What is most important to the liberal Marxist socialist is that anything that they say is "truth" must be considered to be the "truth" without debate. It's like they think they are gods with absolute power. This is insane - this is America for God's sake, not the old Soviet Union - !!!
Global warming is a fraud - mass hysteria caused by mentally deficient eco-fascists, urban terrorists, congressional blood suckers and our leaders political agenda based on fantasy and revenge, that believe we must be destroyed so we can rebuild a new land like it was 200 years ago. Worse then this, a majority of voters in this country apparently are too lazy or ignorant to know what is reality and what is insanity.
Keep the faith - you decide what is "truth" and what is a bold face lie!! All it takes is just a few minutes of your time to figure this out - it means a lot for our countries survival.
Polar Bear Testimony Suppressed Due to 'Inconvenient' Truths
By P.J. Gladnick (Bio Archive)June 28, 2009 - 10:05 ET
As the U.S. Senate now prepares to consider the cap-and-trade climate bill recently passed by the House, they will want to consider all the facts related to this landmark spending program. So far we have learned that the Environmental Protection Agency has suppressed an internal report skeptical about the wild global warming claims and now, from across the pond, we find out that a polar bear expert has been forbidden by global warming alarmists from reporting that most of those animals have actually been increasing in population during the past few years or are at optimum levels.
Although you won't find this story anywhere in the American media, Christopher Booker of the UK Telegraph has delivered an excellent report on this inconvenient truth suppression:
Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.
This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN's major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world's leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week's meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.
Suppressed EPA report, meet suppressed polar bear report. You both represent inconvenient truths.
Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.
No! No! This wasn't what we wanted to hear. It just does not fit in with our preconceived notions.
He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists' agenda as their most iconic single cause. The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image.
Correct, and NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard also reported on this "stranded polar bear" hoax two years ago.
Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week's meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor's, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: "it was the position you've taken on global warming that brought opposition".
Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG".
An inconvenient truth because it is inconsistent with preconceived global warming alarmist notions.
So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of "scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice". But also check out Anthony Watt's Watts Up With That website for the latest news of what is actually happening in the Arctic. The average temperature at midsummer is still below zero, the latest date that this has happened in 50 years of record-keeping. After last year's recovery from its September 2007 low, this year's ice melt is likely to be substantially less than for some time. The bears are doing fine.
Your humble correspondent has checked out Watts Up With That? and has found it to be an excellent resource for the truth about the inconvenient facts on the global warming hoax that is ignored by most of the American media. And one such inconvenient fact is that the overall polar bear population is growing, not declining.
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Climite Bill A Disaster For America : Jobs Lost Overseas
The Republicans that voted for this insanity must be defeated in 2010!! They obviously do not care what happens to this country as this bill WILL kill job creation as it slows expansion of the economy! Why is this so hard to understand? Yikes!
Manufacturing has been put to another disadvantage to their competition overseas. It makes sense for them to ship as many operations overseas to take advantage of the better economics and less tax burden. Hey, stupid people, it's called being able to compete.
Say good-by to American jobs - hello unemployment line - Thank you liberal Democrats and 8 traitor Republicans.
8 GOP Votes Paved Way for Climate Bill
Sunday, June 28, 2009 1:04 PM
President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scored a major victory with the House's approval of a landmark climate bill -- thanks to a little help from a handful of Republicans.
Friday's vote was 219-212. The legislation was supported by 211 Democrats and eight aisle-crossing GOP members: Reps. Mary Bono (Calif.), Michael Castle (Del.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Leonard Lance (N.J.), Frank LoBiondo (N.J.), John McHugh (N.Y.), David Reichert (Wash.) and Christopher Smith (N.J.). Forty-four Democrats voted against the bill, making the eight GOP votes all the more crucial.
“This is the biggest job-killing bill that’s ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives. Right here, this bill,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said after the vote. “And I don’t think that’s what the American people want.”
