Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category

h1

Lack Of Civility A Bigger Danger Than Firearms

January 16, 2013
Lack Of Civility A Bigger Danger Than Firearms
WALTER E. WILLIAMS |I.B.D.

When I attended primary and secondary school — during the 1940s and ‘50s — one didn’t hear of the kind of shooting mayhem that’s become routine today.    Why? It surely wasn’t because of strict firearm laws. My replica of the 1902 Sears mail-order catalog shows 35 pages of firearm advertisements. People just sent in their money, and a firearm was shipped.

Dr. John Lott, author of “More Guns, Less Crime,” reports that until the 1960s, some New York City public high schools had shooting clubs where students competed in citywide shooting contests for university scholarships.    They carried their rifles to school on the subways and, upon arrival, turned them over to their homeroom teacher or the gym coach and retrieved their rifles after school for target practice.    Virginia’s rural areas had a long tradition of high-school students going hunting in the morning before school and sometimes storing their rifles in the trunks of their cars that were parked on school grounds.

Often a youngster’s 12th or 14th birthday present was a shiny new .22-caliber rifle, given to him by his father.

Old-Fashioned Values    Today’s level of civility can’t match yesteryear’s.    Many of today’s youngsters begin the school day passing through metal detectors. Guards patrol school hallways, and police cars patrol outside.    Despite these measures, assaults, knifings and shootings occur. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2010 there were 828,000 nonfatal criminal incidents in schools.

There were 470,000 thefts and 359,000 violent attacks, of which 91,400 were serious. In the same year, 145,100 public-school teachers were physically attacked, and 276,700 were threatened.    What explains today’s behavior vs. yesteryear’s?    For well over a half-century, the nation’s liberals and progressives — along with the education establishment, pseudo-intellectuals and the courts — have waged war on traditions, customs and moral values.    These people taught their vision, that there are no moral absolutes, to our young people. To them, what’s moral or immoral is a matter of convenience, personal opinion or a consensus.    During the ’50s and ’60s, the education establishment launched its agenda to undermine lessons children learned from their parents and the church with fads such as “values clarification.”

So-called sex education classes are simply indoctrination that sought to undermine family and church strictures against premarital sex.    Lessons of abstinence were ridiculed and considered passe and replaced with lessons about condoms, birth control pills and abortions.    Further undermining of parental authority came with legal and extralegal measures to assist teenage abortions with neither parental knowledge nor consent.

Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society. These behavioral norms — transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings — represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works.    The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody’s watching.

What About Civility?   

Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society.    The more uncivilized we become the more laws that are needed to regulate behavior.

Many customs, traditions and moral values have been discarded without an appreciation for the role they played in creating a civilized society, and now we’re paying the price.    What’s worse is that instead of a return to what worked, people want to replace what worked with what sounds good, such as zero-tolerance policies in which bringing a water pistol, drawing a picture of a pistol, or pointing a finger and shouting “bangbang” produces a school suspension or arrest.

Seeing as we’ve decided that we should rely on gun laws to control behavior, what should be done to regulate clubs and hammers?    After all, FBI crime statistics show that more people are murdered by clubs and hammers than rifles and shotguns.

h1

The Little Red Hen

April 20, 2012

The Little Red Hen

– by Doug Smith –

attributed: Summit Sun 8 July 1971

Little Red Hen

Once upon a time, there was a little red hen who scratched about and uncovered some grains of wheat.  She called her barnyard neighbors and said, “If we work together and plant this wheat, we will have some fine bread to eat.  Who will help me plant the wheat?”  “Not I,” said the cow.  “Not I,” said the duck.  “Not I,” said the goose.  “Then I will,” said the little red hen, and she did.

 

The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain.  “Who will help me reap my wheat?” asked the little red hen.  “Not I,” said the duck.  “Out of my classification,” said the pig.  “I’d lose my seniority” said the cow.  “I’d lose my unemployment insurance,” said the goose.

Then it came time to bake the bread.  “That’s overtime for me,” said the cow.  I’m a dropout and never learned how,” said the duck.  “I’d lose my welfare benefits,” said the pig.  “If I’m the only one helping, that’s discrimination,” said the goose.

“Then I will,” said the little red hen.  And she did.

She baked five loaves of fine bread and held them all up for the neighbors to see.  They all wanted some, demanded a share.  But the red hen said, “No, I can rest for a while and eat the five loaves myself.”

