Well sure there is a link between the Republican party and foreign oil deals. While McCain wants to continue to drill and buy, Obama seems more intent on conservation and alternatives. It seems option two is smart and in everyone’s best interests. But the Republicans and McCain have a different take.

The New York Times has this to say, after McCain was caught with oil donations:

Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign said Thursday that it would return all the contributions solicited for it by the Jordanian business partner of a prominent Florida fund-raiser for Mr. McCain.

For the McCain camp, the decision caps a queasy two days in which news accounts scrutinized a cluster of more than $50,000 in unusual contributions from a single extended family of Californians, the Abdullahs, and several of their friends.

Of course he’ll give it back. But that won’t change anything. McCain’s energy policy will continue the failed policy currently in place.

As Obama stated, and ridiculed by the Republicans, conservation methods would yield better results than offshore drilling would. From Political Punch:

proper tire inflation will save millions of barrels of oil per year, but that it will save more energy than new off shore drilling would yield.
…
But the salient point is that such measures are serious. Why the Republicans are mocking them at a time of energy crisis seems bizarre.

And don’t forget to check out the article from 1990. Seems bizarre to me in general how the Republicans have handled this issue historically and more importantly, how Americans in general have simply ignored the good, sound advice.

From Wikipedia:

The origins of the doctorate dates back to the ijazat attadris wa ‘l-ifttd (”license to teach and issue legal opinions”) in the medieval Madrasahs from the 9th century, though it was limited to Islamic law at the time, as in a Doctor of Laws degree.[4] … The degree of Doctor of Philosophy was a doctorate, generally granted as honorary degrees to select and well-established scholars

What I find particularly troubling about the US media, reporters, and politicians right now is the latest sensationalism: The evil Madrassas teaching children to hate America! Oh No! I doubt the vast majority of Americans really understand what a Madrassa is.

It is important to note here that there have been negative connotations applied to the word by news reports in Europe and the United States, in which madrasahs are often incorrectly inferred to be Islamic religious schools. Madrasahs are simply schools, and as with schools anywhere in the world, they may have different affiliations and curriculum.

I’m not sure what the psychology is, but this idea that average and non-average Americans alike need to be fearful of a handful of “Islamic” schools in Pakistan is absolutely absurd. The logic is totally fallacious; lazy thinking, lazy reporting, and sensationalism at its best. Meanwhile, inner city schools in the heart of every major city in the US is failing to produce well educated Americans who stay out of crime circles (most of whom would even think about higher education, let alone have it available to them!).

So while it is clear that curriculums around the world vary in extremes, from totally pro-America (perhaps the typical Australian school) to totally anti-American (schools in North Korea), it should also be clear that this will forever be the case as long as our world remains flat. And that the US (reporters and politicians) should not go on scaring the public into believing that the monster really does live under the bed and vacations in the closet.

Yet another example of word associations. For years I have been calling for an end to the association between “Islam” and “Terrorism”. Finally, as I wrote a short time ago, the US Government has called an end to it. One too many pig heads thrown into Mosques, I suppose.

Another not-so-surprising development:

The Sunday Times reports Stephen Payne, a Bush pioneer and a political appointee to the Homeland Security Advisory Council, was caught on tape offering access to key members of the Bush administration inner circle in exchange for “six-figure donations to the private library being set up to commemorate Bush’s presidency.”

Read the story here.

“Bush said that in response to North Korea, the U.S. would erase trade sanctions under the Trading With the Enemy Act and notify Congress that in 45 days it intends to take North Korea off the State Department list of nations that sponsor terrorism.”
Source

So I have one burning question:

Why did the US put North Korea on the terrorism list in the first place? Because they sponsor terrorism or because they had an undocumented nuclear program? Does having nukes automatically qualify you for the list? Surely the problems with North Korea run deeper than this. Right? And, if having a nuke program translates into “sponsoring terrorism”, then I suspect all countries with a nuke program should be candidates for the list.

Oh, then there’s Iran…

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=25370634&#25370634

It is inaccurate to call Barack Obama a Muslim. Is it a slur?

The Obama campaign suggests it is. A new campaign Web site designed to air and rebut potentially damaging Internet rumors reads in one part: “Smear: Barack Obama is a Muslim… Truth: Sen. Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised as a Muslim and is a committed Christian.”

The characterization highlights a tricky balance the campaign is trying to strike: to tamp down false rumors — intended by some to link the Democratic presidential candidate to radical Islam — without offending Muslims and harming his image of inclusiveness.

