Monday, November 30, 2009
More PDS
Martha, Martha, is Sarah getting under your skin?
Palin Derangement Syndrome is alive and well in liberal circles.
Read all about it from the American Thinker:
Hating Sarah
By C. Edmund Wright
"The Alaska Governor is far more than someone who appeals to the (conservative) base, she is someone who can make the base appeal to America.
This compact yet comprehensive diagnosis was made in the early hours of the Palin Derangement Syndrome (PDS) outbreak, when Sarah Palin was first being introduced to the nation. It still rings true as the Jurassic media continues a childish obsession with someone who does not control a single government lever.
Having said that, PDS has now matured past epidemic to full-blown pandemic status with a derangement component that is now insanely intense. Remember, Palin does not have one whit of legal authority over these people or anyone else. Yet as her elected status has ended, her effect on the elites has only increased. Perhaps it is time to update the correct initial diagnosis to contemplate the increased virulence of this mental and emotional malady.
To corroborate and condense the many valid commentaries out there on the Palin effect, allow me to submit diagnosis PDS 2:
The persistence and even growth of Palin's popularity and impact on the national discussion now makes unavoidable the reality of the elitists' worst fear: that there are more of us than there are of them. And we now realize it.
As many have correctly pointed out, the pundits' vitriol and patronizing comments smack of a hatred and anger that only thinly veils the real emotion underlying their irrational behavior: Fear. Part of it is fear that she will indeed hold public office again. But it goes even deeper than that.
It is an increasing awareness that Palin's impact is much more than a strong advocacy of conservatism as a sound political philosophy. These people are now finding it hard to escape the reality that her life is a compelling and real advocacy of conservatism as a powerful life philosophy. Life trumps politics.
And once the casual voter has related to Palin's life philosophy as something that is true, practical and worth adopting, they are dead to liberalism forever. They will never again believe in 'the electability' of moderates like McCain and never again fall prey to a 'clean articulate black man' with a good tele-prompter.
If your life revolves around convincing Republicans to nominate folks like McCain or around electing people like Obama, this is a scary prospect indeed. Like the signature scene from 'Alien,' this realization is causing the emergence from deep within the elites of something even uglier and more powerful than we imagined.
They will not admit this of course. In fairness, they may not even consciously know what is going on inside their insulated minds. And short of breathing -- Palin is doing little to stoke this -- and yet it is getting worse.
While people who live a conservative base type life have always outnumbered the elites, the last public figure who evidenced it simply by existing was Ronald Reagan. And yes, many of the attacks on Palin today are the same attacks Reagan endured decades ago and they are coming from the same quarters.
Palin and Reagan are similar in that they both can use a few simple words and communicate more truth to average Americans than the media elites can with rambling professorial or lawyer speak. When she told Charlie Gibson that 'you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska,' she refers to a profound sense of reality one automatically gets when you see your mortal enemy every single day. Now I understood it the day she said it. Send a memo to David Brooks please.
Her comment about the Soviet Union would be no different than Joe Biden claiming he has a deep understanding of Amtrak service into Wilmington and how to fleece taxpayers for his transportation. If he were to say this, he would be absolutely right. Finally!
When Reagan quipped 'tell ‘em the bombing starts in five minutes,' he spoke volumes about the good guys, the bad guys, our relative capabilities and our moral imperative. Brevity is the soul of wit -- and does not require a teleprompter. Many Americans understood the genius in that so-called off-handed comment instantly. Oh, so did Gorbachev.
But to liberals uncomfortable with the idea of America having any moral imperatives or to moderate pundits and strategists afraid to choose corn flakes without referencing a focus group report, such certitude based on common sense and love of country is unsettling. This is not who they are, and they have convinced themselves that they are the country. They are the self proclaimed best and brightest and there are more folks who believe that than who believe otherwise -- or so they think.
Like Reagan's, Palin's easy natural appeal shatters that delusion. And she is the first one to do so for any length of time in a long time. Oh sure, Newt Gingrich had his moments in 93-94 as he was building the Contract with America movement. He was feared and hated for a while, but the media succeeded in beating him up so badly he's now as likely to agree with Gore as with Reaganism.
When Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf was rolling through Iraq in Gulf War I, George Bush 41 was feared with a 90% approval rating. Then he stopped Norman from stormin' and misread his own lips on taxes and faded into an abyss with only 38% of the vote in 1992.
And of course, we saw the elites fear and hate Bush 43 the Cowboy as he enjoyed approval ratings over 80% for months. Under fire, he forgot that most people love cowboys and he hung up his hat and spurs. Thus he limped into history with barely one in five Americans' approval -- ironically discrediting a conservative movement he never believed really existed.
So while the elites eventually beat back Gingrich and the Bushes, they seem to know they will never do that to Palin. They never could do it to Reagan either. Like Reagan, Palin seems to arrive at her beliefs with too much foundation to ever rattle. That gives power to her spoken and written words that other Americans can sense.
Yes, there are more of us than there are of them. Sarah Palin has reminded us -- and them -- of that fact. And it drives them bananas."
And frankly, it's fun to watch.
Terrorists Will Get a Platform to Rant Against America
As the circus comes to NYC in the form of civilian trials for KSM and his fellow terrorists, what can we expect to hear from them as they are given a platform to spew their venom?
Read from Human Events:
What the 9-11 Plotters Will Say in Court
by Robert Spencer
"With the Obama administration moving the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other masterminds of 9/11 to New York City, many have pointed out that the defendants are likely to use the trial as a platform to spread their views on jihad, the U.S., and the war on terror. That’s most likely true -- and we already know what they will say.
They told us last year, when they wrote a six-page document they filed with the military commission at Guantanamo: an 'Islamic Response to the Government’s Nine Accusations.'
'With regards to these nine accusations that you are putting us on trial for,' they explain, 'to us, they are not accusations. To us they are badges of honor, which we carry with pride.' Their pride is explicitly and proudly rooted in Islam: 'Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims.' With unusual forthrightness, they declare that 'killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion. These actions are our offerings to God.'
That said, however, they view the conflict between the West and the Islamic world is all the West’s fault. This is a view that Barack Obama apparently shares. In his landmark June 2009 speech in Cairo he explained the conflict solely in terms of what the West had done to Muslim countries: 'In addition, it is the imposed reality on Muslims in Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, in the land of the two holy sites [Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia], and in the rest of the world, where Muslims are suffering from your brutality, terrorism, killing of the innocent, and occupying their lands and their holy sites.'
Answering charges that they violated the rules of warfare by killing civilians, they frame the question in terms of Islamic law, claiming that it is the U.S. that is the lawbreaker: 'Who is breaking the law of war in this world? Is it us, or is it you? You have disobeyed all heaven and earth’s laws of war, to include your own laws. You have violated the law of war by supporting the Israeli occupation of Arab land in Palestine and Lebanon, and for displacing five million Palestinians outside their land. You have supported the oppressor over the oppressed and the butcher over the victim.'
The remedy for our ills, according to the plotters, is Islam: 'So, you are the first class war criminals, and the whole world witnesses this. You have no values and ethics and no principles. You are a nation without a religion. On the other hand, we are a great nation, with a great religion, values, ethics, and principles, which we comply with and follow, and we invite people to following [sic] our ways.'
However, the plotters stopped their blame game long enough to acknowledge that Islam mandates offensive jihad warfare against unbelievers, simply because they are unbelievers – a concept that policymakers and law enforcement officials have steadfastly ignored since 9/11: 'Nevertheless, it would have been the greatest religious duty to fight you over your infidelity. However, today, we fight you over defending Muslims, their land, their holy sites, and their religion as a whole.'
The plotters quote the Koran to justify their jihad war against the American Infidels. 'In God’s book,' asserts the letter, 'he ordered us to fight you everywhere we find you, even if you were inside the holiest of all holy cities, The Mosque in Mecca, and the holy city of Mecca, and even during sacred months. In God’s book, verse 9 [actually verse 5], Al-Tawbah [the Koran’s 9th chapter]: Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush.'
We constantly hear that to speak about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism as rooted in Islamic texts and teachings is to 'side with the extremists.' All right -- then why doesn't a moderate Muslim go through this court filing and refute this use of the Koran? It would be most interesting to see Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR or some other vaunted moderate Muslim reply to the Islamic beliefs and assumptions manifest here. Now would be a perfect time to delineate in specific terms the differences that moderate Muslims have with this approach to Islam, wouldn’t it?"
Even more troubling than this is the thought that there may be more incidents of Lynne Stewart-type treachery as far-left America-hating attorneys, who are sympathetic to terrorists, step up to the plate to defend these low-lifes from Gitmo.
It will be an America-bashing festivity like never seen before. Obama and his America-hating comrades will be on cloud nine.
Read from Human Events:
What the 9-11 Plotters Will Say in Court
by Robert Spencer
"With the Obama administration moving the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other masterminds of 9/11 to New York City, many have pointed out that the defendants are likely to use the trial as a platform to spread their views on jihad, the U.S., and the war on terror. That’s most likely true -- and we already know what they will say.
They told us last year, when they wrote a six-page document they filed with the military commission at Guantanamo: an 'Islamic Response to the Government’s Nine Accusations.'
'With regards to these nine accusations that you are putting us on trial for,' they explain, 'to us, they are not accusations. To us they are badges of honor, which we carry with pride.' Their pride is explicitly and proudly rooted in Islam: 'Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims.' With unusual forthrightness, they declare that 'killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion. These actions are our offerings to God.'
That said, however, they view the conflict between the West and the Islamic world is all the West’s fault. This is a view that Barack Obama apparently shares. In his landmark June 2009 speech in Cairo he explained the conflict solely in terms of what the West had done to Muslim countries: 'In addition, it is the imposed reality on Muslims in Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, in the land of the two holy sites [Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia], and in the rest of the world, where Muslims are suffering from your brutality, terrorism, killing of the innocent, and occupying their lands and their holy sites.'
Answering charges that they violated the rules of warfare by killing civilians, they frame the question in terms of Islamic law, claiming that it is the U.S. that is the lawbreaker: 'Who is breaking the law of war in this world? Is it us, or is it you? You have disobeyed all heaven and earth’s laws of war, to include your own laws. You have violated the law of war by supporting the Israeli occupation of Arab land in Palestine and Lebanon, and for displacing five million Palestinians outside their land. You have supported the oppressor over the oppressed and the butcher over the victim.'
The remedy for our ills, according to the plotters, is Islam: 'So, you are the first class war criminals, and the whole world witnesses this. You have no values and ethics and no principles. You are a nation without a religion. On the other hand, we are a great nation, with a great religion, values, ethics, and principles, which we comply with and follow, and we invite people to following [sic] our ways.'
However, the plotters stopped their blame game long enough to acknowledge that Islam mandates offensive jihad warfare against unbelievers, simply because they are unbelievers – a concept that policymakers and law enforcement officials have steadfastly ignored since 9/11: 'Nevertheless, it would have been the greatest religious duty to fight you over your infidelity. However, today, we fight you over defending Muslims, their land, their holy sites, and their religion as a whole.'
The plotters quote the Koran to justify their jihad war against the American Infidels. 'In God’s book,' asserts the letter, 'he ordered us to fight you everywhere we find you, even if you were inside the holiest of all holy cities, The Mosque in Mecca, and the holy city of Mecca, and even during sacred months. In God’s book, verse 9 [actually verse 5], Al-Tawbah [the Koran’s 9th chapter]: Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush.'
We constantly hear that to speak about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism as rooted in Islamic texts and teachings is to 'side with the extremists.' All right -- then why doesn't a moderate Muslim go through this court filing and refute this use of the Koran? It would be most interesting to see Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR or some other vaunted moderate Muslim reply to the Islamic beliefs and assumptions manifest here. Now would be a perfect time to delineate in specific terms the differences that moderate Muslims have with this approach to Islam, wouldn’t it?"
Even more troubling than this is the thought that there may be more incidents of Lynne Stewart-type treachery as far-left America-hating attorneys, who are sympathetic to terrorists, step up to the plate to defend these low-lifes from Gitmo.
It will be an America-bashing festivity like never seen before. Obama and his America-hating comrades will be on cloud nine.
Death Penalty for Apostasy
Take this for all you skeptics who claim that apostate Rifqa Bary, who left the Muslim faith and converted to Christianity, is in no danger if she gets sent back to her devout Muslim family.
Read from Jihad Watch:
Turkey: Iranian atheist risks death penalty for apostasy if he is sent back to Iran
"But wait! I thought all the learned analysts had assured us that there is no death penalty for apostasy in Islam! Isn't that right, Dr. Bassiouni? Mr. Kruse? Ms. Heagney?
'Turkey: Iranian Atheist Risks Death Penalty If Repatriated,' from ANSAmed, November 30 (thanks to Insubria):
(ANSAmed) - ANKARA, NOVEMBER 30 - 'Turkish authorities will be announcing their decision in the coming days over whether or not to repatriate an Iranian citizen who - having escaped from her country after publicly declaring she was an atheist - could be sentenced to death for apostasy if sent back. Negar Azizmoradi, Iranian leader of the controversial International Raelian Movement, was arrested just over a week ago in Istanbul on her arrival in the city with an "irregular" passport, and since then has been held in a refugee centre in the Turkish metropolis. Raelians are part of a sect founded in 1974 by the former sports journalist Claude Vorilhon, 63, as known as Rael. His followers believe that human beings were created on Earth by extraterrestrials with biogenetical engineering, and therefore consider themselves to be atheist and support human cloning, which they believe to be the key to eternal life. Appeals to help the thirty-something Iranian woman have been launched by both the Raelian movement and Iranian refugee groups abroad. In them, Turkish authorities have been asked to release the woman - who reportedly has caught a lung infection in jail - and allow her to go to a European country.(ANSAmed).'"
If there is no death penalty for apostasy in the Muslim world, how do you explain this article?
Stop throwing Rifqa under the bus to further Democratic talking points that islam is innocent of violence toward unbelievers. A young girl's life is at stake, for crying out loud!
Read from Jihad Watch:
Turkey: Iranian atheist risks death penalty for apostasy if he is sent back to Iran
"But wait! I thought all the learned analysts had assured us that there is no death penalty for apostasy in Islam! Isn't that right, Dr. Bassiouni? Mr. Kruse? Ms. Heagney?
'Turkey: Iranian Atheist Risks Death Penalty If Repatriated,' from ANSAmed, November 30 (thanks to Insubria):
(ANSAmed) - ANKARA, NOVEMBER 30 - 'Turkish authorities will be announcing their decision in the coming days over whether or not to repatriate an Iranian citizen who - having escaped from her country after publicly declaring she was an atheist - could be sentenced to death for apostasy if sent back. Negar Azizmoradi, Iranian leader of the controversial International Raelian Movement, was arrested just over a week ago in Istanbul on her arrival in the city with an "irregular" passport, and since then has been held in a refugee centre in the Turkish metropolis. Raelians are part of a sect founded in 1974 by the former sports journalist Claude Vorilhon, 63, as known as Rael. His followers believe that human beings were created on Earth by extraterrestrials with biogenetical engineering, and therefore consider themselves to be atheist and support human cloning, which they believe to be the key to eternal life. Appeals to help the thirty-something Iranian woman have been launched by both the Raelian movement and Iranian refugee groups abroad. In them, Turkish authorities have been asked to release the woman - who reportedly has caught a lung infection in jail - and allow her to go to a European country.(ANSAmed).'"
If there is no death penalty for apostasy in the Muslim world, how do you explain this article?
Stop throwing Rifqa under the bus to further Democratic talking points that islam is innocent of violence toward unbelievers. A young girl's life is at stake, for crying out loud!
World Is Growing More Anti-Zionist
Anti-Zionism has become a worldwide sport, especially at the United Nations, while at the same time the Palestinians are always given a free pass. Has the world learned nothing from the 1930s? History is in the process of repeating itself. Only, this time around, the Nazis are represented by the radical Islamists who are also determined to bring about a genocide of Jews.