“Excess profits,” cried the cow.  “Capitalistic leech,” screamed the duck.  “Company fink,” grunted the pig.  “Equal rights,” yelled the goose.  And they hurriedly painted picket signs and marched around the little red hen singing, “We shall overcome,” and they did.

For when the farmer came, he said, “You must not be greedy, little red hen.  Look at the oppressed cow.  Look at the disadvantaged duck.  Look at the under-privileged pig.  Look at the less fortunate goose.  You are guilty of making second-class citizens of them.”

“But….but,” said the little red hen.  “I earned the bread.”

“Exactly,” said the wise farmer.  “That is the wonderful free enterprise system; anybody in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants.  You should be happy to have this freedom.  In other barnyards, you’d have to give all five loaves to the farmer.  Here you give four loaves to your suffering neighbors.” And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked: “I am grateful.  I am grateful.”

But her neighbors wondered why she never baked any more bread.

h1

Cartoon: Obama’s Spending Plan

February 19, 2010

http://www.investors.com/image/ramirez021810_FULL.jpg.cms

h1

Cartoon: Mt. Spendmore….(Obama)

February 18, 2010

h1

Cartoon: ‘Bama’s Response to Iran Threat

February 9, 2010

h1

Cartoon: Obama’s Spending Freeze

February 1, 2010

h1

Cartoon: You’re Gonna Have to Trust Us

January 25, 2010

h1

Cartoon: The Great and Powerful Ozbama

January 25, 2010

h1

Cartoon: Obama “Pants on the Ground”

January 25, 2010

source: wnd.com

h1

Cartoon: The REAL Messiah

December 15, 2009

h1

Cartoon: Obama’s Job Creation

December 15, 2009

h1

F-22 Raptor Fighter Jet Removed from Obama Speech

December 14, 2009

Last week Obama pulled this stunt:

Exclusive: Obama insisted F-22 be removed from his speech venue

When President Obama spoke to troops at Alaska’s Elmendorf Air Force Base last month, the unit there parked a shiny new F-22 fighter plane in the hangar. But according to multiple sources, White House aides demanded the plane be changed to an older F-15 fighter because they didn’t want Obama speaking in front of the F-22, a controversial program he fought hard to end.

“White House aides actually made them remove the F-22-said they would not allow POTUS to be pictured with the F-22 in any way, shape, or form,” one source close to the unit relayed.

Stephen Lee, a public affairs officer at Elmendorf, confirmed to The Cable that the F-22 was parked in the hangar and then was replaced by an F-15 at the White House’s behest.

Obama was key to having the F-22 program killed, so it is understandable why he would not want to be photographed in front of one. However, many in the Air Force family are very distressed by his position that was pushed by Gates, the traitor, because the F-22 is our only 5th generation aircraft. (Did you know that Gates required a signed loyalty oath from all who work for him? This is a first.) Our enemies are actively developing 5th generation aircraft, and we now have only about 187 of these planes.

the program started 20 years ago at 750 aircraft and was eventually whittled down to 187. An effort to preserve the production line with 7 more aircraft was rebuffed by Obama and Gates last summer, so there will never be any more F-22s, which was the top fighter jet in the world. So the irony of Obama’s game of hide and seek with the Airmen who fly these marvelous aircraft is tragic.

In a future conflict we will be at a severe disadvantage. The F-22 is criticized as costing too much per airplane. But this is a numbers game. The more aircraft you buy, as was planned, the cheaper the cost per aircraft. Because the program was cut back in numbers, the unit cost has increased. My point is that at every turn Obama is doing things that weaken our country, instead of strengthening it.

h1

Welcome to Obamaville

December 14, 2009

Sign at homeless camp: ‘Welcome to Obamaville’


‘I’ve had 100 calls today and not a single 1 of them was negative’


WND 12 Dec. 09

By Drew Zahn


WorldNetDaily


Sign constructed in Colorado Springs homeless camp

Residents of Colorado Springs, Colo., have a mystery on their hands: Who came up with the idea to erect a sign reading “Welcome to Obamaville” on the site of a homeless tent camp in the city?

The sign, which was visible from the Cimarron Street ramp to Interstate 25, clearly conveyed a political jab at rising unemployment under President Barack Obama, for it read in full, “Welcome to Obamaville – Colorado’s fastest growing community.”

