the Germans for passively sitting back and letting approximately 11 million Jews, Catholics and gypsies die in the Holocaust. Shouldn’t it be a priority for us to do everything we can to stop the American Holocaust that has extinguished the lives of over 35 million unborn? Think about it. That is an average of a million Americans each year.
Conservative apathy this election cycle could not only endanger the unborn, but our military and citizenry as well. Obama is determined to emasculate our U.S military and leave us vulnerable to the enemies of peace. Does it make sense to put a progressive socialist in charge of the greatest democracy in history and hand him the reigns to an unparalleled military force?
Just listen to the words of Obama, the man who could be our military’s next commander in chief:
“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems, I will not weaponize space, I will slow our development of future combat systems…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 ICBM’s off hair trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”
Obama has launched his campaign from a foundation of progressive socialism and anti-Americanism. If the Democrats retain control of the House and Senate, Obama could do irreparable damage to our country.
To those conservatives who refuse to vote McCain I would say, “I truly feel your pain,” but if you have convinced yourselves that you are sticking to your principles by not joining forces with moderate Republicans to defeat Obama, how can you expect moderates to join us and support conservative candidates in the future?
To angrily scoop up our toys and walk out of the political sandbox because our guy didn’t win the primary is shortsighted. Sticking to your principles doesn’t mean sticking your head in the sand.
Lance Hunter Voorhees is a political columnist and former radio co-host of “A.M. Big Country.” Feel free to email Lance@TheLanceReports.com or visit his new Blog at www.TheLanceReports.com © 2008 Lance Hunter Voorhees
With Lance Hunter Voorhees
For all intents and purposes, it’s a two-man race for the presidency. John McCain and Barrack Obama will rally the majority of their respective party members behind them, but both will have to temper their rhetoric to siphon off independents.
The danger for McCain is that many social conservatives are planning to abandon the Republican ship and either vote Libertarian or simply sit this one out. Die-hard conservatives are in a quandary over whether to support the lesser of two evils (McCain) or to sit back and watch Obama bag himself a RINO (Republican in Name Only).
To do nothing to thwart Obama and simply pray that a conservative messiah will appear in 2013 to establish a Republican White House just doesn’t cut it.
True-blue conservatives realize McCain is hawkish on foreign policy but dovish on the environment and weak on immigration and First Amendment rights, which leaves a bad taste in Republican palates.
McCain has raised the blood pressure of many Republicans by his salty, cafeteria-style conservatism. “I’ll have a green global warming sandwich — hold the tax cuts, an order of Middle Eastern war and a child’s portion of free speech smothered in campaign finance reform.”
Senator McCain’s ping-pong style voting record has bounced between conservatism and liberalism for years causing the American Conservative Union in 2006 to rank 46 other U.S. Senators as more conservative.
McCain’s conservative repelling statements are becoming infamous and his history of sponsoring big government legislation flies in the face of basic Republican ideals. McCain could easily double as a Democrat and according to many, McCain considered switching parties to become John Kerry’s Democratic vice presidential running mate in 2000. But McCain’s Dem tendencies didn’t stop there.
According to columnist Arianna Huffington, an angry McCain and his wife Cindy admitted to her that they didn’t even vote for fellow Republican George Bush in the 2000 general election — McCain’s definitely not a team player, he’s a maverick.
During the primary season, McCain sold himself as a super-hero conservative. Now that he has won the Republican contest, it is all about winning over independents and moderate Democrats. McCain is now in the market for donkeys, not pachyderms.
McCain knows no conservative in his right mind will vote for Obama so he is hedging his bets that he can tread deeper into leftist waters to fish for independents, but stay just shallow enough to not deeply offend most Republicans. For McCain, it’s a numbers game.
McCain now packages himself as The Green Lantern, selling himself as a tree-hugging crusader lighting the way to eco-friendliness, who equates drilling in Alaska’s ANWR to drilling in the Grand Canyon, “This is one of the most pristine and beautiful parts of the world.”
If that isn’t hard enough for conservatives to swallow, McCain tarnished his pro-life voting record by filing a legal brief with the Supreme Court in a failed attempt to silence Wisconsin Right To Life and to keep other corporations like them from mentioning a candidate by name within 60 days of an election. McCain basically said, “to hell with the First Amendment!”
McCain has demeritoriously damaged the cause of conservatism and as a result, many won’t be willing to grit their teeth and cast a vote for him in November. That being said…
I’m voting for John McCain.
Right wing Republicans that abstain from voting or choose to throw their strategical ballot away on a third party candidate may vault Obama to victory come November. Conservatives who don’t employ solid political strategy to defeat Obama could indirectly assist Obama’s dangerous agenda and cost millions of American lives.
