Arizona's Ballot Propositions--Statewide Only

I'm swiping an idea from Eric over at The Tygrrrr Express who just published the California Propositions. It seems like a GREAT idea to publish my state's propositions so they're all in one spot and people can review them. CAVEAT: I will emphasize key words in each proposition and explain what a "yes" or "no" vote means on each. How you choose to vote is YOUR CHOICE--as long as you get out and VOTE!

Proposition 100
Official Title: Proposing an Amendment to Article IX of the Arizona Constitution by Adding a New Section 24 Relating to a Prohibition of Any New Real Property Sale or Transfer Tax in Arizona.

Descriptive Title: Prohibits State, County, City, Town, Municipal or Other State Political Subdivision From Imposing Any New Tax, Fee, or Other Assessment On the Sale, Purchase, Transfer or Other Conveyance of Any Interest in Real Estate After December 31, 2007/

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of prohibiting any new tax, fee, or other assessment on the sale, purchase or other conveyance of real estate after December 31, 2007.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law, which allows taxes on the sale or transfer of real estate.

Simply put, this proposition is meant to stop the imposition of additional taxes on the homeowner, in particular a "transfer tax" when the property is bought/sold. If passed, it will put a stop to a double taxation situation wherein you're taxed on the sale/purchase of a property, as well as paying the property tax.

********************

Proposition 101
Official Title: Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending Article II of the Arizona Constitution by Adding Section 26 of Article II; Relating to Freedom of Choice in Health Care.

Descriptive Title: PROHIBITS (this is a biggie key word here folks, read this CAREFULLY) Laws That: Restrict Person's Choice of Private Health Care Systems or Private Plans; Interfere With Person's or Entity's Right to Pay Directly for Lawful Medical Services; Impose a Penalty or Fine for Choosing to Obtain or Decline Health Care Coverage or For Participation in Any Health Care System or Plan.

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of prohibiting laws that restrict a person's choice of private health care systems or private plans, interfere with a person or an entity's right to pay for lawful medical services and impose a penalty or fine for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any health care system or plan.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding a person or entity's health care choices.

Simply put--this is a two-fold law. On the one hand, the current law apparently has the right to penalize a person for choosing their own health care. This proposition seeks to overturn that restriction and make it illegal--constitutionally--to penalize a person for choosing and paying for their own health care rather than being told who they can see or what services they can pay for. It is essentially a first strike proposal which helps YOU retain who YOU want to provide your medical services rather than the state or any other entity telling you who you HAVE to utilize. It also keeps you from being penalized for exercising your choice for your care.

********************

Proposition 102
Official Title: Senate Concurrent Resolution 1042 - Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending the Constitution, by adding Article 30; Relating to Marriage

Descriptive Title: Defines That Only a Union of One Man and One Woman Shall be Valid or Recognized as a Marriage in This State.

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, while maintaining the current statutory law of the State of Arizona, which prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current statutory law of the State of Arizona, which prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex, but would not amend the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Simply put, same sex marriage is currently illegal in Arizona; however, it is not a part of the state Constitution. This proposal would make that law a Constitional Amendment and thereby protect it from depredations such as we've seen in California, Vermont and Massachusetts. It is worth noting the people of Arizona have consistently voted to keep the current law as the law.

********************

Proposition 105
Official Title: Majority Rule-Let the People Decide Act-Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending Article IV, Part 1, Constitution of Arizona, by Adding Section 1.1 Relating to Initiative Measures and Requiring That Any Mandatory Tax or Spending Increase be Enacted by a Majority of Qualified Electors (more key words here folks).

Descriptive Title: Requires an Initiative Measure That Establishes, Imposes or Raises a Tax, Fee or Other Revenue, or Mandates a Spending Obligation, Whether on a Private Person, Labor Organization, Other Private Legal Entity or State, Shall Not Become Law Unless the Measure is Approved by a Majority of Qualified Electors Registered to Vote.

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of requiring that a majority of registered voters approve any initiative measure establishing, imposing or raising a tax, fee, or other revenue, or mandating a spending obligation, whether on a private person, labor organization, other private legal entity, or the state, in order to become law.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law under which an initiative measure is enacted upon approval of a majority of registered voters that vote on the measure.