Read about how the world is viewing the conflicts betweem the Israelis and Palestinians in a biased way, via Jihad Watch:
"If...the Palestinians wanted to pass a resolution claiming that the earth is flat, this would be assured of a majority"
Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister notes the Islamic bloc's control of the UN, and the difficulties Israel accordingly faces from the stealth jihad against it there. Video thanks to Perry:
'On the eve of the 62nd anniversary of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (the Partition Plan for Palestine to create a Jewish and an Arab state), Danny Ayalon, Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel said "If there was a vote to admit Israel to the United Nations today, there is no doubt in my mind that we would not get in." Ayalon also said that in 1949, when Israel was admitted, two-thirds of the nations represented at the United Nations were democratic, whereas today the opposite is true. "Many of these nations are dictatorial and human-rights abusers who form an automatic majority against us which is formed by political expediency and group-think," Ayalon said. "If the Arabs or Palestinians wanted to pass a resolution claiming that the earth is flat, this would be assured of a majority." The Deputy Foreign Minister also talked about how Israel has to make creative strategies to counter this situation. He made the comments at a forum sponsored by Hadar: Israel Council for Civic Action, at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem.'"
Read about how the world is viewing the conflicts betweem the Israelis and Palestinians in a biased way, via Jihad Watch:
"If...the Palestinians wanted to pass a resolution claiming that the earth is flat, this would be assured of a majority"
Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister notes the Islamic bloc's control of the UN, and the difficulties Israel accordingly faces from the stealth jihad against it there. Video thanks to Perry:
'On the eve of the 62nd anniversary of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (the Partition Plan for Palestine to create a Jewish and an Arab state), Danny Ayalon, Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel said "If there was a vote to admit Israel to the United Nations today, there is no doubt in my mind that we would not get in." Ayalon also said that in 1949, when Israel was admitted, two-thirds of the nations represented at the United Nations were democratic, whereas today the opposite is true. "Many of these nations are dictatorial and human-rights abusers who form an automatic majority against us which is formed by political expediency and group-think," Ayalon said. "If the Arabs or Palestinians wanted to pass a resolution claiming that the earth is flat, this would be assured of a majority." The Deputy Foreign Minister also talked about how Israel has to make creative strategies to counter this situation. He made the comments at a forum sponsored by Hadar: Israel Council for Civic Action, at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem.'"
Iran Grows More Emboldened
Jimmy Carter's clone is sitting in the White House. Unfortunately, there are consequences to elections, and in an increasingly more dangerous world, the costs of having a weak-on-foreign-policy American president may be significant. Only time will tell.
But, we can be assured that Obama's kowtowing to the Muslim world and his frequent apology tours have emboldened our enemies worldwide. Why can't liberals ever learn that dictators only respect strength, something for which Obama greatly lacks?
How the Iranian dictator and his mullahs must be rolling over with laughter, knowing with confidence that they can do whatever they like, and the American president will sit back and do nothing but make idle threats.
The only thing the Iranians have to fear is the nation that they hate as much as America--Israel. The difference between the U.S. and Israel is that the Israelis have a leader who will not tolerate a nuclear Iran.
Read about how our greatest enemy, Iran, is growing bolder by the day, via Atlas Shrugs:
Brace Yourself for a Nuclear Iran
By: Pamela Geller
"When the cop walks off the beat, thugs go wild. With a weak President in the White House, there is a vacuum, a void — one that evil is only too happy to fill.
On Friday, the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) called on the Iranian mullahs to stop their uranium enrichment activities. And so on Sunday, showing how much they fear the wrath of the U.N. and Barack Hussein Obama, the mullahs OK'd a plan to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants.
This is the same IAEA whose chief, Mohamed Mostafa ElBaradei, said in October that 'Israel is No. 1 threat to Middle East.'
Would we be in this predicament if the U.N. had even tried to do its job?
All this comes after Iran defiantly rejected a deal that the U.N. brokered on its nuke program, although Obama has been mum about the rejection for understandable reasons. He knows what it will show about his determination to negotiate with the Iranians 'without preconditions.' One colossal failure after another.
All hail Obama.
But what did he expect? Why would Iran have endorsed this deal? Would Hitler have stopped in the 30s? Did handing over Czechoslovakia satiate Germany’s bloodlust?
There is a weak leader installed in the Oval Office. He wants to be conned. The Islamic Republic of Iran is counting on it. Iran’s rogue regime has been unimaginably successful in achieving its goals while spitting in the face of the world. Why stop now?
For Iran, it’s all systems go.
And meanwhile, Obama is nuclear disarming America. Back in April he unveiled a plan that he said was designed to rid the world of nuclear weapons. But there is only one nuclear arsenal he controls, and so only one he can dismantle: ours. And that’s exactly what he wants to do.
'The United States,' he said, 'has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.' Alone. 'To put an end to Cold War thinking,' Obama said, “we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same.'
Notice what he said: we will reduce the role of nukes in our own defense, and urge others to do likewise. Obama’s plan amounted to disarming free, rational nations and allowing rogue nuclear proliferators like Iran to run wild.
So in Barack Obama’s ideal world, the United States would divest itself of nuclear weapons just as Iran develops the use of nuclear energy, and the U.S. will trust Iran to abide by international non-proliferation agreements. Got that?
And while the Iranians work on their 'peaceful' nuclear energy program, evidence has come to light that Iran has conducted experiments using a new design for an advanced nuclear warhead.
Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton has sounded the alarm: 'Once Iran gets nuclear weapons, we are in danger on a worldwide basis . . . Iran isn’t the end of the problem. The real difficulty with that analysis is that Saudi Arabia will get nuclear weapons, probably Egypt, probably Turkey, possibly others. So within a five- to 10-year period, you’ll have half a dozen nuclear countries in the Middle East . . . almost guaranteeing a nuclear exchange at some point or another.'
And he said that 'the use of force is required' to stop Iran’s nuke program. Required. 'The other options,' he said, 'have failed, are failing and will fail.'
Bolton restates the obvious. Bolton says clearly what is necessary. This is the kind of leadership the very survival of the free world requires.
The time is up on dealing with the nuclear aspirations of the jihadists in Tehran. Bombing Iran, taking out the nukes, and toppling that murderous regime, a regime that wages war against its own people, is the moral thing to do. But the West and its dear leader have no moral compass.
A nuclear Iran: this century’s Nazis all nuked up. Imagine that. Imagine your worst nightmare."
If this situation wasn't so dire, it would be comical. Obama is supposed to be the leader of the free world, but he more closely resembles someone from Comedy Central.
But, we can be assured that Obama's kowtowing to the Muslim world and his frequent apology tours have emboldened our enemies worldwide. Why can't liberals ever learn that dictators only respect strength, something for which Obama greatly lacks?
How the Iranian dictator and his mullahs must be rolling over with laughter, knowing with confidence that they can do whatever they like, and the American president will sit back and do nothing but make idle threats.
The only thing the Iranians have to fear is the nation that they hate as much as America--Israel. The difference between the U.S. and Israel is that the Israelis have a leader who will not tolerate a nuclear Iran.
Read about how our greatest enemy, Iran, is growing bolder by the day, via Atlas Shrugs:
Brace Yourself for a Nuclear Iran
By: Pamela Geller
"When the cop walks off the beat, thugs go wild. With a weak President in the White House, there is a vacuum, a void — one that evil is only too happy to fill.
On Friday, the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) called on the Iranian mullahs to stop their uranium enrichment activities. And so on Sunday, showing how much they fear the wrath of the U.N. and Barack Hussein Obama, the mullahs OK'd a plan to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants.
This is the same IAEA whose chief, Mohamed Mostafa ElBaradei, said in October that 'Israel is No. 1 threat to Middle East.'
Would we be in this predicament if the U.N. had even tried to do its job?
All this comes after Iran defiantly rejected a deal that the U.N. brokered on its nuke program, although Obama has been mum about the rejection for understandable reasons. He knows what it will show about his determination to negotiate with the Iranians 'without preconditions.' One colossal failure after another.
All hail Obama.
But what did he expect? Why would Iran have endorsed this deal? Would Hitler have stopped in the 30s? Did handing over Czechoslovakia satiate Germany’s bloodlust?
There is a weak leader installed in the Oval Office. He wants to be conned. The Islamic Republic of Iran is counting on it. Iran’s rogue regime has been unimaginably successful in achieving its goals while spitting in the face of the world. Why stop now?
For Iran, it’s all systems go.
And meanwhile, Obama is nuclear disarming America. Back in April he unveiled a plan that he said was designed to rid the world of nuclear weapons. But there is only one nuclear arsenal he controls, and so only one he can dismantle: ours. And that’s exactly what he wants to do.
'The United States,' he said, 'has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.' Alone. 'To put an end to Cold War thinking,' Obama said, “we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same.'
Notice what he said: we will reduce the role of nukes in our own defense, and urge others to do likewise. Obama’s plan amounted to disarming free, rational nations and allowing rogue nuclear proliferators like Iran to run wild.
So in Barack Obama’s ideal world, the United States would divest itself of nuclear weapons just as Iran develops the use of nuclear energy, and the U.S. will trust Iran to abide by international non-proliferation agreements. Got that?
And while the Iranians work on their 'peaceful' nuclear energy program, evidence has come to light that Iran has conducted experiments using a new design for an advanced nuclear warhead.
Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton has sounded the alarm: 'Once Iran gets nuclear weapons, we are in danger on a worldwide basis . . . Iran isn’t the end of the problem. The real difficulty with that analysis is that Saudi Arabia will get nuclear weapons, probably Egypt, probably Turkey, possibly others. So within a five- to 10-year period, you’ll have half a dozen nuclear countries in the Middle East . . . almost guaranteeing a nuclear exchange at some point or another.'
And he said that 'the use of force is required' to stop Iran’s nuke program. Required. 'The other options,' he said, 'have failed, are failing and will fail.'
Bolton restates the obvious. Bolton says clearly what is necessary. This is the kind of leadership the very survival of the free world requires.
The time is up on dealing with the nuclear aspirations of the jihadists in Tehran. Bombing Iran, taking out the nukes, and toppling that murderous regime, a regime that wages war against its own people, is the moral thing to do. But the West and its dear leader have no moral compass.
A nuclear Iran: this century’s Nazis all nuked up. Imagine that. Imagine your worst nightmare."
If this situation wasn't so dire, it would be comical. Obama is supposed to be the leader of the free world, but he more closely resembles someone from Comedy Central.
Obama, the Salahis, and Rashid Khalidi
Now this is interesting. When it comes to Israel-haters, they flock to President Obama like flies to excrement. Anyone remember the Israeli-hater Rashid Khalidi, the professor from Columbia University who Obama befriended and partied with at an Israeli-bashing party in 2003? The LA Times conveniently sat on the story prior to the election so as to not harm Obama's chances of getting elected
Now, it seems that the White House party crashers who have been all over the news recently also have ties to Khalidi. What a small world!
Read from Gateway Pundit:
White House Party Crashers Linked to Obama’s Radical Pal Rashid Khalidi
"From the Polo Contacts Website–
'America’s Cup Polo Pre-Event with President-Elect Barack Obama'
From Left to Right is: Randy Jackson, better known as a Judge on American Idol – his previous life he was a bass player for the Rock band JOURNEY, which also performed at the America’s Polo Cup. Others pictured are Black Eyed Peas Rock Band, Tareq Salahi the President of the America’s Polo Cup, President Elect Obama, Fergie from Black Eyed Peas and Michaele Salahi a former Miss USA and SuperModel.
American Power discovered this on the White House party crashers- They belong to a radical anti-Israeli group:
'Tareq Salahi, the polo-playing intruder, is a Palestinian nationalist with ties to the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP) , a pro-Palestine lobby demanding the “right of return” for all Palestinian refugees and their descendants. The “right of return” has long been considered the backdoor to Israel’s destruction. But not only that: ATFP President Ziad Asali is an America-basher who blamed 9/11 on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Asali was a lead U.S. official to PLO terrorist Yassir Arafat’s funeral in 2004. And in a position paper in 2007, the ATFP called for a power-sharing agreement at the Palestinian Authority, which would have included the State Department’s designated-terrorist group, Hamas.'
And, there’s more…
Canada Free Press reported that the American Task Force for Palestine (ATFP) has airbrushed references to Salahi from its website:
'We do know for a fact that among the slew of memberships on charitable boards, Tareq Salahi is a former member of The American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP). The only way to know for a fact is because even though ATFP scrubbed all references to Salahi as a board member, he can still be found on Google cache. (Canada Free Press)
Sad that White House Secret Service are looking like Keystone Kops in the aftermath of Obama’s very first state house dinner in the tent.
While the media is fixated on the hitch in Michaele Salahi’s git-along, there can be no doubt that these recently minted “party crashers” really get around.'
American Power has more on the Salahi’s leadership role with the the American Task Force on Palestinian, the 'moderate' rights groups pushing a thinly-veiled program of Palestinian nationalism and the 'right of return' (the backdoor destruction of Israel).
'According to Discover the Networks, ATFP’s former vice president is Rashid Khalidi, the Columbia University Middle East Studies professor and militant Palestinian rights activist. Khalidi cites the late Edward Said as his major influence, and according to the entry cited, “As with Said before him, Khalidi’s involvement with the Palestinian cause goes beyond mere support.” And, “Khalidi so strongly identified with the aims of the PLO, which was designated as a terrorist group by the State Department during Khalidi’s affiliation with it in the 1980s, that he repeatedly referred to himself as ‘we’ when expounding on the PLO’s agenda.” Also, according to Campus Watch, ATFP remains in full support Kahlidi, for example, during charges of academic misconduct in 2005, at the time of Senator Barack Obama’s meeting with Tareq Salahi. See, “ATFP EXPRESSES FULL SUPPORT FOR COLUMBIA PROFESSOR RASHID KHALIDI.
Note too that Obama’s ties to the Palestinian community became something of an issue during the 2008 campaign. See, the Los Angeles Times, “Allies of Palestinians See a Friend in Obama.” Plus, from Andrew C. McCarthy and Claudia Rosett, “In Obama’s Hyde Park, It’s All in the Family: Passing Anti-American Radicalism From Generation to Generation.'
As you may recall. The LA Times hid the tape of Barack Obama attending a 2003 Jew-bash where he praised and toasted the former PLO operative Rashid Khalidi.
With Barack Obama, it’s always about the radicalism. Always.
It looks like the Salahi security breach is much more than just an 'embarassment' for the Secret Service.
UPDATE: Bennet send this–
I noticed you posted about the Salahi’s crashing the party, but did not mention that–as Canada Free Press mentioned–Obama met them back in 2005. I assume you did that because CFP did not give proof for their claim that their picture together (along with the Black Eyed Peas) was from 2005 and not last year as the Polo Contacts website claims.
I searched for proof the picture was from 2005 without any luck–until I realized the proof is from the Polo site itself.
Right click on the image and save it: the current name of that file is: ROCKTHEVOTEJune82005014.jpg
Seems that reading The Da Vinci Code finally paid off.
This doesn’t prove Obama was as friendly with the Salahis as with the Khaladis, Saids, and the Ayers’–but it is still interesting to note."
Now, it seems that the White House party crashers who have been all over the news recently also have ties to Khalidi. What a small world!
Read from Gateway Pundit:
White House Party Crashers Linked to Obama’s Radical Pal Rashid Khalidi
"From the Polo Contacts Website–
'America’s Cup Polo Pre-Event with President-Elect Barack Obama'
From Left to Right is: Randy Jackson, better known as a Judge on American Idol – his previous life he was a bass player for the Rock band JOURNEY, which also performed at the America’s Polo Cup. Others pictured are Black Eyed Peas Rock Band, Tareq Salahi the President of the America’s Polo Cup, President Elect Obama, Fergie from Black Eyed Peas and Michaele Salahi a former Miss USA and SuperModel.
American Power discovered this on the White House party crashers- They belong to a radical anti-Israeli group:
'Tareq Salahi, the polo-playing intruder, is a Palestinian nationalist with ties to the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP) , a pro-Palestine lobby demanding the “right of return” for all Palestinian refugees and their descendants. The “right of return” has long been considered the backdoor to Israel’s destruction. But not only that: ATFP President Ziad Asali is an America-basher who blamed 9/11 on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Asali was a lead U.S. official to PLO terrorist Yassir Arafat’s funeral in 2004. And in a position paper in 2007, the ATFP called for a power-sharing agreement at the Palestinian Authority, which would have included the State Department’s designated-terrorist group, Hamas.'