The two most important responsibilities of a U.S. President are to appoint federal judges and to be commander in chief. Obama is quite open in that he is willing to fail miserably at both of these pivotal responsibilities — my words, not his.
America is just one Supreme Court justice away from overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion. For conservatives to discount this fact and let Obama slide in to home plate without even attempting to throw him out is to risk the future lives of millions of unborn children.
If given the opportunity, McCain promises to appoint Supreme Court justices in the vein of “strict constructionists” like Samuel Alito and John Roberts. While I don’t trust McCain to make good on his word, I do trust Obama in that he will appoint justices who like himself support partial-birth abortion and even the killing of children who survive their mother’s abortion procedure.
Obama failed to support the Illinois Born Alive Protection Act that would have outlawed abandoning infants that survive an abortion, leaving them to die. He did this even after hearing the testimony of Jill Stanek, a registered nurse who witnessed babies “being aborted alive and shelved to die in the soiled utility room.”
Obama has proven to be heartless on the abortion issue, but with McCain, we at least have an opportunity to alter the complexion of the Supreme Court just enough to rescind Roe v. Wade. Pro-lifers have waited 35 years for this chance and to sit this one out or vote for someone other than McCain could set the pro-life movement back indefinitely.
Many blame the Germans for passively sitting back and letting approximately 11 million Jews, Catholics and gypsies die in the Holocaust. Shouldn’t it be a priority for us to do everything we can to stop the American Holocaust that has extinguished the lives of over 35 million unborn? Think about it. That is an average of a million Americans each year.
Conservative apathy this election cycle could not only endanger the unborn, but our military and citizenry as well. Obama is determined to emasculate our U.S military and leave us vulnerable to the enemies of peace. Does it make sense to put a progressive socialist in charge of the greatest democracy in history and hand him the reigns to an unparalleled military force?
Just listen to the words of Obama, the man who could be our military’s next commander in chief:
“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems, I will not weaponize space, I will slow our development of future combat systems…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 ICBM’s off hair trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”
Obama has launched his campaign from a foundation of progressive socialism and anti-Americanism. If the Democrats retain control of the House and Senate, Obama could do irreparable damage to our country.
To those conservatives who refuse to vote McCain I would say, “I truly feel your pain,” but if you have convinced yourselves that you are sticking to your principles by not joining forces with moderate Republicans to defeat Obama, how can you expect moderates to join us and support conservative candidates in the future?
To angrily scoop up our toys and walk out of the political sandbox because our guy didn’t win the primary is shortsighted. Sticking to your principles doesn’t mean sticking your head in the sand.
Lance Hunter Voorhees is a political columnist and former radio co-host of “A.M. Big Country.” Feel free to email Lance@TheLanceReports.com or visit his new Blog at www.TheLanceReports.com © 2008 Lance Hunter Voorhees
Saturday, August 9, 2008
The Iraqi Invasion Equation
Convicted chemical weapons murderer, Dr. Hannibal Lector, is out on parole. He is suspected of making chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. As sheriff, you obtain a search warrant. After delaying you at the door for several years, Lector finally lets you in but refuses to let you search his garage. What are your options?
A. Ignore Hannibal’s history of deception and hope this time he is telling the truth.
B. Spend several more months negotiating, hoping that the good doctor sees the light and capitulates.
C. Use necessary force to search the entire property and arrest Lector for violating his probation.
Those that think the U.S. invasion and search of Iraq was unjustified would have to answer “B” if applying their same rules of logic, which aren’t logical at all. With the consent of Congress, President Bush legally chose “C” and employed necessary force to ensure that Saddam wasn’t stockpiling anthrax and developing other weapons of mass destruction, specifically nuclear weapons.
“Don’t exaggerate,” you say? “Saddam didn’t have nuclear capability and he’s definitely no Hannibal.” How does approving torture by forced self-cannibalism, acid baths and amputations strike you? This is just a partial list of the Hussein regime’s sixteen confirmed violations of The Hague and Geneva conventions.
“Prove it,” you say? Well take that up with former President Clinton whose administration released documentation of these crimes in March of ’93.
Being guilty of war crimes before and during Gulf War I, Saddam was basically put on probation via U.S. and U.N. imposed sanctions. If Saddam behaved himself and allowed regular U.N. weapons inspections, he could avoid being dethroned through force.
When weapons inspectors came knocking, Saddam used delaying tactics and limited the scope of their search, thus violating his parole. For almost two decades, the global community let Saddam get away with a deadly game of hide-and-seek as he thumbed his nose at the world…then came George W. Bush.
