* In the 7/16/14 Investor's Business Daily, an opinion piece by Dennis Prager presented an interesting juxtaposition between Israel and Gaza. Prager noted that Hamas, as the elected government in Gaza, seeks to destroy Israel, has no free press or freedom of religion or independent judiciary, oppresses gays, tortures and kills political opponents, sends missiles into Israeli cities, and "saturates its education and airwaves with demonic hatred of (Israel)."
* In contrast, Israel has a free press and freedom of religion and an independent judiciary. Israel protects the rights of gays, and even has political/rights groups "dedicated to the welfare" of the Gazans. Prager notes that Freedom House ranks countries on a 1 to 7 scale, with 1 being the most free. Hamas ranks 6 in overall freedom, 6 on civil liberties and 6 on political rights. Israel ranks 1.5 in overall freedom, 2 on civil liberties and 1 on political liberties.
* Prager notes that "The moral gulf between Israel...and Hamas...is as clear and great as the one that existed between the Allies and Nazi Germany." So who does the mainstream media and much of Western Europe and at times Obama side with? You know who. Sad, is it not?
* Said Obama, in a 7/8/14 editorial in Haaretz (a left wing Israeli newspaper): "...the only solution is a democratic, Jewish state living side-by-side in peace and security with a viable, independent Palestinian state." Where is the requirement for the Palestinian state to be democratic? If it is an Islamist state, where in the world does an Islamist state exist without threatening its neighbors and its own non-Muslim citizens?
* The New York Times opined in their 7/19/14 lead editorial that the best solution was a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority (headed by Abbas), which controls the West Bank. As always, Abbas is described as a "moderate." The same "moderate" who honors terrorist suicide bombers, and names schools and public squares after them. The same "moderate" who accused Israel of genocide. The same "moderate" who last month congratulated Bashar Assad on his "re-election" in Syria. This is the same Assad responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Syrians. (Information from 7/15/14 Wall Street Journal piece by Bret Stephens.)
* Meanwhile, the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Erdogan, upped the inflammatory language with this: "Since (Israel's creation) in 1948, we have been witnessing this attempt at systematic genocide every day and every month." (Quote from the 7/18/14 Times of Israel online.) And I thought that the day after Israel declared their independence in 1948, the Arab world attacked in their first effort to wipe Israel off the map. And how convenient to ignore the fact that Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan controlled the West Bank from 1949 until the 1967 war. But Erdogan then went one better when he accused Israel of "barbarism that surpasses Hitler." (Quote from 7/19/14 story on FoxNews.Com.)
* We have seen pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel demonstrations in London and Paris and other cities. In Paris, over 200 Jews were blocked from being able to leave their synagogue. On Saturday, anti-Israel demonstrators held a "die-in" in the Boston Commons. As the names of Gazans killed in the latest war were read, a demonstrator holding a placard with that person's name would fall to the ground. Among the phrases shouted at some Jewish students were these: "Jews back to Birkenau" (one of the Nazi death camps), and "Drop dead, you Zionazi whores." (As reported in the Times of Israel online, 7/20/14.) I guess these Muslim and leftist protestors do not feel the same way about the over 2000 Nigerians killed in just the first half of 2014 by the Islamist group Boko Harem.
* While anti-Israel Muslims in the US, along with supporters on the left, continue to demonize Israel and Jews, there remains one solidly pro-Israel group - Republicans. In a Pew Research poll conducted from 7/8-7/14/14, people were asked if they sympathized more with Israel or the Palestinians. Over 7 out of 10 (73%) of Republicans sympathized with Israel. Less than 1/2 of the Democrats (44%) sympathized with Israel. The difference was even more striking among those who identified as conservative Republicans (77% favoring Israel) vs. those who identified as liberal Democrats (only 39% favoring Israel).
* What, if anything, should Obama do? Ric Grenell, an adviser to four US ambassadors to the UN, suggested this: "How refreshing would it be if the US Government...if we actually came out and said (to the Palestinians) there are consequences for your actions; and we are no longer going to give US taxpayer dollars to rebuild..." How refreshing indeed. But the Palestinians, including the terrorist organization Hamas, never suffers any negative consequence for their actions. Like a tempestuous child, they are never held to account. That responsibility all too often lies with Israel.
* As Charles Krauthammer notes in his 7/18/14 column in the Ventura County Star, when Israel vacated Gaza, the Gazans were given 3000 industrial greenhouses "that had produced fruit and flowers for export." However, the Palestinians destroyed them. Then, he notes, they elected Hamas as their government. Completing their reaction to Israel leaving Israel, Hamas turned Gaza into a "massive military base," and has been launching rockets into Israel virtually non-stop since Israel left. What a shame that Obama, the Europeans, the media and the Left do not ask: where are your factories (not just munition factories), why have you not built homes and helped your people to grow businesses? These, then, are the people Obama believes will live side-by-side in peace with the Jewish State of Israel.
Sunday, July 20, 2014
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Israel: MSNBC vs. FOX
* If you want to get some insight into how the left and right view Israel and the current fighting with the Arabs one need look no further than these two cable news stations.
* Today on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell was speaking with US Senator Robert Menendez, and said this: "I want to ask you about Israel and how sustainable is Israel's policy, they say it's self-defense." This woman is not sure if it's self-defense? How about this thought experiment. Let's ask Ms. Mitchell what she would want the police to do if bullets were flying into her home? Would she claim either she or the police should DEFEND her from the attacks? Or would she be happy to just let it go, day after day after day?
* Ms. Mitchell continued: "John Kerry today in Beijing supported their (Israel's) right to self-defense, but they're firing rockets into Gaza, and as I was saying to Israel's ambassador, a key ally of the US, yesterday, is asymmetric. They have Iron Dome so they are going into shelters and it is a terrible strain on the Israeli populace, but the people in Gaza are getting hit because Hamas is reportedly hiding weapons manufacture in civilian - dense civilian - areas, and they are taking terrible casualties."
