* Before Israeli jets attack Gaza, the Israelis do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. They drop leaflets in advance. They make phone calls into the soon to be targeted area. And strikes are even called off at the last minute when live feed shows civilians in the area. And what does Hamas do? They put their rockets on the rooftops of residential buildings, or near schools and mosques. Hamas P.M. Ismael Haniya said: "We desire death more than you desire life." A Hamas TV campaign urged: "bombs are more precious than children." Any wonder why Israel has a prosperous society while Hamas prides itself on death and destruction - and having tens of thousands of rockets and mortars. And let's not forget that after an Israeli bus full of civilians was blown up the Palestinians praised the attack and celebrated. Then again, the Arabs living in New York and New Jersey celebrated after our 9/11 attack.
* According to the Jerusalem Post, 1506 rockets were fired into Israel during the past week. 421 were intercepted by Iron Dome, the Israeli anti-missile system. Given that they only target rockets likely to hit civilian areas, it was quite an impressive display of the first functioning anti-missile system to ever be deployed.
* Cease-fire now in effect. As the LA Times described it in their lead article on 11/19/12: "An Israeli missile kills nine family members, increasing global pressure on both sides to end the hostilities." Can you imagine if these idiots were writing the news during WWII? Imagine the headlines: "Ike declares thousands died on Omaha beach, therefore U.S. should cease all hostilities." Or: "London devastated, Churchill needs to surrender!" Given that the mainstream media has completely lost their moral compass, it all becomes a numbers game. "Israel, you only have five dead, so make sure that you do not kill more than five Palestinians." The foolish leaders in the West are no better. This from the EU: Israel "must act proportionately and ensure the protection of civilians at all times..." Meanwhile, Assad's Syria can murder over 30,000 of its people, but...
* Meanwhile, masked gunmen in Gaza shot dead six people suspected of collaborating with Israel. They then dragged one of the bodies through the streets as Palestinians spit upon it. No indictment, no trial, just execution. Don't look for the mainstream media to be outraged. Anybody else think it's disgusting that Egypt's Morsi gets to be the "peacemaker"? Hamas' rockets and mortars come through Egypt via the Sudan or Libya. Morsi says he want to see the destruction of Israel and all Jews killed - but he is the peacemaker? Outrageous. Outrageous for Israel to agree on a cease-fire yet again. The only result is that Hamas will continue to fire rockets and mortars and missiles until a few years down the road when Israel decides they can no longer tolerate it and launches another attack. Here's the proof - the Jerusalem Post says 20 rockets have already been launched into Israel after the cease-fire took effect.
* Who supports Israel? A CNN poll found significant Republican support for Israel's defensive measures in Gaza - 74% in favor with 12% opposed. Democrats? Not even one-half in favor - 41% agreed, 36% disagreed. Sad, is it not? Thank G-d that most Congressional Democrats are supportive of Israel, notwithstanding the ever dwindling support amongst the rank and file. As the Democrat party goes further and further to the left this is not surprising - every major leftist group is anti-Israel (and often anti-semitic). And Obama? Anybody else tiring of his "violent extremists" phrase? When will he start telling the truth and call it radical Islam?
* More on Benghazi. The question in the past week has been who changed the original "talking points" used by Susan Rice when she went on the five Sunday talk shows. Specifically, who removed the references to terrorism and Al Qaeda? Originally, the intelligence agencies denied making any such deletions. Now, a spokesman for National Intelligence Director James Clapper said the intelligence community was SOLELY responsible for "substantive" changes to the talking points. So here's a question or two. Who authorized the changes? Was any pressure brought to bear by the White House or others? As noted above, Obama avoids use of the terms "terrorism" and "radical Islam." I would sure like to know how those changes came about. Whether or not the media cares (other than to try to prove that the White House was not behind it) I certainly hope Congress continues to investigate.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Israel and the Palestinians; GOP Blues; and More on Benghazi
* Israel and the Palestinians. Why the increase in hostilities? Who started it? If one just reads the mainstream media, you may not know that Hamas and Islamic Jihad have launched thousands of rockets and mortars into Israel from Gaza since 2005, when Israel vacated Gaza. Over one thousand were launched into Israel just this year up to Friday. Here is what everyone needs to know about the conflict: "We are sending a short and simple message: there is no security for any Zionist on any single inch of Palestine..." So said Abu Obeida, spokesman for the Hamas military. Inasmuch as Israel left Gaza years ago, and the rockets and mortars are falling on Israel, Obeida is telling the world that the Jews who live in Israel are actually living in "Palestine." As they do not recognize Israel's legitimacy, and say they never will, what else do you need to know?
* While the motivation of the Palestinians is clear, things do get more complicated by the involvement of others. Hamas has launched longer range Fajr-5 missiles at Tel Aviv. These missiles are supplied by Iran, proving that Iran is not just a threat if they get nukes. Meanwhile, the new Islamist leaders in Egypt and Tunisia, as well as the now Islamist leader in Turkey, have expressed their solidarity with the Palestinians. Does that mean they would get involved in a ground war with Israel if Israel sends troops into Gaza? Not likely, given their own internal problems, but it cannot be ruled out. And what about the U.S.? Two former military men (Col. Oliver North and 4 star General Jack Keane, former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army) believe that the Islamists, like Hamas, have felt emboldened since the 9/11/12 attack on Benghazi, killing the U.S. Ambassador and others. Obama blamed the attack on an anti-muslim video, and has taken no action against the terrorists. The U.S. has been perceived as being weak, resulting in a significant increase in anti-U.S. and anti-Israel "chatter." Nevertheless, I credit Obama for stating that "Israel has the right to defend itself," not something that every country acknowledges.
* As noted in the last post, Obama seems intent on presiding over a seriously diminished U.S. military force. A weakened U.S. always emboldens the enemies of peace and freedom. The mainstream media never gets it. In a 11/15/12 editorial, the New York Times opined: "The group (Hamas) has mostly adhered to an informal cease-fire with Israel after the war there in the winter of 2008-09." I suppose if you don't count a few thousand rockets and mortars raining down on Israel then they are correct. The Times continues: "Israel has a right to defend itself, but it's hard to see how Wednesday's operation could be the most effective way of advancing its long-term interests." If rockets were falling all around and in the NY Times' offices, would they want the NYPD and Homeland Security to stop it, or would they say fighting back would not be "an effective way of advancing the Times' long-term interests?" What a bunch of morons! One million Israelis have had to live in bomb shelters the last several days. Israel's long-term interests are in destroying the ability of Hamas to attack; not to worry about "new waves of condemnation against Israel in Arab countries," as the Times suggests. As if the Arabs would otherwise support Israel. The Times then concludes with their usual blaming of Israel - suggesting more countries would support Israel if they made peace with Abbas' Palestinian Authority. The dreamers of the left forever eschewing reality.
* GOP Blues. Numerous post-mortems have been written and verbalized about the GOP and what it needs to do since the election. Here are just a few suggestions that have been mentioned by commentators: back off on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, fix the immigration problem, learn to use social media, stop putting up Mr. Nice Guys to run, become more moderate, be better advocates of the free market, and select a more charismatic candidate. Having three young adults in my family, there seemed to be a general consensus that it was more "cool" and "in" to vote Democrat. My conservative son suggested the GOP stop talking about abortion and gay marriage. Abortion has been legal for 40 years, and gay marriage appears to be headed in the same direction. Mike Pence, a conservative Congressman, won the governorship in Indiana by avoiding discussion of the social issues. My older, more liberal daughter explained that Obama was more likeable, younger, cool, does Twitter, has a stylish wife and more easily relates to people.
* What seems clear from that daughter's analysis is that not a single substantive, policy issue was mentioned. And yet, she may be on to something. An exit poll asked people who was more "in touch with you," with 53% saying Obama to Romney's 43%. That ability to relate to people may trump substantive issues. If people sense that you understand them, they may feel that they can trust you to do the "right" thing on any policy issue. Some Republican governors are not happy with Romney saying Obama won with "financial gifts" from the government. Gov. Bobby Jindal says the GOP needs to campaign for every vote, and not insult people. Jindal says not to let demographics be destiny. As Gov. Scott Walker says, the Republican message works for everyone.