And, there’s more…
Canada Free Press reported that the American Task Force for Palestine (ATFP) has airbrushed references to Salahi from its website:
'We do know for a fact that among the slew of memberships on charitable boards, Tareq Salahi is a former member of The American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP). The only way to know for a fact is because even though ATFP scrubbed all references to Salahi as a board member, he can still be found on Google cache. (Canada Free Press)
Sad that White House Secret Service are looking like Keystone Kops in the aftermath of Obama’s very first state house dinner in the tent.
While the media is fixated on the hitch in Michaele Salahi’s git-along, there can be no doubt that these recently minted “party crashers” really get around.'
American Power has more on the Salahi’s leadership role with the the American Task Force on Palestinian, the 'moderate' rights groups pushing a thinly-veiled program of Palestinian nationalism and the 'right of return' (the backdoor destruction of Israel).
'According to Discover the Networks, ATFP’s former vice president is Rashid Khalidi, the Columbia University Middle East Studies professor and militant Palestinian rights activist. Khalidi cites the late Edward Said as his major influence, and according to the entry cited, “As with Said before him, Khalidi’s involvement with the Palestinian cause goes beyond mere support.” And, “Khalidi so strongly identified with the aims of the PLO, which was designated as a terrorist group by the State Department during Khalidi’s affiliation with it in the 1980s, that he repeatedly referred to himself as ‘we’ when expounding on the PLO’s agenda.” Also, according to Campus Watch, ATFP remains in full support Kahlidi, for example, during charges of academic misconduct in 2005, at the time of Senator Barack Obama’s meeting with Tareq Salahi. See, “ATFP EXPRESSES FULL SUPPORT FOR COLUMBIA PROFESSOR RASHID KHALIDI.
Note too that Obama’s ties to the Palestinian community became something of an issue during the 2008 campaign. See, the Los Angeles Times, “Allies of Palestinians See a Friend in Obama.” Plus, from Andrew C. McCarthy and Claudia Rosett, “In Obama’s Hyde Park, It’s All in the Family: Passing Anti-American Radicalism From Generation to Generation.'
As you may recall. The LA Times hid the tape of Barack Obama attending a 2003 Jew-bash where he praised and toasted the former PLO operative Rashid Khalidi.
With Barack Obama, it’s always about the radicalism. Always.
It looks like the Salahi security breach is much more than just an 'embarassment' for the Secret Service.
UPDATE: Bennet send this–
I noticed you posted about the Salahi’s crashing the party, but did not mention that–as Canada Free Press mentioned–Obama met them back in 2005. I assume you did that because CFP did not give proof for their claim that their picture together (along with the Black Eyed Peas) was from 2005 and not last year as the Polo Contacts website claims.
I searched for proof the picture was from 2005 without any luck–until I realized the proof is from the Polo site itself.
Right click on the image and save it: the current name of that file is: ROCKTHEVOTEJune82005014.jpg
Seems that reading The Da Vinci Code finally paid off.
This doesn’t prove Obama was as friendly with the Salahis as with the Khaladis, Saids, and the Ayers’–but it is still interesting to note."
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Pastor Questioned by CIA for Comments Made About Obama
Freedom of speech is under attack in America. The Brown Shirts are alive and well, and they are now going after an outspoken pastor who dares to oppose President Obama, as in Pastor James David Manning of New York City. Admittedly, the man is over-the-top in his rhetoric and a little obsessed with the birth certificate controversy, and I am not exactly a fan of Obama myself.
Manning makes a practice of calling the president all sorts of offensive names, which I was guilty of doing myself until God dealt with me about it. The Bible tells us we are to respect those in authority over us, which certainly includes our president. As a man of God, Manning should be well aware of this fact.
Even though Obama is doing everything in his power to bring forth legislation that is abominable in God sight, we still must respect his position as president, as well as pray for him. God is capable of changing the hardest of hearts, and granted, Obama is right up there when it comes to hardened hearts.
We can voice opposition about what he is doing, but we must do so with a level of respect. In fact, we would be remiss to sit back and be silent when evil is taking place before our very eyes.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German preacher who spoke out against Hitler during World War II and was involved in the German resistance said the following:
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act."
Read about the visit by CIA agents to Pastor Manning, via Atlas Shrugs:
Homeland Security Brownshirts Pay Pastor Manning a Visit
"In another grave breach of our basic freedoms, last week Pastor David Manning was paid a visit by Obama's private army for speaking his opinion. And while Manning is a controversial figure, so what?
In my article at The American Thinker this past summer, Now Being American Is Un-American", I cited Rand, who nailed it when she said, 'The principle of free speech is not concerned with the content of a man's speech and does not protect only the expression of good ideas, but all ideas. If it were otherwise, who would determine which ideas are good and where forbidden? The government?'
'Once a country accepts censorship of the press and of speech, then nothing can be won without violence. Therefore, so long as you have free speech, protect it. This is the life-and-death issue in this country: do not give up the freedom of the press -- of newspapers, books, magazines, radio, movies, and other forms of presenting ideas. So long as that's free, a peaceful intellectual turn is possible."
Natan Sharansky in his book, The Case for Democracy, set out by dividing the world between 'free' and 'fear' societies. Then he employed a simple test to discern a free society from a society based on fear: Can one enter a public square and express any opinion without fear of being arrested? If not, one is in a society that runs on fear. We have, my dear fellow Americans, entered the realm of a society of fear.
Is Manning free to express his opinion in the public, square, albeit on youtube? Methinks not. Increasingly, the water comes to boil.
And why is Obama so sensitive about the COLB? Why not just release the long form and put this baby to bed?
Pastor James David Manning Visited By Secret Service Seales (hat tip Katherine)
'Pastor James David Manning, one of President Obama’s most vocal and outspoken critics, has just released a video in which he claims that on the afternoon of November 16th, 2009, while at his ATLAH World Missionary Church, he was visited by two CIA agents. Manning says the agents claimed that they were from Homeland Security and were accompanied by two NYPD Detectives.
Though he did not go into detail about the specifics of the alleged encounter (and probably with good reason), Manning did say that the agents asked him about certain statements that he made about President Obama in a video message distributed by ATLAH Ministries entitled “Tea Party Members: Go Viral On The Birth Certificate”.
Manning can explain this a lot better than I can, so further details regarding the comments in question can be heard in the video by Pastor Manning at the end of this post.
Pastor Manning also said he expects to be arrested within the next few days and charged with “the threat against the life of a U.S. President”, and that he believes that this arrest is “imminent”.
However, Manning says he welcomes the arrest and will not attempt to resist. He believes it is possible that God will use his arrest to finally bring about the truth regarding Obama’s citizenship.'
Link to the posting on ATLAH Ministries’ website: http://atlah.org/atlahworldwide/?p=1240
Are we really expected to believe that Manning is a physical threat to Obama? That's ridiculous. He is no more of a danger to Obama than I am, which is, not at all.
Manning makes a practice of calling the president all sorts of offensive names, which I was guilty of doing myself until God dealt with me about it. The Bible tells us we are to respect those in authority over us, which certainly includes our president. As a man of God, Manning should be well aware of this fact.
Even though Obama is doing everything in his power to bring forth legislation that is abominable in God sight, we still must respect his position as president, as well as pray for him. God is capable of changing the hardest of hearts, and granted, Obama is right up there when it comes to hardened hearts.
We can voice opposition about what he is doing, but we must do so with a level of respect. In fact, we would be remiss to sit back and be silent when evil is taking place before our very eyes.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German preacher who spoke out against Hitler during World War II and was involved in the German resistance said the following:
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act."
Read about the visit by CIA agents to Pastor Manning, via Atlas Shrugs:
Homeland Security Brownshirts Pay Pastor Manning a Visit
"In another grave breach of our basic freedoms, last week Pastor David Manning was paid a visit by Obama's private army for speaking his opinion. And while Manning is a controversial figure, so what?
In my article at The American Thinker this past summer, Now Being American Is Un-American", I cited Rand, who nailed it when she said, 'The principle of free speech is not concerned with the content of a man's speech and does not protect only the expression of good ideas, but all ideas. If it were otherwise, who would determine which ideas are good and where forbidden? The government?'
'Once a country accepts censorship of the press and of speech, then nothing can be won without violence. Therefore, so long as you have free speech, protect it. This is the life-and-death issue in this country: do not give up the freedom of the press -- of newspapers, books, magazines, radio, movies, and other forms of presenting ideas. So long as that's free, a peaceful intellectual turn is possible."
Natan Sharansky in his book, The Case for Democracy, set out by dividing the world between 'free' and 'fear' societies. Then he employed a simple test to discern a free society from a society based on fear: Can one enter a public square and express any opinion without fear of being arrested? If not, one is in a society that runs on fear. We have, my dear fellow Americans, entered the realm of a society of fear.
Is Manning free to express his opinion in the public, square, albeit on youtube? Methinks not. Increasingly, the water comes to boil.
And why is Obama so sensitive about the COLB? Why not just release the long form and put this baby to bed?
Pastor James David Manning Visited By Secret Service Seales (hat tip Katherine)
'Pastor James David Manning, one of President Obama’s most vocal and outspoken critics, has just released a video in which he claims that on the afternoon of November 16th, 2009, while at his ATLAH World Missionary Church, he was visited by two CIA agents. Manning says the agents claimed that they were from Homeland Security and were accompanied by two NYPD Detectives.
Though he did not go into detail about the specifics of the alleged encounter (and probably with good reason), Manning did say that the agents asked him about certain statements that he made about President Obama in a video message distributed by ATLAH Ministries entitled “Tea Party Members: Go Viral On The Birth Certificate”.
Manning can explain this a lot better than I can, so further details regarding the comments in question can be heard in the video by Pastor Manning at the end of this post.
Pastor Manning also said he expects to be arrested within the next few days and charged with “the threat against the life of a U.S. President”, and that he believes that this arrest is “imminent”.
However, Manning says he welcomes the arrest and will not attempt to resist. He believes it is possible that God will use his arrest to finally bring about the truth regarding Obama’s citizenship.'
Link to the posting on ATLAH Ministries’ website: http://atlah.org/atlahworldwide/?p=1240
Are we really expected to believe that Manning is a physical threat to Obama? That's ridiculous. He is no more of a danger to Obama than I am, which is, not at all.
1 in 8 Americans Is on Food Stamps
How's that "hope and change" working out for you? Apparently, it's not working out especially well for one out of eight Americans, including one out of four children.
Thanks so much President Obama. That looking out for the little guy campaign you ran is really working. I guess you and Rahm Emanuel aren't letting this crisis go to waste after all, as you are making more and more Americans dependent on the government for their very sustenance, just as planned.
Read about all that "hope and change" at Red State:
Good News: Food Stamp Use Soaring; Stigma Gone
"Update: The Times piece quoted here skates too quickly over the questions of how one qualifies for food stamps, and what requirements are imposed on recipients (particularly with regard to work). Put briefly, most food stamp recipients appear to be required to work, but waivers exist, some still receive benefits without working, and (of course) fraud dilutes the requirements. Check out the comment section for clarifications.
I suppose this is just a testament to how well Obama’s economic recovery plan is going: 1 in 8 Americans is now on food stamps - and 1 in 4 children are. I remember the bad old days of the Bush economy, when millions of Americans were forced to rely on private sector jobs to pay for their food.
Those benighted days are past: now more and more Americans get their food money from Uncle Sam. And who knows - the way things are going, someday soon we all may wind up on the dole:
'It has grown so rapidly in places so diverse that it is becoming nearly as ordinary as the groceries it buys. More than 36 million people use inconspicuous plastic cards for staples like milk, bread and cheese, swiping them at counters in blighted cities and in suburbs pocked with foreclosure signs.
Virtually all have incomes near or below the federal poverty line, but their eclectic ranks testify to the range of people struggling with basic needs. They include single mothers and married couples, the newly jobless and the chronically poor, longtime recipients of welfare checks and workers whose reduced hours or slender wages leave pantries bare…
From the ailing resorts of the Florida Keys to Alaskan villages along the Bering Sea, the program is now expanding at a pace of about 20,000 people a day.'
At the rate we’re going, 16 million more people will be on food stamps by the end of Barack Obama’s first term. And don’t worry: the Obama White House is doing its best to make sure that happens:
'Although the program is growing at a record rate, the federal official who oversees it would like it to grow even faster.
“I think the response of the program has been tremendous,” said Kevin Concannon, an under secretary of agriculture, “but we’re mindful that there are another 15, 16 million who could benefit.”'
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is disgusting. The measure of a successful administration will be how many Americans don’t rely on food stamps, not how many more can be added to the rolls. It’s stunning that the program would be overseen by someone with so poor an understanding of priorities.
Furthermore, the federal government is making a mistake by imposing no work requirements on receipt of this assistance. Because money is fungible, there is little difference between food stamps (or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - SNAP) and welfare. While it should be available for those whose subsistence depends on it, it is appropriate to protect the taxpayer interest by imposing a work requirement on those who are able to work.
Indeed, the New York Times even notes that the program has lax requirements:
'So far, few elected officials have objected to the program’s growth. Almost 90 percent of beneficiaries nationwide live below the poverty line (about $22,000 a year for a family of four). But a minor tempest hit Ohio’s Warren County after a woman drove to the food stamp office in a Mercedes-Benz and word spread that she owned a $300,000 home loan-free. Since Ohio ignores the value of houses and cars, she qualified.'
Congress is spending tens of billions of dollars annually on this program, and increasing funds dramatically - even as its rate of use is at an all-time high. Is it too much to ask that wealthy Americans not be able to take advantage of loopholes to steal from the taxpayers?
Update: Check out Mickey Kaus’s take on this, as well.
Thanks so much President Obama. That looking out for the little guy campaign you ran is really working. I guess you and Rahm Emanuel aren't letting this crisis go to waste after all, as you are making more and more Americans dependent on the government for their very sustenance, just as planned.
Read about all that "hope and change" at Red State:
Good News: Food Stamp Use Soaring; Stigma Gone
"Update: The Times piece quoted here skates too quickly over the questions of how one qualifies for food stamps, and what requirements are imposed on recipients (particularly with regard to work). Put briefly, most food stamp recipients appear to be required to work, but waivers exist, some still receive benefits without working, and (of course) fraud dilutes the requirements. Check out the comment section for clarifications.
I suppose this is just a testament to how well Obama’s economic recovery plan is going: 1 in 8 Americans is now on food stamps - and 1 in 4 children are. I remember the bad old days of the Bush economy, when millions of Americans were forced to rely on private sector jobs to pay for their food.
Those benighted days are past: now more and more Americans get their food money from Uncle Sam. And who knows - the way things are going, someday soon we all may wind up on the dole:
'It has grown so rapidly in places so diverse that it is becoming nearly as ordinary as the groceries it buys. More than 36 million people use inconspicuous plastic cards for staples like milk, bread and cheese, swiping them at counters in blighted cities and in suburbs pocked with foreclosure signs.
Virtually all have incomes near or below the federal poverty line, but their eclectic ranks testify to the range of people struggling with basic needs. They include single mothers and married couples, the newly jobless and the chronically poor, longtime recipients of welfare checks and workers whose reduced hours or slender wages leave pantries bare…
From the ailing resorts of the Florida Keys to Alaskan villages along the Bering Sea, the program is now expanding at a pace of about 20,000 people a day.'
At the rate we’re going, 16 million more people will be on food stamps by the end of Barack Obama’s first term. And don’t worry: the Obama White House is doing its best to make sure that happens:
'Although the program is growing at a record rate, the federal official who oversees it would like it to grow even faster.
“I think the response of the program has been tremendous,” said Kevin Concannon, an under secretary of agriculture, “but we’re mindful that there are another 15, 16 million who could benefit.”'
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is disgusting. The measure of a successful administration will be how many Americans don’t rely on food stamps, not how many more can be added to the rolls. It’s stunning that the program would be overseen by someone with so poor an understanding of priorities.
Furthermore, the federal government is making a mistake by imposing no work requirements on receipt of this assistance. Because money is fungible, there is little difference between food stamps (or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - SNAP) and welfare. While it should be available for those whose subsistence depends on it, it is appropriate to protect the taxpayer interest by imposing a work requirement on those who are able to work.
Indeed, the New York Times even notes that the program has lax requirements:
'So far, few elected officials have objected to the program’s growth. Almost 90 percent of beneficiaries nationwide live below the poverty line (about $22,000 a year for a family of four). But a minor tempest hit Ohio’s Warren County after a woman drove to the food stamp office in a Mercedes-Benz and word spread that she owned a $300,000 home loan-free. Since Ohio ignores the value of houses and cars, she qualified.'