Simply put, this is worded in such a way as to take away your privilege to vote on a measure. It would take the power of the voters out of the hands of the voters on monetary issues and put it in the hands of the government wherein only the government has a say on what taxes can be imposed. "Electors" herein is meant to be representative in the same manner as "Electors" in a presidential race. If you want to retain control over your money and your taxes and what you're charged, a "no" vote is the only vote.

********************

Proposition 200
Official Title: Payday Loan Reform Act

Descriptive Title: Extends Payday Licensing Program Indefinitely; Allows Electronic Debit Agreements; Prohibits Services Over 35 Days; Requires English or Spanish Agreements; Prohibits Certain Fees; Requires Payment Plan if Requested; Prohibits Arrangements With Customers Having Outstanding Repayment Plans; Allows Licensee to Make Other Loans; Requires Licensee to Maintain Minimum and Maximum Net Worth.

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of repealing the July 1, 2010 termination date for the existing "payday loan" licensing program thus allowing it to continue indefinitely, allowing payday loan licenses to provide electronic debit agreement services, prohibiting services over 35 days, requiring payday loan agreements be in English or Spanish, prohibiting certain fees, permitting only one payday loan transaction with a customer each business day, requiring a payment plan if requested by the customer, prohibiting arrangements with customers having outstanding repayment plans, allowing licensees to make other loans and requiring licensee applicants to maintain a minimum net worth of at least $50,000 per location up to a maximum of $1,000,000.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding payday loans, which are to terminate July 1, 2010.

Simply put, this is designed to halt the abuse of payday loans by customers and the abuse of customers by payday loan outlets. It requires more flexibility for loan repayment and prohibits usurious interest rates. Unfortunately, it also panders to the illegals who refuse to learn English, as well.

********************

Proposition 201
Official Title: Homeowner's Bill of Rights

Descriptive Title: Allows Prospective Dwelling Buyer Lawsuit; Permitting Lawsuits Despite Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreements; Prohibits Seller Attorney Fees; Shortens Notice and Response Time; Requires Seller Inspection and Licensed Contractor; Requires Seller Contract Provide 10-Year Warranty; Seller Must Disclose Conflicts; Gives Buyer Cancellation Rights; Expands Time to File Improvements Suit; Expands Purchaser Remedies.

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of granting "prospective buyers" a right to sue over a dwelling action, permitting lawsuits despite alternative dispute resolution provisions in sales contracts, shortening buyer purchaser notice and seller response period before and after filing defects lawsuit, requiring seller to inspect dwelling after receiving notice, requiring any seller offer to include repair or replacement option that must be performed by a licensed contractor, eliminating seller right to receive attorney fees and costs if the seller prevails, mandating seller to provide ten year warranty of materials and workmanship,requiring newly constructed dwelling contract to include disclosure of seller's financial relationship with a financial institution, disallowing seller from requiring a buyer deposit unless contract allows 100 day cancellation period, extending from eight to ten years the time to file suit against any person making improvements to the real property, and expanding remedies available to an owner who is successful in a dwelling action against the seller.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding purchaser dwelling actions.

Simply put, this is designed to take away all choice a homeowner may have as to who they hire to make any repairs/improvements to their home. At such time as the homeowner decides to sell their home, it puts extraordinary burdens on them prior to sale. It will have an impact on current home sales as well as new home sales. It also allows people who DO NOT BUY the home to sue the homeowner as if they had indeed purchased the home. It leaves a homeowner wishing to sell their home completely vulnerable with no recourse while the buyer or alleged buyer has all recourse.

********************

Proposition 202
Official Title: Amending Title 13, Chapter 20, Arizona Revised Statutes, by Amending Sections 13-2008, 13-2009 and 13-2010; and Amending Title 23, Chapter 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, by Amending Sections 23-211, 23-212, 23-213 and 23-214 and Adding Section 23-215.

Descriptive Title: Modifies Laws (more of those code words people--pay attention!) That Suspend or Revoke Business Licenses for Employers Who Knowingly or Intentionally Employ an Unauthorized Alien; Increases Penalties on Identity Theft Related to Employment; Adds Fines on Employers Who Pay Improperly Reported Cash Wages; Establishes Presumption Favoring Employer That Verifies Employee Eligibility Under Federal Law.