* What an absolute moron! Israel is firing rockets into Gaza because the Arabs are firing rockets at them. But it's not fair because Israel has Iron Dome (their anti-missile battery) and the Arabs don't. If Ms. Mitchell had any sense (obviously she doesn't) she might bring up a few other facts. Israel left Gaza in 2005. What have the Arabs done with all the billions in aid from the US and other countries? They turned Gaza into a terrorist state is what they did. What if they built factories and homes and grew businesses instead of the relentless pursuit of armaments, all with the still stated goal of killing all the Jews and wiping Israel off the map.
* Furthermore, Ms. Mitchell seems to suggest that because Hamas put their own people in harms way, and are "taking terrible casualties," Israel should stand down. Let me repeat: what a moron! So the Arabs get to fire their rockets into Israel while intentionally targeting Israeli cities and civilians, but Israel cannot return fire because civilians might get hurt. The Israelis actually place telephone calls into the homes of terrorists before they fire their missiles. They warn the civilians to get out. What other country on earth does this?
* None of this matters to Ms. Mitchell because Palestinians are getting killed (maybe up to 100 so far). Don't bother asking Ms. Mitchell about the 100-150,000 Syrians killed so far in their civil war. That doesn't matter for one single reason - those people were not killed by Jews. For the left, the proper role for Jews is to be killed, not to kill.
* Now, let's take a brief look at the comments by Eric Shawn on Fox. (Both shows aired at about the same time earlier today.) Shawn: "And to the Middle East now where the terrorists continue to attack Israel. The sirens wailing yet again just minutes ago; this, as more rockets fall." Look at the difference. Shawn and Fox actually get the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization, declared so by the US State Department.
* Shawn continued: "Israel is coming under an intense barrage of rockets from Hamas - targeting the heartland of the Jewish State." So Shawn and Fox acknowledge that Hamas is targeting the heartland - Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. They are targeting cities - civilians. A fact apparently lost on Mitchell.
* The entire tone of Shawn vs. Mitchell is clear. One acknowledges that Israel is our ally, and happens to be in the worst neighborhood in the world. The other lives in her Ivory Tower, leftist dream world. Speaking of which, Obama offered to "facilitate a cessation of hostilities" between the two sides. What good is that if Hamas is just going to rebuild their terrorist infrastructure. You want to end this war Mr. President? Tell the unity government of the PA and Hamas that you will immediately cease all US aid, which is currently going to a group who are killing Jews. Then tell them to lay down ALL their arms and turn over to the US every single rocket and missile in their possession. Then, you will reconsider reinstating aid. Finally, tell them if they acquire any new weaponry US aid will cease again.
* I can't end this without pointing out the idea of another brainchild: UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. After expressing his concern for the safety of all civilians (with no concern for who has the moral high ground), he said he would work with world leaders to effectuate a resolution. Such leaders as the King of Saudi Arabia, the Emir of Qatar, the President of Egypt, the head of the Arab League and the head of the Organization of Islamic States. What could possibly go wrong there?
* Today on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell was speaking with US Senator Robert Menendez, and said this: "I want to ask you about Israel and how sustainable is Israel's policy, they say it's self-defense." This woman is not sure if it's self-defense? How about this thought experiment. Let's ask Ms. Mitchell what she would want the police to do if bullets were flying into her home? Would she claim either she or the police should DEFEND her from the attacks? Or would she be happy to just let it go, day after day after day?
* Ms. Mitchell continued: "John Kerry today in Beijing supported their (Israel's) right to self-defense, but they're firing rockets into Gaza, and as I was saying to Israel's ambassador, a key ally of the US, yesterday, is asymmetric. They have Iron Dome so they are going into shelters and it is a terrible strain on the Israeli populace, but the people in Gaza are getting hit because Hamas is reportedly hiding weapons manufacture in civilian - dense civilian - areas, and they are taking terrible casualties."
* What an absolute moron! Israel is firing rockets into Gaza because the Arabs are firing rockets at them. But it's not fair because Israel has Iron Dome (their anti-missile battery) and the Arabs don't. If Ms. Mitchell had any sense (obviously she doesn't) she might bring up a few other facts. Israel left Gaza in 2005. What have the Arabs done with all the billions in aid from the US and other countries? They turned Gaza into a terrorist state is what they did. What if they built factories and homes and grew businesses instead of the relentless pursuit of armaments, all with the still stated goal of killing all the Jews and wiping Israel off the map.
* Furthermore, Ms. Mitchell seems to suggest that because Hamas put their own people in harms way, and are "taking terrible casualties," Israel should stand down. Let me repeat: what a moron! So the Arabs get to fire their rockets into Israel while intentionally targeting Israeli cities and civilians, but Israel cannot return fire because civilians might get hurt. The Israelis actually place telephone calls into the homes of terrorists before they fire their missiles. They warn the civilians to get out. What other country on earth does this?
* None of this matters to Ms. Mitchell because Palestinians are getting killed (maybe up to 100 so far). Don't bother asking Ms. Mitchell about the 100-150,000 Syrians killed so far in their civil war. That doesn't matter for one single reason - those people were not killed by Jews. For the left, the proper role for Jews is to be killed, not to kill.
* Now, let's take a brief look at the comments by Eric Shawn on Fox. (Both shows aired at about the same time earlier today.) Shawn: "And to the Middle East now where the terrorists continue to attack Israel. The sirens wailing yet again just minutes ago; this, as more rockets fall." Look at the difference. Shawn and Fox actually get the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization, declared so by the US State Department.
* Shawn continued: "Israel is coming under an intense barrage of rockets from Hamas - targeting the heartland of the Jewish State." So Shawn and Fox acknowledge that Hamas is targeting the heartland - Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. They are targeting cities - civilians. A fact apparently lost on Mitchell.
* The entire tone of Shawn vs. Mitchell is clear. One acknowledges that Israel is our ally, and happens to be in the worst neighborhood in the world. The other lives in her Ivory Tower, leftist dream world. Speaking of which, Obama offered to "facilitate a cessation of hostilities" between the two sides. What good is that if Hamas is just going to rebuild their terrorist infrastructure. You want to end this war Mr. President? Tell the unity government of the PA and Hamas that you will immediately cease all US aid, which is currently going to a group who are killing Jews. Then tell them to lay down ALL their arms and turn over to the US every single rocket and missile in their possession. Then, you will reconsider reinstating aid. Finally, tell them if they acquire any new weaponry US aid will cease again.