* The Investor's Business Daily suggests that the GOP "narrow the media gap." They want to see the GOP going on the mainstream media TV talk shows and fighting back. Of course, we need articulate conservatives doing so. I would add that conservatives should increasingly speak on college campuses, while acknowledging that even university presidents may hinder that effort. Fordham's president criticized the College Republicans for inviting Ann Coulter to speak, which ultimately resulted in the withdrawal of the invitation. Nevertheless, the effort must be made. When so many people hear only one viewpoint, it is incumbent upon Republicans to get the message out.
* We on the right should not be too discouraged. Of course, we felt extreme disappointment on the re-election of such a divisive, leftist ideologue. But, as noted by Don Campbell in the 11/14/12 USA Today, the GOP holds 30 of 50 governorships. Republicans also hold 27 of 49 state Houses/Assemblies, and 28 of 49 state Senates. (Nebraska has a non-partisan unicameral legislature.) The GOP also has a 40 seat majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and 45 seats in the U.S. Senate. So let's not take the gas pipe just yet. Can we expect Obama to now work with the Republican House? No, he remains an ideologue. He has said he wants to bring "fundamental change" to this country and that "elections have consequences." He wants to be a significant President, like a Roosevelt or a Reagan. So House Republicans will need to pick and choose their battles carefully.
* More on Benghazi. Now former CIA Director Gen. Petraeus claimed that the CIA "talking points" after the 9/11 attack in Benghazi made it clear that the attack was an act of terrorism, likely linked to Al-Qaeda in Africa. Yet, the "talking points" given to UN Ambassador Susan Rice contained no such statement. We are supposed to believe that that is how she ended up on five Sunday talk shows after the attack blaming it all on an anti-muslim video. Said Obama: Amb. Rice had "nothing to do with Benghazi." Then why was she selected to speak for the Administration on all the Sunday shows. Why not the Sec. of State or Sec. of Defense? Might it be that Rice, a longtime political ally of Obama's, could be counted on to lie for the Administration? Or, did they simply keep her in the dark and allow her to tell a story that had no basis in truth?
* Who are the racists and sexists? After Rice received heaps of criticism from Senators McCain and Graham, Obama said if they "want to go after somebody, they should go after me." Is Obama suggesting that, as a woman at the highest level of government, Rice still needs the protection of a man? And how about Congresswoman Marcia Fudge of Ohio, in line to be next chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Fudge: "It is a shame that anytime something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities." And this by Fudge: "There is clear sexism and racism that goes with these comments" by McCain and Graham. Sorry Congresswoman, if you can't take the heat, don't hold political office. According to Fudge's "logic," only white males may be criticized. THAT is racist and sexist. It is also typical of the left's constant focus on race and sex. As we on the right know, criticism of Obama is likely to result in a charge of racism. It is divisive, and a child-like reaction to legitimate criticism. Let's not forget why they do it though; they believe that the ends (supporting the Obama Administration in this case) justify the means (lying about McCain and Graham being racists and sexists). And they know the mainstream media will never call them on it.
* While the motivation of the Palestinians is clear, things do get more complicated by the involvement of others. Hamas has launched longer range Fajr-5 missiles at Tel Aviv. These missiles are supplied by Iran, proving that Iran is not just a threat if they get nukes. Meanwhile, the new Islamist leaders in Egypt and Tunisia, as well as the now Islamist leader in Turkey, have expressed their solidarity with the Palestinians. Does that mean they would get involved in a ground war with Israel if Israel sends troops into Gaza? Not likely, given their own internal problems, but it cannot be ruled out. And what about the U.S.? Two former military men (Col. Oliver North and 4 star General Jack Keane, former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army) believe that the Islamists, like Hamas, have felt emboldened since the 9/11/12 attack on Benghazi, killing the U.S. Ambassador and others. Obama blamed the attack on an anti-muslim video, and has taken no action against the terrorists. The U.S. has been perceived as being weak, resulting in a significant increase in anti-U.S. and anti-Israel "chatter." Nevertheless, I credit Obama for stating that "Israel has the right to defend itself," not something that every country acknowledges.
* As noted in the last post, Obama seems intent on presiding over a seriously diminished U.S. military force. A weakened U.S. always emboldens the enemies of peace and freedom. The mainstream media never gets it. In a 11/15/12 editorial, the New York Times opined: "The group (Hamas) has mostly adhered to an informal cease-fire with Israel after the war there in the winter of 2008-09." I suppose if you don't count a few thousand rockets and mortars raining down on Israel then they are correct. The Times continues: "Israel has a right to defend itself, but it's hard to see how Wednesday's operation could be the most effective way of advancing its long-term interests." If rockets were falling all around and in the NY Times' offices, would they want the NYPD and Homeland Security to stop it, or would they say fighting back would not be "an effective way of advancing the Times' long-term interests?" What a bunch of morons! One million Israelis have had to live in bomb shelters the last several days. Israel's long-term interests are in destroying the ability of Hamas to attack; not to worry about "new waves of condemnation against Israel in Arab countries," as the Times suggests. As if the Arabs would otherwise support Israel. The Times then concludes with their usual blaming of Israel - suggesting more countries would support Israel if they made peace with Abbas' Palestinian Authority. The dreamers of the left forever eschewing reality.
* GOP Blues. Numerous post-mortems have been written and verbalized about the GOP and what it needs to do since the election. Here are just a few suggestions that have been mentioned by commentators: back off on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, fix the immigration problem, learn to use social media, stop putting up Mr. Nice Guys to run, become more moderate, be better advocates of the free market, and select a more charismatic candidate. Having three young adults in my family, there seemed to be a general consensus that it was more "cool" and "in" to vote Democrat. My conservative son suggested the GOP stop talking about abortion and gay marriage. Abortion has been legal for 40 years, and gay marriage appears to be headed in the same direction. Mike Pence, a conservative Congressman, won the governorship in Indiana by avoiding discussion of the social issues. My older, more liberal daughter explained that Obama was more likeable, younger, cool, does Twitter, has a stylish wife and more easily relates to people.
* What seems clear from that daughter's analysis is that not a single substantive, policy issue was mentioned. And yet, she may be on to something. An exit poll asked people who was more "in touch with you," with 53% saying Obama to Romney's 43%. That ability to relate to people may trump substantive issues. If people sense that you understand them, they may feel that they can trust you to do the "right" thing on any policy issue. Some Republican governors are not happy with Romney saying Obama won with "financial gifts" from the government. Gov. Bobby Jindal says the GOP needs to campaign for every vote, and not insult people. Jindal says not to let demographics be destiny. As Gov. Scott Walker says, the Republican message works for everyone.
* The Investor's Business Daily suggests that the GOP "narrow the media gap." They want to see the GOP going on the mainstream media TV talk shows and fighting back. Of course, we need articulate conservatives doing so. I would add that conservatives should increasingly speak on college campuses, while acknowledging that even university presidents may hinder that effort. Fordham's president criticized the College Republicans for inviting Ann Coulter to speak, which ultimately resulted in the withdrawal of the invitation. Nevertheless, the effort must be made. When so many people hear only one viewpoint, it is incumbent upon Republicans to get the message out.
* We on the right should not be too discouraged. Of course, we felt extreme disappointment on the re-election of such a divisive, leftist ideologue. But, as noted by Don Campbell in the 11/14/12 USA Today, the GOP holds 30 of 50 governorships. Republicans also hold 27 of 49 state Houses/Assemblies, and 28 of 49 state Senates. (Nebraska has a non-partisan unicameral legislature.) The GOP also has a 40 seat majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and 45 seats in the U.S. Senate. So let's not take the gas pipe just yet. Can we expect Obama to now work with the Republican House? No, he remains an ideologue. He has said he wants to bring "fundamental change" to this country and that "elections have consequences." He wants to be a significant President, like a Roosevelt or a Reagan. So House Republicans will need to pick and choose their battles carefully.
* More on Benghazi. Now former CIA Director Gen. Petraeus claimed that the CIA "talking points" after the 9/11 attack in Benghazi made it clear that the attack was an act of terrorism, likely linked to Al-Qaeda in Africa. Yet, the "talking points" given to UN Ambassador Susan Rice contained no such statement. We are supposed to believe that that is how she ended up on five Sunday talk shows after the attack blaming it all on an anti-muslim video. Said Obama: Amb. Rice had "nothing to do with Benghazi." Then why was she selected to speak for the Administration on all the Sunday shows. Why not the Sec. of State or Sec. of Defense? Might it be that Rice, a longtime political ally of Obama's, could be counted on to lie for the Administration? Or, did they simply keep her in the dark and allow her to tell a story that had no basis in truth?