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of modifying the laws covering employers who knowingly or intentionally employ "unauthorized aliens," suspending or revoking licenses of businesses that employ unauthorized aliens, adding penalties on employers who fail to properly report cash wages, increasing penalties for identity theft related to employment and establishing a presumption favoring an employer that verifies employee eligibility under federal law.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of retaining Arizona's current employment laws that suspend or revoke business licenses for employers who knowingly or intentionally employ an unauthorized alien.

Simply put, a yes vote undermines the current employer sanctions law, a law voted in by the people. This one is written to be purposely misleading, hoping to revoke a law already on the books, and which has been challenged repeatedly in court. Such challenges have been driven back and the law stands. Now, the intent by the border lobby groups, is to trick you, the voter, into repealing the law you already voted in by using such misleading wording.

********************

Proposition 300
Descriptive Title: Provides for an Increase in the Salaries of State Legislators From $24,000 to $30,000 Per Year.

"Shall the Recommendation of the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers Concerning Legislative Salaries be Accepted?" Yes/No

Recommendations, if Approved by the Electors, Shall Become Effective at the Beginning of the Next Regular Legislative Session Without Any Other Authorizing Legislation.

Current Salary - $24,000

Proposed Salary - $30,000

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of raising State Legislators' salaries to $30,000 per year.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of keeping State Legislators' salaries at $24,000 per year.

Simply put, do we give the bums a raise or not?

********************

Those are the statewide propositions on this year's ballot for Arizona. Mark your ballots carefully. Think before you write. Above all, VOTE!

Sphere: Related Content

I'd rather be in my hell than your "heaven."

A young second-generation Egyptian-American recently demanded that a blogger-friend of mine apologize to him, and to his father, because of something she’d written on her blog. She had re-published (from public records) a partial list of just the “Letter A” section of the donors to the Obama campaign with Muslim names and his father was on the list, along with a very large number of others disproportional to the Muslim-American demographics. He said he and his father were proud Obama supporters, so he was proud to be included on the list, but went on to explain that he was outraged and offended by what he assumed were her reasons for publishing such a list.

During the course of my online conversation with him as he simultaneously espoused the virtues and superiority of the religion of peace and demanded apologies from my friend and me for our apparent lack of sensitivity, I realized something. On one hand, this young Egyptian-American enjoyed the clout that being indirectly associated with such a powerful group as Islamic jihad gave him, but on the other hand, he wore that clout like a chip on his shoulder, daring anyone to knock it off. I also realized I’d seen this type of doublespeak before.

Many years ago, I had an Italian sister-in-law. She was one of my favorite in-laws, actually, as we had a lot in common, and normally got along very well, but I recalled a very strange and awkward conversation we’d had in the beginning of our relationship, in which this woman had misinterpreted something I’d said (I never did quite figure out what it was I’d said), but she apparently thought I had insinuated that she was “connected” to the Italian mafia, and had become very offended.

Well, at the time, we were living in upstate New York, no where near any large cities. I had lived in Las Vegas during the 1970’s, when the Italian mafia was very active there, so I was familiar with who they were, but this was the late ‘90’s, and I hadn’t really thought about them in years. I discretely inquired of my other in-laws as to why my sister-in-law was so sensitive about this…Was the mob active in our area? Did she have relatives that were active in the mafia? They just rolled their eyes, and explained no, they didn’t think so, and that they didn’t know why she acted like that from time to time. After I’d met more of her family and friends, I began to realize that a few of them, like the Egyptian-American I met recently, liked the social “power” that it gave them to make people think that they just might be “connected,” yet it gave them a different kind of social power to, at the same time, feign offense, and effectively play the “race card,” when anyone brought the subject up (even by accident).

We are seeing this same doublespeak phenomenon, right now, in the political arena, as the Obama-Biden campaign is enjoying the benefits of touting the socialist ideals of social justice and wealth redistribution to garner votes from the poorer members of our society, and financial support from international leftists. Yet, they are also enjoying the social power that being able to call anyone a “racist,” who dares to use the “S” word gives them in the media.