Tell lawmakers in Washington that if they insist on spending more, they’ll join the ranks of the unemployed, too. For just $29.95 you can send an individualized notice to every member of Congress in the form of a “pink slip.”

Colorado television station KRDO first reported on the sign earlier this week, but without any identifying logos or clues to the sign’s origin, the station launched a public appeal for information on the sign’s author.

KRDO got its first clue when Spencer Swann of Colorado Canyon Signs confessed to constructing the sign, though he denied it was his idea and still refuses to divulge for whom he built it. He did, however, explain that there was more to the sign’s intent than criticizing the sitting president:

“You mention his name, you get some attention – I think that was the whole idea behind it,” Swann told KRDO. “I didn’t dream it up, but I thought it was a good idea. I thought that it would help some of these guys down here.”

(Story continues below)

Public reaction on the KRDO website has been mixed over the sign’s message:

“Lay the blame where you will, I think it is a hoot and a great historical throwback to Hooverville,” wrote a reader named daman in an online comment. “These are the worst times I’ve seen in my 40-plus years, and I am glad my kids get to see it early. Maybe they’ll learn to grow and be compassionate, yet personally fiscal conservatives.”

A poster named Nick, however, was critical: “That is pretty low to use a right-wing political agenda and attack the homeless during the worst recession in a generation and especially during the holidays.”

Swann, however, says he’s received nothing but support:

“I’ve had 100 calls today,” Swann told the station, “and not a single one of them was negative.”

Nonetheless, Swann has since replaced the “Obamaville” sign with another, which reads, “Please help. We need firewood, propane and canned food.”

In response to some criticism that the money used to build the signs should have been used to help the homeless instead, Swann told KRDO that though the original “Obamaville” sign cost around $150, he didn’t charge the unknown creator for either sign. Furthermore, he said, the instigator of the “Obamaville” sign is already involved with helping the homeless:

“He gives them money, he gives them food, he gives them support,” said Swann.

As for his own motivations for building the sign, and doing so without charge, Swann told KRDO, “I thought it was just something to draw attention and help those folks.”

h1

Cartoon: Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize

December 14, 2009

h1

Cartoon: Obama’s 30,000 Troop Surge

December 7, 2009

h1

Cartoon: Obama’s Party Crashers

December 7, 2009

h1

Help Your President — Kill ObamaCare!

November 20, 2009

Help Your President — Kill ObamaCare!

By Larry Elder – IBD: 20 Nov. 2009

‘The political risks of failure are pretty high.”

A former congressional aide offered this ominous assessment following the House of Representatives’ passage of “health care reform.” Warning to the Senate: President Obama and his party face political catastrophe if you fail to do your part so that the president can sign a bill!

Nonsense.

The political risks of success are much, much higher. Taxes would go up — and not just on “the rich.” And since “the rich” provide jobs, they would hire fewer people, spend less on their businesses and take fewer risks.

Costs would explode far beyond government projections — which conveniently limit the estimated price tag to only the first decade.

Expect insurance companies to deny requests for medical treatment more frequently than today. Why? The bill would require insurers to take people with pre-existing illnesses, so denying requests for treatment would be the only potent weapon to reduce costs.

And since those with pre-existing illnesses could not be denied coverage, people would simply wait until they required care before getting insurance — only to drop it and risk paying fines once they were treated.

Government eventually will start “controlling costs” by rationing care — denying requests, imposing waiting times for treatment and withholding treatment from those with “bad” lifestyles (e.g., those who smoke cigarettes or those who fail to exercise and eat “appropriately”) and those considered too old to “sufficiently benefit.”

During the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt launched the New Deal — a blinding array of expansive and expensive government programs designed to “rescue” the economy. Obama, as did FDR, calls this expansion necessary to achieve economic recovery.

Government expansion — in this case, ObamaCare — and economic prosperity supposedly go hand in hand.

Henry Morgenthau served as FDR’s Treasury secretary. Thus Morgenthau, who served from 1934 to 1945, was to FDR what current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is to Obama.

Morgenthau wrote in 1939: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … and an enormous debt to boot!”

Political Armageddon if ObamaCare fails? No. A recent Rasmussen poll shows more “likely voters” opposed than in favor. Preventing Obama from being Obama is job security for both the president and the congressional Democrats.