Congress is spending tens of billions of dollars annually on this program, and increasing funds dramatically - even as its rate of use is at an all-time high. Is it too much to ask that wealthy Americans not be able to take advantage of loopholes to steal from the taxpayers?
Update: Check out Mickey Kaus’s take on this, as well.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Remember Jerusalem: The Eternal City of the Eternal People
For a little history lesson on Jerusalem, God's holy city, and its significance, read from the American Thinker:
If I Forget Thee O Jerusalem
By Victor Sharpe
"White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was ordered by the Obama apparatchiks to express displeasure at the decision by Israel to build houses in the East Jerusalem suburb of Gilo. But Gibbs failed to disclose that the land on which Gilo was built, as with other suburbs in 'disputed' parts of East Jerusalem, was home to many Jews who were driven out in 1948 by the British-officered Arab Legion of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
This region was not liberated by Israel, nor the land restored, until the June, 1967 Six Day War nineteen years later. King Hussein of Jordan had thrown in his lot with the Egyptian leader, Gamal Abdul Nasser, who was boasting of how he was on the verge of destroying the Jewish state. The king believed Nasser's claims and attacked along the entire Jordanian/Israeli front (including Jerusalem) despite pleas from Israel for him to not follow Nasser's aggression. History might have been different if Hussein had listened.
In the nineteen years during which the Jordanians occupied the territory, they never remotely considered it as anything but Jordanian. Certainly they never thought it belonged to another Arab people who later called themselves Palestinians. As it was, Jordan's illegal occupation of East Jerusalem, as well as of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), was recognized by only two countries: Britain and Pakistan.
But the Obama White House, and the relentlessly anti-Israel State Department, nevertheless have decided that they will echo the demands of the Palestinian Authority and call for Israel to stop building homes -- not only in Judea and Samaria, but even within Jewish suburbs of Israel's capital city, Jerusalem. This goes on while Arab settlement-building continues unchecked and at a feverish pace throughout the area.
It matters not to Obama that Jerusalem -- east, west, north and south -- has been described as the eternal city of the eternal people.
Let me quote the words from 1918 of the great Rabbi J.H. Hertz, Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, at the thanksgiving service for the British liberation of Jerusalem from the Ottoman Turks. He spoke of the nearly four thousand years of history that bound the Jews to their spiritual and physical capital city and of their fate in defending it against its many would-be conquerors:
'Like the Jew, this Holy City of Israel is deathless; fire and sword and all the engines of destruction have been hurled against it in vain. The Babylonians burnt it and deported its population; the Romans slew a million of its inhabitants, razed it to the ground, passed the ploughshare over it and strewed its furors with salt; Hadrian banished its very name from the lips of men, changed it to Aelia Capitolina and forbade any Jew from entering it on pain of death. Persians and Arabs, Barbarians and Crusaders and Turks took it and re-took it, ravaged it and burnt it; and yet, marvelous to relate, it ever rises from its ashes to renewed life and glory.'
Rabbi Hertz was talking on the very day on which, 2,080 years earlier, Judah Maccabee, the legendary Jewish hero, led his warriors against the Greek-Syrians to liberate the Holy City from its heathen occupiers, whereupon he entered the Temple and re-dedicated it to the glory of the One and Only God. Rabbi Hertz ended his speech by proclaiming the prophetic teaching of the Maccabean Festival, which we know as Hanukkah, in Zechariah, 4:6:
'Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts.'
It is useful to dwell on what has been said by both Jews and non-Jews in the past about Jerusalem. Now there is a government and a Prime Minister in Israel under assault by President Obama, who demands that Israel abandon parts of eternal Jerusalem and give it away to those who hate the Jewish people and who have set their face against accepting any Jewish independence or sovereignty in the Land of Israel.
Jerusalem and Zion are interchangeable. One can go back through the mists of time and read as far back as the towering words in Isaiah 2:1 and Micah 4:2:
'For out of Zion shall come forth the Torah, and the word of God from Jerusalem.'
These are just two of the 821 times that Jerusalem and Zion appear in the Jewish Bible, or what is pejoratively called the Old Testament: Jerusalem 667 times, and Zion 154 times.
According to the much-loved correspondent for the Jerusalem Post, the late Moshe Kohn:
'Jewish sources speak of the seventy names by which Jerusalem is referred to in the classical Jewish sources. These include Ariel/lion of God (Isaiah 29:1); Kirya Neemana/Faithful City (Isaiah 1:25); Ir Ha'emet (City of Truth (Zechariah 8:3); Klilat Yofi/Paragon of Beauty (Lamentations 2:15); Yefay Nof/ Beautiful Panorama (Psalms 48:3); and the ancient commentary of Rabbi Akiva in Sanhedrin 58a on 1 Chronicles 29:11 Hanetza/Eternity.'
But what of now? The modern State of Israel endures a world willing, even anxious, to divide Jerusalem again -- even as it celebrates the reunification of Berlin -- and to give away ancestral and biblical Jewish lands to an enemy led by a Holocaust-denier, Mahmoud Abbas, whose own Fatah organization continues to gleefully take credit for murdering Jews.
After taking a colossal risk for peace, Israel abandoned the Gaza Strip to the Arabs, who showed their contempt for peace by sidestepping civilized society and instead sliding into 7th-century barbarism and Islamism. They rained thousands of missiles upon Israeli towns and villages adjacent to the terror-infested, Arab-occupied territory, and the world stood by in silence. Now that same world demands that a similar fate befall Jewish Jerusalem.
That has been the sorry pattern of Israel's suicidal policy of 'land for peace,' whereby the Palestinian aggressors receive land from Israel only to then launch new terrorism against Israel from abandoned territory. In turn, Israel never receives peace. This failed and tragic policy has been pressed upon Israel by successive American secretaries of state and presidents, but never more so than by the current American president, whose formative years were deeply influenced by Islam.
Israeli leaders have seemed unable to learn any lessons from their earlier futile withdrawals from southern Lebanon and Gaza. If the Obama administration has its way, the ancestral Jewish homeland in Judea and Samaria will be lost -- not by the ravages of an enemy host, but, to its eternal shame, by an Israeli government acquiescing to national suicide.
As Frank Gaffney wrote in an article some years ago about the delusional peace process:
'... The entire Annapolis house of cards is built on the fraudulent foundation that the Palestinian faction established by Abbas' mentor, Yasser Arafat, is a reliable partner for peace. Only a zealot who has altogether lost any sense of reality could make such an assertion.'
Will Prime Minister Netanyahu withstand the brutal pressure from Barack Hussein Obama and refuse to sell out Israel's viability with an undivided capital city in eternal Jerusalem? It remains to be seen, but if Netanyahu falters, then Israel may not be able to defend itself after being forced back within its nine-mile-wide pre-1967 parameters -- which an Israeli statesman named Abba Eban described as the 'Auschwitz borders.'"
Stand firm, Bibi, and do not give in to pressure from the anti-Zionists in the White House. God is on your side. Don't disappoint Him.
If I Forget Thee O Jerusalem
By Victor Sharpe
"White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was ordered by the Obama apparatchiks to express displeasure at the decision by Israel to build houses in the East Jerusalem suburb of Gilo. But Gibbs failed to disclose that the land on which Gilo was built, as with other suburbs in 'disputed' parts of East Jerusalem, was home to many Jews who were driven out in 1948 by the British-officered Arab Legion of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
This region was not liberated by Israel, nor the land restored, until the June, 1967 Six Day War nineteen years later. King Hussein of Jordan had thrown in his lot with the Egyptian leader, Gamal Abdul Nasser, who was boasting of how he was on the verge of destroying the Jewish state. The king believed Nasser's claims and attacked along the entire Jordanian/Israeli front (including Jerusalem) despite pleas from Israel for him to not follow Nasser's aggression. History might have been different if Hussein had listened.
In the nineteen years during which the Jordanians occupied the territory, they never remotely considered it as anything but Jordanian. Certainly they never thought it belonged to another Arab people who later called themselves Palestinians. As it was, Jordan's illegal occupation of East Jerusalem, as well as of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), was recognized by only two countries: Britain and Pakistan.
But the Obama White House, and the relentlessly anti-Israel State Department, nevertheless have decided that they will echo the demands of the Palestinian Authority and call for Israel to stop building homes -- not only in Judea and Samaria, but even within Jewish suburbs of Israel's capital city, Jerusalem. This goes on while Arab settlement-building continues unchecked and at a feverish pace throughout the area.
It matters not to Obama that Jerusalem -- east, west, north and south -- has been described as the eternal city of the eternal people.
Let me quote the words from 1918 of the great Rabbi J.H. Hertz, Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, at the thanksgiving service for the British liberation of Jerusalem from the Ottoman Turks. He spoke of the nearly four thousand years of history that bound the Jews to their spiritual and physical capital city and of their fate in defending it against its many would-be conquerors:
'Like the Jew, this Holy City of Israel is deathless; fire and sword and all the engines of destruction have been hurled against it in vain. The Babylonians burnt it and deported its population; the Romans slew a million of its inhabitants, razed it to the ground, passed the ploughshare over it and strewed its furors with salt; Hadrian banished its very name from the lips of men, changed it to Aelia Capitolina and forbade any Jew from entering it on pain of death. Persians and Arabs, Barbarians and Crusaders and Turks took it and re-took it, ravaged it and burnt it; and yet, marvelous to relate, it ever rises from its ashes to renewed life and glory.'
Rabbi Hertz was talking on the very day on which, 2,080 years earlier, Judah Maccabee, the legendary Jewish hero, led his warriors against the Greek-Syrians to liberate the Holy City from its heathen occupiers, whereupon he entered the Temple and re-dedicated it to the glory of the One and Only God. Rabbi Hertz ended his speech by proclaiming the prophetic teaching of the Maccabean Festival, which we know as Hanukkah, in Zechariah, 4:6:
'Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts.'
It is useful to dwell on what has been said by both Jews and non-Jews in the past about Jerusalem. Now there is a government and a Prime Minister in Israel under assault by President Obama, who demands that Israel abandon parts of eternal Jerusalem and give it away to those who hate the Jewish people and who have set their face against accepting any Jewish independence or sovereignty in the Land of Israel.
Jerusalem and Zion are interchangeable. One can go back through the mists of time and read as far back as the towering words in Isaiah 2:1 and Micah 4:2:
'For out of Zion shall come forth the Torah, and the word of God from Jerusalem.'
These are just two of the 821 times that Jerusalem and Zion appear in the Jewish Bible, or what is pejoratively called the Old Testament: Jerusalem 667 times, and Zion 154 times.
According to the much-loved correspondent for the Jerusalem Post, the late Moshe Kohn:
'Jewish sources speak of the seventy names by which Jerusalem is referred to in the classical Jewish sources. These include Ariel/lion of God (Isaiah 29:1); Kirya Neemana/Faithful City (Isaiah 1:25); Ir Ha'emet (City of Truth (Zechariah 8:3); Klilat Yofi/Paragon of Beauty (Lamentations 2:15); Yefay Nof/ Beautiful Panorama (Psalms 48:3); and the ancient commentary of Rabbi Akiva in Sanhedrin 58a on 1 Chronicles 29:11 Hanetza/Eternity.'
But what of now? The modern State of Israel endures a world willing, even anxious, to divide Jerusalem again -- even as it celebrates the reunification of Berlin -- and to give away ancestral and biblical Jewish lands to an enemy led by a Holocaust-denier, Mahmoud Abbas, whose own Fatah organization continues to gleefully take credit for murdering Jews.
After taking a colossal risk for peace, Israel abandoned the Gaza Strip to the Arabs, who showed their contempt for peace by sidestepping civilized society and instead sliding into 7th-century barbarism and Islamism. They rained thousands of missiles upon Israeli towns and villages adjacent to the terror-infested, Arab-occupied territory, and the world stood by in silence. Now that same world demands that a similar fate befall Jewish Jerusalem.
That has been the sorry pattern of Israel's suicidal policy of 'land for peace,' whereby the Palestinian aggressors receive land from Israel only to then launch new terrorism against Israel from abandoned territory. In turn, Israel never receives peace. This failed and tragic policy has been pressed upon Israel by successive American secretaries of state and presidents, but never more so than by the current American president, whose formative years were deeply influenced by Islam.
Israeli leaders have seemed unable to learn any lessons from their earlier futile withdrawals from southern Lebanon and Gaza. If the Obama administration has its way, the ancestral Jewish homeland in Judea and Samaria will be lost -- not by the ravages of an enemy host, but, to its eternal shame, by an Israeli government acquiescing to national suicide.
As Frank Gaffney wrote in an article some years ago about the delusional peace process:
'... The entire Annapolis house of cards is built on the fraudulent foundation that the Palestinian faction established by Abbas' mentor, Yasser Arafat, is a reliable partner for peace. Only a zealot who has altogether lost any sense of reality could make such an assertion.'
Will Prime Minister Netanyahu withstand the brutal pressure from Barack Hussein Obama and refuse to sell out Israel's viability with an undivided capital city in eternal Jerusalem? It remains to be seen, but if Netanyahu falters, then Israel may not be able to defend itself after being forced back within its nine-mile-wide pre-1967 parameters -- which an Israeli statesman named Abba Eban described as the 'Auschwitz borders.'"
Stand firm, Bibi, and do not give in to pressure from the anti-Zionists in the White House. God is on your side. Don't disappoint Him.
Pakistani Army Trained Jihadists
As we throw more and more money to the jihad-supporting Pakistanis, let's look at how they repay us.
From Jihad Watch:
Pakistani Army ran training camps for jihad group
"No one should be surprised by this. But all the learned analysts who know how much we need Pakistan will be. Double Game Update: 'Pakistani Army ran Muslim extremist training camps, says anti-terrorist expert,' by Charles Bremner in the Times Online, November 14 (thanks to Kris):
'The Pakistani Army ran training camps for a Muslim extremist group, at least until recently, with the acceptance of the US Central Intelligence Agency, according to France's foremost anti-terrorist expert.
Jean-Louis Bruguière, who retired in 2007 after 15 years as chief investigating judge for counter-terrorism, reached this conclusion after interrogating a French militant who had been trained by Lashkar-e-Taiba and arrested in Australia in 2003.
In a book in his counter-terrorism years, Mr Bruguière says that Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was set up to fight India over disputed Kashmir territory, had become part of the international Islamic network of al-Qaeda.
Willy Brigitte, the suspect, told Mr Bruguière, that the Pakistani military were running the Lashkar-e-Taiba training camp where he spent 2½ months in 2001-02. Along with two Britons and two Americans, Brigitte was driven in a 4x4 through army roadblocks to the high-altitude camp where more than 2,000 men were being trained by Pakistani regular army officers, he said.
"The links between the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Pakistani Army are more than close. Brigitte observed this twice," Mr Bruguière said. "When the camp was resupplied, all the materiel was dropped off by Pakistani army helicopters. And there were regular inspections by the Pakistani Army and the CIA."...'"
And what, pray tell, is our CIA's connection?
From Jihad Watch:
Pakistani Army ran training camps for jihad group
"No one should be surprised by this. But all the learned analysts who know how much we need Pakistan will be. Double Game Update: 'Pakistani Army ran Muslim extremist training camps, says anti-terrorist expert,' by Charles Bremner in the Times Online, November 14 (thanks to Kris):
'The Pakistani Army ran training camps for a Muslim extremist group, at least until recently, with the acceptance of the US Central Intelligence Agency, according to France's foremost anti-terrorist expert.
Jean-Louis Bruguière, who retired in 2007 after 15 years as chief investigating judge for counter-terrorism, reached this conclusion after interrogating a French militant who had been trained by Lashkar-e-Taiba and arrested in Australia in 2003.
In a book in his counter-terrorism years, Mr Bruguière says that Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was set up to fight India over disputed Kashmir territory, had become part of the international Islamic network of al-Qaeda.
Willy Brigitte, the suspect, told Mr Bruguière, that the Pakistani military were running the Lashkar-e-Taiba training camp where he spent 2½ months in 2001-02. Along with two Britons and two Americans, Brigitte was driven in a 4x4 through army roadblocks to the high-altitude camp where more than 2,000 men were being trained by Pakistani regular army officers, he said.