* I can't end this without pointing out the idea of another brainchild: UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. After expressing his concern for the safety of all civilians (with no concern for who has the moral high ground), he said he would work with world leaders to effectuate a resolution. Such leaders as the King of Saudi Arabia, the Emir of Qatar, the President of Egypt, the head of the Arab League and the head of the Organization of Islamic States. What could possibly go wrong there?
Monday, June 30, 2014
How To Deal With Evil?
* Today, Jews received the devastating news that the three kidnapped Israeli teens (Gilad Shaer, Eyal Yifrah and Naftali Fraenkel) were murdered. What are we to make of this evil? Obama said: "The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms this senseless act of terror against innocent youth." Only the Arabs do not think it is "senseless." Recall that in 2012 the entire Fogel family was murdered in their home - stabbed to death - by Arab terrorists. The mom, dad and 3 children, ages 11, 4 and 3 months, executed. The Fogel children were even younger than the three teens just found. Yet, Arab TV interviewed relatives of the murderers, who praised them as "heroes."
* Murderers of even a 3 month old baby were praised as "heroes" on Arab TV. Recall the last "intifada" when Arabs blew up Israelis on buses, in cafes, in malls and even at a Passover Seder; with those murderers also praised as martyrs. As my son said, we can shortly expect Obama to say: We urge all sides to act with restraint and we reiterate our commitment to the two state solution.
* As noted by AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee), imagine being a 13 year old in the Israeli town of Sderot, not far from the Gaza border. According to AIPAC, that child would "have heard alarms to race to a bomb shelter more than 8500 times. That's an average of 653 times a year, or 12 times a week." One might think there would be international outrage against such relentless rocket attacks. One would be wrong. Instead, the leading European countries (England, France, Spain, Italy and Germany) are advising their citizens not to do business with Israeli companies in the West Bank.
* Meanwhile, the moral giants at the Presbyterian Church, USA, had this to say: "Of central importance in our deliberations (to divest from companies aiding Israel) was our continued concern for Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace." I don't think the Arabs got that memo. Another moral giant, the European Union's ambassador to Israel, Lars Faaborg-Andersen, said that Europe was losing its patience with continued expansion of the settlements beyond the Green Line, such as in Jerusalem, Israel's Capital city. At least the EU has plenty of patience for the murder of Jews.
* At the beginning of the 20th century, Christians constituted approximately 20% of the Middle East population. Today, Christians number about 5%. Said the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom: "The flight of Christians out of the region (Middle East and Muslim world) is unprecedented and it's increasing year by year." It is not terribly difficult to name an Arab/Muslim country in which Christians are suffering. Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, Nigeria, Mali, Bosnia to name just a few. From North Africa through the Middle East to Afghanistan and beyond, the percentage of each country's population who are Muslims is staggering.
* A few examples: Algeria - 98.2% Muslim, Libya - 96.6%, Egypt - 94.7%, Jordan - 98.8%, Morocco - 99.9%, Syria - 92.8%, Saudi Arabia - 97.1%, Somalia - 98.6%, Turkey - 98.6%, Iran - 99.7%, Afghanistan - 99.8%. Beginning to get the picture? Very few Jews remain in the Arab world, many having been displaced by their host countries after Israel's independence; notwithstanding centuries of citizenship in those countries. And the new state of Palestine that Obama and the Europeans and the UN are trying to force on Israel? Abbas has said that not one single Jew may live there. The international outrage over this ethnic cleansing of Jews? None! Because the moral idiots of the left agree that no Jews should be allowed in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), even though over million Arabs live in Israel.
* Think about the number of Islamic terror groups of which you have heard mentioned. Groups such as: Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigades, Al Qaeda and its' many offshoots, Ansar al-Sharia, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood (of which the Muslim Students Association on US college campuses is an offshoot), and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Now realize there are dozens more you have not heard mentioned. The latest is ISIS, which seeks to establish an Islamic Caliphate in Iraq and Syria, but has announced its intentions to consume the entire Middle East.
* Israel cannot afford this tit for tat. In the entire world world there are less than 14 million Jews, and about 6 million in Israel. The death of one Jew (worldwide) is the equivalent of over 30 Arab deaths and over 114 Muslim deaths. Israel cannot afford the luxury of "proportionality." Such an approach is only seen as weakness by Israel's enemies. Israel needs to take out Hamas once and for all; and to make it clear that other groups will suffer the same fate if they go after the Jews. I realize many liberal readers (including liberal Jews) will be upset at that suggestion. But they will make any excuse to justify the murder of innocents. They will not stand up to true evil, but they can get on board with banning plastic bags.
* Murderers of even a 3 month old baby were praised as "heroes" on Arab TV. Recall the last "intifada" when Arabs blew up Israelis on buses, in cafes, in malls and even at a Passover Seder; with those murderers also praised as martyrs. As my son said, we can shortly expect Obama to say: We urge all sides to act with restraint and we reiterate our commitment to the two state solution.
* As noted by AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee), imagine being a 13 year old in the Israeli town of Sderot, not far from the Gaza border. According to AIPAC, that child would "have heard alarms to race to a bomb shelter more than 8500 times. That's an average of 653 times a year, or 12 times a week." One might think there would be international outrage against such relentless rocket attacks. One would be wrong. Instead, the leading European countries (England, France, Spain, Italy and Germany) are advising their citizens not to do business with Israeli companies in the West Bank.
* Meanwhile, the moral giants at the Presbyterian Church, USA, had this to say: "Of central importance in our deliberations (to divest from companies aiding Israel) was our continued concern for Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace." I don't think the Arabs got that memo. Another moral giant, the European Union's ambassador to Israel, Lars Faaborg-Andersen, said that Europe was losing its patience with continued expansion of the settlements beyond the Green Line, such as in Jerusalem, Israel's Capital city. At least the EU has plenty of patience for the murder of Jews.