* Who are the racists and sexists? After Rice received heaps of criticism from Senators McCain and Graham, Obama said if they "want to go after somebody, they should go after me." Is Obama suggesting that, as a woman at the highest level of government, Rice still needs the protection of a man? And how about Congresswoman Marcia Fudge of Ohio, in line to be next chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Fudge: "It is a shame that anytime something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities." And this by Fudge: "There is clear sexism and racism that goes with these comments" by McCain and Graham. Sorry Congresswoman, if you can't take the heat, don't hold political office. According to Fudge's "logic," only white males may be criticized. THAT is racist and sexist. It is also typical of the left's constant focus on race and sex. As we on the right know, criticism of Obama is likely to result in a charge of racism. It is divisive, and a child-like reaction to legitimate criticism. Let's not forget why they do it though; they believe that the ends (supporting the Obama Administration in this case) justify the means (lying about McCain and Graham being racists and sexists). And they know the mainstream media will never call them on it.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
The Worst President Ever? Certainly the Most Radical.
* Obama, one of our greatest Presidents? So said a friend and reader. June, 2003, Obama said: I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program." But in 2009: I have not said that I was a single payer supporter." Obama, 1996: "I favor legalizing same sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." During the 2008 campaign he said, as a Christian, he felt that marriage was the sacred union of a man and a woman. Now, wanting to maintain his left-wing base, he favors same sex marriage again. Early on in the last campaign he favored public financing of elections and was committed to it. Until he wasn't.
* Obama has presided over the worst economy since the Great Depression. Over 8% unemployment his entire term except for the last two months (7.8% and now up to 7.9%). Higher than when he entered office. As a consequence, food stamp recipients up from 32 million to 47 million; and social security disability recipients now number 8.3 million. In 2008 Obama complained that Bush's adding 4 trillion dollars to the national debt in 8 years was "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic." In 4 years Obama has added 5 trillion to the debt. Upon taking office in January, 2009 the price of gas was less than half of what it is today. But forget about drilling.
* Obama decided not to support a manned space program for NASA. Cutting the size of our Navy's ships to the lowest number since WWI. Air Force fighters will decrease by more than half - 3602 to 1512). Wants to reduce our 5000 nuclear weapons to 1500 and then 300. Opposes next generation nukes. Missed more than half of his national security briefings. (Not nearly as much fun as Letterman, the View, JayZ, golfing or trips with Michelle.) Cut or put on hold 50 different new weapon systems, including the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter.
* Obama promised the most open and transparent Presidency ever. All legislation would be posted online before any vote on it. Neither he nor the Dems in Congress even read the Affordable Care Act. Still refuses to answer questions about Benghazi. Our annual growth rate (GDP)? 2010 - 2.4%, 2011 - 1.8%, first nine months of 2012 - 1.7%. Anemic? No, pathetic! When Bush had 3.4% the Dems were apoplectic over it.
* Promises to be a unifying President of "all" the people. Ended up in one term managing to be the most divisive President in memory (ever?). Sides with the violent and ill-behaved "Occupy Wall Street" movement; talks about the 1% versus the 99%; constantly complains about the millionaires and billionaires; disrespects the religious; disrespects the very peaceful "Tea Party" movement; tells Republicans they will have no input into his healthcare bill because "I won the election;" and, of course, "you didn't build that (business), somebody else made that happen."
* Israel? Militarily, aid has continued, after an initial bump in the road. Politically? A disaster. Dislikes (despises?) Netanyahu. Has yet to visit Israel, although visited numerous Arab/Muslim countries. First phone call? To Palestinian leader Abbas. First speech? From Cairo (where he invites members of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend, an insult to our then ally Hosni Mubarak, who was still in power) speaks to the Muslim world. Calls the West Bank "occupied" territory, the term used by the Palestinians. Says Israel must return to the indefensible 1967 borders. Says Israel must give up part of its Capital city, Jerusalem. Refuses to tell Palestinians they can not have a "right of return" to Israel, which would effectively make it yet another Muslim country. Does not object to the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank if Israel does agree to give up that land - even though Palestinians say no Jews would be allowed. Given the above, it is no surprise that Israeli Jews see Romney as more supportive (57.2% to 21.5%). Also not surprising, Israeli Arabs favor Obama by a 3 to 1 margin.
* The Muslims? In 2009, Obama says it is his responsibility to "fight against negative stereotypes of Islam." In one of his books, wrote that "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." The White House - an open door for radical Muslims. Abdurahman Alamoudi, a Muslim Brotherhood leader, publicly denounces terrorism. Then privately praises Hamas and Hezbollah, and expressed regret that more Americans were not killed in African embassy bombings. Says Muslims must turn US into a Muslim country, even if it takes 100 years. And, as we know, Huma Abedein, Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton, has family members in the Muslim Brotherhood. As noted in this blog, our defense establishment and other federal agencies have allowed the Brotherhood to eliminate what they deem to be offensive terms from our training manuals. Terms like "jihad." Of course, recall that Obama's National Intelligence Director described the Brotherhood as "secular." And remember what NASA's primary goal was? To make "Muslim nations feel good about their historic contribution to science...and math and engineering." Clearly, NASA's job is not space travel! And, in a sign that could easily make one suspicious that he is still a Muslim, he bows to the Saudi King.
* Benghazi? Were it not for Fox News, we would not know half of what we do now know. Fox News - the outlet that many on the left would like to see shut down. (As an aside, if Obama was the President during Watergate, with the current media, we would have never heard of "Watergate." We would not know it is a hotel in D.C. or the story behind the break-in. There would be no investigative journalism. No challenge to what government does or says. That would be - just like today. Today's LA Times? Not a single story in the first section on Benghazi. The NY Times? Puts the story on today's front page with the headline: "Libya Attack Shows Pentagon's Limits in Region." The entire gist of the article is to defend the Obama Administration's lack of action to save our Ambassador and other Americans. The article, quoting government sources, says: "An examination of these tumultuous events undercuts the criticism leveled by some Republicans that the Obama administration did not try to respond militarily to the crisis." But since when, in an incident of this significance, does the media simply accept at face value what government leaders are saying on the record? Only Fox News has dug deeper. But maybe you don't think it matters that Obama and his team lied for weeks about the attack occurring because people were upset by an anti-Muslim video. He said he would side with the Muslims. And calling it a terrorist attack did not fit with his narrative - Al Qaeda is done since Bin Laden is dead.
* So what did happen in Benghazi? According to Fox News, the CIA account that no request for aid was made until 9:40pm local time, has been disputed by others on the ground there. They also dispute the claims that there were no assets in the area - no armed drones, no F-18s, no AC-130 gunships. Fox says British sources said they had more people on the ground than the US did - but never got a call to assist. This was the anniversary of 9/11. Multiple requests were made beforehand for greater security. Al Qaeda and its affiliates were NOT dead, even though Bin Ladin was. And Obama will discuss none of this before the election. And the mainstream media will not ask. But we have not seen any photo-ops of everyone in the White House Situation Room that day coordinating a counter attack.
* A Marxist? Remember in 2008 Obama told Joe the plumber that "it's a good idea to spread the wealth around." More recently he said: "if you've got a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen." Well, this is something he has believed for many years. In 1998, Obama said: "I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure everybody's got a shot." Except that the American way is to give everybody a shot - called "opportunity" - through economic growth; you know, capitalism! But Obama told us he wanted to bring "fundamental change" to our country. Think all the radical affiliations are an accident? Rev. Wright. Van Jones. Anita Dunn (remember Mao is her favorite political philosopher - none of the great (traditional) liberal democratic thinkers). Valerie Jarrett. Cass Sunstein. Samantha Power. And the list could go on and on.
