"We need an America with a strong leader, Obama is not that person." Four years of Community Organizing aka Communism, It's time to vote for an American, dont you think?

US voters need to put Romney in White House

Piers Akerman 
The Sunday Telegraph
November 03, 2012 5:27PM

TUESDAY will be crunch time for the voters of America and the thoughts of many Gillard government supporters will be with them.

Incumbent President Barack Obama has failed to deliver on his 2008 promises, just as Prime Minister Julia Gillard has failed her 2010 promises.

In both the US and Australia, largely Left-leaning media organisations have played down the failures of leadership and attempted to drive attacks on the personalities of their challengers.

In the US, the Obama campaign has tried to discredit successful businessman and politician Mitt Romney with bitter attacks on his religion and his standing with women.

Hopefully both these Godless pieces of Communist Shit are headed for the Exit door of Governance over any free people on Earth

Ditto in Australia, where Labor has mounted an unprecedented and baseless campaign alleging that Opposition leader Tony Abbott is a misogynist and hinting darkly that his Catholicism affects his judgment.

Why is this "Hag in a Bag" so enamoured with Barack Hussein Obama? Why does she want Barack Hussein Obama to be re elected ? It's like Nazis campaigning for THEIR preferred US Presidential Candidate in WW2 on the streets of America.

Surely it's time an American was back in charge of the White House instead of a self described "Community Organizer" 4 years of a President who HATES America, Americans and all it and they represent. 

Both Romney and Abbott have been pilloried for speaking the truth.

Last month, Obama voters made much of a frank response Romney gave to a supporter at a private gathering.

He had been asked how the election was shaping and replied: "Well, there are 47 per cent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what.

"There are 47 per cent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.

"That that's an entitlement and government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49 ... I mean, he starts off with a huge number.

"These are people who pay no income tax; 47 per cent of Americans pay no income tax.

"So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. He'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich.

"I mean, that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people.

"I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

"What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 per cent in the centre, that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon, in some cases, emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what he looks like."

There were predictable media claims Romney was being disrespectful of low-income workers but the underlying truth about the spread of the entitlement mentality in the US was unchallenged. Yet Romney had the gumption to stand by his comments, though he admitted they were "not elegantly stated". His campaign, he said, was "about helping people take more responsibility and becoming employed again, particularly those who don't have work".

Many Americans and Australians would see nothing wrong with his approach. As one chatroom commentator noted: "Did I miss something? Since when is what Romney said surprising? Isn't this what we hear on discussion boards and forums, day in and day out from the Right? 'You're on welfare. You want a free handout. I work for a living, you don't. You're lazy. Get a job'.

"Who the hell thinks this is something new? The only thing new about it is hearing it being said in such stark terms from a presidential candidate in this day and age."

Obama promised to lift poor Americans out of the welfare trap but there are now more people on food stamps than ever before.

Gillard's record is just as bad, with more people on benefits and more long-term unemployed.

Obama inherited what he thought was a poorly-performing economy with annual deficits of around $US400 billion. Today they run at more than a trillion. Gillard inherited Treasurer Wayne Swan from her predecessor Kevin Rudd. As Treasurer, Swan has managed to convert a $70 billion surplus into a gross debt of more than $250 billion.

Obama's budgets rely on the US printing more money and borrowing more cash from the Chinese. Gillard's budgets rely on borrowing and money-shuffling accounting tricks.

Both leaders essentially believe in wealth redistribution through big central government.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama notoriously told Joe Wurzelbacher - Joe the Plumber - "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody". But the Obama experiment has failed Americans, just as the Rudd-Gillard experiment has failed Australians.

Obama's monument to wealth redistribution is his Obamacare package that would centralise greater control of the American population in Washington. Gillard's monument is the carbon tax that affects every Australian, not just the 500 "biggest polluters" she claimed when she introduced it. Both have been responsible for introducing green energy policies that have cost jobs and hobbled their economies.

Neither Obama nor Gillard understand how economies work or how wealth is created. Both think their respective federal governments are the solution, their opponents think they are part of the problem.

