To Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Polish-born American politician who served as United States National Security Advisor to the detestable Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, Israel is a fly on one’s windshield.

Brzezinski “believes that the Jewish lobby forces America into pro-Israel policy, and he defends Carter’s anti-Semitic book, “Peace, Not Apartheid.”

Now Brzezinski has stated that the United States should shoot down Israeli jets if Israel chooses to take military action against a nuclear project in Iran.

According to WND, Brzezinski said:

The U.S. has to be “serious” about denying Israel the right to attack.

That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not.

No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.

The USS Liberty was a U.S. ship in international waters in the Middle East during the Six-Day War in 1967 that was hit by Israeli gunfire – in error.

It’s a typical dirty trick for the manipulative Jew-hating bastard to inject the tragic circumstance of the USS Liberty into a discussion about a sovereign nation defending itself, as if the event of the USS Liberty is in any way morally equivalent to the intentions of the Iranian Muslim monkey Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who denies the Holocaust, has called Israel a ’stinking corpse’ and vows to wipe it off the map.

We already know that Obama has a Jewish problem and just before the 2008 election where America voted in the worst president since Jimmy Carter, Obama added Brzezinski to his list of “advisers.”

Israel is a legitimate and sovereign nation, voted imprimatur by the United Nations.

No one would dare question the right to exist of Libya, Saudi Arabia or Syria. That Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Jew-hating puke vessel would question the right of Israel to defend herself against barbarians who want a one-religion shari’a worldwide, is just a symptom of his inability to “advise” foreign policy.

Coincidentally, according to the Centre for Research on Globalisation, after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and in addition to Brzezinski’s other screw-ups, he played a role in the formation of the Afghan mujaheddin network, some of which later formed the Taliban and al Qaeda. He states in the interview cited in the link above, that blame ought to be laid at the feet of the Soviet Union’s invasion which radicalized the relatively stable Muslim society. Brzezinski is also accused of having “knowingly increased the probability that they (the Soviet Union) would invade” by supporting Afghan rebels before the invasion and drawing the Soviets into an “Afghan trap”.

On another note, Zbigniew Brzezinski’s daughter, Mika Brzezinski, co-hosts a two-hour morning radio show on WABC in New York City with Joe Scarborough. This explains her left-wing skewed politics and inarticulate arguments, which make the radio show almost unbearable to listen to.

h/t rightbias.com.  Check out where all the projected spending in proposed ’stimulus’ bill is allocated by state or territory:  StimulusWatch.org

The Republican National Committee has produced a new video that puts together most of the pieces surrounding the Obama Senate seat scandal.  It catches Obama and his team in their lies concerning the scandal.  It’s a must watch:

From Anne Bayefsky:

Since the time of Hitler, civilization has never been so close to the brink of total catastrophe. This American election will decide whether civilization as we know it will survive. As much as economic questions are currently front and center, with blame to go all round, this is not an election primarily about corporate greed, or individuals living beyond their means, or government neglect of economic oversight. Nor is it about whether we should have gone into Iraq where, like it or not, American boots on the ground have begun to create an emerging democracy. This election is about whether there will be a nuclear holocaust.

Click here to read the full article from Anne Bayefsky on National Review Online.

Very comforting article which will give you hope about the election.

http://www.zombietime.com/lefts_big_blunder

Debates are way over-rated.  They feed the “cult of personality”.  The debates insure that the most photogenic, charming, and socially adroit individual always gains the upper-hand whereas history informs us that such persons are not only least likely but inevitably the least qualified to lead.  Clearly Obama excels in the art of mass manipulation whereas McCain does not.  This, of course, has no bearing on the qualifications of either candidate placed in the position of power at stake.  Obama will lead his adoring legions and those of our nation stupid enough to be conned by his pretentious lies off the cliff of socialism like lemmings bound for the sea whereas the less charming, less appealing, even cantankerous, yet noble and honorable and heroic McCain would provide our great nation with superior capabilities not only as Commander In Chief but as President.

We’re talking substance over sugar here, people.  This country is so jonesed for another “JFK” that the fear is that they will be bamboozled into electing a charlatan rather than a statesman.  John McCain, while not the perfect choice or the best choice as President of the United States, is light years ahead of the recipe for disaster that will inevitably occur should an Obama administration become a reality.

We’re talking more years of viable American existence versus a headlong plunge into endtimes prophecy.

Your choice, people.  And Sarah Palin as Vice President?  You betcha.

Does anyone even have a clue about what is in the 500-plus page bailout legislation?  As Chuck Morris writes, in good bureaucratic fashion, the president signed it just an hour after receiving it from Capitol Hill.

But what’s in it?  Via WND:

In the fine print, inserted between the lines of that 500-plus page bill, are loads of fiscal additives and more financial toxic relief. Yes, the rumors are true. H.R. 1424 – Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which has now been signed into law, officially includes more than $112 billion in political hors d’oeuvres and pork barrel additives that have absolutely no direct relation to the Wall Street bailout. Among them are:

• $6 million in tax breaks for wooden arrow manufacturers in Oregon;
• $148 million in tax breaks for wool-producing companies,
• $128 million in tax breaks for the manufacturers of car racing tracks;
• $10 million in tax breaks to small television and film producers;
• $223 million in tax breaks for Alaskan fisherman;
• $33 million for corporations operating in American Samoa;
• $192 million in tax breaks for rum producers in the Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

What the &^%$#@?! And that’s just a drop in the bailout bucket.