* In 2008 Obama mostly hid his true agenda. He did mention, almost in passing as if testing the waters, things like "fundamental change" and "spreading the wealth around." Then, many people were tired of Bush and war. So they voted in the most radical President in our country's history. Four years later, overseeing one of the worst economies in history, I believe he will lose to Mitt Romney. While I will celebrate that victory, I take no joy in knowing that nearly 50% of the the American people are willing to vote for this obvious Marxist. While Thomas Friedman writes in today's NY Times about how far to the right the Republican party has moved, it is simply not true. The Republicans stand for what used to be considered fundamental American values: things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the Democrats who want to undermine every traditional institution in this country - including the very basic one of capitalism. A Pew poll reported that only 47% of Democrats viewed capitalism in a positive light, 53% did not. 44% of Democrats saw socialism as positive. Either we return to those fundamental values or we on the right will suffer the same consequences that those on the left unwittingly will bring upon themselves.
* Obama has presided over the worst economy since the Great Depression. Over 8% unemployment his entire term except for the last two months (7.8% and now up to 7.9%). Higher than when he entered office. As a consequence, food stamp recipients up from 32 million to 47 million; and social security disability recipients now number 8.3 million. In 2008 Obama complained that Bush's adding 4 trillion dollars to the national debt in 8 years was "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic." In 4 years Obama has added 5 trillion to the debt. Upon taking office in January, 2009 the price of gas was less than half of what it is today. But forget about drilling.
* Obama decided not to support a manned space program for NASA. Cutting the size of our Navy's ships to the lowest number since WWI. Air Force fighters will decrease by more than half - 3602 to 1512). Wants to reduce our 5000 nuclear weapons to 1500 and then 300. Opposes next generation nukes. Missed more than half of his national security briefings. (Not nearly as much fun as Letterman, the View, JayZ, golfing or trips with Michelle.) Cut or put on hold 50 different new weapon systems, including the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter.
* Obama promised the most open and transparent Presidency ever. All legislation would be posted online before any vote on it. Neither he nor the Dems in Congress even read the Affordable Care Act. Still refuses to answer questions about Benghazi. Our annual growth rate (GDP)? 2010 - 2.4%, 2011 - 1.8%, first nine months of 2012 - 1.7%. Anemic? No, pathetic! When Bush had 3.4% the Dems were apoplectic over it.
* Promises to be a unifying President of "all" the people. Ended up in one term managing to be the most divisive President in memory (ever?). Sides with the violent and ill-behaved "Occupy Wall Street" movement; talks about the 1% versus the 99%; constantly complains about the millionaires and billionaires; disrespects the religious; disrespects the very peaceful "Tea Party" movement; tells Republicans they will have no input into his healthcare bill because "I won the election;" and, of course, "you didn't build that (business), somebody else made that happen."
* Israel? Militarily, aid has continued, after an initial bump in the road. Politically? A disaster. Dislikes (despises?) Netanyahu. Has yet to visit Israel, although visited numerous Arab/Muslim countries. First phone call? To Palestinian leader Abbas. First speech? From Cairo (where he invites members of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend, an insult to our then ally Hosni Mubarak, who was still in power) speaks to the Muslim world. Calls the West Bank "occupied" territory, the term used by the Palestinians. Says Israel must return to the indefensible 1967 borders. Says Israel must give up part of its Capital city, Jerusalem. Refuses to tell Palestinians they can not have a "right of return" to Israel, which would effectively make it yet another Muslim country. Does not object to the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank if Israel does agree to give up that land - even though Palestinians say no Jews would be allowed. Given the above, it is no surprise that Israeli Jews see Romney as more supportive (57.2% to 21.5%). Also not surprising, Israeli Arabs favor Obama by a 3 to 1 margin.
* The Muslims? In 2009, Obama says it is his responsibility to "fight against negative stereotypes of Islam." In one of his books, wrote that "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." The White House - an open door for radical Muslims. Abdurahman Alamoudi, a Muslim Brotherhood leader, publicly denounces terrorism. Then privately praises Hamas and Hezbollah, and expressed regret that more Americans were not killed in African embassy bombings. Says Muslims must turn US into a Muslim country, even if it takes 100 years. And, as we know, Huma Abedein, Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton, has family members in the Muslim Brotherhood. As noted in this blog, our defense establishment and other federal agencies have allowed the Brotherhood to eliminate what they deem to be offensive terms from our training manuals. Terms like "jihad." Of course, recall that Obama's National Intelligence Director described the Brotherhood as "secular." And remember what NASA's primary goal was? To make "Muslim nations feel good about their historic contribution to science...and math and engineering." Clearly, NASA's job is not space travel! And, in a sign that could easily make one suspicious that he is still a Muslim, he bows to the Saudi King.
* Benghazi? Were it not for Fox News, we would not know half of what we do now know. Fox News - the outlet that many on the left would like to see shut down. (As an aside, if Obama was the President during Watergate, with the current media, we would have never heard of "Watergate." We would not know it is a hotel in D.C. or the story behind the break-in. There would be no investigative journalism. No challenge to what government does or says. That would be - just like today. Today's LA Times? Not a single story in the first section on Benghazi. The NY Times? Puts the story on today's front page with the headline: "Libya Attack Shows Pentagon's Limits in Region." The entire gist of the article is to defend the Obama Administration's lack of action to save our Ambassador and other Americans. The article, quoting government sources, says: "An examination of these tumultuous events undercuts the criticism leveled by some Republicans that the Obama administration did not try to respond militarily to the crisis." But since when, in an incident of this significance, does the media simply accept at face value what government leaders are saying on the record? Only Fox News has dug deeper. But maybe you don't think it matters that Obama and his team lied for weeks about the attack occurring because people were upset by an anti-Muslim video. He said he would side with the Muslims. And calling it a terrorist attack did not fit with his narrative - Al Qaeda is done since Bin Laden is dead.
* So what did happen in Benghazi? According to Fox News, the CIA account that no request for aid was made until 9:40pm local time, has been disputed by others on the ground there. They also dispute the claims that there were no assets in the area - no armed drones, no F-18s, no AC-130 gunships. Fox says British sources said they had more people on the ground than the US did - but never got a call to assist. This was the anniversary of 9/11. Multiple requests were made beforehand for greater security. Al Qaeda and its affiliates were NOT dead, even though Bin Ladin was. And Obama will discuss none of this before the election. And the mainstream media will not ask. But we have not seen any photo-ops of everyone in the White House Situation Room that day coordinating a counter attack.
* A Marxist? Remember in 2008 Obama told Joe the plumber that "it's a good idea to spread the wealth around." More recently he said: "if you've got a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen." Well, this is something he has believed for many years. In 1998, Obama said: "I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure everybody's got a shot." Except that the American way is to give everybody a shot - called "opportunity" - through economic growth; you know, capitalism! But Obama told us he wanted to bring "fundamental change" to our country. Think all the radical affiliations are an accident? Rev. Wright. Van Jones. Anita Dunn (remember Mao is her favorite political philosopher - none of the great (traditional) liberal democratic thinkers). Valerie Jarrett. Cass Sunstein. Samantha Power. And the list could go on and on.
* In 2008 Obama mostly hid his true agenda. He did mention, almost in passing as if testing the waters, things like "fundamental change" and "spreading the wealth around." Then, many people were tired of Bush and war. So they voted in the most radical President in our country's history. Four years later, overseeing one of the worst economies in history, I believe he will lose to Mitt Romney. While I will celebrate that victory, I take no joy in knowing that nearly 50% of the the American people are willing to vote for this obvious Marxist. While Thomas Friedman writes in today's NY Times about how far to the right the Republican party has moved, it is simply not true. The Republicans stand for what used to be considered fundamental American values: things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the Democrats who want to undermine every traditional institution in this country - including the very basic one of capitalism. A Pew poll reported that only 47% of Democrats viewed capitalism in a positive light, 53% did not. 44% of Democrats saw socialism as positive. Either we return to those fundamental values or we on the right will suffer the same consequences that those on the left unwittingly will bring upon themselves.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Debate II, and Considerations on the Middle East for the Final Debate
* The second debate format was favored by some, disliked by others. The "in your face, in your space" format was not ideal in this writer's opinion. I could not help but wonder if the obvious hostility between the two reflected the hostility between the two sides in the greater society.
* When asked what they would do about the cost of living, which has gone up the last four years, we saw two different views of what has happened over that time. Obama said he cut taxes to the middle class and small businesses. He said he ended the war in Iraq and got bin Laden. He passed healthcare reform, and what he said were the toughest Wall Street reforms since the 1930's. He said he was using the savings ending two wars to put people back to work.