Neither leader has shown either a great interest in, or an understanding of, foreign policy.

On Obama's watch, Osama bin Laden was killed by US troops but Obama tried to take credit for the operation. Gillard's foreign forays from East Timor to Malaysia and Indonesia have been embarrassing.

Obama is running on promises of change, just as he did four years ago. His years in office offer little to recommend him.

Romney had an enviable career in private business and a laudable record as governor of Massachusetts. He can point to achievements.

America remains Australia's most important international partner.

We need an America with a strong leader, Obama is not that person.

Bolt Report Piers Akerman Maj Gen Jim Molan Australia up for grabs

Piers Akerman: Defence cuts are blowing apart our nation's credibility


Piers Akerman
The Sunday Telegraph
July 22, 2012 12:00AM


You know the advertisement - "even his closest friends won't tell him" - about the deeply personal problem of body odour?


Well, Australia's closest friend, the United States, is publicly telling us that we stink.


In an unprecedented display of candour, the US is saying bluntly that Australia is not pulling its weight on Defence and that the implications of letting down the side in this manner are enormous and long-ranging.


Department of Defence secretary Duncan Lewis was formally told of official US concerns at a painful meeting at the Pentagon on Tuesday.

In this weeks Bolt Report, Andrew Bolt speaks with Maj.Gen.Ret.Jim Molan, who makes clear Australia's perilous position when it comes to defence of the Nation under the Union / Getup funded Rudd/Gillard Labor / Green Loon "Independent" Minority Socialist

 "Co Party" Federal government.

He assured the Americans that the Gillard government was committed to building major defence capabilities, such as air warfare destroyers, joint strike fighters and amphibious ships but the US is voicing its doubts.


It believes the Gillard government has a serious credibility problem. It has a history of making worthy promises _ and breaking them _ and the US is just as aware of this history as the Australian voters who consistently reject Gillard Labor.


The former US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage _ a great friend of Australia who was made a Companion of Australia, our highest honour, just two years ago _ issued the same warning earlier last week but there is no indication the Gillard government is listening.


The human face of the deceitful slashing of the defence budget is to be seen in the Gillard government's withdrawal in the last federal budget of the program under which single servicemen were provided with free flights home at Christmas.


In budgetary terms it's a small saving of $15 million in a budget of approximately $24 billion but 22,000 single men and women will no longer be given the opportunity to be with their loved ones during the holidays.

What is the Australian Labor Government spending OUR money on if not on the defence of our Nation ? listen to above interview between Alan Jones and opposition spokesman Greg Hunt.I am sure our declared enemies are grateful for the assistance of the Labor Green Loon Co Party Government in facilitating the disarmament of Australia

In its usual shift-the-blame manner, Labor argues that the cut was suggested by the secretary of Defence and that the benefit was no longer relevant. But Labor must take responsibility for the travel ban as it was Labor that slashed $5.5 billion from Defence spending in its vain attempt to produce Treasurer Wayne Swan's mythical budget surplus.


Liberal MP Stuart Robert, the Opposition shadow minister for Defence science, technology and personnel and Liberal Senator David Johnson, the shadow minister for Defence, have been dogged in their fight to have this benefit restored.


On Tuesday, June 26,  Robert tabled a disallowance motion in the House of Representatives which seeks to disallow or block Labor's policy.


Under the house rules, Labor has 15 sitting days from the date of tabling to respond. Four sitting days have passed with no movement from the government side.


Labor has a choice: do nothing and effectively permit the disallowance motion or stand up and defend its policy of cutting recreation leave travel.


So Labor has failed to address an issue that has created uncertainty and a loss of morale in the ranks.


The bigger picture demonstrates a problem of a far greater magnitude. Put simply, crucial forward spending has been postponed. The machine that produces the equipment and technology used by our fighting men and women has been mothballed.


There is no money to buy fuel for our ships and sailors need to be at sea.


There is no money for ammunition, and troops need ordnance to train to survive.