For a detailed, annotated explanation that delves deeper into each frame of this video, see Roger Kimball’s excellent article here.

An excellent summary of who caused the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, written by Roger Kimball. A must-read.  Pass it along to everyone you know.
==========================================================================
Who caused “the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression?”

”Powerline links to a video that answers this question with admirable clarity. I’ll link to the video below. First, here are a few data points from the video and other sources:

The Root Cause

* According to Senator Chris Dodd (D. CT) the “root cause” of the problem is “the housing foreclosure crisis.”

Not 100% accurate, perhaps–it’s really a credit crisis–but close enough for government work, especially from someone who has just happens to chair the Senate Banking Committee and who, completely coincidentally, has been such a conspicuous beneficiary of preferential mortgages and who, also coincidentally, leads the list of those who have received campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Guess who comes in 2nd and 3rd?)

* But what caused the housing crisis to which Senator Dodd alludes? The housing “bubble.”

* And what caused the housing bubble? “Sub-prime,” i.e., risky, mortgages; that is, mortgages made to people who, in the normal course of things would have to pay a premium in order to obtain a mortgage (if they could obtain one at all) because

a) they had bad or non-existent credit

b) their income was insufficient or

c) both.

Packaging the American Dream

A home of your own. It’s part of the American dream. Work hard, save up for a down payment, pay your bills on time and, presto, you, too, can buy a home.

For decades the government has done things to help Americans to realize the dream, e.g., graciously allowing citizens to keep some of their own money to help pay for the interest on a mortgage (the official term for this is a “tax deduction,” but I prefer my locution since it emphasizes the fact that it is YOUR MONEY we are talking about).

But what about people who do not work hard (if they work at all)? What about people who have not saved up for a down payment? What about people who do not pay their bills on time (if they pay them at all)? Why shouldn’t they get to live the American dream?

That was the question that led to

”The Community Reinvestment Act” (see here for more).

* The original Community Reinvestment Act was signed into law in 1977 by Jimmy Carter. Its purpose, in a nutshell, was to require banks to provide credit to “under-served populations,” i.e., those with poor credit.

The buzz word was “affordable mortgages,” e.g., mortgages with low teaser-rates, which required the borrower to put no money down, which required the borrower to pay only the interest for a set number of years, etc.

* In 1995, Bill Clinton’s administration made various changes to the CRA, increasing “access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities,” i.e., it provided for the securitization, i.e. public underwriting, of what everyone now calls “sub-prime mortgages.”

Bottom line? It forced banks to issue $1 trillion in sub-prime mortgages.

$1 trillion, i.e., a thousand billion dollars in sub-prime,i.e., risky, mortgages, in order to push this latest example of social engineering.

But wait: how did it force banks to do this? Easy. Introduce a federal requirement that banks make the loans or face penalties. As Howard Husock, writing in City Journal way back in 2000 observed: “Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A’s for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count.” Way back in 1994, for example, Barack Obama sued Citibank on behalf of a client who charged that the bank “systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods.”

* In 1997, Bear Stearns–O firm of blessed memory–was the first to get onto the sub-prime gravy train.

* Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac–were there near the beginning, too.

Anatomy of a bubble

Step 1. The intoxication: “My house is worth millions!” From 1995 – 2005, the number of sub-prime mortgages skyrocket. So did the house prices.

Step 2. The hangover: “Oh my God, my house isn’t selling. What went wrong?”

Why didn’t someone try to stop it?

Someone did: “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago,” The New York Times, September 11, 2003.

But someone intervened to stymie the Bush administration. Who? The New York Times reports:

Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. . . . “These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Why didn’t someone else ring the alarm?

Someone else did. In 2005, John McCain co-sponsored the “Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act,” which among other things provided for more oversight of Freddie & Fannie. The bill didn’t pass. Guess who blocked it?

The bill was reintroduced in 2007. But again, no luck. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had friends in the Senate:

* Chris Dodd, a recipient of “sweetheart” loans from a Freddie and Fannie backed company.

* The junior senator from Illinois, i.e., Barack  Obama, who turned to Jim Johnson, former head (1991-1998) of Fannie Mae, to help advise him on whom to pick for the vice-presidential slot on his ticket. From 1985 to 1990, incidentally, Johnson was managing director of Lehman Brothers. Remember them?

* You might also want to check out one of Barack Obama’s other advisors: Franklin Raines, former CEO of Freddie Mac: see here , for example, or here , or here.

Towards the end of the video, we read this salutary observation: “Everyone deserves a home, not a house of cards.”

Who gave us the house of cards? Watch the whole thing here (original link was  here). And then pass it along to everyone you know.

Newsbusters: Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC’s Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been “resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”