* Romney said if you reelect Obama you will get a repeat of the last four years. He said Obama predicted 5.4% unemployment by now; if that were the case we would have 9 million more jobs. There was no immigration plan as promised. There was no fix of Social Security and Medicare. The deficit was not cut in half as promised. Health insurance premiums not down $2500. per year as we were told, but up $2500. per year. 23 million people unemployed, with one out of six in poverty. The food stamp rolls went up from 32 million to 47 million. The economy has been growing slower each year. Romney said Reagan inherited 10.8% unemployment but helped the economy create twice as many jobs as did Obama in the same time.
* So, obviously two different takes on the last four years. Which candidate has a more realistic view of the Middle East? Here are some considerations for the two candidates. Which one do you think has the more realistic view?
* Abbas, as the head of the Palestinian Authority, is Israel's supposed peace partner. Abbas' term of office actually ended four years ago; and no elections have been held since (although municipal elections were just held). Abbas' doctoral dissertation was a denial of the Holocaust. In 2008, Abbas rejected Olmert's offer for a two state solution (just like Arafat rejected Barak's offer in 2000). Abbas has refused to negotiate with Israel since Obama took office. Abbas is now asking the UN to upgrade the PA's status from "observer" to "non-member state." As a non-member state, the PA would be able to join the International Criminal Court and file a complaint against Israel. The vote is expected to take place in the General Assembly...AFTER the US general election. (Coincidence? Obama told Medvedev and Putin that he would have more "flexibility" after the election. Today, the NY Times reports that Obama plans on having one on one talks with Iran - after the election.)
* Abbas posted on his official Facebook page that Israel not only occupies Palestinian territory illegally, but "the point applies to all the territories Israel occupied before June, 1967." Abbas has also said that UN recognition of a PA state in the West Bank "proves that Palestinians have rights to all the land that is occupied." (From both Jewish Press, 10/17/12 and Caroline Glick, 10/18/12.) So, as this blog has noted before, Abbas is claiming the right to all the land of Israel. He does not believe Israel has a right to exist. The land occupied by Israel before June, 1967 was based on the boundary set by the 1949 Armistice - the same area that the PA tells the West will be the State of Israel in a two state solution. But they clearly don't mean it. It is all a lie.
* So what about the other Arabs? Won't they keep the Palestinians in line? Hezbollah and the head of Lebanon's Baath Party just called for the "eradication" of Israel yet again. (Per The Jerusalem Post, 10/12/12.) With Islamist states taking over in the Middle East, any hope for moderation is unwarranted and unrealistic. Mohamad Morsi, the new head of Egypt, has said: "there is no peace with the descendants of apes and pigs" (referring to the Jews). (Per Caroline Glick.) In Turkey, school books describe Darwin as a "big nosed Jew." They went on to explain that Darwin had two problems: "First, he was a Jew; second, he hated his prominent forehead, big nose, and misshapen teeth." As for Einstein, he is described as "filthy and slovenly" and ate soap. The textbook adds: "the sad part is during that time the Gestapo was putting Jews into ovens and making them into soap." So, it's just a shame to the Arabs that the same fate did not befall Einstein, perhaps the greatest scientific genius of all time.
* And how does the West view the "peace process?" Catherine Ashton, the European Union Foreign Policy Chief, said this: "settlements are illegal under international law and threaten to make a two state solution impossible." First, how can settlements be illegal when there has never been agreed upon borders? Second, only someone on the left is willing to ignore the obvious, so let me highlight it: ABBAS, THE PA, HAMAS, HEZBOLLAH AND MOST OTHER ARABS DO NOT ACCEPT ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO EXIST AS THE JEWISH STATE! So what two states did you have in mind, Ms. Ashton?
* How about the US though? Sadly, 15 different leaders of Christian churches have called on Congress to reconsider aid to Israel, accusing it of human rights violations. (As reported in the 10/21/12 NY Times.) These include the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the United Methodist Church, the National Council of Churches, the United Church of Christ, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the American Friends Service Committee (described as a Quaker agency), the Mennonite Central Committee, and two Catholic leaders. Let me be clear: to single out Israel can only be due to anti-semitism. Israel has the best human rights record in the Middle East. Arabs serve in the government. Syria is murdering tens of thousands of its citizens. Many Arab countries deny basic civil rights to women and gays. Why aren't these Christian leaders OUTRAGED over hundreds of thousands of Christians having been kicked out of Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories; and persecuted like the Coptic Christians in Egypt? Why?
* So who better understands the realities of the Middle East, Obama or Romney? Who has the better relationship with the duly elected Prime Minister of Israel, Obama or Romney? (If you answered Obama please read my earlier posts concerning Obama and Israel.) Which candidate has a true affinity for Israel and the Jewish people; and which, by his own words, has aligned himself with the Muslims? Which candidate is most likely to believe in the words of our second President, John Adams, who said of the Jews: "They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their Empire were but a Bauble in comparison of the Jews. They have given religion to three quarters of the Globe and have influenced the affairs of Mankind more, and more happily, than any other Nation ancient or modern."
* When asked what they would do about the cost of living, which has gone up the last four years, we saw two different views of what has happened over that time. Obama said he cut taxes to the middle class and small businesses. He said he ended the war in Iraq and got bin Laden. He passed healthcare reform, and what he said were the toughest Wall Street reforms since the 1930's. He said he was using the savings ending two wars to put people back to work.
* Romney said if you reelect Obama you will get a repeat of the last four years. He said Obama predicted 5.4% unemployment by now; if that were the case we would have 9 million more jobs. There was no immigration plan as promised. There was no fix of Social Security and Medicare. The deficit was not cut in half as promised. Health insurance premiums not down $2500. per year as we were told, but up $2500. per year. 23 million people unemployed, with one out of six in poverty. The food stamp rolls went up from 32 million to 47 million. The economy has been growing slower each year. Romney said Reagan inherited 10.8% unemployment but helped the economy create twice as many jobs as did Obama in the same time.
* So, obviously two different takes on the last four years. Which candidate has a more realistic view of the Middle East? Here are some considerations for the two candidates. Which one do you think has the more realistic view?
* Abbas, as the head of the Palestinian Authority, is Israel's supposed peace partner. Abbas' term of office actually ended four years ago; and no elections have been held since (although municipal elections were just held). Abbas' doctoral dissertation was a denial of the Holocaust. In 2008, Abbas rejected Olmert's offer for a two state solution (just like Arafat rejected Barak's offer in 2000). Abbas has refused to negotiate with Israel since Obama took office. Abbas is now asking the UN to upgrade the PA's status from "observer" to "non-member state." As a non-member state, the PA would be able to join the International Criminal Court and file a complaint against Israel. The vote is expected to take place in the General Assembly...AFTER the US general election. (Coincidence? Obama told Medvedev and Putin that he would have more "flexibility" after the election. Today, the NY Times reports that Obama plans on having one on one talks with Iran - after the election.)
* Abbas posted on his official Facebook page that Israel not only occupies Palestinian territory illegally, but "the point applies to all the territories Israel occupied before June, 1967." Abbas has also said that UN recognition of a PA state in the West Bank "proves that Palestinians have rights to all the land that is occupied." (From both Jewish Press, 10/17/12 and Caroline Glick, 10/18/12.) So, as this blog has noted before, Abbas is claiming the right to all the land of Israel. He does not believe Israel has a right to exist. The land occupied by Israel before June, 1967 was based on the boundary set by the 1949 Armistice - the same area that the PA tells the West will be the State of Israel in a two state solution. But they clearly don't mean it. It is all a lie.
* So what about the other Arabs? Won't they keep the Palestinians in line? Hezbollah and the head of Lebanon's Baath Party just called for the "eradication" of Israel yet again. (Per The Jerusalem Post, 10/12/12.) With Islamist states taking over in the Middle East, any hope for moderation is unwarranted and unrealistic. Mohamad Morsi, the new head of Egypt, has said: "there is no peace with the descendants of apes and pigs" (referring to the Jews). (Per Caroline Glick.) In Turkey, school books describe Darwin as a "big nosed Jew." They went on to explain that Darwin had two problems: "First, he was a Jew; second, he hated his prominent forehead, big nose, and misshapen teeth." As for Einstein, he is described as "filthy and slovenly" and ate soap. The textbook adds: "the sad part is during that time the Gestapo was putting Jews into ovens and making them into soap." So, it's just a shame to the Arabs that the same fate did not befall Einstein, perhaps the greatest scientific genius of all time.