There is no money to develop the systems needed to combat the next generation of IEDs, the roadside bombs that smash our forward troops.


There is no none to replace barracks.


Then there is the impact on industry.


There is only one customer for the sort of sophisticated weaponry that has given our troops a critical edge in their work and the Labor government presented a big shopping list in its 2009 White Paper.


Companies were told to tool up and ramp up production to meet the needs of the armed forces.


Now Gillard and Swan have told the same firms to forget it.


 The procurement plan has been slashed by 34 per cent.


The companies which invested can write off 34 per cent of their money, lose 34 per cent of their operations, staff and plant, or close.


As the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's Defence budget brief tells it, the Defence budget will fall in real terms by 10.5 per cent next year, the largest year-on-year reductions since the end of the Korean conflict in 1953.


As a result, Defence spending as a share of GDP will fall to 1.56 per cent, the smallest figure recorded since the eve of World War II in 1938.


Stop and think of the lack of preparedness for conflict then and the nations that took advantage of that wilful negligence.


To date, $10.6 billion worth of promised funding from the first five years of white paper has been deferred, $10 billion in savings has been cut from funding promised between 2011 and 2021 and another $2.5 billion of initiatives over the decade have been imposed upon Defence without funding or offsets.


No wonder the US is worried. The nation cannot turn on the Defence machine when its motor is rusted through lack of use.


Our men and women don't get the gear or the equipment they need and they don't get home.


There is always a price for these cuts but Labor is blindly slashing to protect a phony budget surplus for now meaningless political ends.

Andrew Bolt, Bolt Report Parts 2 and 3 July 22 2012

How much longer will the liar in chief Ju LIAR Gillard last?

           Everything is John Howard's Fault

Oprah Winfrey Sydney Opera House show one round up

Oprah Winfrey audience members treated to a "Pearl Necklace" gee that must have been a sight to behold.

Oprah Winfrey goes sailing on Sydney Harbour with Master and Commander,Capt. Jack Aubrey aka. Russell Crowe

Obama Lies Directory

 

Obama Lies Directory

When the founders of Obama Lies read Obama’s fictional autobiography, Audacity of Hope, it was immediately apparent that this book of Obama Lies is an attempt to define the man as a new messiah and to head off criticism of his obvious inadequacies. When the inaccuracies (read Obama Lies) in his background started to be uncovered and discussed, we went to the web to see if anyone had registered the domain name obamalies.com to use as a vehicle to expose Obama’s lies.

Thanks to Ruth for the above story.

 

Technorati Tags: Hussein Obama,Lies,US Democrats,MSM creation

Pat Buchanan nails it again.

It Can't Happen Here

by Patrick J. Buchanan
Human Events
07/10/2009

So grave was the crisis in western China that President Hu Jintao canceled a meeting with President Obama, broke off from the G8 summit and flew home.

By official count, 158 are dead, 1,080 injured and a thousand arrested in ethnic violence between Han Chinese and the Muslim, Turkic-speaking Uighurs of Xinjiang. That is the huge oil-rich province that borders Pakistan, Afghanistan and several Central Asian countries that seceded from the Soviet Union.

Uighur sources put the death toll much higher.

The Communist Party chief in Xinjiang has promised to execute those responsible for the killings.

In 1989, fear that what was happening in Eastern Europe might happen in Beijing produced Tiananmen Square. The flooding of Chinese troops into Xinjiang bespeaks a fear that what happened to the Soviet Union could happen to China. Unlike Mikhail Gorbachev, the Chinese, as they showed in Tibet, will wage civil war to crush secession.

Already, Beijing has struggled to ensure perpetual possession of Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang and Tibet -- half of the national territory -- by moving in millions of Han Chinese, swamping the indigenous peoples, as they did in Manchuria.

The larger issue here is the enduring power of ethnonationalism -- the drive of ethnic minorities, embryonic nations, to break free and create their own countries, where their faith, culture and language are predominant. The Uighurs are such a people.