The then-Republican-controlled Congress stopped President Bill Clinton from passing HillaryCare. People soon forgot about his “failure” and re-elected him by a larger margin than he received for his first term. Republicans also blocked his first-term attempt to pass a multibillion-dollar “economic stimulus package.”

Because of Republican pressure or support, Clinton signed measures unpopular with his base — the Nafta and GATT trade agreements, a reduction in capital gains taxes (as part of a larger budget compromise) and 1996’s welfare reform act, which, for the first time, refused recipients more money if they had additional children and imposed benefit time limits. Many congressional Democrats opposed these measures.

Though he successfully blamed the Republicans for temporarily shutting down the government over a budget impasse, Clinton signed a budget more modest and less expensive than he wished.

For these reasons, among others, Clinton left office with a budget surplus that Democrats constantly brag about — never, of course, giving Republicans any credit for restraining Clinton’s desire to spend.

Besides, if ObamaCare fails in the Senate, watch Obama and the sycophantic media round up the “usual suspects”:

“Anti-women” pro-lifers who reject government money for abortions.

Anti-illegal-alien “racists” who wanted some teeth in the legislation to stop illegal aliens from receiving benefits.

“In-the-pockets-of-insurance-company”opponents of the noble “public option” (government-subsidized insurance designed to keep insurance companies “honest”).

“Evil and greedy” health insurance companies that “misled” the public about the wonders of ObamaCare.

“The rich” who selfishly resisted tax hikes.

And, of course, Republicans who “failed to offer an alternative.”

The media will praise the president for his “heroic” effort, for “going down swinging,” for getting the House — for the first time in history — to pass health care “reform,” for going further than any president since President Truman first proposed government-based universal health care.

After spending trillions to “save” our financial system, signing an $800 billion spending package to “stimulate” the economy and pushing government takeovers of financial firms, banks and car companies, the president stands — pen in hand — ready to enact a dangerous government takeover of one-sixth of the nation’s economy.

President Clinton survived — not in spite of, but, in part, because of his “failure” to “reform” health care.

Obama will survive — and benefit from — this “failure” as well. So, members of the Senate, do the president, yourselves and the country a favor: Stop him.

h1

Tom Sowell: Deepest Bow Is Reserved For World Opinion

November 20, 2009

Deepest Bow Is Reserved For World Opinion

By THOMAS SOWELL IBD: 17 Nov. 2009

In the string of amazing decisions made during the first year of the Obama administration, nothing seems more like sheer insanity than the decision to try foreign terrorists, who have committed acts of war against the United States, in federal court, as if they were American citizens accused of crimes.

Terrorists are not even entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions, much less the Constitution of the United States. Terrorists have never observed, nor even claimed to have observed, the Geneva Conventions, nor are they among those covered by it.

But over and above the utter inconsistency of what is being done is the utter recklessness it represents.

The last time an attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a matter of domestic criminal justice was after a bomb was exploded there in 1993. Under the rules of American criminal law, the prosecution had to turn over all sorts of information to the defense — information that told the al-Qaida international terrorist network what we knew about them and how we knew it.

This was nothing more and nothing less than giving away military secrets to an enemy in wartime — something for which people have been executed, as they should have been.

Secrecy in warfare is a matter of life and death. Lives were risked and lost during World War II to prevent Nazi Germany from discovering that Britain had broken its supposedly unbreakable Enigma code and could read their military plans that were being radioed in that code.

“Loose lips sink ships” was the World War II motto in the United States. But loose lips are mandated under the rules of criminal prosecutions.

Read the rest of this entry ?

h1

Gitmo North

November 19, 2009

Gitmo North

IBD: 19 Nov. 2009

War On Terror: Sen. Dick Durbin calls a plan to transfer 100 Guantanamo detainees to northwest Illinois “a dream come true.” It would paint a bull’s-eye on America’s heartland in time for the 2012 Iowa caucuses.

It seems the question of where to put the Guantanamo detainees is being settled as we speak, with liberal Democrats in the very blue state of Illinois welcoming them with open arms and outstretched hands for the federal dollars that will come with them.

Federal officials last Friday inspected the Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Ill., a town of 500 on the Iowa border, with the thought of transferring as many as 100 Gitmo inmates there. The prison, built to house 1,600 prisoners, now holds around 200, and has fallen victim to state budget problems.