* At the beginning of the 20th century, Christians constituted approximately 20% of the Middle East population. Today, Christians number about 5%. Said the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom: "The flight of Christians out of the region (Middle East and Muslim world) is unprecedented and it's increasing year by year." It is not terribly difficult to name an Arab/Muslim country in which Christians are suffering. Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, Nigeria, Mali, Bosnia to name just a few. From North Africa through the Middle East to Afghanistan and beyond, the percentage of each country's population who are Muslims is staggering.
* A few examples: Algeria - 98.2% Muslim, Libya - 96.6%, Egypt - 94.7%, Jordan - 98.8%, Morocco - 99.9%, Syria - 92.8%, Saudi Arabia - 97.1%, Somalia - 98.6%, Turkey - 98.6%, Iran - 99.7%, Afghanistan - 99.8%. Beginning to get the picture? Very few Jews remain in the Arab world, many having been displaced by their host countries after Israel's independence; notwithstanding centuries of citizenship in those countries. And the new state of Palestine that Obama and the Europeans and the UN are trying to force on Israel? Abbas has said that not one single Jew may live there. The international outrage over this ethnic cleansing of Jews? None! Because the moral idiots of the left agree that no Jews should be allowed in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), even though over million Arabs live in Israel.
* Think about the number of Islamic terror groups of which you have heard mentioned. Groups such as: Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigades, Al Qaeda and its' many offshoots, Ansar al-Sharia, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood (of which the Muslim Students Association on US college campuses is an offshoot), and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Now realize there are dozens more you have not heard mentioned. The latest is ISIS, which seeks to establish an Islamic Caliphate in Iraq and Syria, but has announced its intentions to consume the entire Middle East.
* Israel cannot afford this tit for tat. In the entire world world there are less than 14 million Jews, and about 6 million in Israel. The death of one Jew (worldwide) is the equivalent of over 30 Arab deaths and over 114 Muslim deaths. Israel cannot afford the luxury of "proportionality." Such an approach is only seen as weakness by Israel's enemies. Israel needs to take out Hamas once and for all; and to make it clear that other groups will suffer the same fate if they go after the Jews. I realize many liberal readers (including liberal Jews) will be upset at that suggestion. But they will make any excuse to justify the murder of innocents. They will not stand up to true evil, but they can get on board with banning plastic bags.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Freedom? Or Left Wing Thuggery?
* The US Patent and Trademark Office decided the Washington Redskins name was too offensive to allow them to continue with their decades old trademark. Never mind the potential impact on a multi-billion dollar business. Never mind that one should be able to name their business as they see fit. And never mind that it is a small minority of people who claim offense at the Redskins name.
* Here's an idea. Let's ban any use of the word "Indian" or related names. Let's say goodby to the Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Kansas City Chiefs, Florida State Seminoles, and on and on. The Cleveland Browns? That must be racist. All the teams and schools with "warrior" in their names. Even if not connected to an Indian logo, "warrior" must be offensive to any number of the anti-war crowd. In speaking with a liberal friend he indicated that the Redskins issue was of no concern to him. As Dennis Prager says, liberty is a non-issue for the left. Rather, they care about equality (and abortion and gay marriage, of course).
* But the anti-free speech crowd (aka the Democrat party) has a much bigger goal: the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Recall Obama criticizing the Supreme Court at his State of the Union Speech in 2010 for their Citizens United decision? That decision allowed unlimited expenditure of money for campaign ads as long as there was no coordination with any candidate for political office. It should be obvious that having money allows one to get their message (you know, speech) out to a large audience. The Dems also argued that corporations have no speech rights. Tell that to the NY Times, LA Times, NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox and numerous other corporate entities whose business is, well, speech.
* The Dems believe that Congress (a group that I would always trust with protecting my liberty) should have the power to regulate "the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections." (Information from a Wall Street Journal article by Senator Ted Cruz, 6/2/14.) If you think that amending the First Amendment is a non-issue, or will have no impact on you, think again. During the oral argument at the Supreme Court on the Citizens United case, the Obama Administration contended that the government could ban books containing political speech. Books, people!
* But who needs the Constitution or the First Amendment. That document is so old. We need a "living, breathing" Constitution, because today's politicians are so much wiser than the Founding Fathers. Right?
* Think students should have the right to hear various political viewpoints? Not in Woodbury, Connecticut. One student was preparing for a discussion or paper on gun control. Using a computer in his high school he had no problem getting access to anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment sites. Surprise! No access to the NRA site. Democrat Party site? No problem. Republican Party? Surprise again! No access. The best? No problem getting access to Islam-guide.com. But Christianity.com or the Vatican's web site? You're not still surprised, are you?
* I'm sure this lack of access to conservative sites was a pure coincidence, or maybe an accident. Just like the IRS losing 7 hard drives with 2 years worth of emails just when the agency was targeting Tea Party groups and other conservatives. (But I digress, and that's a subject for another post.)
* Here's an idea. Let's ban any use of the word "Indian" or related names. Let's say goodby to the Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Kansas City Chiefs, Florida State Seminoles, and on and on. The Cleveland Browns? That must be racist. All the teams and schools with "warrior" in their names. Even if not connected to an Indian logo, "warrior" must be offensive to any number of the anti-war crowd. In speaking with a liberal friend he indicated that the Redskins issue was of no concern to him. As Dennis Prager says, liberty is a non-issue for the left. Rather, they care about equality (and abortion and gay marriage, of course).
* But the anti-free speech crowd (aka the Democrat party) has a much bigger goal: the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Recall Obama criticizing the Supreme Court at his State of the Union Speech in 2010 for their Citizens United decision? That decision allowed unlimited expenditure of money for campaign ads as long as there was no coordination with any candidate for political office. It should be obvious that having money allows one to get their message (you know, speech) out to a large audience. The Dems also argued that corporations have no speech rights. Tell that to the NY Times, LA Times, NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox and numerous other corporate entities whose business is, well, speech.
