Amerisrael
« December 2011 | Main | February 2012 »
With the real possibility that Mitt Romney could actually become the GOP nominee with 'minority' support, because the majority of conservatives are splitting their votes, here is WND founder Joesph Farah's take on Romney from his column in 2010:
["My esteemed friend and colleague Robert Ringer, author of some of the biggest-selling books in modern American history and always insightful analyst, last week wrote a column with the provocative headline, “The most dangerous man in America?”
Like everyone else, I had to click on that one to find out who that was.
Much to my surprise, it was not Barack Obama.
It wasn’t Harry Reid.
It wasn’t Louis Farrakhan.
It wasn’t Jerry Brown.
It wasn’t even Chris Coons.
It wasn’t anyone I might have considered.
Do you know who it was?
It was Mike Huckabee.
Now, I have to tell you, I’ve never thought of Mike Huckabee as the most dangerous man in America. Ringer makes the case that he is a threat because he is the most gifted politician in the country today – charming, funny, good communicator. He’s also a threat, he says, because he could put together a coalition of evangelicals and disaffected Democrats to win the presidency.
While Mike Huckabee has never been at the top of my list of presidential candidates, I have never lost a wink of sleep fretting about him becoming president.
There is, however, someone in the Republican wings, a frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination, by any standard, who worries me sick.
His name is Mitt Romney.
If Mitt Romney were to become the next president, America would be done as an experiment in freedom. We would see this 235-year experiment in liberty perish before our eyes. That’s a guarantee."]
--visit the link above to read the rest at WND.
Think again.
From the Terror Finance blog:
"Their Oil is Thicker Than our Blood"-Rachel Ehrenfeld
Excerpt:
["The December 12, 2011 Iran’s Intelligence Minister Haydar Moslehi met with Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Nayef in Riyadh. Two days later, at the OPEC meeting in Vienna, the Iranians reveled that the Saudis agreed not “to replace Iranian crude if Iran faces any sanctions."
Accommodating their supposedly biggest enemy - the radical Shiite regime in Iran - while betraying their self-proclaimed ally - the United States, is a long held Saudi strategy. Support of radical Islamic regimes and groups helped keep the House of Saud in command.
“Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba) , and other terrorist groups, including Hamas,” read a cable dated December 30, 2009, from United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, This was one of the cables published by Wikileaks in late November 2010.[1]
Another leaked cable, sent from the US Embassy in Riyadh in February 2010, stated that the Saudi interior ministry “remains almost completely dependent on the CIA to provide analytic support and direction for its counterterrorism operations.”[2]
The leaked cables only stated the obvious. Yet the obvious starkly contrasts with the more optimistic story on Saudi counterterrorism efforts, as publicly told by successive American administrations.
Overview: Saudi Arabia— as an Ally in the War on Terrorist Financing
For decades US officials publicly heaped praise on Saudi counterterrorism efforts, while the Saudis continued to fund terrorism.
In a 2003 interview, then-Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said that the American government had expressed its appreciation to the Saudi government for its actions in support of the global war on terrorism.[3] In 2005, during her confirmation hearing to the position of Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice commented that the United States previously “didn’t understand, really, the structure of terrorist financing very well.
We didn’t understand the role of non-governmental organizations that sounded like they were for good purposes but were, in fact, carrying out or funding terrorist activities. Others didn’t understand that, in the Muslim world, like the Saudis. And we have made, I think, great strides in doing that.”[4]
In 2007 US President George Bush certified the Saudi cooperation “with efforts to combat international terrorism.”[5] The Obama Administration followed suit. In July 2009, on a visit to Saudi Arabia, Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner lauded the Saudi government for having “taken important steps to combat financing for terrorist groups” and “to deter and disrupt those who support violent extremism.”[6]
However, some dared to disagree. In September 2007, US Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey told ABC News, “If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia.”[7]"]
--read the rest here.
"...If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia".
Be sure and read the important related post "Not all foreign ivestors Welcome"
Obama regime just announced a plan to further 'hollow out' America's military.- the Right Scoop
The Center for Security Policy responds with an urgent appeal to return to a policy of peace-through-strength:
["The Center for Security Policy calls on the American people and their elected representatives - and those who seek to represent them - categorically to reject the plan for unilateral U.S. disarmament espoused yesterday by President Obama.
Mr. Obama's so-called "revised defense strategy" is a formula for disaster. If even the defense reductions, downsizing and disengagement that it envisions come to pass - let alone those in prospect if the cuts associated with the pending sequestration legislation are imposed - the United States will not simply expose its people, allies and vital interests to attack. It will invite such an attack."]
Obama's further hollowing out of the military will not only expose Americans to attack, it will "invite attack."
--read the rest here.