At press conferences held in Chicago, Moline and Rockford, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, who took over from the disgraced Rod Blagojevich, and Illinois’ senior U.S. senator, Dick Durbin, stumped for the plan, calling it “a dream come true.” We call it a nightmare on Main Street.

Read the rest of this entry ?

h1

Oba Mao

November 17, 2009

Articles Featuring the late Chinese leader Mao Zedong and President Obama dressed in Communist Cultural Revolution-era military uniform are sold in Beijing.  The Chinese have learned English from Obama’s speeches and celebrate the “fearless” way he rolls up his sleeves.  Now that he’s coming, he’s also being greeted by items ranging from “Oba Mao” T-Shirts to a statue of him that bursts into flames.

 

 

h1

IRAN: Treasury, Justice Target Iranian Regime Assets

November 16, 2009

Treasury, Justice Target Iranian Regime Assets

IPT News
November 13, 2009

http://www.investigativeproject.org/1513/treasury-justice-target-iranian-regime-assets

On November 12, 2009, the Justice Department dealt a major blow to Iranian nuclear ambitions and terrorist financing efforts. The announcement of an amended civil forfeiture complaint against the Alavi Foundation has the potential to cut off a significant source of funding to the Iranian government—funding which is absolutely essential as Iran continues to defy international efforts at curbing nuclear proliferation.

The amended complaint in United States v. ASSA Corp., now the largest civil forfeiture claim ever filed, is the latest in a series of moves taken by the United States government aimed at closing front companies funneling money to the Iranian government. The complaint, filed in the Southern District of New York, alleges, among other things, that the “Alavi Foundation has been providing numerous services to the Iranian Government,” including funneling money to Bank Melli, an institution which has been designated for its role in funding terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

Bank Melli was designated under ***Executive Order 13382—aimed at freezing the assets of proliferators of weapons of mass destruction—on October 25, 2007. At the time of its designation, the Treasury Department explained that:

Bank Melli provides financial services, including opening letters of credit and maintaining accounts, for Iranian front companies and entities engaged in proliferation activities. Further, Bank Melli has facilitated the purchase of sensitive materials utilized by Iran’s nuclear and missile industry, and has handled transactions for other designated Iranian entities, including Bank Sepa, Defense Industries Organization, and the Shahid Hammas Industrial Group.

Following the designation of Bank Melli, the Iranian government began setting up front companies to hide its identity and continue sponsoring terrorism. Through these layers of front companies Bank Melli provided banking services to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) and the Qods force, a branch of the IRGC that has been designated under Executive Order 13224 for providing support to terrorist groups including the Taliban, Hizballah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Among the companies set up to mask Iranian activities were the ASSA Corporation and the Alavi Foundation, the two defendants in the recently amended civil forfeiture proceeding.

Assa Corporation is owned by Assa Company Limited, a UK entity which is wholly owned and operated by Iranian citizens who represent the interests of Bank Melli. Shortly after ASSA’s creation, on December 17, 2008, the Treasury Department designated ASSA as a terrorist financier, and the Justice Department filed a civil forfeiture complaint over ASSAs financial interests in the United States. At the time, senior Treasury official, Stuart Levey, explained “this scheme to use a front company set up by Bank Melli—a known proliferator—to funnel money from the United States to Iran is yet another example of Iran’s duplicity.”

Similarly, the Alavi Foundation has served as a front for Iran’s financing of terrorism. It began as the Pahlavi Foundation, a non-profit organization operated by the Shah of Iran and was later renamed the Mostazafan Foundation of New York and then finally the Alavi Foundation. Through each of these incarnations, the company has been used by Bank Melli and the Iranian government to finance terror, as detailed in the complaint. Along with ASSA Corporation, the Alavi Foundation maintains control over substantial assets and property within the United States. All would be forfeited should the government prevail at the upcoming trial in Manhattan.

The government’s action, undertaken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, seeks forfeiture of more than $500 million in assets, including:

With Iran continuing to move forward in its plans to develop nuclear weapons, the U.S. government must use every tool at its disposal to dry up funding. The steps taken by the Justice Department this week are a strong indication that they are doing so. By closing down and seeking forfeiture of the assets of front corporations working on behalf of Iran, the U.S. can effectively curb not only the regime’s nuclear weapons program but also its continued support for terrorist organizations.