The 1,200-plus-page bill now goes to the Senate, where it faces an uncertain future.
According to The Associated Press, the "cap-and-trade" legislation places the first national limits on emissions of heat-trapping gases from major sources like power plants, refineries and factories. It requires:
An 17 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
An 83 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
That 20 percent of all electricity in the United States be generated by renewable sources and/or more efficient methods by 2020.
As written, the bill will cost American households an estimated $175 a year by 2020, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Many Republicans refer to the legislation as a "national energy tax."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Manufacturing has been put to another disadvantage to their competition overseas. It makes sense for them to ship as many operations overseas to take advantage of the better economics and less tax burden. Hey, stupid people, it's called being able to compete.
Say good-by to American jobs - hello unemployment line - Thank you liberal Democrats and 8 traitor Republicans.
8 GOP Votes Paved Way for Climate Bill
Sunday, June 28, 2009 1:04 PM
President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scored a major victory with the House's approval of a landmark climate bill -- thanks to a little help from a handful of Republicans.
Friday's vote was 219-212. The legislation was supported by 211 Democrats and eight aisle-crossing GOP members: Reps. Mary Bono (Calif.), Michael Castle (Del.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Leonard Lance (N.J.), Frank LoBiondo (N.J.), John McHugh (N.Y.), David Reichert (Wash.) and Christopher Smith (N.J.). Forty-four Democrats voted against the bill, making the eight GOP votes all the more crucial.
“This is the biggest job-killing bill that’s ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives. Right here, this bill,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said after the vote. “And I don’t think that’s what the American people want.”
The 1,200-plus-page bill now goes to the Senate, where it faces an uncertain future.
According to The Associated Press, the "cap-and-trade" legislation places the first national limits on emissions of heat-trapping gases from major sources like power plants, refineries and factories. It requires:
An 17 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
An 83 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
That 20 percent of all electricity in the United States be generated by renewable sources and/or more efficient methods by 2020.
As written, the bill will cost American households an estimated $175 a year by 2020, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Many Republicans refer to the legislation as a "national energy tax."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Republicans Speak Out With Alternative Programs
Some Republicans are at least are trying to bring some light to this nightmare that is the Obama government. To bad so many others are sitting on their hands while the country is being overthrown by Marxist socialists.
GOP 'Attack Machine' Hounds Obama
Four prominent Republicans in Congress have been outspoken in leading the opposition to President Barack Obama and his policies.
The four and their GOP colleagues have "begun pitching policy alternatives, though shrunken minorities in both houses make it difficult for their ideas to gain traction," Katherine Skiba writes in U.S. News & World Report. "Their attack machine, though, has been roaring practically 24-7."
Skiba cited these Republicans:
Rep. John Boehner of Ohio. The House Minority Leader in February held the 1,100-page stimulus bill and charged that not a single member of Congress had read it as the vote neared.
"What happened to the promise that we're going to let the American people see what's in the bill for 48 hours?" he asked as he dropped the stack of papers to the floor.
The YouTube spot capturing his gesture soon had nearly half a million viewings.
Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. The Senate Minority Leader's declaration that Obama's $3.5 trillion budget proposal "spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much" was parroted by other Republicans in Congress. He and Boehner meet weekly and target "areas where they perceive Obama as weak: spending, record deficits, pork projects in the $787 billion stimulus, and closing the Guantanamo Bay prison," Skiba observes.
Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia. The House Minority Whip made sure that no House Republican voted for the stimulus bill. He is promoting an "entrepreneurial insurgency" by proposing alternatives to Obama policies.
Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana. The chairman of the House Republican Conference has been critical of Obama's "socialist" policies and attacked the president for shaking the hand of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling Chavez an "anti-American, socialist dictator."
GOP 'Attack Machine' Hounds Obama
Four prominent Republicans in Congress have been outspoken in leading the opposition to President Barack Obama and his policies.