"The links between the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Pakistani Army are more than close. Brigitte observed this twice," Mr Bruguière said. "When the camp was resupplied, all the materiel was dropped off by Pakistani army helicopters. And there were regular inspections by the Pakistani Army and the CIA."...'"
And what, pray tell, is our CIA's connection?
81% of Americans Oppose New Mammogram Guidelines
Americans aren't especially thrilled about the new guidelines concerning mammograms. My neighbor died from breast cancer while she was in her late 40s.
We are living in dangerous times. And isn't the timing of this new recommendation interesting, as the Democrats try to find an affordable healthcare plan? Think of the money that would be saved by eliminating mammograms for women between 40-49 years of age. Oh yeah, the liberals are compassionate all right.
Read about what Americans think about the new mammogram guidelines, via Gateway Pundit:
81% Disagree With New Government Rationed Mammogram Rules
"US women with breast cancer currently have a higher survival rate than in socialized Europe.
A major reason for this is because the cancer is diagnosed earlier.
Researchers discovered that it was because of breast cancer screenings that women with breast cancer have a 14 percent higher survival rate in the United States than in Europe. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Breast cancer mortality is also 9 percent higher in Canada than in the US. Less than 25 percent of U.S. women die from breast cancer. In Britain, it’s 46 percent; France, 35 percent; Germany, 31 percent; Canada, 28 percent; Australia, 28 percent, and New Zealand, 46 percent.
Maybe that’s why just 8% of Americans agree with the government’s new rationed mammogram rules.
Rasmussen reported:
'A federal medical panel’s recommendation that women can now wait until age 50 to get a routine mammogram instead of age 40 is stirring up strong debate. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey finds that 81% of adults disagree with the panel’s recommendation. Just nine percent (8%) agree with the new guideline.'"
We are living in dangerous times. And isn't the timing of this new recommendation interesting, as the Democrats try to find an affordable healthcare plan? Think of the money that would be saved by eliminating mammograms for women between 40-49 years of age. Oh yeah, the liberals are compassionate all right.
Read about what Americans think about the new mammogram guidelines, via Gateway Pundit:
81% Disagree With New Government Rationed Mammogram Rules
"US women with breast cancer currently have a higher survival rate than in socialized Europe.
A major reason for this is because the cancer is diagnosed earlier.
Researchers discovered that it was because of breast cancer screenings that women with breast cancer have a 14 percent higher survival rate in the United States than in Europe. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Breast cancer mortality is also 9 percent higher in Canada than in the US. Less than 25 percent of U.S. women die from breast cancer. In Britain, it’s 46 percent; France, 35 percent; Germany, 31 percent; Canada, 28 percent; Australia, 28 percent, and New Zealand, 46 percent.
Maybe that’s why just 8% of Americans agree with the government’s new rationed mammogram rules.
Rasmussen reported:
'A federal medical panel’s recommendation that women can now wait until age 50 to get a routine mammogram instead of age 40 is stirring up strong debate. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey finds that 81% of adults disagree with the panel’s recommendation. Just nine percent (8%) agree with the new guideline.'"
"Ceding of U.S. Sovereignty to Another Entity
You may have heard on the news that President Obama is off to Denmark in early December. What you most likely were not told is that during his little visit, he may be signing over the sovereignty of our nation to a foreign body.
It's almost as if all the powers of darkness are descending upon our country. Hmmmm, perhaps, that's because they are.
Elections truly do have consequences. An enemy of America is sitting in the White House, living high off the hog on our dime as he destroys what used to be America.
Read the disturbing news from Personal Liberty Digest:
U.N. Using Climate to Push One World Government Reforms
"With assaults on our nation’s freedoms and liberties coming from so many directions at the same time it is difficult to characterize one as being more dangerous than another. But a United Nations (U.N.) gathering scheduled for Dec. 7 – 18 may hold more lasting ramifications to U.S. sovereignty than anything the republic has ever faced.
That’s when the first overt attempt at establishing the framework of a One World Government will occur.
The U.N. Climate Change Conference is currently drafting a treaty that, if signed by President Barack Obama and ratified by the U.S. senate, would place the U.S. under an unelected, undemocratic world body that could impose taxes and place limits on industry, transportation, mining and energy production in order to limit carbon emissions.
Global warming zealots from around the world are scheduled to gather in Copenhagen, Denmark to try and suck billions of dollars from the U.S. economy and the economies of other industrialized nations and spread that money around to developing countries, all in the name of saving the planet.
As The Washington Times editorialized on Oct. 27:
'“The treaty’s text is not yet finalized but its principles are aimed at regulating all economic activity in the name of climate security, with a side effect that billions of dollars would be transferred from productive countries to the unproductive.
“The control lever is the regulation of carbon emissions, which some purport are causing global warming. The treaty would establish a carbon market Regulatory Agency and “global carbon budget for each country.
“In effect, this would allow the treaty’s governing bodies to limit manufacturing, transportation, travel, agriculture, mining, energy production and anything else that emits carbon—like breathing.”'
One of the few people sounding the alarm on this sinister conference is climate expert and foe of global warming alarmist Al Gore, Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
'I read that treaty,' Monckton told the Minnesota Free Market Institute as posted on wattsupwiththat.com, 'And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word "government" actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the other countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, "climate debt," because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.'
The most recently-released copy of the treaty can be found here. Section 38 mentions government and outlines how it will be framed and financed.
The treaty is still a work in progress even though the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change had planned to have it finalized before the opening of the conference.
Obama first said he wouldn’t attend the conference unless the treaty is finalized. But he began backtracking on that statement last week, saying if his presence could push the deal through he would attend.
Hoping to spur a deal, California Senator Barbara Boxer in early November decided to pass a climate change bill out of committee without Republican support.
Without a clear indication from legislation of how much the U.S. is willing to contribute, the treaty probably won’t be finalized in time. Some other industrialized nations are also balking at the cost and regulations in the treaty, prompting U.N. climate Chief Yvo de Boer to say he didn’t think a legally binding agreement could be passed during the upcoming conference, but he thought one could be reached within a year.
Notice his use of the term, 'legally binding.' That’s what they’re after, because once the treaty is signed by the president and ratified by the senate, any hope of America extricating itself from the agreement is gone.
'You can’t resign from the treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties,' Monckton said. 'And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.'
And don’t think Obama won’t sign an agreement if it can be finalized. He’s signified he’s all in on the global warming boondoggle. And the Democrats only need to persuade six Republicans to join them to ratify the treaty.
Arizona Senator John McCain, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (who began working Nov. 5 to help draft compromise Cap and Trade legislation) and Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are likely defectors.
Signing such a treaty and ratifying it into law would be an unconstitutional ceding of U.S. sovereignty to another entity. But what’s one more unconstitutional act in Washington?"
It's almost as if all the powers of darkness are descending upon our country. Hmmmm, perhaps, that's because they are.
Elections truly do have consequences. An enemy of America is sitting in the White House, living high off the hog on our dime as he destroys what used to be America.
Read the disturbing news from Personal Liberty Digest:
U.N. Using Climate to Push One World Government Reforms
"With assaults on our nation’s freedoms and liberties coming from so many directions at the same time it is difficult to characterize one as being more dangerous than another. But a United Nations (U.N.) gathering scheduled for Dec. 7 – 18 may hold more lasting ramifications to U.S. sovereignty than anything the republic has ever faced.
That’s when the first overt attempt at establishing the framework of a One World Government will occur.
The U.N. Climate Change Conference is currently drafting a treaty that, if signed by President Barack Obama and ratified by the U.S. senate, would place the U.S. under an unelected, undemocratic world body that could impose taxes and place limits on industry, transportation, mining and energy production in order to limit carbon emissions.
Global warming zealots from around the world are scheduled to gather in Copenhagen, Denmark to try and suck billions of dollars from the U.S. economy and the economies of other industrialized nations and spread that money around to developing countries, all in the name of saving the planet.
As The Washington Times editorialized on Oct. 27:
'“The treaty’s text is not yet finalized but its principles are aimed at regulating all economic activity in the name of climate security, with a side effect that billions of dollars would be transferred from productive countries to the unproductive.
“The control lever is the regulation of carbon emissions, which some purport are causing global warming. The treaty would establish a carbon market Regulatory Agency and “global carbon budget for each country.
“In effect, this would allow the treaty’s governing bodies to limit manufacturing, transportation, travel, agriculture, mining, energy production and anything else that emits carbon—like breathing.”'
One of the few people sounding the alarm on this sinister conference is climate expert and foe of global warming alarmist Al Gore, Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
'I read that treaty,' Monckton told the Minnesota Free Market Institute as posted on wattsupwiththat.com, 'And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word "government" actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the other countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, "climate debt," because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.'
The most recently-released copy of the treaty can be found here. Section 38 mentions government and outlines how it will be framed and financed.
The treaty is still a work in progress even though the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change had planned to have it finalized before the opening of the conference.
Obama first said he wouldn’t attend the conference unless the treaty is finalized. But he began backtracking on that statement last week, saying if his presence could push the deal through he would attend.
Hoping to spur a deal, California Senator Barbara Boxer in early November decided to pass a climate change bill out of committee without Republican support.
Without a clear indication from legislation of how much the U.S. is willing to contribute, the treaty probably won’t be finalized in time. Some other industrialized nations are also balking at the cost and regulations in the treaty, prompting U.N. climate Chief Yvo de Boer to say he didn’t think a legally binding agreement could be passed during the upcoming conference, but he thought one could be reached within a year.
Notice his use of the term, 'legally binding.' That’s what they’re after, because once the treaty is signed by the president and ratified by the senate, any hope of America extricating itself from the agreement is gone.
'You can’t resign from the treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties,' Monckton said. 'And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.'
And don’t think Obama won’t sign an agreement if it can be finalized. He’s signified he’s all in on the global warming boondoggle. And the Democrats only need to persuade six Republicans to join them to ratify the treaty.
Arizona Senator John McCain, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (who began working Nov. 5 to help draft compromise Cap and Trade legislation) and Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are likely defectors.
Signing such a treaty and ratifying it into law would be an unconstitutional ceding of U.S. sovereignty to another entity. But what’s one more unconstitutional act in Washington?"
"WE NOTICED"
A great email circulating on the internet:
President Obama:
Today I read of your administration's plan to re-define September 11 as a National Service Day. Sir, it's time we had a talk.........
During your campaign, Americans watched as you made mockery of our tradition of standing and crossing your heart when the Pledge of Allegiance was spoken. You, out of four people on the stage, were the only one not honoring our tradition.
YES, "We noticed."
During one of your many speeches, Americans heard you say that you intended to visit all 57 states. We all know that Islam, not America has 57 states.
YES, "We noticed."
When President Bush leaned over at Ground Zero and gently placed a flower on the memorial, while you nonchalantly tossed your flower onto the pile without leaning over.
YES, "We noticed."
Every time you apologized to other countries for America's position on an issue we have wondered why you don't share our pride in this great country. When you have heard foreign leaders berate our country and our beliefs, you have not defended us. In fact, you insulted the British Crown beyond belief.
YES, "We noticed."
When your pastor of 20 years, "God-damned America" and said that 9/11 was "America's chickens coming home to roost" and you denied having heard recriminations of that nature, we wondered how that could be. You later disassociated yourself from that church and Pastor Wright because it was politically expedient to do so.
YES, "We noticed."
When you announced that you would transform America, we wondered why. With all her faults, America is the greatest country on earth. Sir, KEEP THIS IN MIND, "if not for America and the people who built her, you wouldn't be sitting in the White House now." Prior to your election to the highest office in this Country, you were a senator from Illinois and from what we can glean from the records available, not a very remarkable one.
YES, "We noticed."
All through your campaign and even now, you have surrounded yourself with individuals who are basically unqualified for the positions for which you appointed them. Worse than that, the majority of them are people who, like you, bear no special allegiance, respect, or affection for this country and her traditions.
YES, "We noticed."
You are 9 months into your term and every morning millions of Americans wake up to a new horror heaped on us by you. You seek to saddle working Americans with a health care/insurance reform package that, along with cap and trade, will bankrupt this nation.
YES, "We noticed."
We seek, by protesting, to let our representatives know that we are not in favor of these crippling expenditures and we are labeled "un-American", "racist", "mob". We wonder how we are supposed to let you know how frustrated we are. You have attempted to make our protests seem isolated and insignificant. Until your appointment, Americans had the right to speak out.
YES, "We noticed."
On September 11, 2001 there were no Republicans or Democrats, only Americans. And we all grieved together and helped each other in whatever way we could. The attack on 9/11 was carried out because we are Americans.
And YES, "We noticed."
There were many of us who prayed that as a black president you could help unite this nation. In six months you have done more to destroy this nation than the attack on 9/11. You have failed us.
YES, "We noticed."
September 11 is a day of remembrance for all Americans. You propose to make 9/11 a "National Service Day". While we know that you don't share our reverence for 9/11, we pray that history will report your proposal as what it is...a disgrace.
YES, "We noticed."
You have made a mockery of our Constitution and the office that you hold. You have embarrassed and slighted us in foreign visits and policy.
YES, "We noticed."
We have noticed all these things. We will deal with you. When Americans come together again, it will be to remove you from office.
President Obama:
Today I read of your administration's plan to re-define September 11 as a National Service Day. Sir, it's time we had a talk.........
During your campaign, Americans watched as you made mockery of our tradition of standing and crossing your heart when the Pledge of Allegiance was spoken. You, out of four people on the stage, were the only one not honoring our tradition.
YES, "We noticed."
During one of your many speeches, Americans heard you say that you intended to visit all 57 states. We all know that Islam, not America has 57 states.
YES, "We noticed."
When President Bush leaned over at Ground Zero and gently placed a flower on the memorial, while you nonchalantly tossed your flower onto the pile without leaning over.
YES, "We noticed."
Every time you apologized to other countries for America's position on an issue we have wondered why you don't share our pride in this great country. When you have heard foreign leaders berate our country and our beliefs, you have not defended us. In fact, you insulted the British Crown beyond belief.
YES, "We noticed."
When your pastor of 20 years, "God-damned America" and said that 9/11 was "America's chickens coming home to roost" and you denied having heard recriminations of that nature, we wondered how that could be. You later disassociated yourself from that church and Pastor Wright because it was politically expedient to do so.
YES, "We noticed."
When you announced that you would transform America, we wondered why. With all her faults, America is the greatest country on earth. Sir, KEEP THIS IN MIND, "if not for America and the people who built her, you wouldn't be sitting in the White House now." Prior to your election to the highest office in this Country, you were a senator from Illinois and from what we can glean from the records available, not a very remarkable one.
YES, "We noticed."
All through your campaign and even now, you have surrounded yourself with individuals who are basically unqualified for the positions for which you appointed them. Worse than that, the majority of them are people who, like you, bear no special allegiance, respect, or affection for this country and her traditions.
YES, "We noticed."
You are 9 months into your term and every morning millions of Americans wake up to a new horror heaped on us by you. You seek to saddle working Americans with a health care/insurance reform package that, along with cap and trade, will bankrupt this nation.
YES, "We noticed."
We seek, by protesting, to let our representatives know that we are not in favor of these crippling expenditures and we are labeled "un-American", "racist", "mob". We wonder how we are supposed to let you know how frustrated we are. You have attempted to make our protests seem isolated and insignificant. Until your appointment, Americans had the right to speak out.
YES, "We noticed."
On September 11, 2001 there were no Republicans or Democrats, only Americans. And we all grieved together and helped each other in whatever way we could. The attack on 9/11 was carried out because we are Americans.
And YES, "We noticed."
There were many of us who prayed that as a black president you could help unite this nation. In six months you have done more to destroy this nation than the attack on 9/11. You have failed us.
YES, "We noticed."
September 11 is a day of remembrance for all Americans. You propose to make 9/11 a "National Service Day". While we know that you don't share our reverence for 9/11, we pray that history will report your proposal as what it is...a disgrace.
YES, "We noticed."
You have made a mockery of our Constitution and the office that you hold. You have embarrassed and slighted us in foreign visits and policy.
YES, "We noticed."
We have noticed all these things. We will deal with you. When Americans come together again, it will be to remove you from office.
"Hockey Stick" Data Was Fudged
Wake up, America! Global warming is a complete hoax.