* The Dems believe that Congress (a group that I would always trust with protecting my liberty) should have the power to regulate "the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections." (Information from a Wall Street Journal article by Senator Ted Cruz, 6/2/14.) If you think that amending the First Amendment is a non-issue, or will have no impact on you, think again. During the oral argument at the Supreme Court on the Citizens United case, the Obama Administration contended that the government could ban books containing political speech. Books, people!
* But who needs the Constitution or the First Amendment. That document is so old. We need a "living, breathing" Constitution, because today's politicians are so much wiser than the Founding Fathers. Right?
* Think students should have the right to hear various political viewpoints? Not in Woodbury, Connecticut. One student was preparing for a discussion or paper on gun control. Using a computer in his high school he had no problem getting access to anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment sites. Surprise! No access to the NRA site. Democrat Party site? No problem. Republican Party? Surprise again! No access. The best? No problem getting access to Islam-guide.com. But Christianity.com or the Vatican's web site? You're not still surprised, are you?
* I'm sure this lack of access to conservative sites was a pure coincidence, or maybe an accident. Just like the IRS losing 7 hard drives with 2 years worth of emails just when the agency was targeting Tea Party groups and other conservatives. (But I digress, and that's a subject for another post.)
Whither the Jews?
* At the onset of the Great War (1914) the Jewish population of Europe was estimated to be about 10.5 million people. Currently, there are about 1.5 million Jews in Europe. (Statistics from the 6/6-6/12/14 Jewish Journal article by Rabbi Abraham Cooper and Harold Brackman.) Obviously, the Jewish population was decimated by the Holocaust. With the existence of the State of Israel, many Jews chose to relocate to the historic homeland of the Jewish people. And an increasing number are leaving Europe as anti-Semitism has been on the rise.
* European anti-Semitism has increasingly been a result of the growing Muslim population of Europe. At the end of May, a Muslim man was arrested for the killing of three people at the Jewish Museum in Brussels. He was born in France and fought with the "rebels" in Syria, before committing his murders. Recall that two years ago another Muslim man murdered three Jewish children and a Rabbi and three soldiers outside a French Jewish school. Jews in France are warned not to have identifying symbols on the outside of their synogogues and to remove their kippahs (skull caps) before leaving their temple.
* Also of great concern is the rising political influence of far right-wing parties with a past history of anti-Semitism. These parties are likely to get an increasing number of seats in the European Parliament.
* As the left joins with the Muslims in the effort to delegitimize Israel, anti-Semitism has been disguised as just being anti-Israel and anti-Israeli policies. When the tiny country of Israel is singled out by the BDS (boycott, divest and sanction) crowd it is due to Jew hatred. In the USA we have seen Israel singled out by an ex-President, Jimmy Carter, in his book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid," and in the book "The Israel Lobby," by Professors Walt and Mearsheimer. Now, the Presbyterian Church, USA has voted to join the BDS movement. The Church will be divesting from Caterpillar, Motorola and Hewlitt-Packard because of those companies participation in the "occupation" and, among other things, helping to build the security barrier that protects Israelis from being murdered by terrorists. (One wonders what the Church's stance is on Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Libya, to name a few; or what the Church has had to say about the displacement of about one million Christians from the Arab world.)
* Meanwhile, three Israeli teens (Naftali Frenkel, Gilad Shaar and Eyal Yifrach) were kidnapped over a week ago, with Israel claiming the kidnappers were from Hamas, still designated a terrorist organization by the USA. However, Obama has seen fit to continue US aid of $500,000,000. per year to the Palestinian Authority - even though they recently entered into a unity government with Hamas. On the PA's official site is a cartoon of the three teens pictured as mice on the hooks of a fishing rod. (From David Suissa in the 6/20-6/26/14 Jewish Journal.) Recall Obama saying "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon." And Obama saying he wishes he could "reach out and save those kids" with regards to the girls kidnapped in Nigeria and children suffering in Syria's civil war. But the three Israeli teens? Apparently it does not matter to Obama that one (Naftali Frenkel) also holds dual American citizenship. But Frenkel is neither black nor a Muslim, so...
* Jews in the USA do not always appreciate just how blessed we are to live in this great country. Israel is surrounded by enemies who seek her destruction. European Jews face an ever increasing and violent anti-Semitism. The vast majority of the Jewish world (less than 14 million people worldwide) currently resides in only two countries - Israel and the USA. And what will be when the Muslim population of this country continues to grow? How many will attend mosques with radical imams? How many will identify with the ever increasing number of Islamic terrorist groups worldwide? Is it possible that Israel, notwithstanding the dangerous neighborhood that surrounds it, will become the only safe haven for worldwide Jewry?
* European anti-Semitism has increasingly been a result of the growing Muslim population of Europe. At the end of May, a Muslim man was arrested for the killing of three people at the Jewish Museum in Brussels. He was born in France and fought with the "rebels" in Syria, before committing his murders. Recall that two years ago another Muslim man murdered three Jewish children and a Rabbi and three soldiers outside a French Jewish school. Jews in France are warned not to have identifying symbols on the outside of their synogogues and to remove their kippahs (skull caps) before leaving their temple.
* Also of great concern is the rising political influence of far right-wing parties with a past history of anti-Semitism. These parties are likely to get an increasing number of seats in the European Parliament.
* As the left joins with the Muslims in the effort to delegitimize Israel, anti-Semitism has been disguised as just being anti-Israel and anti-Israeli policies. When the tiny country of Israel is singled out by the BDS (boycott, divest and sanction) crowd it is due to Jew hatred. In the USA we have seen Israel singled out by an ex-President, Jimmy Carter, in his book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid," and in the book "The Israel Lobby," by Professors Walt and Mearsheimer. Now, the Presbyterian Church, USA has voted to join the BDS movement. The Church will be divesting from Caterpillar, Motorola and Hewlitt-Packard because of those companies participation in the "occupation" and, among other things, helping to build the security barrier that protects Israelis from being murdered by terrorists. (One wonders what the Church's stance is on Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Libya, to name a few; or what the Church has had to say about the displacement of about one million Christians from the Arab world.)