In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush claimed Saddam had attempted to acquire African yellowcake uranium in violation of U.N. sanctions. Bush cited an intelligence report from the British to drive home his point that Iraq was a clear and present danger. This key piece of intelligence was later shown to be false.
Smelling blood, in came the pack of bloodthirsty Bush detractors, seizing the opportunity to paint the President as a trigger-happy cowboy willing to lie to stake his claim for Iraqi oil. Even John Kerry, in his Democratic convention speech, implied that our commander in chief misled us into war.
Media darlings like Michael Moore gave Democrats a pass for coming to the same conclusion as the Bush Administration, namely that Saddam had a WMD program. Bush is now accused of deceiving John Kerry and gang to get them to support the war. That’s the real lie. Democratic leaders accused Saddam of harboring weapons of mass destruction long before George W. Bush came into office.
Consider the following:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
It is nothing less than hypocritical for John Kerry to imply that our President misled us into war.” Did Kerry conveniently forget that Iraq had previously produced anthrax, botulinum toxin and ricin and couldn’t account for where some of it disappeared to?
Kerry also knew that in 1982 Iraqi scientists already had a nuclear weapon design small enough to fit on one of their Skud type missiles. During the 80’s, Saddam purchased 270 tons of uranium oxide from Niger to make his design functional. Missing were certain components that were needed to detonate the uranium, which Saddam was enriching to become weapons grade. According to U.N. weapons inspectors, we know that the Iraqis once possessed 1300 grams of weapons grade uranium and that their design only needed 15 to 18 kilograms to become functional.
Saddam had been well on his way to approaching nuclear capability. Israel’s response to Saddam’s nuclear program was a bombing raid that destroyed the Osiraq nuclear plant near Baghdad. The plant had been built with the help of the French, who by the way own both companies that mine the uranium in Niger. For those that don’t know, Niger is the third largest exporter of uranium in the world. Although they are a brother Muslim country to Iraq, their official language is French. Maybe you can see now why the French were against us invading Iraq. They knew it would put a strain on their pocket book.
As a matter of fact, the French, as well as the Russians, were doing billions of dollars in business with Iraq prior to the second Gulf War. Hell would have frozen over before America was going to get their permission to invade Iraq. The liberal’s call for Bush to wait for an international consortium was unrealistic and dangerous. Besides, I don’t see anywhere in the U.S. Constitution where it says we need to get permission from other countries before engaging in military action, do you?
After sifting through a variety of intelligence, the Bush Administration concluded there was enough actionable intelligence to move forward. The bad piece of intelligence from the Brits wasn’t the only factor. As a matter of fact, it was later confirmed in January of this year that Iraq’s information minister, alias Baghdad Bob, was in Niger in 1999 to discuss trade, the details of which have not been confirmed. History tells us what Saddam was interested in.
What do you do, George Bush, wait until we have another September 11th type attack? Do you wait until we have a nuclear or chemical Pearl Harbor? No. You go in and get the job done. You take out Saddam Hussein, the same Saddam that publicly admitted to paying out thousands of dollars in ransom money to suicide bombers that have killed many of our allies and even some Americans.
President Bush is repeatedly criticized for taking preemptive action against Saddam Hussein and impugned for not preempting al-Qaida’s attacks. He’s the President, folks, not a telepath. You can’t have it both ways.
We should be proud of our President for making the right call against Saddam and for the courage to see it through even when it’s become unpopular with so many. This war has been a just war. George W. Bush would have been unwise to gamble that Saddam was not spending his billions pursuing nuclear and other WMD programs.
May it cost George Bush the election? Yes it may. That’s a price our President may have to pay unless America wakes up. We can not afford to again become what the Japanese called us at Pearl Harbor, a “sleeping giant.”
By Lance Hunter Voorhees
Copyright © 2004-2008 by Lance Hunter Voorhees – All Rights Reserved
A. Ignore Hannibal’s history of deception and hope this time he is telling the truth.
B. Spend several more months negotiating, hoping that the good doctor sees the light and capitulates.
C. Use necessary force to search the entire property and arrest Lector for violating his probation.
Those that think the U.S. invasion and search of Iraq was unjustified would have to answer “B” if applying their same rules of logic, which aren’t logical at all. With the consent of Congress, President Bush legally chose “C” and employed necessary force to ensure that Saddam wasn’t stockpiling anthrax and developing other weapons of mass destruction, specifically nuclear weapons.