The four and their GOP colleagues have "begun pitching policy alternatives, though shrunken minorities in both houses make it difficult for their ideas to gain traction," Katherine Skiba writes in U.S. News & World Report. "Their attack machine, though, has been roaring practically 24-7."
Skiba cited these Republicans:
Rep. John Boehner of Ohio. The House Minority Leader in February held the 1,100-page stimulus bill and charged that not a single member of Congress had read it as the vote neared.
"What happened to the promise that we're going to let the American people see what's in the bill for 48 hours?" he asked as he dropped the stack of papers to the floor.
The YouTube spot capturing his gesture soon had nearly half a million viewings.
Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. The Senate Minority Leader's declaration that Obama's $3.5 trillion budget proposal "spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much" was parroted by other Republicans in Congress. He and Boehner meet weekly and target "areas where they perceive Obama as weak: spending, record deficits, pork projects in the $787 billion stimulus, and closing the Guantanamo Bay prison," Skiba observes.
Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia. The House Minority Whip made sure that no House Republican voted for the stimulus bill. He is promoting an "entrepreneurial insurgency" by proposing alternatives to Obama policies.
Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana. The chairman of the House Republican Conference has been critical of Obama's "socialist" policies and attacked the president for shaking the hand of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling Chavez an "anti-American, socialist dictator."
Ted Kennedy Backing Chris Dodd On Health Care : An American Nightmare
What a hoot! Ted Kennedy standing up for Chris Dodd, the brains behind the housing collapse along with Barney Frank. Now Ted and Chris are going to institute national health care? Or should we say Dodd is going to screw us all on health care as he did in the banking desaster. This just one of the legs of Obama's agenda to destroy America.
Remember it was Dodd and Frank that demanded that banks give loans to people that couldn't afford to pay the money back. Bush went to congress on 10 different occasions to have some over sight on Fannie and Freddie. The Democrats stone walled him. And don't forget who got the biggest political contributions from Fannie and Freddie - Oh no, it was Chris Dodd and Barack Obama. Who knew? Not a problem though, they're both Democrats so it's okay. We should expect Democrats to be crooks and con-men.
The other legs are Cap and Trade and Immigration Reform. Of course, along with National Heath Care, these three alone will cost the American tax payer more than 6 trillion in new taxes by 2015. I wonder who's going to pay the freight? Oh, wait, I forgot the 3 trillion in the budget and at least 2 trillion in new stimulus moneys and 1 trillion in bailout of the banks and unions.
Hey, who voted for this nightmare? Doesn't any Democrat care at all that this will destroy us all?
Keep the faith - this will be a long hard struggle.
Ted Kennedy Tapes Ad for Chris Dodd
Sen. Ted Kennedy has come to the aid of his embattled friend Sen. Christopher Dodd with a new TV ad highlighting the Connecticut Democrat's efforts on healthcare reform.
"Quality healthcare as a fundamental right for all Americans has been the cause of my life, and Chris Dodd has been my closest ally in this fight," Kennedy says in the 30-second ad.
"Today more than ever, we have a real opportunity to bring healthcare reform to Connecticut and all across America, and I believe that with Chris Dodd's leadership, our families will finally have accessible, affordable healthcare."
Kennedy has been battling brain cancer and for the most part remains home in Hyannis Port, Mass. Dodd has been managing healthcare reform in Kennedy's absence and working closely with his staff, the Boston Herald reported.
Dodd was first elected to the Senate in 1980 and has been re-elected four times, but he faces a tough fight in 2010.
Dodd has been criticized for his role in a bill protecting bonuses that executives at American International Group Inc. received after the insurance giant accepted federal bailout funds.
He has also caught heat over two mortgages he received from Countrywide Financial Corp. at alleged below-market rates. Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, proposed a program in 2008 to assist subprime lenders like Countrywide, and initially refused to release documents relating to the mortgages.
The New Haven Register in his home state went so far as to called Dodd "a lying weasel."