* And how does the West view the "peace process?" Catherine Ashton, the European Union Foreign Policy Chief, said this: "settlements are illegal under international law and threaten to make a two state solution impossible." First, how can settlements be illegal when there has never been agreed upon borders? Second, only someone on the left is willing to ignore the obvious, so let me highlight it: ABBAS, THE PA, HAMAS, HEZBOLLAH AND MOST OTHER ARABS DO NOT ACCEPT ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO EXIST AS THE JEWISH STATE! So what two states did you have in mind, Ms. Ashton?
* How about the US though? Sadly, 15 different leaders of Christian churches have called on Congress to reconsider aid to Israel, accusing it of human rights violations. (As reported in the 10/21/12 NY Times.) These include the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the United Methodist Church, the National Council of Churches, the United Church of Christ, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the American Friends Service Committee (described as a Quaker agency), the Mennonite Central Committee, and two Catholic leaders. Let me be clear: to single out Israel can only be due to anti-semitism. Israel has the best human rights record in the Middle East. Arabs serve in the government. Syria is murdering tens of thousands of its citizens. Many Arab countries deny basic civil rights to women and gays. Why aren't these Christian leaders OUTRAGED over hundreds of thousands of Christians having been kicked out of Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories; and persecuted like the Coptic Christians in Egypt? Why?
* So who better understands the realities of the Middle East, Obama or Romney? Who has the better relationship with the duly elected Prime Minister of Israel, Obama or Romney? (If you answered Obama please read my earlier posts concerning Obama and Israel.) Which candidate has a true affinity for Israel and the Jewish people; and which, by his own words, has aligned himself with the Muslims? Which candidate is most likely to believe in the words of our second President, John Adams, who said of the Jews: "They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their Empire were but a Bauble in comparison of the Jews. They have given religion to three quarters of the Globe and have influenced the affairs of Mankind more, and more happily, than any other Nation ancient or modern."
Sunday, October 14, 2012
And the Winner of the V.P. Debate was...and Other Matters
* According to the post debate CNN poll the winner was Ryan by 48% to 44%. But one of the networks had Biden up by about 20%. Charles Krauthammer said if you just read a transcript of the debate it was a tie, if you heard it on the radio then Biden won, and if you saw it on TV then Ryan won. This writer did see it on TV and thought that Biden won. He was more aggressive and succeeded more in making his points. His facial antics, however, were inexplicable and reminiscent of a junior high school performance. It does not appear to have mattered to the voters. In a focus group on Hannity, Frank Luntz had 26 people, most of whom had voted for Obama in 2008, but were currently among the undecided. Not one said the debate would sway their vote. There were, however, some interesting comments.
* Said Biden: "We can't afford $800 billion going to the people making a minimum of $1 million. They do not need it..." The reference was to an extension of the "Bush" tax cuts (said cuts having been approved by Congress). So let's be clear. Obama said it's a good idea to spread the wealth around. Obama constantly talks about the millionaires and billionaires; that everyone needs to pay their fair share (the top 10% pay 70% of the Federal income taxes already). It was Obama who said that after a certain point you've made enough money. So when Obama and Biden say the wealthy "do not need" their money we are really talking about government confiscation of private property. Sadly, my friends on the left are able to justify this unwarranted taking of private property because they have followed Obama and the Democrat party to the path of tyranny and socialism. The ends justify the means; and principle varies with the need. Of course, "spreading the wealth around" has never worked. It does not matter; Obama and his followers are driven by ideology.
* Biden claimed that Iran was more isolated now than at any time since Obama took office. No doubt they have been affected by the sanctions. But sanctions do not have a good history of preventing a country that wants nukes from getting nukes. And Iran is not that isolated. They just recently hosted a meeting of the so-called "non-aligned" nations - 120 countries strong! When asked directly which is worse, another war in the Middle east or a nuclear armed Iran, Ryan answered directly and said a nuclear armed Iran. Biden did not answer at all, simply claiming that Iran is being crippled by sanctions. The moderator did not press him for an answer. But why did former defense secretary Gates say a strike on Iran would be catastrophic and haunting for generations? What about the Ayatollahs and "I'manutjob" having nukes?
* While much has been made over the last four years about whether or not Obama was born here, and whether he is truly a Christian or a Muslim, this blog has purposely avoided discussion of those issues. What I have said is that it is clear where Obama's allegiances lie - and that is with the Muslims. Whether it was his speech to the Muslim world from Cairo; his mistreatment of Bibi Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister; his bow to the Saudi King; his immediate siding with the Palestinians by calling the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) "occupied" territory; his refusal to visit Israel as President after visiting numerous Arab and Muslim countries; his latest refusal to meet with Netanyahu during the U.N. General Assembly, claiming his schedule did not permit it (although it did permit appearances on Letterman and The View); or his welcoming of the Muslim Brotherhood into the Egyptian government - it all points to one thing for those willing to see. And let's not forget that Obama's Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, somehow could not be bothered sitting through Netanyahu's speech to the General Assembly.
* In his latest insult to Israel and the Jewish world, the Obama Administration has appointed one Salaam al-Marayati to represent the United States of America at the annual meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation, described as a 10 day human rights conference. Al-Marayati is the founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Like others of his ilk, he says he just wants to uphold American values of freedom of religion. He speaks frequently on the subject of "Islamophobia." He knows how to sound reasonable and how to play to an American audience; and he knows how to play on their guilt. Unfortunately he is also a defender of Hamas and Hezbollah, mortal enemies of Israel, and I thought of this country. (Per Jihad Watch.)
* Following 9/11, Mr. al-Marayati had this to say: "If we're going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what's happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies." This is a man who complained about having the Holocaust "shoved down (his) throat. At a 2005 Conference of the Islamic Society of North America, he told his fellow Muslims not to cooperate with any FBI investigations, saying: "We reject any efforts, notion, suggestion that Muslims should start spying on one another." (As reported by the Jewish Press.)
* If you missed the recently discovered video of Obama from 2007 speaking to a black audience, you should watch it. He had a black accent that one did not hear during the 2008 campaign. He said the federal government cheats blacks in favor of whites. He said "our people" should be getting more federal money and jobs and housing. He said; "We don't need to build more highways out in the suburbs" where the white folks live. And he claimed that the federal government did not care about the blacks in New Orleans the way they did about New Yorkers after 9/11 or Floridians after hurricane Andrew. Why? Because the Feds did not waive the Stafford Act for New Orleans; an act that requires local communities to contribute 10% toward disaster relief, after receiving federal assistance. Except - it's all a lie! Not only did the Senate vote to waive the Stafford Act, but the Feds spent more money on New Orleans than on New York post 9/11 and Florida post hurricane Andrew combined. And here's the kicker - then Senator Obama voted AGAINST waiving the Act! (Information from article by Thomas Sowell in the 10/9/12 Investor's Business Daily.)
* This is nothing other than classic Obama. Play black against white, Hispanic against white, poor against rich, non-religious against religious. But the black actress Stacey Dash had it right when explaining why she was going to vote for Romney. "I chose him not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character."
* Lastly, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, head of the DNC, was on Piers Morgan on CNN on 10/10/12. The discussion centered on the murder of our Ambassador and others in Benghazi; with the Obama Administration, and especially our UN Ambassador Susan Rice, claiming it was all due to an anti-muslim video, rather than a well coordinated terrorist attack. Said Schultz: "it is irresponsible and un-American, quite frankly, for my Republican colleagues in Congress to be jumping on this immediately, as some political opportunity." After telling her she was flogging the wrong horse, Morgan said: "The important horse that should be flogged is the behavior and misstatements of those who are in positions of responsibility and we would assume knowledge; and it's pretty un-American to be putting out completely false statements before you know the facts." Schultz: "Piers, it is not okay for you to be saying (that)." The look of astonishment on Schultz's face said it all. It was clear that she must have been thinking: Wait a minute. I'm on CNN, right? Am I on FOX? What just happened here? What happened is that we are starting to see a few usually Democrat-leaning reporters and talk show hosts actually asking tough questions of our leaders. I only wish that it would spread, and that the rest of the mainstream media would remember what their job is.