Ethnonationalism caused the Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913, triggered World War I in Sarajevo, and tore apart the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires. Ethnonationalism birthed Ireland, Turkey and Israel.

Ethnonationalism in the 1990s tore apart the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, and broke up Czechoslovakia, creating two-dozen nations out of three. Last August, ethnonationalism, with an assist from the Russian Army, relieved Georgia of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Russia has its own ethnic worries in Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia, whose Moscow-installed president was nearly blown to pieces two weeks ago and where a Chechen convoy was ambushed last week with 10 soldiers killed.

The ethnonationalism that pulled Ireland out of the United Kingdom in 1921 is pulling Scotland out. It split the Asian subcontinent up into Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Iran, Iraq and Pakistan are all threatened.

Persians are a bare majority against the combined numbers of Azeris, Kurds, Arabs and Baluch. Each of those minorities shares a border with kinfolk -- in Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

Turkey has fought for decades against Kurd ethnonationalism.

If one were to wager on new nations, Kurdistan and Baluchistan would be among the favorites. And Pashtun in Pakistan outnumber Pashtun in Afghanistan, though in the latter they are the majority.

In Africa, the savage attacks on the Kikiyu by Luo manifest a resurgent tribalism, as did the horrors of Rwanda, where Tutsi in the hundreds of thousands were massacred by Hutu.

President Clinton may have apologized to the Africans for not sending troops to stop the genocide in Rwanda, but if the America of Obama is into interventionism to protect human rights, Africa in the 21st century should provide us plenty of opportunity.

Evo Morales in Bolivia, Ollanta Humala in Peru and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez are stoking the embers, goading the Indian populations, the indigenous peoples, to take back what the white man took 500 years ago. They have met with no small success.

The contrast between insouciant America and serious China today is instructive. China is protectionist; America free trade. China is nationalist; America globalist. China's economy is export-driven; America's base is consumption. China saves; America spends. China uses its foreign exchange to lock up overseas resources; America uses foreign aid for humanitarian assistance to failed states. Behaving like ruthlessly purposeful 19th-century Americans, China grows as America shrinks.

Where Beijing floods its borderlands with Han to reduce indigenous populations to minorities, and stifles religious, ethnic and linguistic diversity, America, declaring, "Diversity is our strength!" invites the whole world to come to America and swamp her own native-born.

Observing the lightning breakup of the Soviet Union, the Chinese take ethnonationalism with deadly seriousness. American's elite regard it an irrelevancy, an obsession only of the politically retarded.

After all, they tell us, we were never blood-and-soil people, always a propositional nation, a nation of ideas. Our belief in democracy, diversity, and equality define us and make us different from all other nations.

Indeed, we now happily predict the year, 2042, when Americans of European ancestry become a minority in a country whose Founding Fathers declared it set aside for "ourselves and our posterity."

Without the assent of her people, America is being converted from a Christian country, nine in 10 of whose people traced their roots to Europe as late as the time of JFK, into a multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual, multicultural Tower of Babel not seen since the late Roman Empire.

The city farthest along the path is Los Angeles, famous worldwide for the number, variety, and size of its ethnic and racial street gangs.

Not to worry. It can't happen here.

One of many letters in reply to the above article:

I think you are off the mark, Mr. Buchanan. The ethnic group that is wreaking havoc has a different name, and I don't toss this idea out lightly.

Socialists/progressives are the new ethnicity in America. They have all of the earmarks (no pun intended) of any other culture.

They have a common spiritual 'north:' a distain for 'West.'

They have a common language: They marginalize and disparage those who dissent with labeling words like kooks, ne-cons, Nazis, et al.

They have little use for God, but are Godly in their anthropocentric belief that is is they who control nature.

They have no common motherland, but as they ignore Mother Nature, they seek to replace her.

Socialists, facists, and progressives--all peas in a pod who want to force social liberty upon us as their means for taking ours.

www.conservativemusiconline.com

Jul 10, 2009 @ 03:47 AM
Lance Morrison, CA

Hussein Obama and now Kevin 07's Uighur Muslim problem

Obama’s stuck with his Gitmo promises

Piers Akerman
News.com.au
Monday, June 01, 2009

US PRESIDENT Obama is in a jam and wants Australians to help him out. Like our own Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Obama ran an election campaign big on promises that he is having difficulty keeping.