Read the latest discovery to support my claim, via Gateway Pundit:
Death Knell to Global Warming– Renowned Statistician & Software Engineer Says Hockey Stick Data Was “Fudged”
"This May Be the Nail in the Coffin to Global Warming Junk Science—
Renowned statistician and software engineer Eric S. Raymond (ESR) says the global warming 'hockey stick' graph data was 'hard-coded' or purposefully 'fudged.'
Dr. Michael Mann, who co-authored the famous graph of temperature trends dubbed the 'hockey stick graph,' was implicated in Climategate this week. Mann’s controversial work has been challenged in the past.
Today, Reboot Congress reported this stunning news- that the 'hockey stick' was fudged.
On his blog Eric Raymond (ESR) comments:
'krygny Says: Wait just a second. Explain this to me like I’m 12. They didn’t even bother to fudge the data? They hard-coded a hockey stick carrier right into the program?!!
ESR says: Yes. Yes, that’s exactly what they did… Of course, they now claim that crucial primary datasets were “accidentally” deleted… After reading some of the emails about evading FOIA2000 requests… accidentally, my a--.'
There’s much more.
Don’t expect the state-run media to report this any time soon."
Read the latest discovery to support my claim, via Gateway Pundit:
Death Knell to Global Warming– Renowned Statistician & Software Engineer Says Hockey Stick Data Was “Fudged”
"This May Be the Nail in the Coffin to Global Warming Junk Science—
Renowned statistician and software engineer Eric S. Raymond (ESR) says the global warming 'hockey stick' graph data was 'hard-coded' or purposefully 'fudged.'
Dr. Michael Mann, who co-authored the famous graph of temperature trends dubbed the 'hockey stick graph,' was implicated in Climategate this week. Mann’s controversial work has been challenged in the past.
Today, Reboot Congress reported this stunning news- that the 'hockey stick' was fudged.
On his blog Eric Raymond (ESR) comments:
'krygny Says: Wait just a second. Explain this to me like I’m 12. They didn’t even bother to fudge the data? They hard-coded a hockey stick carrier right into the program?!!
ESR says: Yes. Yes, that’s exactly what they did… Of course, they now claim that crucial primary datasets were “accidentally” deleted… After reading some of the emails about evading FOIA2000 requests… accidentally, my a--.'
There’s much more.
Don’t expect the state-run media to report this any time soon."
Anti-Zionist to Be Anti-Semitism Czar
Here we go again. Our anti-Israeli president is itching to stick it to Israel. With all that is in him, he is working feverishly to force Israel to give up their God-given land to his Muslim brothers.
What he does not realize is that there will be a price to pay for abandoning Israel to favor her enemies. Whether Obama likes it or not, Israel is the apple of God's eye. His word states in Obadiah 15, regarding the Jewish people,
"The day of the LORD is near for all nations. As you have done, it will be done to you; your deeds will return upon your own head."
Let's hope and pray that this penalty for mistreating Israel will fall on Obama alone, and that America will not bear the burden of Obama's evil deeds toward Israel.
Read of another anti-Israeli appointment by our Muslim-loving president, via Jihad Watch. I tell you, the hatred for Israel is a result of the Muslim blood running through his veins.
Obama appoints anti-Israel lobbyist as anti-Semitism czar
"The proliferation of czars is a Constitutional issue, but aside from that, the jihadis worldwide must be extraordinarily happy over Obama's consistent anti-Israel line. 'Anti-Israel lobbyist appointed to anti-Semitism post: J Street pick hints Jewish state to blame for hatred against its people,' by Aaron Klein for WorldNetDaily, November 26:
'President Obama's new anti-Semitism czar serves on the board of a controversial Israel-lobby group accused of working against the Jewish state, while her writings suggest Israel's policies are to blame for anti-Semitism.
Hannah Rosenthal, a former Health Department regional director under the Clinton administration, started her position earlier this week as the State Department's new special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism. She previously headed the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, an umbrella U.S. Jewish organization.
Rosenthal, however, serves on the board of J Street, a lobby group that is mostly led by left-leaning Israelis and that receives funds from Arab and Muslim Americans.
J Street brands itself as pro-Israel. It states on its website it seeks to "promote meaningful American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts peacefully and diplomatically."
J Street, however, also supports talks with Hamas, a terrorist group whose charter seeks the destruction of Israel. The group opposes sanctions against Iran and is harshly critical of Israeli offensive anti-terror military actions.
Even the Israeli government has been distancing itself from J Street, with its ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, refusing to attend its annual dinner last month. Israeli Embassy spokesman Yoni Peled told the Jerusalem Post his government has some "concern over certain [J Street] policies that could impair Israel's interests."...'"
How ironic! The Obama Administration appoints an anti-Zionist to be an anti-Semitism czar. Only in the world of Obama would that take place.
What he does not realize is that there will be a price to pay for abandoning Israel to favor her enemies. Whether Obama likes it or not, Israel is the apple of God's eye. His word states in Obadiah 15, regarding the Jewish people,
"The day of the LORD is near for all nations. As you have done, it will be done to you; your deeds will return upon your own head."
Let's hope and pray that this penalty for mistreating Israel will fall on Obama alone, and that America will not bear the burden of Obama's evil deeds toward Israel.
Read of another anti-Israeli appointment by our Muslim-loving president, via Jihad Watch. I tell you, the hatred for Israel is a result of the Muslim blood running through his veins.
Obama appoints anti-Israel lobbyist as anti-Semitism czar
"The proliferation of czars is a Constitutional issue, but aside from that, the jihadis worldwide must be extraordinarily happy over Obama's consistent anti-Israel line. 'Anti-Israel lobbyist appointed to anti-Semitism post: J Street pick hints Jewish state to blame for hatred against its people,' by Aaron Klein for WorldNetDaily, November 26:
'President Obama's new anti-Semitism czar serves on the board of a controversial Israel-lobby group accused of working against the Jewish state, while her writings suggest Israel's policies are to blame for anti-Semitism.
Hannah Rosenthal, a former Health Department regional director under the Clinton administration, started her position earlier this week as the State Department's new special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism. She previously headed the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, an umbrella U.S. Jewish organization.
Rosenthal, however, serves on the board of J Street, a lobby group that is mostly led by left-leaning Israelis and that receives funds from Arab and Muslim Americans.
J Street brands itself as pro-Israel. It states on its website it seeks to "promote meaningful American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts peacefully and diplomatically."
J Street, however, also supports talks with Hamas, a terrorist group whose charter seeks the destruction of Israel. The group opposes sanctions against Iran and is harshly critical of Israeli offensive anti-terror military actions.
Even the Israeli government has been distancing itself from J Street, with its ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, refusing to attend its annual dinner last month. Israeli Embassy spokesman Yoni Peled told the Jerusalem Post his government has some "concern over certain [J Street] policies that could impair Israel's interests."...'"
How ironic! The Obama Administration appoints an anti-Zionist to be an anti-Semitism czar. Only in the world of Obama would that take place.
Silence the Opposition
In most cases, people live by the motto: "If at first you do not succeed, then try, try again".
But, that may not be the motto in the age of Obama. The president and his socialist/Marxist comrades live by a different code. Theirs is as follows: If the opposition gets in the way of accomplishing your objectives, SILENCE THEM.
Read about how the Obama Administration is attempting to do just that, via Gateway Pundit:
Figures. Obama Commie Czar Wants Hannity & Rightwing Websites Censured
"One of the communist-supporters and kooks working with Obama in the White House wants Sean Hannity and rightwing websites muzzled.
Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein wrote this in his latest book.
World Net Daily and FOX Nation reported:
'Websites should be obliged to remove “false rumors” while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such “rumors,” argued Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory czar.
In his recently released book, “On Rumors,” Sunstein specifically cited as a primary example of “absurd” and “hateful” remarks, reports by “right-wing websites” alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers.
He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for “attacking” Obama regarding the president’s “alleged associations.”
Ayers became a name in last year’s presidential campaign when it was disclosed the radical worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers’ apartment.
As WND reported, Obama and Ayers sat together on the board of a Chicago nonprofit, the Woods Fund. Ayers also was a founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where Obama was appointed as its first chairman in 1995.
Ayers reportedly was involved in hiring Obama for the CAC – a job the future president later touted as qualifying him to run for public office.
WND columnist Jack Cashill has produced a series of persuasive arguments that it was Ayers who ghostwrote Obama’s award-winning autobiography “Dreams from My Father.”
However, such reports were characterized by Sunstein as “absurd” charges for which corrective measures can be taken.'
Sunstein picked a poor example for his book.
He would have a difficult time proving that Bill Ayers was just some guy in Obama’s neighborhood when in reality he was an influential figure in Obama’s life and a close family friend.
In his book, The Second Bill of Rights, Sunstein openly argues for bringing socialism to the U.S. and even lends support to communism."
Sunstein, he's Obama's kinda guy. Have these guys ever heard of the First Amendment? I seem to remember vividly that outrageous things were said about George W. Bush for eight years. The only difference is that he honored our freedom of speech and just sucked up the attacks. Maybe Obama should try that approach.
But, that may not be the motto in the age of Obama. The president and his socialist/Marxist comrades live by a different code. Theirs is as follows: If the opposition gets in the way of accomplishing your objectives, SILENCE THEM.
Read about how the Obama Administration is attempting to do just that, via Gateway Pundit:
Figures. Obama Commie Czar Wants Hannity & Rightwing Websites Censured
"One of the communist-supporters and kooks working with Obama in the White House wants Sean Hannity and rightwing websites muzzled.
Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein wrote this in his latest book.
World Net Daily and FOX Nation reported:
'Websites should be obliged to remove “false rumors” while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such “rumors,” argued Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory czar.
In his recently released book, “On Rumors,” Sunstein specifically cited as a primary example of “absurd” and “hateful” remarks, reports by “right-wing websites” alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers.
He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for “attacking” Obama regarding the president’s “alleged associations.”
Ayers became a name in last year’s presidential campaign when it was disclosed the radical worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers’ apartment.
As WND reported, Obama and Ayers sat together on the board of a Chicago nonprofit, the Woods Fund. Ayers also was a founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where Obama was appointed as its first chairman in 1995.
Ayers reportedly was involved in hiring Obama for the CAC – a job the future president later touted as qualifying him to run for public office.
WND columnist Jack Cashill has produced a series of persuasive arguments that it was Ayers who ghostwrote Obama’s award-winning autobiography “Dreams from My Father.”
However, such reports were characterized by Sunstein as “absurd” charges for which corrective measures can be taken.'
Sunstein picked a poor example for his book.
He would have a difficult time proving that Bill Ayers was just some guy in Obama’s neighborhood when in reality he was an influential figure in Obama’s life and a close family friend.
In his book, The Second Bill of Rights, Sunstein openly argues for bringing socialism to the U.S. and even lends support to communism."
Sunstein, he's Obama's kinda guy. Have these guys ever heard of the First Amendment? I seem to remember vividly that outrageous things were said about George W. Bush for eight years. The only difference is that he honored our freedom of speech and just sucked up the attacks. Maybe Obama should try that approach.
Mandatory Population Control in America?
Is it possible that if the Democrats ram their snake oil healthcare rationing bill down our throats, that they will dictate to American couples how many children we are permitted to have? I know that sounds preposterous, but who would have thought that the government would be running our car companies and our banks?
In this age of insanity, anything is possible. These are evil people running our nation, and they are making decisions without regard to our best interests. How else would one explain a nearly half a trillion dollar cut in Medicare which will be thrust upon our seniors, if the liberals get their way? That's not concern for the elderly, folks.
And don't give me that argument that they will cut out 1/2 a trillion dollars in waste because that is just not going to happen. Let's face reality here. Neither Democrat nor Republican has cut out waste. None, zip, nada.
If you don't think this can happen, just listen to what Science Czar John Holdren has had to say about mandatory population control. Remember, he has Obama's ear.
Read about such a scenario, via the American Thinker:
After a Takeover of Health Care, Can a One-Child Policy Be Far Behind?
By Robert A. Bonelli
"Make no mistake about it: the health care bill that moved forward to debate in the Senate on Saturday is simply a power play by the government to gain more control over how we live our lives. It could easily lead to government control over the continuation of our families.
In 1979, China's Deng Xiaoping announced a one-child policy in a speech. The policy was formalized nationwide by 1981. The technical policy on family planning followed two years later. Still in force today, the technical policy requires IUDs for women of childbearing age with one child, sterilization for couples with two children (usually performed on the woman), and abortions for women pregnant without authorization. By the mid-eighties, according to Chinese government statistics, birth control surgeries -- abortions, sterilizations, and IUD insertions -- were averaging more than thirty million a year. Many if not most of these procedures were performed on women who submitted only under duress.
How does China's internal population management relate to the current health care legislation debate in our country? Why should we be concerned? Could it really happen in the United States?
China did not initiate their one-child policy to be cruel to their people, nor did they do it because they do not respect life. They initiated the policy simply due to the growing fiscal demands of a rapidly expanding population. In the mid 1950s, Mao Zedong encouraged population growth as a means of increasing the size of the labor pool, and consequently, the means of production. Years later, this unchecked growth, assisted by government bans on birth control, lead to food supply shortages. In 1962, when a famine resulted in 30 million deaths, China began to look for ways to reverse its population growth. Initially, simple nationalistic appeals and slogans worked, but by 1979, when the rate of growth started to accelerate, more drastic measures were devised 'for the public good.' The rest is history, and that history is scarred by more than an estimated 250 million abortions, many by force. Naturally, it was all 'for the public good.'
We talked about 'death panels' in reference to the health care bills now under consideration by Congress, but another approach is simply to control the number of people entering the system -- new births. Naturally, it will all be 'for the public good.'
Should we be concerned? Consider that one of Mr. Obama's close advisors, his Science Czar, is John Holdren. Mr. Holdren is a radical thinker who can, and has, rationalized the use of forced population control if economic conditions warrant it. If government-run health care begins to reveal a shortage of medical care supply versus a dramatic increase in demand for medical care -- as is a predicted result of the legislation before Congress -- Mr. Holdren will be at the president's side with his suggestions. Those suggestions will be to force a downsizing of the population. A one-child policy will be an easy first step for this man and for this administration.
To emphasize my point, I quote Mr. Holdren's own writing from the book he co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, entitled Ecoscience. It is important to read these quotes to fully understand exactly what is in the minds of the people to whom we may be giving control over our lives.
Holdren (with the Ehrlichs) notes the existence of 'moral objections to some proposals (regarding population control) ... especially to any kind of compulsion.'
He writes:
'Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. Some involuntary measures could be less repressive or discriminatory, in fact, than some of the socioeconomic measures suggested.'
Holdren refers approvingly to Indira Gandhi's government for its (at the time Ecoscience was written) attempt at a compulsory sterilization program:
'India in the mid-1970s not only entertained the idea of compulsory sterilization, but moved toward implementing it...This decision was greeted with dismay abroad, but Indira Gandhi's government felt it had little other choice. There is too little time left to experiment further with educational programs and hope that social change will generate a spontaneous fertility decline, and most of the Indian population is too poor for direct economic pressures (especially penalties) to be effective.'
Yes, we should be concerned. Still, it will all be 'for the public good.'
As to whether or not it could happen in the United States...yes, it could. This past week, we already had a trial balloon floated in the form of a study by the U.S. Preventive Task Force that suggested women wait until the age of fifty rather than forty to have regular mammograms to screen for breast cancer. The uproar was immediate and deafening. However, this is a clear view into what is coming.
If we cede one-sixth our of economy -- health care -- to the government, and along with it effective control of the most personal aspect of our lives, we will place so much power in government hands that the only result most certainly will be absolute corruption and abuse.
For the 'public good,' radical thinking will consolidate more power and control in the hands of the federal government. We will experience the trampling of citizens' constitutional rights, while constitutional limitations on government powers will be breached."
Somebody please warn the Duggars.
In this age of insanity, anything is possible. These are evil people running our nation, and they are making decisions without regard to our best interests. How else would one explain a nearly half a trillion dollar cut in Medicare which will be thrust upon our seniors, if the liberals get their way? That's not concern for the elderly, folks.
And don't give me that argument that they will cut out 1/2 a trillion dollars in waste because that is just not going to happen. Let's face reality here. Neither Democrat nor Republican has cut out waste. None, zip, nada.
If you don't think this can happen, just listen to what Science Czar John Holdren has had to say about mandatory population control. Remember, he has Obama's ear.