* Said Biden: "We can't afford $800 billion going to the people making a minimum of $1 million. They do not need it..." The reference was to an extension of the "Bush" tax cuts (said cuts having been approved by Congress). So let's be clear. Obama said it's a good idea to spread the wealth around. Obama constantly talks about the millionaires and billionaires; that everyone needs to pay their fair share (the top 10% pay 70% of the Federal income taxes already). It was Obama who said that after a certain point you've made enough money. So when Obama and Biden say the wealthy "do not need" their money we are really talking about government confiscation of private property. Sadly, my friends on the left are able to justify this unwarranted taking of private property because they have followed Obama and the Democrat party to the path of tyranny and socialism. The ends justify the means; and principle varies with the need. Of course, "spreading the wealth around" has never worked. It does not matter; Obama and his followers are driven by ideology.
* Biden claimed that Iran was more isolated now than at any time since Obama took office. No doubt they have been affected by the sanctions. But sanctions do not have a good history of preventing a country that wants nukes from getting nukes. And Iran is not that isolated. They just recently hosted a meeting of the so-called "non-aligned" nations - 120 countries strong! When asked directly which is worse, another war in the Middle east or a nuclear armed Iran, Ryan answered directly and said a nuclear armed Iran. Biden did not answer at all, simply claiming that Iran is being crippled by sanctions. The moderator did not press him for an answer. But why did former defense secretary Gates say a strike on Iran would be catastrophic and haunting for generations? What about the Ayatollahs and "I'manutjob" having nukes?
* While much has been made over the last four years about whether or not Obama was born here, and whether he is truly a Christian or a Muslim, this blog has purposely avoided discussion of those issues. What I have said is that it is clear where Obama's allegiances lie - and that is with the Muslims. Whether it was his speech to the Muslim world from Cairo; his mistreatment of Bibi Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister; his bow to the Saudi King; his immediate siding with the Palestinians by calling the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) "occupied" territory; his refusal to visit Israel as President after visiting numerous Arab and Muslim countries; his latest refusal to meet with Netanyahu during the U.N. General Assembly, claiming his schedule did not permit it (although it did permit appearances on Letterman and The View); or his welcoming of the Muslim Brotherhood into the Egyptian government - it all points to one thing for those willing to see. And let's not forget that Obama's Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, somehow could not be bothered sitting through Netanyahu's speech to the General Assembly.
* In his latest insult to Israel and the Jewish world, the Obama Administration has appointed one Salaam al-Marayati to represent the United States of America at the annual meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation, described as a 10 day human rights conference. Al-Marayati is the founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Like others of his ilk, he says he just wants to uphold American values of freedom of religion. He speaks frequently on the subject of "Islamophobia." He knows how to sound reasonable and how to play to an American audience; and he knows how to play on their guilt. Unfortunately he is also a defender of Hamas and Hezbollah, mortal enemies of Israel, and I thought of this country. (Per Jihad Watch.)
* Following 9/11, Mr. al-Marayati had this to say: "If we're going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what's happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies." This is a man who complained about having the Holocaust "shoved down (his) throat. At a 2005 Conference of the Islamic Society of North America, he told his fellow Muslims not to cooperate with any FBI investigations, saying: "We reject any efforts, notion, suggestion that Muslims should start spying on one another." (As reported by the Jewish Press.)
* If you missed the recently discovered video of Obama from 2007 speaking to a black audience, you should watch it. He had a black accent that one did not hear during the 2008 campaign. He said the federal government cheats blacks in favor of whites. He said "our people" should be getting more federal money and jobs and housing. He said; "We don't need to build more highways out in the suburbs" where the white folks live. And he claimed that the federal government did not care about the blacks in New Orleans the way they did about New Yorkers after 9/11 or Floridians after hurricane Andrew. Why? Because the Feds did not waive the Stafford Act for New Orleans; an act that requires local communities to contribute 10% toward disaster relief, after receiving federal assistance. Except - it's all a lie! Not only did the Senate vote to waive the Stafford Act, but the Feds spent more money on New Orleans than on New York post 9/11 and Florida post hurricane Andrew combined. And here's the kicker - then Senator Obama voted AGAINST waiving the Act! (Information from article by Thomas Sowell in the 10/9/12 Investor's Business Daily.)
* This is nothing other than classic Obama. Play black against white, Hispanic against white, poor against rich, non-religious against religious. But the black actress Stacey Dash had it right when explaining why she was going to vote for Romney. "I chose him not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character."
* Lastly, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, head of the DNC, was on Piers Morgan on CNN on 10/10/12. The discussion centered on the murder of our Ambassador and others in Benghazi; with the Obama Administration, and especially our UN Ambassador Susan Rice, claiming it was all due to an anti-muslim video, rather than a well coordinated terrorist attack. Said Schultz: "it is irresponsible and un-American, quite frankly, for my Republican colleagues in Congress to be jumping on this immediately, as some political opportunity." After telling her she was flogging the wrong horse, Morgan said: "The important horse that should be flogged is the behavior and misstatements of those who are in positions of responsibility and we would assume knowledge; and it's pretty un-American to be putting out completely false statements before you know the facts." Schultz: "Piers, it is not okay for you to be saying (that)." The look of astonishment on Schultz's face said it all. It was clear that she must have been thinking: Wait a minute. I'm on CNN, right? Am I on FOX? What just happened here? What happened is that we are starting to see a few usually Democrat-leaning reporters and talk show hosts actually asking tough questions of our leaders. I only wish that it would spread, and that the rest of the mainstream media would remember what their job is.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Romney Wins First Debate!
* It certainly appeared as if President Obama wanted to be anywhere but at the debate. And Governor Romney was energetic, enthusiastic and engaged with both Obama and the audience. Romney also came prepared with facts and argument.
* One of the most telling topics for this writer was the discussion about cutting tax rates. Romney said he would cut tax rates but also said he would cut deductions, essentially making his proposal revenue neutral. Obama kept saying how the numbers don't add up. Per Obama, we cannot cut enough deductions to make up for the cut in rates. He completely missed one essential Romney point: government revenues will grow when more people are back to work and paying taxes again. Those same people will no longer need government handouts of either welfare, food stamps, unemployment or social security disability.
* Obama's policies have hurt the middle class. According to the 10/3/12 Investor's Business Daily, the middle 20% of households suffered a 4% drop in income since 2009. The poorest 20% dropped 7%. The IBD also cites a study by the National Employment Law Project which found that 60% of the jobs lost due to the recession were mid-wage, but just 22% of the newly created jobs paid well. As Biden recently said, the middle class "has been buried the last four years." (After being told that did not look good for Obama, Biden then blamed Bush.)
* Obama previously complained that the US has only 3% of the world's population, but consumes 25% of the resources. He just does not get it. It is all a zero sum game to him. If the rich have more, the only way to even things out is to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. The US, as a wealthy nation, needs to consume less so others can consume more. In a nutshell, socialism. The last four years are proof enough to anyone willing to see that these policies do not work. (How many countries in Europe that have followed these policies are going under?) What works is a growing economy; the wealthy keep their money and the middle class grows. And many in the lower class can move up into the middle class because of good jobs.
* So the US should consume less? Maybe only our share of the world's population? How many jobs will be lost if we only buy 3% of the world's automobiles, for example. And only 3% of the world's cell phones and TVs and on and on. Millions of jobs would be lost as production dropped due to a lesser demand. It is NOT a zero sum game. When US consumers buy more, jobs are created all over the world. Would Obama also like us to only produce 3% of the world's food? Too bad for countries that depend on us?
* Obama just does not get it. It is time to put a man in the White House who understands that a growing economy benefits everyone.
* One of the most telling topics for this writer was the discussion about cutting tax rates. Romney said he would cut tax rates but also said he would cut deductions, essentially making his proposal revenue neutral. Obama kept saying how the numbers don't add up. Per Obama, we cannot cut enough deductions to make up for the cut in rates. He completely missed one essential Romney point: government revenues will grow when more people are back to work and paying taxes again. Those same people will no longer need government handouts of either welfare, food stamps, unemployment or social security disability.
* Obama's policies have hurt the middle class. According to the 10/3/12 Investor's Business Daily, the middle 20% of households suffered a 4% drop in income since 2009. The poorest 20% dropped 7%. The IBD also cites a study by the National Employment Law Project which found that 60% of the jobs lost due to the recession were mid-wage, but just 22% of the newly created jobs paid well. As Biden recently said, the middle class "has been buried the last four years." (After being told that did not look good for Obama, Biden then blamed Bush.)