Regardless of who wins this election, and becomes our President in January (or whenever they get through with all the re-counts), we are going to be fighting a war of words. To win this war, we are going to need to be able to accurately identify and describe the various “ministries of truth” that have made great advancements online, in our government, in international government, and in commerce.

Corporate employees have been fighting this war of words for a long time in the United States. The word “diversity,” used to pertain to financial assets and to agriculture, but now it’s applied to human beings, and has come to mean giving preferential treatment to designated minority groups. Our Founding Fathers struggled with the idea of “religious tolerance,” but generally applied it when refraining from killing someone regardless of how warped you thought his ideas were. Now, religious tolerance has come to mean that you will “embrace” the diversity doctrine and the values of every minority group, or you will be unemployed and ostracized.

Christians have also been fighting this war of words for a long time. Our adversaries have tried to use misinterpretations of our scriptures to try to control us. For example, they’ll mockingly ask “Isn’t it a sin to ‘judge’ people?” as they try to play on our fear of hell – and of disappointing our Creator – for the advancement of their own Marxist, political-correctness agendas.

In this war of words, and in this world of doublespeak, those of us who love individual freedom are going to have to summon the courage to resist. We have reached the time that the apostle Paul talked about when he wrote to the Church at Ephesus, “Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.” It won’t be easy, and there is no doubt that some of us will face persecution.

At times, it will seem like it would be easier to just give in, and go with the flow. But folks, I’ve taken a look at what the enemies of liberty have to offer. The so-called “heaven” promised to the jihadis does not entice me. The soulless, lifeless void of communism has nothing to offer me. I have news for them. Yes, I’m a Christian, and yes, I love God, and I’m planning to spend eternity with Him, but frankly I’d be better off in my hell than in the so-called “heaven” that any of them are offering.

Those of us who have known and loved freedom know what we’re fighting for, and we know it’s worth it. Freedom is worth it. America is worth it. And we can win – Together, and with God on our side, we can win.

I believe, as King David said in the Psalms, that God will confound and put to shame those that seek to kill the soul of America, and He will cause them to be tangled in the very traps that they laid for the destruction of our nation. Our Founders, who were preparing for a battle that was different in nature, but just as serious wrote, “…With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

So, as Todd Beamer, before he sacrificed his life in helping stop terrorists from most likely destroying our nation’s capitol, said, “Are you guys ready? Let’s roll!”


(The above speech was given during the first 20 minutes of the second half of the Rally for the Conservative Cause on Blog Talk Radio - The link is below). For the first half of the Rally, click here.

 

Sphere: Related Content

Reject Obama!!

Why we must reject Barack Hussein Obama:

1. Socialism: he will destroy the economy, rendering all of us impoverished.
2. Pusillanimity: he will not effectively prosecute the war against Islam either ideologically or militarily.
3. Treason: violated the Logan Act by attempting to interfere with negotiations with Iraq on troop withdrawal.
4. Dishonesty: he constantly lies.
5. Alliances: with domestic terrorists, crooks, race baiters and advocates of international terrorism.
6. Thugocracy: intimidation tactics against his critics; even exploiting state owned computer databases for the purpose.
7. Religion:
1. Atheist: Liar, because he claims to be Christian.
2. Agnostic: Liar, because he claims to be Christian.
3. Muslim: Liar because he claims to be Christian.
1. One of the enemy; obligated to favor Muslims against our national defense & security:
1. homeland security
2. Afghanistan & Iraq.
4. Christian: failed to condemn the Islamic doctrines which sanctify & mandate conquest, genocide & terrorism. As one who studied the Qur'an as a Muslim, he knows about those doctrines. He has no excuse.

Vote as if your liberty & prosperity depend upon it, because they do!!!

Sphere: Related Content

From Radarsite to the 'Persuadables': One Final Plea

A message from Radarsite: Is there some subtle distinction between the 'persuadables' and the 'undecideds'? If so, I guess I am not politically astute enough to discern it. However I will say this: if two days before this fateful election you are truly undecided, I find this utterly incomprehensible. Where in the world have you been? What more would it take to move you? If at this late date you are still undecided this means you have remained untouched by the enormous accumulative weight of all of those infamous Obama scandals. All of Reverend Wright's 'Goddam Americas', all of the sinister implications of Obama's Ayers/Weathermen associations, Obama's outrageously cynical manipulations of our troop withdrawal timetables in Iraq, the Rezko scandals, the 'New Party' scandals, his radical African connections, and on and on and on -- none of this had any effect on you whatsover. You still remain undecided. To me this is incredulous.