A Quinnipiac University survey last month disclosed that Dodd trailed former Republican Congressman Rob Simmons, who has announced his candidacy for Dodd's seat, by a margin of 45 percentage points to 39 points.
Remember it was Dodd and Frank that demanded that banks give loans to people that couldn't afford to pay the money back. Bush went to congress on 10 different occasions to have some over sight on Fannie and Freddie. The Democrats stone walled him. And don't forget who got the biggest political contributions from Fannie and Freddie - Oh no, it was Chris Dodd and Barack Obama. Who knew? Not a problem though, they're both Democrats so it's okay. We should expect Democrats to be crooks and con-men.
The other legs are Cap and Trade and Immigration Reform. Of course, along with National Heath Care, these three alone will cost the American tax payer more than 6 trillion in new taxes by 2015. I wonder who's going to pay the freight? Oh, wait, I forgot the 3 trillion in the budget and at least 2 trillion in new stimulus moneys and 1 trillion in bailout of the banks and unions.
Hey, who voted for this nightmare? Doesn't any Democrat care at all that this will destroy us all?
Keep the faith - this will be a long hard struggle.
Ted Kennedy Tapes Ad for Chris Dodd
Sen. Ted Kennedy has come to the aid of his embattled friend Sen. Christopher Dodd with a new TV ad highlighting the Connecticut Democrat's efforts on healthcare reform.
"Quality healthcare as a fundamental right for all Americans has been the cause of my life, and Chris Dodd has been my closest ally in this fight," Kennedy says in the 30-second ad.
"Today more than ever, we have a real opportunity to bring healthcare reform to Connecticut and all across America, and I believe that with Chris Dodd's leadership, our families will finally have accessible, affordable healthcare."
Kennedy has been battling brain cancer and for the most part remains home in Hyannis Port, Mass. Dodd has been managing healthcare reform in Kennedy's absence and working closely with his staff, the Boston Herald reported.
Dodd was first elected to the Senate in 1980 and has been re-elected four times, but he faces a tough fight in 2010.
Dodd has been criticized for his role in a bill protecting bonuses that executives at American International Group Inc. received after the insurance giant accepted federal bailout funds.
He has also caught heat over two mortgages he received from Countrywide Financial Corp. at alleged below-market rates. Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, proposed a program in 2008 to assist subprime lenders like Countrywide, and initially refused to release documents relating to the mortgages.
The New Haven Register in his home state went so far as to called Dodd "a lying weasel."
A Quinnipiac University survey last month disclosed that Dodd trailed former Republican Congressman Rob Simmons, who has announced his candidacy for Dodd's seat, by a margin of 45 percentage points to 39 points.
Green Jobs In Spain A Total Failure
Here again, our president tells lies that he uses to advance his agenda to destroy the economy - he will use the total choas that results to remake the American dream.
The Spanish report on the wastefulness of a 'green economy' is totally ignored as it shots holes in the Obama 'playbook' of what's best for America - that is, what's best according to a Marxist socialist. The press secretary says don't confuse the issue with facts!
How did this happen? Who voted for this guy and why?
Sigh - Keep the faith - we must fight on.
Spain Tilts At Windmills And Pays Price
By GEORGE F. WILL http://www.ibdeditorials.com/AuthorProfile.aspx?id=303344939665306>
Posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009
The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating "green jobs" in "alternative energy" even though Spain's unemployment rate is 18.1% — more than double the European Union average — partly because of spending on such jobs?
Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report which, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration's green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it. Calzada says Spain's torrential spending — no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources — on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies.
Wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation — sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency — of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" — gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.)
Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain's economy.
The president's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, was asked about the report's contention that the political diversion of capital into green jobs has cost Spain jobs. The White House transcript contained this exchange:
Gibbs: "It seems weird that we're importing wind turbine parts from Spain in order to build — to meet renewable energy demand here if that were even remotely the case."
Questioner: "Is that a suggestion that his study is simply flat wrong?"
Gibbs: "I haven't read the study, but I think, yes."