* Obama previously complained that the US has only 3% of the world's population, but consumes 25% of the resources. He just does not get it. It is all a zero sum game to him. If the rich have more, the only way to even things out is to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. The US, as a wealthy nation, needs to consume less so others can consume more. In a nutshell, socialism. The last four years are proof enough to anyone willing to see that these policies do not work. (How many countries in Europe that have followed these policies are going under?) What works is a growing economy; the wealthy keep their money and the middle class grows. And many in the lower class can move up into the middle class because of good jobs.
* So the US should consume less? Maybe only our share of the world's population? How many jobs will be lost if we only buy 3% of the world's automobiles, for example. And only 3% of the world's cell phones and TVs and on and on. Millions of jobs would be lost as production dropped due to a lesser demand. It is NOT a zero sum game. When US consumers buy more, jobs are created all over the world. Would Obama also like us to only produce 3% of the world's food? Too bad for countries that depend on us?
* Obama just does not get it. It is time to put a man in the White House who understands that a growing economy benefits everyone.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Are We at War With Islam? Part III
* For those readers who may be new to this blog, I previously wrote two posts entitled "Are We at War With Islam, Parts I and II," on 8/29/10 and 9/13/10. These posts can still be read by simply scrolling down and clicking on "older posts." In my latest post of 9/23/12 I discussed how the Organization of Islamic States wants to criminalize any insults to Islam. I also discussed how the U.S. military is sanitizing all references to radical Islam and Jihad.
* At this past week's meeting of the U.N. General Assembly various world leaders spoke. In light of the recent violence across the Middle East, and the alleged provocation caused by the trailer for the film "The Innocence of Muslims," the topic of "free speech" was frequently discussed. President Obama, while again criticizing the film, gave a strong defense of the right to free speech. This is what the Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, had to say: "We expect from others, as they expect from us, that they respect our cultural specifics and religious references, and not seek to impose concepts or cultures that are unacceptable to us...Insults against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, are not acceptable. We will not allow anyone to do this by word or by deed." And exactly how will they "not allow" it? Here's a clue. While running for president of Egypt, Morsi said this: "The Quran is our Constitution. The Prophet Muhammad is our leader. Jihad is our path. And death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty aspiration." So, prevent insults by causing deaths?
* The President of Yemen had this to say: "...there should be limits for the freedom of expression, especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures." So, maybe we should outlaw criticism of the leaders of these countries too? The President of Pakistan also said he wanted to see "incitement of hate" against Islam criminalized. Said the Secretary General of the Arab League: "If the international community has criminalized bodily harm, it must just as well criminalize psychological and spiritual harm." (All quotes from the 9/27/12 New York Times.)
* In his 2009 speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, Obama said that "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance." When? Certainly not now. How come hundreds of thousands of Christians left Iraq? How come 100,000 Christians have left Egypt? How come Lebanon went from being a majority Christian country to an Islamic country? And why have Christians by the thousands left Gaza and the West Bank? How come you cannot even bring a bible into Saudi Arabia?
* You want to hear tolerance? Take a look at the Arab Muslim media. The highest ranking cleric in the Sunni Muslim world has referred to Jews as "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs." Morsi has concurred with that. This same cleric has called Jews "the scum of the earth." But they want to outlaw insults to Islam?
* Malmo, Sweden. It is Sweden's third largest city, with about 700 Jews but up to 100,000 Muslims, in this city of 300,000 people. In 2010 a group of Jews were attacked there by a group of Muslims. Earlier this year a Rabbi was assaulted. On 9/28/12, just a few days ago, there was an explosion at a Jewish Community Building. Malmo has been referred to as the "Baghdad" of Sweden with its increasing violence, explosions and murders, often caused by...take a guess.
* Think it is so much better here? At the Arab festival in Dearborn, Michigan, Christians holding Christian signs were attacked. They had bottles, stones, eggs and other objects thrown at them. A video showed kids from the festival participating in the assaults. The Police were not inclined to actually protect the Christians; instead they ordered them to leave.
* Meanwhile, the 9/27/12 Investor's Business Daily reports that the ACLU now has at least eight Muslims on its executive staff. What's the result of that? Jameel Jaffer heads the ACLU's Center for Democracy, and is friends with one Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ramadan was denied a visa in 2004 based upon claims that he raised funds for Hamas. Jaffer sued and got the ban lifted. Jaffer has lobbied the Justice department to remove CAIR and other front groups for Hamas and the Brotherhood removed from the blacklist of groups accused of raising money for terrorists. Jaffer has also tried to get suspected Muslim terrorists removed from the "no-fly" list. And Jaffer wants the Feds to stop freezing the assets of terrorist groups.
* I have said before that the failure to believe in free speech and freedom of religion presents a fundamental clash in values between the West and the Muslim world. And whether or not you agree with the opinions expressed in this blog, do you believe that these comments should be criminalized, because some may take them as an insult to Islam?
* At this past week's meeting of the U.N. General Assembly various world leaders spoke. In light of the recent violence across the Middle East, and the alleged provocation caused by the trailer for the film "The Innocence of Muslims," the topic of "free speech" was frequently discussed. President Obama, while again criticizing the film, gave a strong defense of the right to free speech. This is what the Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, had to say: "We expect from others, as they expect from us, that they respect our cultural specifics and religious references, and not seek to impose concepts or cultures that are unacceptable to us...Insults against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, are not acceptable. We will not allow anyone to do this by word or by deed." And exactly how will they "not allow" it? Here's a clue. While running for president of Egypt, Morsi said this: "The Quran is our Constitution. The Prophet Muhammad is our leader. Jihad is our path. And death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty aspiration." So, prevent insults by causing deaths?
* The President of Yemen had this to say: "...there should be limits for the freedom of expression, especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures." So, maybe we should outlaw criticism of the leaders of these countries too? The President of Pakistan also said he wanted to see "incitement of hate" against Islam criminalized. Said the Secretary General of the Arab League: "If the international community has criminalized bodily harm, it must just as well criminalize psychological and spiritual harm." (All quotes from the 9/27/12 New York Times.)
* In his 2009 speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, Obama said that "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance." When? Certainly not now. How come hundreds of thousands of Christians left Iraq? How come 100,000 Christians have left Egypt? How come Lebanon went from being a majority Christian country to an Islamic country? And why have Christians by the thousands left Gaza and the West Bank? How come you cannot even bring a bible into Saudi Arabia?
* You want to hear tolerance? Take a look at the Arab Muslim media. The highest ranking cleric in the Sunni Muslim world has referred to Jews as "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs." Morsi has concurred with that. This same cleric has called Jews "the scum of the earth." But they want to outlaw insults to Islam?
* Malmo, Sweden. It is Sweden's third largest city, with about 700 Jews but up to 100,000 Muslims, in this city of 300,000 people. In 2010 a group of Jews were attacked there by a group of Muslims. Earlier this year a Rabbi was assaulted. On 9/28/12, just a few days ago, there was an explosion at a Jewish Community Building. Malmo has been referred to as the "Baghdad" of Sweden with its increasing violence, explosions and murders, often caused by...take a guess.
* Think it is so much better here? At the Arab festival in Dearborn, Michigan, Christians holding Christian signs were attacked. They had bottles, stones, eggs and other objects thrown at them. A video showed kids from the festival participating in the assaults. The Police were not inclined to actually protect the Christians; instead they ordered them to leave.
* Meanwhile, the 9/27/12 Investor's Business Daily reports that the ACLU now has at least eight Muslims on its executive staff. What's the result of that? Jameel Jaffer heads the ACLU's Center for Democracy, and is friends with one Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ramadan was denied a visa in 2004 based upon claims that he raised funds for Hamas. Jaffer sued and got the ban lifted. Jaffer has lobbied the Justice department to remove CAIR and other front groups for Hamas and the Brotherhood removed from the blacklist of groups accused of raising money for terrorists. Jaffer has also tried to get suspected Muslim terrorists removed from the "no-fly" list. And Jaffer wants the Feds to stop freezing the assets of terrorist groups.
* I have said before that the failure to believe in free speech and freedom of religion presents a fundamental clash in values between the West and the Muslim world. And whether or not you agree with the opinions expressed in this blog, do you believe that these comments should be criminalized, because some may take them as an insult to Islam?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)