However, the purpose of this essay -- this final essay -- is not to admonish you, but to appeal to you. And yet if none of the above outrages have moved you from your adamant indecision, what can I possibly bring up here that would do the trick? There is I believe one last argument, one final outrage that just might do it. And it is this:

It is inarguable that our American troops are fighting and dying on the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan and even occasionally Pakistan. They are fighting our sworn enemies, enemies who go by multiple names but who are essentially the same people driven by the same bloodthirsty ideology -- Al Qaeda, the Taliban. etc. Whether or not you may have approved of these original military decisions is a moot point: our troops are there and the battles rage on. And our enemies have clearly defined themselves and their goals. They are not undecided, they are not persuadable.

Now I don't know about you but if I found out that our enemy's goals were endorsed and promoted by one of our presidential candidates, if I discovered that our enemy's most respected leaders were calling for the destruction of the opposition party, the Republicans, it would most certainly give me pause. In fact I would find it highly embarrassing to say the least. How could I possibly support a candidate who was enthusiastically supported by our enemies, a candidate whose stated foreign policies would work to their advantage? These facts alone would obliterate my indecision.

This then is my final plea. Please read the following two articles and decide for yourselves how you could in good conscience vote for Barack Hussein Obama. - rg

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Qaeda wants Republicans, Bush "humiliated": Web video

From Reuters
Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:15pm EDT

DUBAI (Reuters) - An al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be "humiliated," without endorsing a party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to an Internet video posting.

"O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him," Abu Yahya al-Libi said at the end of sermon marking the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr, in a video posted on the Internet.

Libi, a top al Qaeda commander believed to be living in Afghanistan or Pakistan, called for God's wrath to be brought against Bush equating him with past tyrants in history.

The remarks were the first from a leading al Qaeda figure referring, albeit indirectly, to the U.S. elections. Muslim clerics often end sermons by calling on God to guide and support Muslims and help defeat their enemies.
Terrorism monitor SITE Intelligence Group said in a report on Wednesday that militants on al Qaeda-linked websites have for months been debating the significance of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama or Republican John McCain.
Some posters have also argued over the merits of trying to attack the United States before the election or waiting until later, the report said.
But SITE said it did not expect al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden or deputy Ayman al-Zawahri to openly favor a candidate.

"To support a particular candidate would debase al-Qaeda's long-standing argument that the United States government is a corrupt institution no matter who is at the helm," SITE director Rita Katz said in the group's November newsletter.
In 2004 bin Laden issued his first video in more than a year just days before the U.S. elections. It derided Bush and warned of possible new September 11-style attacks.

Bin Laden made little mention of Bush's Democratic challenger, John Kerry, telling Americans: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe."

Kerry has attributed his loss in part to the video's high-profile reminder of the terrorism issue.

In 2006, after Democrats captured Congress, Zawahri issued an audio message saying all Americans remained al Qaeda's enemies regardless of party, SITE said.
SITE said militant postings on al Qaeda-linked websites typically discuss Obama in terms of his race, or his religion and foreign policy. Some forecast a racial crisis dividing the United States if he wins. Others say his planned phased withdrawal from Iraq would be a boon to al Qaeda's affiliate and give it a base for Middle East expansion.

Republican presidential nominee John McCain has been portrayed as likely to allow "the continuation of Republican control and aggressive policies toward the Islamic world."

(Additional reporting by Randall Mikkelsen in Washington; editing by Chris Wilson)
(dubai.newsroom@reuters.com)
--------------------------------------------------------------

Obama on Iraq: Two Disturbing Alternatives

1. The Terrorists On The Importance Of Iraq:

Osama Bin Laden: Baghdad Is "The Capital Of The Caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)

Bin Laden: "The Most Important And Serious Issue Today For The Whole World Is This Third World War … Raging In [Iraq]." BIN LADEN: "I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)

Bin Laden: "This Is A War Of Destiny Between Infidelity And Islam." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Bin Laden: "The Whole World Is Watching This War And The Two Adversaries; The Islamic Nation, On The One Hand, And The United States And Its Allies On The Other. It Is Either Victory And Glory Or Misery And Humiliation." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04