“Don’t exaggerate,” you say? “Saddam didn’t have nuclear capability and he’s definitely no Hannibal.” How does approving torture by forced self-cannibalism, acid baths and amputations strike you? This is just a partial list of the Hussein regime’s sixteen confirmed violations of The Hague and Geneva conventions.
“Prove it,” you say? Well take that up with former President Clinton whose administration released documentation of these crimes in March of ’93.
Being guilty of war crimes before and during Gulf War I, Saddam was basically put on probation via U.S. and U.N. imposed sanctions. If Saddam behaved himself and allowed regular U.N. weapons inspections, he could avoid being dethroned through force.
When weapons inspectors came knocking, Saddam used delaying tactics and limited the scope of their search, thus violating his parole. For almost two decades, the global community let Saddam get away with a deadly game of hide-and-seek as he thumbed his nose at the world…then came George W. Bush.
In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush claimed Saddam had attempted to acquire African yellowcake uranium in violation of U.N. sanctions. Bush cited an intelligence report from the British to drive home his point that Iraq was a clear and present danger. This key piece of intelligence was later shown to be false.
Smelling blood, in came the pack of bloodthirsty Bush detractors, seizing the opportunity to paint the President as a trigger-happy cowboy willing to lie to stake his claim for Iraqi oil. Even John Kerry, in his Democratic convention speech, implied that our commander in chief misled us into war.
Media darlings like Michael Moore gave Democrats a pass for coming to the same conclusion as the Bush Administration, namely that Saddam had a WMD program. Bush is now accused of deceiving John Kerry and gang to get them to support the war. That’s the real lie. Democratic leaders accused Saddam of harboring weapons of mass destruction long before George W. Bush came into office.
Consider the following:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
It is nothing less than hypocritical for John Kerry to imply that our President misled us into war.” Did Kerry conveniently forget that Iraq had previously produced anthrax, botulinum toxin and ricin and couldn’t account for where some of it disappeared to?
Kerry also knew that in 1982 Iraqi scientists already had a nuclear weapon design small enough to fit on one of their Skud type missiles. During the 80’s, Saddam purchased 270 tons of uranium oxide from Niger to make his design functional. Missing were certain components that were needed to detonate the uranium, which Saddam was enriching to become weapons grade. According to U.N. weapons inspectors, we know that the Iraqis once possessed 1300 grams of weapons grade uranium and that their design only needed 15 to 18 kilograms to become functional.
Saddam had been well on his way to approaching nuclear capability. Israel’s response to Saddam’s nuclear program was a bombing raid that destroyed the Osiraq nuclear plant near Baghdad. The plant had been built with the help of the French, who by the way own both companies that mine the uranium in Niger. For those that don’t know, Niger is the third largest exporter of uranium in the world. Although they are a brother Muslim country to Iraq, their official language is French. Maybe you can see now why the French were against us invading Iraq. They knew it would put a strain on their pocket book.
As a matter of fact, the French, as well as the Russians, were doing billions of dollars in business with Iraq prior to the second Gulf War. Hell would have frozen over before America was going to get their permission to invade Iraq. The liberal’s call for Bush to wait for an international consortium was unrealistic and dangerous. Besides, I don’t see anywhere in the U.S. Constitution where it says we need to get permission from other countries before engaging in military action, do you?
After sifting through a variety of intelligence, the Bush Administration concluded there was enough actionable intelligence to move forward. The bad piece of intelligence from the Brits wasn’t the only factor. As a matter of fact, it was later confirmed in January of this year that Iraq’s information minister, alias Baghdad Bob, was in Niger in 1999 to discuss trade, the details of which have not been confirmed. History tells us what Saddam was interested in.
What do you do, George Bush, wait until we have another September 11th type attack? Do you wait until we have a nuclear or chemical Pearl Harbor? No. You go in and get the job done. You take out Saddam Hussein, the same Saddam that publicly admitted to paying out thousands of dollars in ransom money to suicide bombers that have killed many of our allies and even some Americans.
President Bush is repeatedly criticized for taking preemptive action against Saddam Hussein and impugned for not preempting al-Qaida’s attacks. He’s the President, folks, not a telepath. You can’t have it both ways.
We should be proud of our President for making the right call against Saddam and for the courage to see it through even when it’s become unpopular with so many. This war has been a just war. George W. Bush would have been unwise to gamble that Saddam was not spending his billions pursuing nuclear and other WMD programs.
May it cost George Bush the election? Yes it may. That’s a price our President may have to pay unless America wakes up. We can not afford to again become what the Japanese called us at Pearl Harbor, a “sleeping giant.”
By Lance Hunter Voorhees
Copyright © 2004-2008 by Lance Hunter Voorhees – All Rights Reserved
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