One of those big promises was a pledge to close Guantanamo Bay in the first 100 days of his presidency. But first Obama has to find somewhere to place its remaining 250 or so inmates, most of whom are unlikely to face prosecution.

Among those who won’t face court action are 17 Uighur people. The US would like Australia to accept them.

The Uighur are Muslims from northern China. They want a separate Muslim homeland; there is little doubt they are persecuted by the Chinese, just as are the Tibetans. There is little doubt that they would not be safe from the Chinese, if they were returned to their homes.

But Obama wasn’t thinking about the Uighur when he vowed to close the Guantanamo. He was playing domestic politics, appealing to people like his married friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, a pair of America’s worst urban terrorists, in whose living room he is said to have decided on a political career.

Ayers and Dohrn were members of the Weathermen, a group of terrorists who blew up government buildings around the US in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, fortunately killing no-one but three of their own members.

Obama has learnt that the views of Ayers and Dohrn are not representative of many other Americans, most of whom realise that Gitmo houses some very bad people. No matter how small-L liberal Obama’s supporters are, they are not liberal enough to want Gitmo-quality people living in their neighbourhood.

Obama didn’t see this coming. Nor was he aware of a Pentagon report recently obtained by The New York Times which found that one in seven of the 534 prisoners transferred abroad from Guantanamo Bay returned to terrorism or militant activity.

Even Obama’s own Democrat Party colleagues are baulking at resettling Guantanamo Bay inmates in the US, which is why Obama has asked Australia to take at least some of the Uighur prisoners who have been held there for the past seven years.

This is the third request the US has made to Australia to accept Uighur detainees, the first two being made by the Bush administration.

This request differs, however, from those made by the Bushies, as former president Bush made no pledge to close Guantanamo and the approach to Australia was a resettlement issue, rather than the domestic US political problem it has now become.

Australia is essentially being asked to take the 10 Uighur to help Obama out of a political jam of his own making.

According to Mamtimin Ala, the general secretary of the Australian Uighur Association and member of the executive committee of the World Uighur Congress, the Uighur have been found not to be enemy combatants by the US courts and the US now has a moral responsibility to offer them homes in the US.

“It is primarily a US problem,” Ala told me. “But the American government fears creating outrage and unexpected repercussions if they permitted those Uighur to resettle in the US.”

Ala, a human rights activist who was granted an Australian protection visa last year and now has permanent residency here, previously lived in Brussels where he studied at a Belgian university for his masters in philosophy.

He argues that because Australia was a partner in the war on terror, it should accept a degree of responsibility for the Guantanamo inmates, if the US will not resettle them.

That argument is a little weak.

Australia needs migrants who want to be Australians, not migrants who see their future as hyphenated-Australians, owing a shared allegiance to another nation, and supporting foreign militants.

We already have difficulty dealing with groups who refuse to embrace the clearly recognisable Australian identity, preferring to fight ethnic and religious wars either by proxy though fund-raising exercises or through violence at sporting events and other opportunistic moments.

This is a difficult call as we have about 5000 Uighur living here now, and according to all accounts, quite peaceably, just as we have a small number of Tibetans.

There is no doubt that China would not like America or Australia to accept the Guantanamo Uighur.

China is a bully and China requires its diplomats to organise its expatriate communities to intervene in our domestic politics and make its views felt but that should not be a concern.

What is clear here is that Guantanamo, and the fall-out from Obama’s domestic policies, is not a matter for Australia.

When he led the triumphal chant, “Yes, we can,” Obama should have realised there were a few things that blind optimism could not achieve.

He didn’t think things through and we should not be there now to save his political goals. If he thinks he can convince Australians and Australian politicians that the Uighur pose no threat, he can convince his own electors of the same thing.