—————–

In a related news item, the Alavi-owned Islamic Education Center of Houston has featured its own support for Iran. In a speech for the “Anniversary of the Islamic Revolution” of 1979, speaker Ghulam Hur Shabbiri prays for the victory of Islam all over the world:

This is just an opening. May Allah (swt) bless us all and forgive all sins of all life. And may Allah (swt) give Islami-Inqilab [Islamic Revolution] victory in [sic] all over the world. And may Allah give us UI that we may make this Inqilab [revolution] successful and we can join with the Imam of the age… to have a complete victory in the world and Islam, then Islam is going to be a ruling authority in the whole world and we can see the flag of Islam in the top places in this world.


VIEW THE VIDEO RECORDING @: http://www.investigativeproject.org/1513/treasury-justice-target-iranian-regime-assets#video

h1

Israel and Obama: Deaf Ears, Dumb Voters

November 13, 2009

This article makes you question the supposition that all Jews are smart.

You might want to pass this on to your Jewish friends who voted for Obama, and who probably think that he is still a great President.


November 13, 2009

Deaf Ears, Dumb Voters

By Suzanne Fields

If a photograph is worth a thousand words, a sharp newspaper cartoon is often worth the book. One Israeli cartoonist depicts Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the missus arriving at the White House to meet with Barack Obama. Mrs. Netanyahu knocks at the front door with the explanation, “We just happened to be in the neighborhood.” Another cartoon depicts the prime minister pulling up at the White House, and telling the driver to wait: “I’m not sure they’re at home.”

With a few strokes of pen and brush, the cartoonists capture the prevailing Israeli dismay, frustration and controlled fury at President Obama’s reluctance to meet the prime minister, who was in Washington this week. The administration wanted to punish Israel by setting “pre-conditions” for talks and for not having a more “conciliatory” attitude toward those who vow to “wipe the Jewish nation off the map.”

On the street and at higher levels, Israelis look back in anger, observing that the president set no “pre-conditions” before meeting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, who is on the way to building a nuclear weapon to put Israel in mortal danger. The Israelis say Obama wants to extract an opening promise to freeze settlements on the West Bank and East Jerusalem, something that’s never been a pre-condition for starting talks.

The prime minister was eventually invited into the Oval Office for a brief “low-key” exchange, but without the customary photo op afterward. This president does not offer the strong handshake of friendship that Bill Clinton and George W. extended to previous Israeli prime ministers. President Obama says “America’s bond with our Israeli allies is unbreakable,” but it sounds more like the lip service paid by Jimmy Carter.

President Obama shows none of the instinctive affection for Israel or understanding of the history of the Jewish state. This is not lost on the Israelis, who have to cultivate long memories as a survival strategy. They’re not as sanguine as American Jews who voted in enormous numbers for Obama despite his long associations with those who wish Israel only ill.

They remember how Obama apparently slept through two decades of Sunday morning rants by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, citing chapter and verse of his accusations that Israel committed “genocide” against the Palestinians. They remember that the president once cited as his “mentor” Rashid Khalidi, the professor at Columbia University who frequently denounces Israel as “a racist state” and defends Palestinian suicide bombers.

Many Israelis are puzzled by how American Jews give the president a passing grade on the kishke test, using the Yiddish word for “gut.” Zbigniew Brzezinski, who worked as a senior campaign adviser to Obama, even urged the president to shoot down Israeli planes if they fly over Iraq on their way to bomb the Iranian nuclear sites. John McCain, on the other hand, said “the only thing worse than bombing Iran is letting Iran get the bomb.” Obama defeated McCain by 57 points among Jewish voters.

A growing number of Jewish voices are asking how, if Jews are so smart, can this be? Norman Podhoretz, one of the most prominent Jewish voices in America, talked about his new book, “Why Are Jews Liberal?” the other day at the Hudson Institute in Washington. The question is especially timely against the backdrop of the ’08 campaign, given that Obama captured 78 percent of the Jewish vote, and continues to espouse positions, sometimes subtly and sometimes not so subtly, which conflict sharply with what most American Jews say they want for Israel.

I asked Podhoretz what the Israeli prime minister might say to the president about the unchecked threat by Iran. “The Jewish people have existed for 3,500 years, a long rich history, and only yesterday overcame a very serious, determined threat to end its existence,” he replied, as if channeling Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to Barack Obama. Now we have another very serious threat to annihilate (the Jews) by a country that is rapidly acquiring the means to make good on that threat. I, as prime minister of Israel, have accepted the intolerably heavy burden of deciding whether I will preside over the end of the Jewish people, the end of this 3,500 year history, and I will take admittedly dangerous and risky steps in order to prevent this. I ask you not to try to prevent me from making this effort if I have to make it, which I fear I might.”