Read about such a scenario, via the American Thinker:
After a Takeover of Health Care, Can a One-Child Policy Be Far Behind?
By Robert A. Bonelli
"Make no mistake about it: the health care bill that moved forward to debate in the Senate on Saturday is simply a power play by the government to gain more control over how we live our lives. It could easily lead to government control over the continuation of our families.
In 1979, China's Deng Xiaoping announced a one-child policy in a speech. The policy was formalized nationwide by 1981. The technical policy on family planning followed two years later. Still in force today, the technical policy requires IUDs for women of childbearing age with one child, sterilization for couples with two children (usually performed on the woman), and abortions for women pregnant without authorization. By the mid-eighties, according to Chinese government statistics, birth control surgeries -- abortions, sterilizations, and IUD insertions -- were averaging more than thirty million a year. Many if not most of these procedures were performed on women who submitted only under duress.
How does China's internal population management relate to the current health care legislation debate in our country? Why should we be concerned? Could it really happen in the United States?
China did not initiate their one-child policy to be cruel to their people, nor did they do it because they do not respect life. They initiated the policy simply due to the growing fiscal demands of a rapidly expanding population. In the mid 1950s, Mao Zedong encouraged population growth as a means of increasing the size of the labor pool, and consequently, the means of production. Years later, this unchecked growth, assisted by government bans on birth control, lead to food supply shortages. In 1962, when a famine resulted in 30 million deaths, China began to look for ways to reverse its population growth. Initially, simple nationalistic appeals and slogans worked, but by 1979, when the rate of growth started to accelerate, more drastic measures were devised 'for the public good.' The rest is history, and that history is scarred by more than an estimated 250 million abortions, many by force. Naturally, it was all 'for the public good.'
We talked about 'death panels' in reference to the health care bills now under consideration by Congress, but another approach is simply to control the number of people entering the system -- new births. Naturally, it will all be 'for the public good.'
Should we be concerned? Consider that one of Mr. Obama's close advisors, his Science Czar, is John Holdren. Mr. Holdren is a radical thinker who can, and has, rationalized the use of forced population control if economic conditions warrant it. If government-run health care begins to reveal a shortage of medical care supply versus a dramatic increase in demand for medical care -- as is a predicted result of the legislation before Congress -- Mr. Holdren will be at the president's side with his suggestions. Those suggestions will be to force a downsizing of the population. A one-child policy will be an easy first step for this man and for this administration.
To emphasize my point, I quote Mr. Holdren's own writing from the book he co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, entitled Ecoscience. It is important to read these quotes to fully understand exactly what is in the minds of the people to whom we may be giving control over our lives.
Holdren (with the Ehrlichs) notes the existence of 'moral objections to some proposals (regarding population control) ... especially to any kind of compulsion.'
He writes:
'Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. Some involuntary measures could be less repressive or discriminatory, in fact, than some of the socioeconomic measures suggested.'
Holdren refers approvingly to Indira Gandhi's government for its (at the time Ecoscience was written) attempt at a compulsory sterilization program:
'India in the mid-1970s not only entertained the idea of compulsory sterilization, but moved toward implementing it...This decision was greeted with dismay abroad, but Indira Gandhi's government felt it had little other choice. There is too little time left to experiment further with educational programs and hope that social change will generate a spontaneous fertility decline, and most of the Indian population is too poor for direct economic pressures (especially penalties) to be effective.'
Yes, we should be concerned. Still, it will all be 'for the public good.'
As to whether or not it could happen in the United States...yes, it could. This past week, we already had a trial balloon floated in the form of a study by the U.S. Preventive Task Force that suggested women wait until the age of fifty rather than forty to have regular mammograms to screen for breast cancer. The uproar was immediate and deafening. However, this is a clear view into what is coming.
If we cede one-sixth our of economy -- health care -- to the government, and along with it effective control of the most personal aspect of our lives, we will place so much power in government hands that the only result most certainly will be absolute corruption and abuse.
For the 'public good,' radical thinking will consolidate more power and control in the hands of the federal government. We will experience the trampling of citizens' constitutional rights, while constitutional limitations on government powers will be breached."
Somebody please warn the Duggars.
Arab World's Lack of Support for Palestinians
With all the whining we hear from the Muslim world about the terrible situation the Palestinians face and how the Israelis are mistreating them, wouldn't you think that the Arab world would rally behind their Muslim brothers and help them out of their poverty, especially since several of these Arab nations are rolling in money with their export of oil? Well, if that was your thought, you would be dead wrong.
In reality, the Muslim world doesn't care about the hardships the Palestinians endure. Instead, they use the Palestinians as a tool in their PR campaign against Israel. Their hatred for Israel is what is driving them, not their concern for the Palestinians.
Read about the Muslim world's level of generosity to the Palestinian people, via Israel Matzav:
The Arab states show their love for the 'Palestinians'
"I'm sure you'll all be shocked - just shocked - to hear that 19 of the top 20 donors to UNRWA - the agency that takes care of 'Palestinian refugees' - are Western countries and not Arab states.
'In 2008, 19 of the top 20 donors to UNRWA's general fund were from the West, with the EU contributing over $116m., and the US more than $94m. Others, such as Sweden and the UK, each gave over $35m.
Just one Arab country - Kuwait - appeared among UNRWA's top 20 benefactors. The Kuwaitis came in last on the list, having coughed up just $2.5m.
Given that Kuwait's oil revenues last year surged by 44 percent to nearly $78 billion, you would think that if they really, truly cared about the Palestinians, this would have been reflected in the size of their donation to UNRWA.
Nonetheless, when compared to the other five Arab states that comprise the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) - Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - the Kuwaitis come out looking generous.
In 2008, the combined revenues of the GCC states from oil production amounted to a whopping $575b. Yet their joint contribution to UNRWA's regular budget was a little more than $3.6m., signifying less than one one-thousandth of a percent of their total petroleum income! Bahrain gave a miserly $50,000, Oman forked over just $25,000, while Saudi Arabia coughed up zero.
I've been to Hadassah dinners where more money was raised in an hour than the Arab states seem willing to part with in an entire year.
In fact, over the past two decades, Arab regimes have been providing a steadily decreasing percentage of UNRWA's funding. In the 1980s, their contributions amounted to 8% of the group's annual budget, whereas now they comprise barely 3%.
As a result, Western states are currently providing more than 95% of the funds behind UNRWA's ongoing programs.'
Read it all.
Michael Freund, who supplied these statistics, says that they show the Arabs' hypocrisy in lambasting Israel for its treatment of the 'Palestinians' while doing nothing to alleviate their conditions.
But there's another issue that bears looking into: Unlike refugees elsewhere in the world, who are resettled in a matter of months, the 'Palestinians' have had their refugee status perpetuated by UNRWA. It starts with the ridiculous definition of 'refugee' (having lived in 'Palestine' for two years before 1948), continues with the fact that 'refugee' status can be passed from generation to generation, and progresses to the refusal to move the 'refugees' into permanent housing. If the West controls 95-98% of UNRWA's purse strings, why isn't it forcing UNRWA to resolve the 'refugees' status rather than leaving them as perpetual hostages for purposes of undermining the Jewish state's existence? Is it a Western interest that there not be a state of Israel? The question at least deserves consideration."
How about those Saudis? Not a lousy dime, or in their case, a riyal. Perhaps, that's because they spend so much of their oil profits making donations to suicide bombers' families. And let us not forget the enormous amount of money they are donating to American universities to indoctrinate our young people in Arab propaganda.
Oh those Saudis, such great friends to America. It was inexcusable when Bush took the hand of the Saudi prince, and it was downright appalling when Obama bowed in submission to the Saudi king.
Wake up America, Saudi Arabia is not a friend to the United States.
In reality, the Muslim world doesn't care about the hardships the Palestinians endure. Instead, they use the Palestinians as a tool in their PR campaign against Israel. Their hatred for Israel is what is driving them, not their concern for the Palestinians.
Read about the Muslim world's level of generosity to the Palestinian people, via Israel Matzav:
The Arab states show their love for the 'Palestinians'
"I'm sure you'll all be shocked - just shocked - to hear that 19 of the top 20 donors to UNRWA - the agency that takes care of 'Palestinian refugees' - are Western countries and not Arab states.
'In 2008, 19 of the top 20 donors to UNRWA's general fund were from the West, with the EU contributing over $116m., and the US more than $94m. Others, such as Sweden and the UK, each gave over $35m.
Just one Arab country - Kuwait - appeared among UNRWA's top 20 benefactors. The Kuwaitis came in last on the list, having coughed up just $2.5m.
Given that Kuwait's oil revenues last year surged by 44 percent to nearly $78 billion, you would think that if they really, truly cared about the Palestinians, this would have been reflected in the size of their donation to UNRWA.
Nonetheless, when compared to the other five Arab states that comprise the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) - Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - the Kuwaitis come out looking generous.
In 2008, the combined revenues of the GCC states from oil production amounted to a whopping $575b. Yet their joint contribution to UNRWA's regular budget was a little more than $3.6m., signifying less than one one-thousandth of a percent of their total petroleum income! Bahrain gave a miserly $50,000, Oman forked over just $25,000, while Saudi Arabia coughed up zero.
I've been to Hadassah dinners where more money was raised in an hour than the Arab states seem willing to part with in an entire year.
In fact, over the past two decades, Arab regimes have been providing a steadily decreasing percentage of UNRWA's funding. In the 1980s, their contributions amounted to 8% of the group's annual budget, whereas now they comprise barely 3%.
As a result, Western states are currently providing more than 95% of the funds behind UNRWA's ongoing programs.'
Read it all.
Michael Freund, who supplied these statistics, says that they show the Arabs' hypocrisy in lambasting Israel for its treatment of the 'Palestinians' while doing nothing to alleviate their conditions.
But there's another issue that bears looking into: Unlike refugees elsewhere in the world, who are resettled in a matter of months, the 'Palestinians' have had their refugee status perpetuated by UNRWA. It starts with the ridiculous definition of 'refugee' (having lived in 'Palestine' for two years before 1948), continues with the fact that 'refugee' status can be passed from generation to generation, and progresses to the refusal to move the 'refugees' into permanent housing. If the West controls 95-98% of UNRWA's purse strings, why isn't it forcing UNRWA to resolve the 'refugees' status rather than leaving them as perpetual hostages for purposes of undermining the Jewish state's existence? Is it a Western interest that there not be a state of Israel? The question at least deserves consideration."
How about those Saudis? Not a lousy dime, or in their case, a riyal. Perhaps, that's because they spend so much of their oil profits making donations to suicide bombers' families. And let us not forget the enormous amount of money they are donating to American universities to indoctrinate our young people in Arab propaganda.
Oh those Saudis, such great friends to America. It was inexcusable when Bush took the hand of the Saudi prince, and it was downright appalling when Obama bowed in submission to the Saudi king.
Wake up America, Saudi Arabia is not a friend to the United States.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Latest on Rifqa Bary's Columbus Mosque
Please do not forget to pray for ex-Muslim Rifqa Bary whose life is in danger for converting to Christianity, a crime for Muslims punishable by death.
More ties are being found between the Columbus, Ohio, mosque her family attends and the radical elements of Islam. What a surprise!
Read from Atlas Shrugs:
More trouble for Rifqa: Fort Hood Major Massacre Muslim Hasan Tied to Rifqa's Mosque
"There are more radical ties to the Noor mosque that CAIR and devout Muslims are strong arming Ohio authorities to send Rifqa Bary back to. Rifqa Bary's Mosque Imam is a Muslim Brotherhood leader. There was an in-depth investigation of the Noor mosque (here), exposing the radical ties. Rifqa's Imam Hany Saqr was Taking Calls from Hamas Leader.
Here's the latest on Salah Sultan, formerly of Columbus, Ohio, and former resident scholar at the Noor mosque before being banned from the United States. He and Anwar Al-Aulaki (Major Hasan's imam) are jihad buds. Check out the picture of the hajj brochure. It specifically states that Hasan's extremist Imam and the former scholar in residence at the Noor mosque were hajjing together back in 2002.
Rifq Bary is not safe in the state of Ohio. Period."
Read it all.
More ties are being found between the Columbus, Ohio, mosque her family attends and the radical elements of Islam. What a surprise!
Read from Atlas Shrugs:
More trouble for Rifqa: Fort Hood Major Massacre Muslim Hasan Tied to Rifqa's Mosque
"There are more radical ties to the Noor mosque that CAIR and devout Muslims are strong arming Ohio authorities to send Rifqa Bary back to. Rifqa Bary's Mosque Imam is a Muslim Brotherhood leader. There was an in-depth investigation of the Noor mosque (here), exposing the radical ties. Rifqa's Imam Hany Saqr was Taking Calls from Hamas Leader.
Here's the latest on Salah Sultan, formerly of Columbus, Ohio, and former resident scholar at the Noor mosque before being banned from the United States. He and Anwar Al-Aulaki (Major Hasan's imam) are jihad buds. Check out the picture of the hajj brochure. It specifically states that Hasan's extremist Imam and the former scholar in residence at the Noor mosque were hajjing together back in 2002.
Rifq Bary is not safe in the state of Ohio. Period."
Read it all.
Obama Vs. Palin: A Complete Fraud Vs. a Class Act
A great article from Jack Cashill at the American Thinker comparing the narratives of Barack Obama to Sarah Palin. One is a complete fraud, while the other is a class act.
The Competing Narratives of Barry and Sarah
By Jack Cashill
"In the spring of 1964, Sarah Heath, then just three months old, flew into backwater Skagway, Alaska (population 650) aboard a 1930s-era Grumman Goose to start a new life with her parents, brother, and sister.
At that same time, in America's other new outlier state, Hawaii, two-year-old Barry Obama was just getting used to a fatherless existence in the otherwise-comfortable world his white grandparents and occasionally his mother would make for him.
At the time, not even Nostradamus could have foretold that the paths of Barry and Sarah would intersect in the 'historic' 2008 election, Barry as the first major party presidential nominee of African descent and Sarah as the first woman with a real shot at the vice-presidency.
Each would change names before reaching the national stage. Barry Obama would become Barry Soetero, and then Barack Obama. Sarah Heath would become Sarah Palin after eloping with the formidable Todd Palin. Obama would chronicle his journey in the 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father and the 2006 sequel, The Audacity of Hope. Palin would chronicle hers in the 2009 memoir, Going Rogue: An American Life.
How the literary/media establishment would respond to the respective memoirs of these two political figures would reveal far less about the authenticity, honesty, and literary quality of the tales the authors told than it would about the collective mindset of that establishment.
From a classical perspective, Palin's is the more compelling narrative. The obstacles that she must overcome to fulfill her destiny are many, varied, and real. Raised in the frozen outback by a schoolteacher father and a school secretary mom, Palin accomplishes nothing without a good deal of work, often under difficult physical circumstances.
Palin takes a semester or two off to pay for college. She works at a diner over the summer. She enters the Miss Alaska contest to help pay tuition and is awarded second runner-up and 'Miss Congeniality.' She interns during other summers to become a sports reporter.
After college, Palin joins fiancé Todd on his Bristol Bay salmon boat. During slow salmon runs, she works 'messy, obscure seafood jobs' until she can find a job as sports reporter, and even then she keeps returning to Bristol Bay when the salmon are in season.
Throughout this period, despite the hard work and harsh environment, Palin never loses her sense of wonder about the spectacular natural theater in which she is so very much at home. When asked about the state's best attributes during a Miss Alaska pageant, Palin responds, 'its beauty and everything that the great Alaska outdoors has to offer.' Prophetically, she also plugs the state's 'potential in drilling for oil,' which, even then, 'Outsiders don't understand.'
Back in Hawaii, either through his grandparents' connections or by dint of affirmative action, Obama spends grades five through twelve at Hawaii's poshest prep school. Like Palin, he plays basketball, but while she is leading her school to the state championship, he is a second stringer on a team whose wins and losses go unremarked. The only scores Obama shares are the imagined racial ones that need to be settled, a working out of his 'pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against [his] mother's race.'
In his recent book Barack and Michelle, Christopher Andersen quotes a black friend who rejected Obama's claimed reason for being benched in a particular game.
No, Barry, it's not because you're black. It's because you missed two shots in a row.