Questioner: "Well, then. (Laughter.)"
Actually, what is weird is this idea: A sobering report about Spain's experience must be false because otherwise the behavior of some American importers, seeking to cash in on the U.S. government's promotion of wind power, might be participating in an economically unproductive project.
It is true that Calzada has come to conclusions that he, as a libertarian, finds ideologically congenial. And his study was supported by a like-minded U.S. think tank (the Institute for Energy Research, for which this columnist has given a paid speech). Still, it is notable that, rather than try to refute his report, many Spanish critics have impugned his patriotism for faulting something for which Spain has been praised by Obama and others.
Judge for yourself: Calzada's report can be read at http://tinyurl.com/d7z9ye. And at http://tinyurl.com/ccoa5s you can find similar conclusions in "Yellow Light on Green Jobs," a report by Republican Sen. Kit Bond, ranking member of the subcommittee on green jobs and the new economy.
What matters most, however, is not that reports such as Calzada's and the Republicans' are right in every particular. It is, however, hardly counterintuitive that politically driven investments are economically counterproductive. Indeed, environmentalists with the courage of their convictions should argue that the point of such investments is to subordinate market rationality to the higher agenda of planetary salvation.
Still, one can be agnostic about both reports while being dismayed by the frequency with which such findings are ignored simply because they question policies that are so invested with righteousness that methodical economic reasoning about their costs and benefits seems unimportant.
When the president speaks of "new green energy economies" creating "countless well-paying jobs," perhaps they really are countless, meaning incapable of being counted. For fervent believers in governments' abilities to control the climate and in the urgent need for them to do so, believing is seeing: They see, through their ideological lenses, governments' green spending as always paying for itself.
This is a free-lunch faith comparable to that of those few conservatives who believe that tax cuts always completely pay for themselves by stimulating compensating revenues from economic growth.
Windmills are iconic in the land of Don Quixote, whose tilting at them became emblematic of comic futility. Spain's new windmills are neither amusing nor emblematic of policies America should emulate.The cheerful and evidently unshakable confidence in such magical solutions to postulated problems is yet another manifestation — Republicans are not immune: No Child Left Behind decrees that by 2014 all American students will be proficient in math and reading — of what the late Sen. Pat Moynihan called "the leakage of reality from American life."
© 2008 Washington Post Writers Group
The Spanish report on the wastefulness of a 'green economy' is totally ignored as it shots holes in the Obama 'playbook' of what's best for America - that is, what's best according to a Marxist socialist. The press secretary says don't confuse the issue with facts!
How did this happen? Who voted for this guy and why?
Sigh - Keep the faith - we must fight on.
Spain Tilts At Windmills And Pays Price
By GEORGE F. WILL http://www.ibdeditorials.com/AuthorProfile.aspx?id=303344939665306>
Posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009
The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating "green jobs" in "alternative energy" even though Spain's unemployment rate is 18.1% — more than double the European Union average — partly because of spending on such jobs?
Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report which, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration's green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it. Calzada says Spain's torrential spending — no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources — on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies.
Wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation — sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency — of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" — gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.)
Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain's economy.
The president's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, was asked about the report's contention that the political diversion of capital into green jobs has cost Spain jobs. The White House transcript contained this exchange:
Gibbs: "It seems weird that we're importing wind turbine parts from Spain in order to build — to meet renewable energy demand here if that were even remotely the case."
Questioner: "Is that a suggestion that his study is simply flat wrong?"
Gibbs: "I haven't read the study, but I think, yes."
Questioner: "Well, then. (Laughter.)"
Actually, what is weird is this idea: A sobering report about Spain's experience must be false because otherwise the behavior of some American importers, seeking to cash in on the U.S. government's promotion of wind power, might be participating in an economically unproductive project.