* Meanwhile, three Israeli teens (Naftali Frenkel, Gilad Shaar and Eyal Yifrach) were kidnapped over a week ago, with Israel claiming the kidnappers were from Hamas, still designated a terrorist organization by the USA. However, Obama has seen fit to continue US aid of $500,000,000. per year to the Palestinian Authority - even though they recently entered into a unity government with Hamas. On the PA's official site is a cartoon of the three teens pictured as mice on the hooks of a fishing rod. (From David Suissa in the 6/20-6/26/14 Jewish Journal.) Recall Obama saying "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon." And Obama saying he wishes he could "reach out and save those kids" with regards to the girls kidnapped in Nigeria and children suffering in Syria's civil war. But the three Israeli teens? Apparently it does not matter to Obama that one (Naftali Frenkel) also holds dual American citizenship. But Frenkel is neither black nor a Muslim, so...
* Jews in the USA do not always appreciate just how blessed we are to live in this great country. Israel is surrounded by enemies who seek her destruction. European Jews face an ever increasing and violent anti-Semitism. The vast majority of the Jewish world (less than 14 million people worldwide) currently resides in only two countries - Israel and the USA. And what will be when the Muslim population of this country continues to grow? How many will attend mosques with radical imams? How many will identify with the ever increasing number of Islamic terrorist groups worldwide? Is it possible that Israel, notwithstanding the dangerous neighborhood that surrounds it, will become the only safe haven for worldwide Jewry?
Sunday, May 18, 2014
The Ever Growing Tyranny of the Left
* Recently, Sudan convicted 27 year Meriam Yehya Ibrahim of apostasy, and sentenced her to death by hanging. She has one young child and another on the way. Apparently, as is done, she was given three days to return to Islam. She claims she was raised a Christian and denies converting away from Islam. It is punishable by death to convert from Islam to another religion. Ms. Ibrahim refused to renounce her Christianity. A failure to conform to the religious orthodoxy of her country may result in this woman's death.
* So, how is Ms. Ibrahim's situation related to the topic of this post? It is related because the failure to adhere to liberal/leftist political orthodoxy in this country results in some very serious consequences to the offender, including death threats. This blog has written numerous posts concerning leftist tyranny. A very brief recap is in order before moving on to the latest developments.
* New York's Governor previously advised "extreme" conservatives (basically any true conservative) that "they have no place in the State of New York." When Chick-Fil-A's owner said he defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, he was viciously attacked, even by elected officials. SF Mayor Edwin Lee's comment was typical: "The closest Chick-Fil-A to San Francisco is 40 miles away and I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer." Liberals engaged in a boycott of the restaurant. Leftists and their liberal supporters do not believe in the idea of a "free" America. Go against their orthodoxy and they will try to prevent you from living where you want, or from running a business.
* Donald Sterling is set to lose his ownership of the Clippers in a forced sale, and pay a 2.5 million dollar fine because of private racist comments. While the comments were inappropriate, the punishment results from offending a group protected by the left. He probably could have gotten away with picking on black conservatives; and certainly could have gotten away with attacks on Sarah Palin. Just ask Bill Maher. Sterling went against liberal orthodoxy and will likely lose his business.
* More recently, Brendan Eich was ousted as CEO of Mozilla. His offense? It was discovered that he gave $1000. to the "Yes" on Prop. 8 initiative in California, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Prop. 8 was passed in 2008, but the fact that his "sin" occurred six years prior did not protect him from losing his job. Eich went against liberal orthodoxy and lost his job.
* Also recently, identical twins David and Jason Benham had a show scheduled to air on HGTV. Because of their religious beliefs (they are devout Christians) they are believers in traditional marriage - and have said so. That was enough for the blogosphere; HGTV cancelled their show. (From O'Reilly, 5/9/14.) It does not matter that, perhaps, the vast majority of potential viewers had an interest in seeing the show. The left shut them down because they went against liberal orthodoxy.
* Are you opposed to abortion? Better not say so publicly. The Center for Reproductive Rights was so upset by the Catholic Church's anti-abortion stance that they are seeking to get the United Nations to declare that anti-abortion advocacy is the equivalent of torture against women and girls. (From JPost online, 5/16/14.) Will the International Criminal Court prosecute the Pope for going against liberal orthodoxy?
* If you do not adhere to liberal orthodoxy there is NO chance of your being able to speak at a college commencement. Recall that Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Christian woman who was born a Muslim, was uninvited to speak and receive an honorary degree from Brandeis University. A fierce advocate for women and girls, she also speaks the truth about how females are treated in much of the Muslim world. But liberal orthodoxy does not allow for that (notwithstanding the paragraph regarding Ms. Ibrahim above, nor the fact that the UN Women agency expressed their "serious concern" about an increase in "honor" killings in the West Bank).
* Condoleeza Rice was to speak at the Rutgers commencement. While the University President did not withdraw her invitation, a combination of faculty objection and student protests caused her to withdraw. Rice noted that the commencement was for the students and she did not want to be a distraction. Said one female Muslim student protester: "This woman has committed so many crimes, you know she has not even been put to trial, so how can we look up to someone who has been responsible for the deaths of so many?" I suspect many university professors would express the same attitude about Rice and the rest of the Bush Administration officials.
* Meanwhile, Angela Davis was to speak at UCLA and receive, among other honors, a $43,000. honorarium. (From the 5/12/14 Investor's Business Daily.) Davis' affiliation with the Communist Party was part of the reason she was fired from UCLA back in 1969. Does it matter that Communist ideology was responsible for the deaths of tens of million of people in the twentieth century? If conservatives were allowed to speak at universities, I would have no problem with radical leftists also doing so.
* But even liberals can run afoul of their own orthodoxy. Robert Birgeneau was chancellor at UC Berkeley, and was to give the commencement address at Haverford college. According to Daniel Henninger in the 5/15/14 Wall Street Journal, Birgeneau supported minority students, including the LGBT community and illegal aliens. However, "in 2011 the Berkeley police used "force" against (the) Occupy" Wall Street crowd, then demonstrating in Sproul Plaza on campus. Mr. Birgeneau was forced to withdraw.