China's manager in Australia, PM Kevin Rudd declares "America will not protect us"

America will not protect us, warns Rudd

SMH
Jonathan Pearlman Defence Correspondent
May 2, 2009

THE Rudd Government has acknowledged that the supremacy of the US has begun to fade and Australia is preparing for an uncertain future in which it can no longer rely on the protection of its main ally.

In a fundamental shift in defence plans, the Government has explicitly declared that US primacy in the Asia-Pacific - the bedrock of the nation's security since

World War II - may be ending. The change, caused by the rise of new great powers such as China, is set to produce growing regional tensions and a "sudden deterioration" in Australia's security.

A 20-year defence blueprint, to be released by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, today, prepares for a multibillion-dollar build-up of naval and air forces to ensure that Australia can defend its northern and sea approaches.

It says a regional shake-up is under way but US supremacy will not be blunted before 2030 and assesses the chances of an attack on Australia in the short term as "very remote".

The white paper, Defending Australia In The Asia Pacific Century: Force 2030, is the first since 2000 and outlines a range of security threats, including instability caused by the financial crisis, cyber warfare, failed states in the Pacific, Islamist terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and climate change.

It warns that Australia must ensure it can protect itself amid an emerging range of great powers in the region - particularly China, India and Russia - which could lead to a "miscalculation" with disturbing consequences for Australia.

"Australia has been a very secure country for many decades, in large measure because the wider Asia-Pacific region has enjoyed an unprecedented era of peace and stability underwritten by US strategic primacy," the paper says. "That order is being transformed as economic changes start to bring about changes in the distribution of strategic power. Risks resulting from escalating strategic competition could emerge quite unpredictably."

The Minister for Defence, Joel Fitzgibbon, said the world faced "the beginning of the end" of the unquestioned dominance of Australia's principal ally since the Cold War.

The paper criticises China for failing to explain its substantial military build-up in recent years, which appears to have exceeded the force needed for a war over Taiwan. China's military modernisation will be little affected by the global financial crisis and is set to limit the ability of the US to control the region, it says.

"The pace, scope and structure of China's military modernisation have the potential to give its neighbours cause for concern if not carefully explained, and if China does not reach out to others to build confidence regarding its military plans.

"As other powers rise, and the primacy of the US is increasingly tested, power relations will inevitably change. When this happens there will be the possibility of miscalculation … A potential contraction of US strategic presence in the Asia-Pacific region, with a requirement for allies and friends to do more in their own regions, would adversely affect Australian interests, regional stability and global security."

The paper affirms support for the US alliance and for US-led efforts to bolster global security but warns Australia will not put troops at risk "in distant theatres of war where we have no direct interests".

Instead, the Government has focused on defending the borders of Australia, primarily by building air and naval power to protect the northern sea-air gap, maritime approaches and offshore oil and gas reserves.

A range of large-scale purchases includes a doubling of the submarine fleet to 12, about 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, eight frigates with submarine detection capability and - as planned - three air warfare destroyers. For the first time Australia will acquire an arsenal of sea-based long-range cruise missiles.

"The ability to deter or defeat armed attack on Australia will continue to be the primary force structure determinant … This means focusing predominantly on forces that can exert air superiority and sea control in our approaches."

The Government has kept its commitment to boost the Defence budget by 3 per cent each year until 2018, but plans to scale this back to 2.2 per cent until 2030.

It says an internal reform program will save $20 billion.

"America (Hussein) will not protect us", warns Rudd

Beijing's man in Australia, Comrade Rudd, aka Kevin "I have never been a Socialist" Rudd, aka " "Le Kewan", aka Dear Leader,aka " Kevin 07", is perhaps getting Australians ready for what his head office sees as the inevitability of the Hussein Obama led slide of the USA and the west into "International Socialism" aka Communism.