It is true that Calzada has come to conclusions that he, as a libertarian, finds ideologically congenial. And his study was supported by a like-minded U.S. think tank (the Institute for Energy Research, for which this columnist has given a paid speech). Still, it is notable that, rather than try to refute his report, many Spanish critics have impugned his patriotism for faulting something for which Spain has been praised by Obama and others.
Judge for yourself: Calzada's report can be read at http://tinyurl.com/d7z9ye. And at http://tinyurl.com/ccoa5s you can find similar conclusions in "Yellow Light on Green Jobs," a report by Republican Sen. Kit Bond, ranking member of the subcommittee on green jobs and the new economy.
What matters most, however, is not that reports such as Calzada's and the Republicans' are right in every particular. It is, however, hardly counterintuitive that politically driven investments are economically counterproductive. Indeed, environmentalists with the courage of their convictions should argue that the point of such investments is to subordinate market rationality to the higher agenda of planetary salvation.
Still, one can be agnostic about both reports while being dismayed by the frequency with which such findings are ignored simply because they question policies that are so invested with righteousness that methodical economic reasoning about their costs and benefits seems unimportant.
When the president speaks of "new green energy economies" creating "countless well-paying jobs," perhaps they really are countless, meaning incapable of being counted. For fervent believers in governments' abilities to control the climate and in the urgent need for them to do so, believing is seeing: They see, through their ideological lenses, governments' green spending as always paying for itself.
This is a free-lunch faith comparable to that of those few conservatives who believe that tax cuts always completely pay for themselves by stimulating compensating revenues from economic growth.
Windmills are iconic in the land of Don Quixote, whose tilting at them became emblematic of comic futility. Spain's new windmills are neither amusing nor emblematic of policies America should emulate.The cheerful and evidently unshakable confidence in such magical solutions to postulated problems is yet another manifestation — Republicans are not immune: No Child Left Behind decrees that by 2014 all American students will be proficient in math and reading — of what the late Sen. Pat Moynihan called "the leakage of reality from American life."
© 2008 Washington Post Writers Group
Saturday, June 27, 2009
House Judiciary Committee Drops Probe of ACORN Voter Fraud
Why do you think Obama stopped the Conyer investigation of ACORN voter fraud and corruption in our electoral system? ACORN is working with the Democrats to steal votes and elections - this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
This is the very foundation of the entire Obama administration - this is how Obama operated in Chicago. Obama directed ACORN for more than three years while organizing corrupt elements to steal votes in Illinois. Who voted for Obama and why?
Are there that many people in this country that are ready to lay down and be stepped on and like it?
How did this all happen? How can something like this happen in America? When did our form of government turn into such corruption? I know the answer - it started in November of 2008!
Keep the faith - we will never give up the fight!
Rep. Conyers' Probe of ACORN Blocked by 'Powers That Be'
Friday, June 26, 2009 8:20 AM
By: S.A. Miller, The Washington Times
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. has backed off his plan to investigate purported wrongdoing by the liberal activist group ACORN, saying "powers that be" put the kibosh on the idea.
Mr. Conyers, Michigan Democrat, earlier bucked his party leaders by calling for hearings on accusations the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) has committed crimes ranging from voter fraud to a mob-style "protection" racket.
"The powers that be decided against it," Mr. Conyers told The Washington Times as he left the House chambers Wednesday.
The chairman declined to elaborate, shrugging off questions about who told him how to run his committee and give the Democrat-allied group a pass. Conyers spokesman Jonathan Godfrey said late Thursday, several hours after the first request for comment, that the chairman had been referring to himself as "the powers that be."
Pittsburgh lawyer Heather Heidelbaugh, whose testimony about ACORN at a March 19 hearing on voting issues prompted Mr. Conyers to call for a probe, said she was perplexed by Mr. Conyers' explanation for his change of heart.
"If the chair of the Judiciary Committee cannot hold a hearing if he wants to, [then] who are the powers that he is beholden to?" she said. "Is it the leadership, is it the White House, is it contributors? Who is 'the power'?"