* Do not question the liberal orthodoxy of climate change. The 5/19/14 IBD reports that Lennart Bengtsson is a Swedish climate scientist. Yet, a top academic journal has reportedly rejected a paper jointly submitted by Bengtsson and four others. The IBD quotes one peer reviewer as saying that the paper "is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of 'errors' and worse from the climate skeptics media side." In other words, do not go against the liberal orthodoxy of climate change. Said Bengtsson: "I had not expect(ed) such an enormous worldwide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life."
* I would like to be able to write that most liberals do not agree with any of the above threats to liberty and freedom. However, in my personal discussions with liberals, it is extremely rare to hear any criticism of their own. I would like to think they, too, can see the 'big picture' of what is occurring all around them. But they cannot. Having gone to schools and universities teaching liberal orthodoxy, reading newspapers and magazines that advocate liberal orthodoxy, listening and watching TV news and shows and movies that advocate for liberal orthodoxy, I can only conclude that they are too brainwashed to recognize the danger. Make no mistake, however. The danger is real, and the threats to our society will only increase unless liberals stand up and say "enough!"
* So, how is Ms. Ibrahim's situation related to the topic of this post? It is related because the failure to adhere to liberal/leftist political orthodoxy in this country results in some very serious consequences to the offender, including death threats. This blog has written numerous posts concerning leftist tyranny. A very brief recap is in order before moving on to the latest developments.
* New York's Governor previously advised "extreme" conservatives (basically any true conservative) that "they have no place in the State of New York." When Chick-Fil-A's owner said he defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, he was viciously attacked, even by elected officials. SF Mayor Edwin Lee's comment was typical: "The closest Chick-Fil-A to San Francisco is 40 miles away and I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer." Liberals engaged in a boycott of the restaurant. Leftists and their liberal supporters do not believe in the idea of a "free" America. Go against their orthodoxy and they will try to prevent you from living where you want, or from running a business.
* Donald Sterling is set to lose his ownership of the Clippers in a forced sale, and pay a 2.5 million dollar fine because of private racist comments. While the comments were inappropriate, the punishment results from offending a group protected by the left. He probably could have gotten away with picking on black conservatives; and certainly could have gotten away with attacks on Sarah Palin. Just ask Bill Maher. Sterling went against liberal orthodoxy and will likely lose his business.
* More recently, Brendan Eich was ousted as CEO of Mozilla. His offense? It was discovered that he gave $1000. to the "Yes" on Prop. 8 initiative in California, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Prop. 8 was passed in 2008, but the fact that his "sin" occurred six years prior did not protect him from losing his job. Eich went against liberal orthodoxy and lost his job.
* Also recently, identical twins David and Jason Benham had a show scheduled to air on HGTV. Because of their religious beliefs (they are devout Christians) they are believers in traditional marriage - and have said so. That was enough for the blogosphere; HGTV cancelled their show. (From O'Reilly, 5/9/14.) It does not matter that, perhaps, the vast majority of potential viewers had an interest in seeing the show. The left shut them down because they went against liberal orthodoxy.
* Are you opposed to abortion? Better not say so publicly. The Center for Reproductive Rights was so upset by the Catholic Church's anti-abortion stance that they are seeking to get the United Nations to declare that anti-abortion advocacy is the equivalent of torture against women and girls. (From JPost online, 5/16/14.) Will the International Criminal Court prosecute the Pope for going against liberal orthodoxy?
* If you do not adhere to liberal orthodoxy there is NO chance of your being able to speak at a college commencement. Recall that Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Christian woman who was born a Muslim, was uninvited to speak and receive an honorary degree from Brandeis University. A fierce advocate for women and girls, she also speaks the truth about how females are treated in much of the Muslim world. But liberal orthodoxy does not allow for that (notwithstanding the paragraph regarding Ms. Ibrahim above, nor the fact that the UN Women agency expressed their "serious concern" about an increase in "honor" killings in the West Bank).
* Condoleeza Rice was to speak at the Rutgers commencement. While the University President did not withdraw her invitation, a combination of faculty objection and student protests caused her to withdraw. Rice noted that the commencement was for the students and she did not want to be a distraction. Said one female Muslim student protester: "This woman has committed so many crimes, you know she has not even been put to trial, so how can we look up to someone who has been responsible for the deaths of so many?" I suspect many university professors would express the same attitude about Rice and the rest of the Bush Administration officials.
* Meanwhile, Angela Davis was to speak at UCLA and receive, among other honors, a $43,000. honorarium. (From the 5/12/14 Investor's Business Daily.) Davis' affiliation with the Communist Party was part of the reason she was fired from UCLA back in 1969. Does it matter that Communist ideology was responsible for the deaths of tens of million of people in the twentieth century? If conservatives were allowed to speak at universities, I would have no problem with radical leftists also doing so.
* But even liberals can run afoul of their own orthodoxy. Robert Birgeneau was chancellor at UC Berkeley, and was to give the commencement address at Haverford college. According to Daniel Henninger in the 5/15/14 Wall Street Journal, Birgeneau supported minority students, including the LGBT community and illegal aliens. However, "in 2011 the Berkeley police used "force" against (the) Occupy" Wall Street crowd, then demonstrating in Sproul Plaza on campus. Mr. Birgeneau was forced to withdraw.
* Do not question the liberal orthodoxy of climate change. The 5/19/14 IBD reports that Lennart Bengtsson is a Swedish climate scientist. Yet, a top academic journal has reportedly rejected a paper jointly submitted by Bengtsson and four others. The IBD quotes one peer reviewer as saying that the paper "is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of 'errors' and worse from the climate skeptics media side." In other words, do not go against the liberal orthodoxy of climate change. Said Bengtsson: "I had not expect(ed) such an enormous worldwide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life."
* I would like to be able to write that most liberals do not agree with any of the above threats to liberty and freedom. However, in my personal discussions with liberals, it is extremely rare to hear any criticism of their own. I would like to think they, too, can see the 'big picture' of what is occurring all around them. But they cannot. Having gone to schools and universities teaching liberal orthodoxy, reading newspapers and magazines that advocate liberal orthodoxy, listening and watching TV news and shows and movies that advocate for liberal orthodoxy, I can only conclude that they are too brainwashed to recognize the danger. Make no mistake, however. The danger is real, and the threats to our society will only increase unless liberals stand up and say "enough!"