Obama admits to 'marginal report cards' in prep school, but his underperformance does not diminish his dreams. He hits the mainland in the late 1970s with the 'diversity' movement in full flower. Diversity's rationale is that people of varied cultures enrich the educational experience. Obama's upbringing, however, has been thoroughly white and elitist. The diversity bean-counters couldn't care less. His skin color improves their 'metrics.' Obama will ride this pony far.
After two druggy, uninspired years at Occidental College, Obama transfers to the Ivy League -- Columbia, to be precise. In Dreams, Obama dedicates one half of a sentence to a summer job on a construction site. Otherwise, he is silent on how his tuition might have been paid for. As to his grades and SAT scores, it would be easier to pry North Korea's nuclear secrets out of Kim Jong-Il.
After several years as a low-paid community organizer in Chicago, Obama decides to return to law school. Despite a lack of resources and a mediocre performance at Columbia -- he does not graduate with honors -- Obama limits his choices to 'Harvard, Yale, Stanford.' He had absorbed the diversity zeitgeist deeply enough to see success as an entitlement.
In the spring of 1989, during Obama's first year at Harvard Law, Palin's 'life truly began' with the birth of her oldest son, Track. That summer, with Todd working a blue-collar job on the North Slope oil fields, Palin, her father, and their Eskimo partner work Todd's commercial fishing boat in Bristol Bay. Palin's mother, meanwhile, baby-sits the ten-week-old Track.
In 1992, while an anxious Obama dithers in an office that the University of Chicago has given him to write Dreams, half of his $150,000 advance already cashed, Palin is pulling her babies, Track and Bristol, along on a sled as she goes door-to-door seeking votes in her run for Wasilla city council.
Not yet thirty, Palin settles upon the philosophy that will guide her political career: reducing taxes 'and redefining government's proper role.' Like few Republicans this side of Ronald Reagan, Palin will adhere to these principles throughout her political ascent.
Not surprisingly, Palin's tenacity makes enemies among those who have cashed in their Republican heritage for the perks and power of office. Palin's perseverance in the face of this resistance makes for compelling political drama. That she is a woman challenging the good old boys of backroom Alaska heightens that drama.
Yet despite pushing the boundaries of female accomplishment throughout her career -- as sports reporter, as commercial fisherman, as councilwoman, as mayor, as oil and gas commissioner, as governor, as vice-presidential candidate -- Palin never loses her sense of the feminine. Having five children surely helps. So does living in an environment where manly virtues still matter.
An exchange with the larger-than-life Todd helps clarify Alaskan reality. Todd is a four-time winner of the Iron Dog competition, a 2,200 mile snowmobiling marathon. One night, Sarah expresses interest in competing. Says Todd:
'Can you get the back end of a six-hundred-pound machine unstuck by yourself with open water up to your thighs, then change out an engine at forty below in the pitch black on a frozen river and replace thrashed shocks and jury rig a suspension using tree limbs along the trail?'
When Sarah answers 'Nope,' Todd replies, 'Then go back to sleep, Sarah.' Todd lives his Eskimo heritage. He does not just dream about it, let alone exploit it.
While Palin is slugging through Alaska's political morass like a determined Iditarod musher, Obama is cruising through Illinois politics on skids greased by his Chicago cronies. In his 2004 run for U.S. Senate, both his chief primary opponent and his expected general election opponent are undone by damaging personal information leaked to the media. Obama wins both elections easily.
The combination of his black genes and white upbringing makes the famously 'articulate and bright and clean' Obama an irresistible choice to keynote the race-conscious 2004 Democratic convention. 'I mean, that's a storybook, man,' alleges the inimitable Joe Biden.
The story told in Dreams will become a huge bestseller in the wake of the 2004 convention. The lofty, lyrical style of the book will seal the Ivy-educated Obama's reputation as a genius, and its much-celebrated narrative would serve as a foundational myth for Obama's ascent to the White House.
Said NEA chairman Rocco Landesman just last month, reiterating the accepted wisdom of the chattering classes, 'This is the first president that actually writes his own books since Teddy Roosevelt and arguably the first to write them really well since Lincoln.'
The establishment will not be so kind to Palin. In the week of Going Rogue's release, the New York Times house conservative David Brooks will call her 'a joke.' Dick Cavett, the Norma Desmond of TV talk, will dismiss her as a 'know-nothing.' Ex-con Dem fundraiser Martha Stewart will brand Palin 'a dangerous person.' And literally thousands of lesser liberal lights will deride her as 'stupid,' an 'idiot,' or a 'moron' (8.5 million Google hits and counting for 'Palin' 'moron').
In that same week, Chris Matthews was worrying out loud that Obama was 'too darned intellectual,' and author Michael Eric Dyson was celebrating Obama's 'sexy brilliance.' But while the Associated Press was sending a platoon of reporters to fact-check Palin's book, neither the AP nor any other media outlet dared check either Dreams or Audacity of Hope.
They likely feared what they would find -- namely that Obama's genius depends solely on his willingness to lie about it. 'I've written two books,' Obama told a crowd of teachers in Virginia last year. 'I actually wrote them myself.' He did no such thing. He had massive help with both books.
Although the prose of Dreams is often lyrical, it is not Obama's. As I have argued in these pages, and as Christopher Andersen has confirmed, Obama's gifted friend Bill Ayers gussied up the rough outlines of Obama's life and imposed upon them the mythic dimensions of Homer's Odyssey. To accomplish this, the authors invented any number of incidents, many of which are easily disproved. For a serious seeker of facts, Dreams is Sutter Creek in 1848.
In Going Rogue, by contrast, Palin does not shy from crediting Lynn Vincent for 'her indispensable help in getting the words on paper.' And yet the story is told honestly and sincerely in Palin's voice. There is no artifice, no postmodern mumbo-jumbo, and not a sentence in the book that Palin could not have written herself. My personal favorite, 'I love meat.' I suspect that, unaided, journalism major and former reporter Palin is a better writer than Obama.
Left to their own devices, Palin is clearly the better speaker. In Going Rogue's climactic moment, the unknown Palin serves up the most dazzling convention speech in modern political history, and she does so in spite of a malfunctioning teleprompter. 'I knew the speech well enough that I didn't need it,' writes Palin.
Had Obama's teleprompter malfunctioned at the 2004 convention, he would not be president. He has always depended on the eloquence of others. So thoroughly hooked on the teleprompter is Obama that the irrepressible Biden jokes about it. 'What am I going to tell the president?' Biden asked the crowd at the Air Force Academy after a teleprompter blew over. "Tell him his teleprompter is broken? What will he do then?"
In the final analysis, Going Rogue is a better book than Dreams. No Republican has ever held Palin up as a genius, literary or otherwise, but her narrative is as shrewd, sensitive, and straightforward as its author.
Dreams, on the other hand, is merely a well-crafted fraud."
More on Sarah Palin: The Wilding of Sarah Palin
The Competing Narratives of Barry and Sarah
By Jack Cashill
"In the spring of 1964, Sarah Heath, then just three months old, flew into backwater Skagway, Alaska (population 650) aboard a 1930s-era Grumman Goose to start a new life with her parents, brother, and sister.
At that same time, in America's other new outlier state, Hawaii, two-year-old Barry Obama was just getting used to a fatherless existence in the otherwise-comfortable world his white grandparents and occasionally his mother would make for him.
At the time, not even Nostradamus could have foretold that the paths of Barry and Sarah would intersect in the 'historic' 2008 election, Barry as the first major party presidential nominee of African descent and Sarah as the first woman with a real shot at the vice-presidency.
Each would change names before reaching the national stage. Barry Obama would become Barry Soetero, and then Barack Obama. Sarah Heath would become Sarah Palin after eloping with the formidable Todd Palin. Obama would chronicle his journey in the 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father and the 2006 sequel, The Audacity of Hope. Palin would chronicle hers in the 2009 memoir, Going Rogue: An American Life.
How the literary/media establishment would respond to the respective memoirs of these two political figures would reveal far less about the authenticity, honesty, and literary quality of the tales the authors told than it would about the collective mindset of that establishment.
From a classical perspective, Palin's is the more compelling narrative. The obstacles that she must overcome to fulfill her destiny are many, varied, and real. Raised in the frozen outback by a schoolteacher father and a school secretary mom, Palin accomplishes nothing without a good deal of work, often under difficult physical circumstances.
Palin takes a semester or two off to pay for college. She works at a diner over the summer. She enters the Miss Alaska contest to help pay tuition and is awarded second runner-up and 'Miss Congeniality.' She interns during other summers to become a sports reporter.
After college, Palin joins fiancé Todd on his Bristol Bay salmon boat. During slow salmon runs, she works 'messy, obscure seafood jobs' until she can find a job as sports reporter, and even then she keeps returning to Bristol Bay when the salmon are in season.
Throughout this period, despite the hard work and harsh environment, Palin never loses her sense of wonder about the spectacular natural theater in which she is so very much at home. When asked about the state's best attributes during a Miss Alaska pageant, Palin responds, 'its beauty and everything that the great Alaska outdoors has to offer.' Prophetically, she also plugs the state's 'potential in drilling for oil,' which, even then, 'Outsiders don't understand.'
Back in Hawaii, either through his grandparents' connections or by dint of affirmative action, Obama spends grades five through twelve at Hawaii's poshest prep school. Like Palin, he plays basketball, but while she is leading her school to the state championship, he is a second stringer on a team whose wins and losses go unremarked. The only scores Obama shares are the imagined racial ones that need to be settled, a working out of his 'pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against [his] mother's race.'
In his recent book Barack and Michelle, Christopher Andersen quotes a black friend who rejected Obama's claimed reason for being benched in a particular game.
No, Barry, it's not because you're black. It's because you missed two shots in a row.
Obama admits to 'marginal report cards' in prep school, but his underperformance does not diminish his dreams. He hits the mainland in the late 1970s with the 'diversity' movement in full flower. Diversity's rationale is that people of varied cultures enrich the educational experience. Obama's upbringing, however, has been thoroughly white and elitist. The diversity bean-counters couldn't care less. His skin color improves their 'metrics.' Obama will ride this pony far.
After two druggy, uninspired years at Occidental College, Obama transfers to the Ivy League -- Columbia, to be precise. In Dreams, Obama dedicates one half of a sentence to a summer job on a construction site. Otherwise, he is silent on how his tuition might have been paid for. As to his grades and SAT scores, it would be easier to pry North Korea's nuclear secrets out of Kim Jong-Il.
After several years as a low-paid community organizer in Chicago, Obama decides to return to law school. Despite a lack of resources and a mediocre performance at Columbia -- he does not graduate with honors -- Obama limits his choices to 'Harvard, Yale, Stanford.' He had absorbed the diversity zeitgeist deeply enough to see success as an entitlement.
In the spring of 1989, during Obama's first year at Harvard Law, Palin's 'life truly began' with the birth of her oldest son, Track. That summer, with Todd working a blue-collar job on the North Slope oil fields, Palin, her father, and their Eskimo partner work Todd's commercial fishing boat in Bristol Bay. Palin's mother, meanwhile, baby-sits the ten-week-old Track.
In 1992, while an anxious Obama dithers in an office that the University of Chicago has given him to write Dreams, half of his $150,000 advance already cashed, Palin is pulling her babies, Track and Bristol, along on a sled as she goes door-to-door seeking votes in her run for Wasilla city council.
Not yet thirty, Palin settles upon the philosophy that will guide her political career: reducing taxes 'and redefining government's proper role.' Like few Republicans this side of Ronald Reagan, Palin will adhere to these principles throughout her political ascent.
Not surprisingly, Palin's tenacity makes enemies among those who have cashed in their Republican heritage for the perks and power of office. Palin's perseverance in the face of this resistance makes for compelling political drama. That she is a woman challenging the good old boys of backroom Alaska heightens that drama.
Yet despite pushing the boundaries of female accomplishment throughout her career -- as sports reporter, as commercial fisherman, as councilwoman, as mayor, as oil and gas commissioner, as governor, as vice-presidential candidate -- Palin never loses her sense of the feminine. Having five children surely helps. So does living in an environment where manly virtues still matter.
An exchange with the larger-than-life Todd helps clarify Alaskan reality. Todd is a four-time winner of the Iron Dog competition, a 2,200 mile snowmobiling marathon. One night, Sarah expresses interest in competing. Says Todd:
'Can you get the back end of a six-hundred-pound machine unstuck by yourself with open water up to your thighs, then change out an engine at forty below in the pitch black on a frozen river and replace thrashed shocks and jury rig a suspension using tree limbs along the trail?'
When Sarah answers 'Nope,' Todd replies, 'Then go back to sleep, Sarah.' Todd lives his Eskimo heritage. He does not just dream about it, let alone exploit it.
While Palin is slugging through Alaska's political morass like a determined Iditarod musher, Obama is cruising through Illinois politics on skids greased by his Chicago cronies. In his 2004 run for U.S. Senate, both his chief primary opponent and his expected general election opponent are undone by damaging personal information leaked to the media. Obama wins both elections easily.
The combination of his black genes and white upbringing makes the famously 'articulate and bright and clean' Obama an irresistible choice to keynote the race-conscious 2004 Democratic convention. 'I mean, that's a storybook, man,' alleges the inimitable Joe Biden.
The story told in Dreams will become a huge bestseller in the wake of the 2004 convention. The lofty, lyrical style of the book will seal the Ivy-educated Obama's reputation as a genius, and its much-celebrated narrative would serve as a foundational myth for Obama's ascent to the White House.
Said NEA chairman Rocco Landesman just last month, reiterating the accepted wisdom of the chattering classes, 'This is the first president that actually writes his own books since Teddy Roosevelt and arguably the first to write them really well since Lincoln.'
The establishment will not be so kind to Palin. In the week of Going Rogue's release, the New York Times house conservative David Brooks will call her 'a joke.' Dick Cavett, the Norma Desmond of TV talk, will dismiss her as a 'know-nothing.' Ex-con Dem fundraiser Martha Stewart will brand Palin 'a dangerous person.' And literally thousands of lesser liberal lights will deride her as 'stupid,' an 'idiot,' or a 'moron' (8.5 million Google hits and counting for 'Palin' 'moron').
In that same week, Chris Matthews was worrying out loud that Obama was 'too darned intellectual,' and author Michael Eric Dyson was celebrating Obama's 'sexy brilliance.' But while the Associated Press was sending a platoon of reporters to fact-check Palin's book, neither the AP nor any other media outlet dared check either Dreams or Audacity of Hope.
They likely feared what they would find -- namely that Obama's genius depends solely on his willingness to lie about it. 'I've written two books,' Obama told a crowd of teachers in Virginia last year. 'I actually wrote them myself.' He did no such thing. He had massive help with both books.
Although the prose of Dreams is often lyrical, it is not Obama's. As I have argued in these pages, and as Christopher Andersen has confirmed, Obama's gifted friend Bill Ayers gussied up the rough outlines of Obama's life and imposed upon them the mythic dimensions of Homer's Odyssey. To accomplish this, the authors invented any number of incidents, many of which are easily disproved. For a serious seeker of facts, Dreams is Sutter Creek in 1848.
In Going Rogue, by contrast, Palin does not shy from crediting Lynn Vincent for 'her indispensable help in getting the words on paper.' And yet the story is told honestly and sincerely in Palin's voice. There is no artifice, no postmodern mumbo-jumbo, and not a sentence in the book that Palin could not have written herself. My personal favorite, 'I love meat.' I suspect that, unaided, journalism major and former reporter Palin is a better writer than Obama.
Left to their own devices, Palin is clearly the better speaker. In Going Rogue's climactic moment, the unknown Palin serves up the most dazzling convention speech in modern political history, and she does so in spite of a malfunctioning teleprompter. 'I knew the speech well enough that I didn't need it,' writes Palin.
Had Obama's teleprompter malfunctioned at the 2004 convention, he would not be president. He has always depended on the eloquence of others. So thoroughly hooked on the teleprompter is Obama that the irrepressible Biden jokes about it. 'What am I going to tell the president?' Biden asked the crowd at the Air Force Academy after a teleprompter blew over. "Tell him his teleprompter is broken? What will he do then?"
In the final analysis, Going Rogue is a better book than Dreams. No Republican has ever held Palin up as a genius, literary or otherwise, but her narrative is as shrewd, sensitive, and straightforward as its author.
Dreams, on the other hand, is merely a well-crafted fraud."
More on Sarah Palin: The Wilding of Sarah Palin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