Ayman al-Zawahiri: We Must "Establish An Islamic Authority … Over As Much Territory As You Can To Spread Its Power In Iraq … [And] Extend The Jihad Wave To The Secular Countries Neighboring Iraq." ZAWAHIRI: "So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate – over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq … The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity." (Complete Text Of Al-Zawahiri Letter To Al-Zarqawi, 7/9/05, Available At: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20051011_release.htm, Accessed 9/5/06)

Bin Laden: "The War Is For You Or For Us To Win. If We Win It, It Means Your Defeat And Disgrace Forever." BIN LADEN: "Finally, I would like to tell you that the war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever as the wind blows in this direction with God's help." (Bin Laden Threatens New Operations, Offers 'Long-Term Truce,' Posted On Al-Jazirah Net, 1/19/06)

2. Barack Hussein Obama on Iraq War:

"Surge strategy has made a difference in Iraq but failed."

Q: Is Petraeus correct when he says that the troop increase is
bringing security to Iraq?
A: There is no doubt that because we put American troops in Iraq, more American troops in Iraq, that they are doing a magnificent job. They are making a difference in certain neighborhoods. But the overall strategy is failed because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq's political leaders. That is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq. That's why I'm going to bring this war to a close. That's why we can get our combat troops out within 16 months and have to initiate the kind of regional diplomacy, not just talking to our friends, but talking to our enemies, like Iran and Syria, to try to stabilize the situation there. This year, we saw the highest casualty rates for American troops in Iraq since this war started. The same is true in Afghanistan. If we have seen a lowering violence rate, that's only compared to earlier this year. We're back to where we started back in 2006.

Source: 2007 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Nevada Nov 15, 2007

Q: If you get us out of Iraq and somehow al Qaeda takes over anyway, what will you do then?
A: Well, look, if we had followed my judgment originally, we wouldn't have been in Iraq. We're here now. And we've got no good options. We got bad options and worse options. The only way we're going to stabilize Iraq and make sure that al Qaeda does not take over in the long term is to begin a phased redeployment so that we don't have anti-American sentiment as a focal point for al Qaeda in Iraq. We can still have troops in the region, outside of Iraq, that can help on counterterrorism activities, and we've got to make sure that they don't establish long-term bases there. But right now, the bases are in Afghanistan and in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan; that's where we've got to focus.

Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8,2007

A short message from Radarsite: Anyone who has read the captured correspondence of the Al-Qaeda leaders concerning the importance that they attach to Iraq, and the central role that Iraq plays in their scheme for a world-wide Caliphate knows how delighted they would be if we followed the advice of Barrack Hussein Obama, and shifted our focus and resources from the oil-rich center of gravity in Iraq, the universally acknowledged keystone to the Middle East, to the mountainous wastelands of Afghanistan.

It is the opinion of this writer, that if we abandoned the Land of the Two Rivers to the enemy now, the long-term strategic consequences of this monumental blunder for our GWOT would be nothing less than disastrous. The idea that we could somehow return to the area if it at some point in the future it became infested with Al-Qaeda is at best naive and ludicrous, and at worst naggingly suspect.

Nothing would suit our enemies in Iraq better than a publicly proclaimed schedule of withdrawal of our troops and their eventual complete pullout.

To this particular observer the absurdity of this plan, which so obviously plays into our enemy's game presents us with one of two troubling alternatives: Either it was purposely designed to enhance the chances for our defeat in this crucial region of the Middle East and enhance the capabilities of our sworn Al-Qaeda enemies, or it is the dangerously delusional bumblings of a hopeless amateur. rg

Original Radarsite article published 2/27/08



Voted by Fox News at GOP Hub

Sphere: Related Content

Myth vs Fact

Myth	Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.	Reliance of the Traveller, Book O.9.15 O9.15 It is permissible in jihad to cut down the enemy's trees and destroy their dwellings.
Bottom Line:	It is ok to destroy the assetts which make life possible for your victims, their crops and their shelter. Why in Hell does the 'religion of peace' have such rulings in its canon of jurisprudence?

Sphere: Related Content