Does he think such words, if spoken by the prime minister to the president, would be persuasive? No, he said. Not really. Such words would fall on “deaf ears.” And he still wouldn’t get his Oval Office photo-op, either.

 

h1

Confessions of an ObamaCare Backer

November 13, 2009

Confessions of an ObamaCare Backer

A liberal explains the political calculus.
The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let’s give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that “it’s important to be clear about what the reform amounts to.”
Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. “The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment,” he writes. “Let’s not pretend that it isn’t a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won’t. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind.”
Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of “making the United States a more equitable country” and furthering the Democrats’ “political calculus.” In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.
This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, “Putting on my amateur historian’s cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted.”
No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A24 – 10 Nov. 2009
h1

CRITICAL: Suicide By PC

November 10, 2009

Suicide By PC

IBD: 10 Nov 2009

For Gen. Casey, loss of diversity would be an
For Gen. Casey, loss of diversity would be an “even greater tragedy.” AP (????????)

 

War On Terror: The No. 1 lesson of the Fort Hood massacre is that political correctness kills. But instead of learning this lesson, the Pentagon is repeating the mistake, putting more soldiers at risk.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey warns that making the connection between Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s terrorist act and his Islamic faith could “cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers.”

Yet ignoring that connection, despite one red flag after another, is what allowed Hasan allegedly to carry out his own violent backlash against non-Muslim soldiers.

Just a few months ago, Hasan was promoted to major. He passed a security clearance despite evidence he openly engaged in anti-American rants, and even discussed cutting the throats of infidels during a PowerPoint presentation. Now there are reports that U.S. intelligence intercepted contacts between Hasan and al-Qaida.

But shhh! This isn’t about Islam. Close your eyes. Look the other way. Do not make the connection.

“It would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here,” Casey said on Sunday’s morning shows. Really? Tell that to the victims of the Muslim terrorist who shouted “Allahu Akbar!” before pumping fellow soldiers full of bullets at close range. Tell it to their grieving families.

Diversity is a good thing only if Muslims embrace the military’s mission. Of course many do, but a growing number object to fighting Muslims abroad. By our count, at least a dozen Muslims in uniform have been charged or convicted of terror or spying since 9/11, including Hasan. That’s a sectarian pattern, not a random act by a lone gunman, as the media have portrayed it.

The prize for digging up the most imaginative excuse for Hasan’s actions goes to ABC News. The network speculated he may have suffered from “second-hand trauma” — “like second-hand smoke” — from counseling soldiers with post traumatic stress disorder.

You see, Hasan had never actually been deployed, never seen combat, as first assumed. So the initial spin that he suffered PTSD no longer worked. Unless he suffered combat stress by proxy. So now it’s “second-hand trauma.” Anything but jihad.

But let’s be fair. At least ABC reported that Hasan was Muslim. Over at Fox News, host Shephard Smith refused to even mention Hasan’s name. And he’s still waiting on a motive. “As journalists,” the anchor said Monday, “we can’t report what the motive was, because at this point, we don’t know what his motive was.”

Seems Fox has caught the PC virus.

Meanwhile, our commander in chief refuses to call the attack terrorism. And he seemed to take news of the military massacre glibly. Briefed on the shooting before an appearance at a Democrat event, he walked up to the podium grinning. Then, in a bizarre non-sequitur, he gave a “shout out” to a Democrat supporter, infuriating soldiers across the country, and rightfully so.

Surely the Homeland Security secretary would tell it like it is. No such luck. Janet Napolitano issued a warning to Americans from the UAE against any anti-Muslim backlash. She said she’d work with Muslim groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, to deflect any bigotry. To hear her, Islam was the real victim of the Islam-inspired terrorism.

Democrats aren’t the only ones in denial. “It’s certainly not about his religion,” intoned GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Passing out Qurans the morning of the shooting. Nope, no religion here! Proselytizing fellow soldiers to Islam. Not religion.

Close your eyes. Look the other way.

This PC insanity is literally killing us now. We are committing politically correct suicide. If the military is now too PC to protect its own troops from Islamic fanatics on its own soil, how can we be sure it can protect the rest of us?