Sunday, May 4, 2014
The Benghazi Cover-Up
* A Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch (followed by a Court order) ended up in a release of some emails not previously released to Congress during Congress' investigation of Benghazi. On September 14, 2012, just three days after our Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed, Ben Rhodes sent an email to Susan Rice and others. Rhodes was then a deputy national security adviser and Rice was the US Ambassador to the UN. The email's subject was: "RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4p.m. ET." The next day Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows blaming the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi on an anti-Muslim video.
* Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, later claimed that the only modifications made by the White House to the "talking points" provided to Rice were stylistic. Keep in mind that the Presidential election was only two months away. It is now clear that politics carried the day over truth-telling on those five talk shows; and in subsequent comments by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and by Obama. In the email from Rhodes, he told Rice that one of the goals was "to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."
* This is certainly not the first time that politics prevailed over truth in the White House. Recall the memos subsequently obtained by NBC News showing that Obama was advised by policy people in the White House back in 2010 that many would lose their insurance under the Affordable Care Act. However, the political advisers were not happy with the President giving such a message to the American people. Furthermore, it is likely that at least some Democrat Senators would not have voted for the ACA if they knew many of their constituents would lose their insurance coverage. So Obama went on to promise on countless occasions: "If you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance."
* The Rhodes memo to Rice went on to say that she needed to "reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges." So let's be fair. There is nothing terribly unusual about any Administration wanting to put the best spin possible on events that may be politically damaging. But at a certain point in time one would hope that truth would prevail; that the American people would be told what they are entitled to know. This is especially true from a President who promised the most transparent presidency in history. Or was that just another lie?
* The former Deputy Intelligence Director for AfriCom, Retired Brigadier General Robert Lovell, has now testified before Congress as follows: "What we did know early on was that this was a hostile action. This was no demonstration gone terribly awry." Furthermore, the newly released emails reflect that on September 14, within an hour of Rhodes' email to Rice, there were still references to "Al-Qaida" and an "attack." Yet those two references did not make it into the final "talking points."
* Speaker of the House John Boehner has now called for the appointment of a select committee to further investigate Benghazi. It is true that there have been Congressional investigations already. It is also true, however, that those investigations did not have all the information that has now been disclosed through the Freedom Watch FOIA request and Court order.
* It is ironic that just two months before the 2012 Presidential election, Mr. Rhodes was concerned about the perception of a "broader failure of policy." Looking back on Obama's second term to date, it is difficult to see where any of Obama's foreign policy efforts have either enhanced America's standing in the world, furthered US interests, or resulted in a more stable, peaceful world. From the Arab Spring, to the appeasement of Iran, to the "reset button" with Russia (including Obama's "tell Vladimir I'll have more flexibility after the election"), it is difficult to see how any of these situations have been helped by Obama.
* I am disappointed that Speaker Boehner has not seen fit to appoint a select committee to investigate the White House use and abuse of the IRS in dealing with political opponents, and those who have suffered consequences for merely criticizing Obama. Between the lies, the cover-ups, and the abuse of power, I can only imagine how many democrats would be calling for such a President's impeachment - especially if his name was Bush. Can any reader point to a more corrupt Administration in our lifetimes?
* Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, later claimed that the only modifications made by the White House to the "talking points" provided to Rice were stylistic. Keep in mind that the Presidential election was only two months away. It is now clear that politics carried the day over truth-telling on those five talk shows; and in subsequent comments by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and by Obama. In the email from Rhodes, he told Rice that one of the goals was "to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."
* This is certainly not the first time that politics prevailed over truth in the White House. Recall the memos subsequently obtained by NBC News showing that Obama was advised by policy people in the White House back in 2010 that many would lose their insurance under the Affordable Care Act. However, the political advisers were not happy with the President giving such a message to the American people. Furthermore, it is likely that at least some Democrat Senators would not have voted for the ACA if they knew many of their constituents would lose their insurance coverage. So Obama went on to promise on countless occasions: "If you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance."
* The Rhodes memo to Rice went on to say that she needed to "reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges." So let's be fair. There is nothing terribly unusual about any Administration wanting to put the best spin possible on events that may be politically damaging. But at a certain point in time one would hope that truth would prevail; that the American people would be told what they are entitled to know. This is especially true from a President who promised the most transparent presidency in history. Or was that just another lie?
* The former Deputy Intelligence Director for AfriCom, Retired Brigadier General Robert Lovell, has now testified before Congress as follows: "What we did know early on was that this was a hostile action. This was no demonstration gone terribly awry." Furthermore, the newly released emails reflect that on September 14, within an hour of Rhodes' email to Rice, there were still references to "Al-Qaida" and an "attack." Yet those two references did not make it into the final "talking points."
* Speaker of the House John Boehner has now called for the appointment of a select committee to further investigate Benghazi. It is true that there have been Congressional investigations already. It is also true, however, that those investigations did not have all the information that has now been disclosed through the Freedom Watch FOIA request and Court order.
* It is ironic that just two months before the 2012 Presidential election, Mr. Rhodes was concerned about the perception of a "broader failure of policy." Looking back on Obama's second term to date, it is difficult to see where any of Obama's foreign policy efforts have either enhanced America's standing in the world, furthered US interests, or resulted in a more stable, peaceful world. From the Arab Spring, to the appeasement of Iran, to the "reset button" with Russia (including Obama's "tell Vladimir I'll have more flexibility after the election"), it is difficult to see how any of these situations have been helped by Obama.
* I am disappointed that Speaker Boehner has not seen fit to appoint a select committee to investigate the White House use and abuse of the IRS in dealing with political opponents, and those who have suffered consequences for merely criticizing Obama. Between the lies, the cover-ups, and the abuse of power, I can only imagine how many democrats would be calling for such a President's impeachment - especially if his name was Bush. Can any reader point to a more corrupt Administration in our lifetimes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)