Comrade Rudd could be asked by the Australian media why he recently sent an Australian envoy to kneel at the Beijing throne of his masters, and reveal all of Australia's defense plans for the long and short term, seeking his Beijing masters approval of same before he dared implement any of them, however the Australian media are still high on the euphoria of their Dear Leader, Kevin 07's November 2007 election victory to notice anything untoward, not as if they ever did think the Australian Labor Party ever needed any busy body, media, Journalist types, scrutinizing their Party's actions.

Comrade Rudd is a big Hussein Obama fan, and if Hussein decrees something on a Monday,his echo in Australia, Comrade Rudd, will repeat it before the sun rises on the following day.
Both Hussein and Comrade Rudd have ensured their respective nations are, and will be indebted to Beijing, for at least the next three hundred years, obviously Beijing will want their money back well before then, both nations can either surrender their soverignty via debt for equity, or FIGHT when the demand for full paymenty is received and a request for an extension to the repayment terms is requested and denied by the lender.

As an Australian I am in the position of having a man who leads a party renowned for it's trechary against and contempt for Australia,it' speople and it's military forces,the Australian Labor Party, the present leader Kevin Rudd is a well documented multi millionaire internationalist, like all Socialists there is no way I would go into battle with the likes of him and his fellow Socialists behind me, If I am going to die I want to get shot in the guts not in the back by some smirking purpose bred Beijing centric, Manchurian Candidate and his cabal of Union parasites.

As for the USA, the greatest economic and military force on earth,I am wondering just how much safer ,if indeed Americans do , feel now, they have a President, who bows to the Wahabbist Saudi Arabian King Abdulla, apologises to every despotic South American Communist ruler who stands in front of him, and spews their hatred of America into his face and plunges Americans into trillions of dollars of debt, so much debt that even their great, great, great grand children will never be able to repay.

The majority of the American population will not kneel at the feet of Internationalism I hear you say,I agree,well if the bum's that have orchestrated the circumstances that require you to do so are also in charge of the US military what will you do?

Australians and Americans got what they voted for, CHANGE !

Enjoy the ride into Chinese Communism, aka Internationalism,World View,Fairness,Time for Change.

“ If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.

“There may be even a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves”

Winston Churchill. Pg.310 “The Hell Makers” John C. Grover ISBN # 0 7316 1918 8

Americans living in squalid tent Shanty Towns as "Community Organizer in Chief " Gives $900million to Gazan Terrorists and their supporters

Change Americans can believe in.
Is it just me who finds the following stories outrageous?
Has anyone else out there commented on the obscenity of these two stories?
Australia's very own arse clown & idiot in search of a village PM, "Kevin 07" Rudd is also complicit in the betrayal of the people he was elected to represent.

U.S. to Give $900 Million for Gaza Reconstruction

FoxNews.com
Monday,February 23, 2009

JERUSALEM —
The United States is preparing to donate more than $900 million for the reconstruction of Gaza, a U.S. official said Monday, as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton prepared to attend a donors conference for the war-ravaged territory next week.

Israeli and Palestinian officials said earlier Monday that Clinton will visit Israel and the West Bank during the first week of March for her first trip to the region as America's top diplomat.

Clinton said during her Asia trip this month that she would attend an international donors conference in Egypt on March 2 to discuss reconstruction in Gaza.

She provided no other details, but a U.S. official in the United States said Monday that the Obama administration's donation will likely top $900 million in humanitarian and rebuilding aid to the Palestinian Authority to help Gaza recover from Israel's offensive against Hamas last month.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the donation had not received final approval, said the exact amount was still to be determined.

The official added that the aid would not go to Hamas. U.S. officials have no formal contacts with the Islamic militant group Hamas, which runs a separate Palestinian administration in the Gaza Strip.

The Israeli officials, meanwhile, said Clinton will arrive in Israel on March 2 for meetings with the country's top leaders. Israel is currently ruled by a caretaker government as Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu cobbles together a new coalition.

The Israeli officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the visit had not been announced by the State Department, which has not released Clinton's schedule for next week.

Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said Clinton also would visit the West Bank during her stay.

U.S. officials have no formal contacts with the Islamic militant group Hamas, which runs a separate Palestinian administration in the Gaza Strip.