Terrorist Group Offers To Protect Obama In The West Bank

As reported by World Net Daily, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade has been called upon by the Palestinean Authority to help in the protection of Barack Obama in his tour of the Middle East. Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is listed by the U.S. State Department as a terror organization.

Members of the most active West Bank terror organization are set to serve in security forces being deployed to protect Sen. Barack Obama during his trip to the West Bank tomorrow, WND has learned.

Obama is due to visit Israeli officials in Jerusalem and leaders of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank city of Ramallah as part of a wider Middle Eastern and European tour that includes Jordan, France and Germany.

According to security officials coordinating deployments of forces with the PA for Obama’s Ramallah visit, members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Fatah’s declared military wing, have been called upon by the PA to participate in the protection of Obama, particularly in securing the perimeter during a scheduled meeting with PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

The Brigades is listed as a terror organization by the U.S. State Department. The group took credit along with the Islamic Jihad terror organization for every suicide bombing in Israel between 2005 and 2006 and is responsible for thousands of shootings and rocket firings. Statistically, the Al Aqsa Brigades perpetuated more terrorism from the West Bank than Hamas, according to the Israeli Defense Forces.

Does the fact that a terrorist organization is participating in protecting Barack Obama while in the Middle East give anyone some level of discomfort? The Hamas endorsement several weeks ago was pretty blatant, but does there still remain a question in anyone’s mind that anti-Israel terrorist groups want Obama elected as our next president?

Advertisements

Bush Administration Falls for Polar Bear Gimmick

As originally reported on TownHall.com, the Bush administration took a page from Al Gore’s playbook and named the polar bear to the “threatened species” list because of anticipated losses of the polar bear due to global warming. Computer models show that loss of polar ice caps may degrade the polar bear population down to endangered species levels in approximately 45 years. So by adding the polar bear to the threatened species list, it might slow a population decline if global warming is true.

Of course, these computer models probably aren’t aware that all of the allegedly lost polar ice has now frozen back. Or maybe they didn’t hear any of the latest research that continues to debunk the entire man-made global warming myth. Perhaps the computer just forgot to take into account that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently reports that polar bear populations are on the rise. There are currently between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears, which is up from the low of 5,000 to 10,000 in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Now of course, we should expect the environmental lobby and the EPA to accept any computer model that furthers their agenda of man-made global warming. However, we should not accept the Bush administration recognizing the same kind of computer generated models without asking the hard questions and challenging the “facts” laid out by the environmental lobby. For this, the Bush administration should be ashamed. They have largely given the opponents of legitimate domestic energy production (i.e. Progressives and Democrats) another reason not to explore for any oil or natural gas in the entire state of Alaska. Can’t you just hear Chuck Schumer arguing that drilling in Alaska will threaten the population of polar bears 45 years from now?

Maybe if conservatives and Republicans are lucky, domestic energy production will be at the forefront of the Presidential campaign this year. It’s funny that the main people you hear railing against the U.S. purchasing oil from the Middle East are Democrats, yet Democrats are the main opponents of domestic energy production.

As reported by Gateway Pundit:

Which party blocked the development of new sources of petroleum?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling in ANWR?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off the coast of Florida?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off of the east coast?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off of the west coast?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast?– Democrat
Which party blocked building oil refineries?– Democrat
Which party blocked clean nuclear energy production?– Democrat
Which party blocked clean coal production?– Democrat

We are in very grave danger of being completely dependent on foreign oil because of the Democrats in Washington, and yet the general public blames the Republicans for America’s dependence on foreign oil. Despite the fact that oil is at $127 a barrel, Democrats continue to demonize American oil companies and impede their ability to search for new oil reserves or tap the known reserves that would bring down the global price of oil.

But now, thanks to the pandering by the Bush administration and liberal “environmental friendly” Republicans like John McCain, we might very well see Alaska added to the “No Drilling” zone as well. And all because a computer owned by someone in the environmental lobby told us that there might be fewer polar bears in 2053. Unless this pandering by some on the right stops, the Republicans are heading for a monumental and embarrassing defeat in November.

Iran Uses Apology Letters as Propaganda

In an unprecedented event on September 24, 2007, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad spoke in a public forum at Columbia University. His appearance was both hailed and condemned as it was the first time an openly communist leader was allowed to speak freely on U.S. soil. Interestingly, Lee Bollinger, the Chancellor of Columbia University, not only invited Ahmadinejad to the forum, but introduced him by berating him and his communist policies.

The response by many was rightful condemnation over Iran’s policies towards women, gays, and Israel. Ahmadinejad kept on message during the forum by denying the holocaust and affirming that he felt that the U.S. presence in the Middle East was unwarranted. However, there was a letter-writing contingent in the audience that felt that Ahmadinejad was mistreated and wrongfully criticized by Bollinger. This contingent did what they do best–write apology letters to Iran!

So, now the Iranian Presidential Office has published a book entitled “Dialogue In Iranian Style”, which contains the letters of American Citizens apologizing for the “offensive” behavior of the Chancellor. If this contingent of communist letter-writing sympathizers was consistent in their ideology, shouldn’t letters have be written to all the holocaust survivors in the U.S. for allowing Ahmadinejad to deny the holocaust at a nationally televised forum?

Which is more offensive? Truthfully describing the devastatingly oppressive effects of communism and drawing attention to a culture of human rights violations or denying the reality of the holocaust? Apparently in this day and age, progressives find the truth more offensive than deliberate lies.