Muslim-Americans have made up one of Sen. Obama’s most loyal bases of support since he announced his candidacy last year. But lately some Muslims, concentrated in several battleground states, say they are having second thoughts over his campaign’s ardent defense of his religious background.

http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=25029&&name=n&&currPage=1&&Active=1

As Senator Barack Obama courted voters in Iowa last December, Representative Keith Ellison, the country’s first Muslim congressman, stepped forward eagerly to help.

Mr. Ellison believed that Mr. Obama’s message of unity resonated deeply with American Muslims. He volunteered to speak on Mr. Obama’s behalf at a mosque in Cedar Rapids, one of the nation’s oldest Muslim enclaves. [b]But before the rally could take place, aides to Mr. Obama asked Mr. Ellison to cancel the trip because it might stir controversy. Another aide appeared at Mr. Ellison’s Washington office to explain.

“I will never forget the quote,” Mr. Ellison said, leaning forward in his chair as he recalled the aide’s words. “He said, ‘We have a very tightly wrapped message.’ ” [/b]

[b]While the senator has visited churches and synagogues, he has yet to appear at a single mosque. Muslim and Arab-American organizations have tried repeatedly to arrange meetings with Mr. Obama, but officials with those groups say their invitations — unlike those of their Jewish and Christian counterparts — have been ignored.[/b] Last week, two Muslim women wearing head scarves were barred by campaign volunteers from appearing behind Mr. Obama at a rally in Detroit.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25340374

Im gald that Muslim Americans are finally seeing the true colors of this FRAUD.

Clinton Says She Will Not Concede

This woman is unbelievable! She clearly does not have enough delegates. She clearly is behind. She just can’t move on. Every day she continues to fight Obama, is another day that he has to campaign, and another day less rest for the more important race.

To be fair though:

On NBC’s “Today Show,” Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said that once Obama gets the majority of convention delegates, “I think Hillary Clinton will congratulate him and call him the nominee.”

Which is the right thing to do, I suppose. She could save everyone a lot of effort if she just faces reality now of course.

According to the New York Times: “Senator Barack Obama has resigned his membership in Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, which he attended for nearly two decades, following months of controversy about pastors and their political views.”

I wonder if this is political move… hmmn… Sounds like a political move to me. I doubt he would do this if he wasn’t running for president.

Here’s the additional spin:

Mr. Obama said that his resignation was not a matter of political convenience, but rather that he had reached the point where neither he nor Trinity’s pastors and congregants could worship in peace. He noted that reporters now pored over sermons and that some had called sick members at home to ask about the church.

Regardless, removing himself from the Church should give him a bit of a boost I think.

Let me sum up how I feel about Bush’s question to a group of Israeli students: WTF?

This man is totally out of touch with reality. He has no idea what is going on. One Christian Arab asked the lame President (I mean lame duck President) this question as Bush tried to convince them that he doesn’t hate Muslims: “I think it comes out that you don’t like Muslims because in most of your speeches you tend to relate extremism to Muslims”

He responded,

“Actually, what I say is you’re not a religious person if you’re a murderer,” he replied. “But you’re right. I’ve got to do a better job of making it clear when I talk about Islam [that] I talk about a peaceful religion.”

Ok, fine. But then the conversation took a Bush twist. Dances. Unbelievable…

Here is an open letter to Hillary Clinton. Presidential candidate wanabe:

Come on Hillary. You know as well as the rest of us you cannot get enough votes to be the Democratic nominee. You know that you’re just hurting the party by prolonging this race, by making Barak spend more time and money campaigning.

But you just won’t give up.

I hope she looses, and then because of all this, Barak picks another running mate. If she bowed out now, he may in fact pick her to gain the support of all those working class women she seems to garner. But she’s now making things difficult when it is almost impossible for her to pull off a win.

Perhaps this initiative is just simply too late.

Here is the word-for-word release by CAIR:

U.S. officials are being advised in internal government documents to avoid referring publicly to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups as Islamic or Muslim, and not to use terms like jihad or mujahedin, which “unintentionally legitimize” terrorism.

“There’s a growing consensus (in the administration) that we need to move away from that language,” said a former senior administration official who was involved until recently in policy debates on the issue. . .

Urging officials not to use the word Islam in conjunction with terrorism, the guide notes that, “Although the al-Qaida network exploits religious sentiments and tries to use religion to justify its actions, we should treat it as an illegitimate political organization, both terrorist and criminal.”

Instead of calling terror groups Muslim or Islamic, the guide suggests using words like totalitarian, terrorist or violent extremist — “widely understood terms that define our enemies appropriately and simultaneously deny them any level of legitimacy.”

Any thoughts? We’ve all had this discussion about word associations for years now. It seems as though the government and their advisers should have caught on a long time ago. Too much damage has already been done.