The comment spurred similar questions by House Republicans, who asked whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was involved in blocking the probe. "Chairman Conyers has a responsibility to explain who is blocking this investigation, and why. Is it Speaker Pelosi? Others in the Democratic leadership? Who in Congress is covering up ACORN's corruption?" said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, ranking Republican on the Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights and civil liberties, said the chairman should be calling the shots.
Mr. Conyers, who heard the allegations against ACORN, was sufficiently impressed to realize a future hearing was needed to thoroughly investigate the matter," he said. "It's unfortunate that people who didn't hear the testimony are making the decisions. The Democratic leadership should step up to disclose who instructed Mr. Conyers to drop his plan."
The office of Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, did not respond to questions about Mr. Conyers' comments.
Capitol Hill had bristled at the prospect of hearings because it threatened to rekindle criticism of the financial ties and close cooperation between President Obama's campaign and ACORN and its sister organizations Citizens Services Inc. and Project Vote.
The groups came under fire during the campaign after probes into suspected voter fraud in a series of presidential battleground states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Mexico and Nevada. ACORN and its affiliates are currently the target of at least 14 lawsuits related to voter fraud in the 2008 election and a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act complaint filed by former ACORN members.
The group's leaders have consistently denied any wrongdoing and previously said they welcomed a congressional probe. The group did not respond to questions about Mr. Conyers being convinced to drop those plans.
Ms. Heidelbaugh, who spearheaded an unsuccessful lawsuit last year to stop ACORN's Pennsylvania voter-registration drive, testified in March that the nonprofit group was violating tax, campaign-finance and other laws by, among other things, sharing with the Barack Obama campaign a list of the Democrat's maxed-out campaign donors so ACORN could use it to solicit them for a get-out-the-vote drive.
ACORN also provided liberal causes with protest-for-hire services and coerced donations from targets of demonstrations through a shakedown it called the "muscle for the money" program, said Ms. Heidelbaugh, a member of the executive board of the Republican National Lawyers Association.
Mr. Conyers, a fierce partisan known for his drive to continue investigating President George W. Bush's administration, had been an unlikely champion for opponents of ACORN. Before calling for the probe, he frequently defended ACORN. In October, he condemned an FBI voter-fraud investigation targeting the group, questioning whether it was politically motivated to hamper a voter-registration likely to turn out supporters for Mr. Obama's candidacy.
But in March, Mr. Conyers dismissed the argument made by fellow Democrats that accusations of voter fraud and other crimes should be explored by prosecutors and decided in court, not by lawmakers in Congress.
"That's our jurisdiction, the Department of Justice," Mr. Conyers said in March. "That's what we handle voter fraud. Unless that's been taken out of my jurisdiction and I didn't know it."
© 2009
Copyright 2009 All Rights Reserved
This is the very foundation of the entire Obama administration - this is how Obama operated in Chicago. Obama directed ACORN for more than three years while organizing corrupt elements to steal votes in Illinois. Who voted for Obama and why?
Are there that many people in this country that are ready to lay down and be stepped on and like it?
How did this all happen? How can something like this happen in America? When did our form of government turn into such corruption? I know the answer - it started in November of 2008!
Keep the faith - we will never give up the fight!
Rep. Conyers' Probe of ACORN Blocked by 'Powers That Be'
Friday, June 26, 2009 8:20 AM
By: S.A. Miller, The Washington Times
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. has backed off his plan to investigate purported wrongdoing by the liberal activist group ACORN, saying "powers that be" put the kibosh on the idea.
Mr. Conyers, Michigan Democrat, earlier bucked his party leaders by calling for hearings on accusations the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) has committed crimes ranging from voter fraud to a mob-style "protection" racket.
"The powers that be decided against it," Mr. Conyers told The Washington Times as he left the House chambers Wednesday.
The chairman declined to elaborate, shrugging off questions about who told him how to run his committee and give the Democrat-allied group a pass. Conyers spokesman Jonathan Godfrey said late Thursday, several hours after the first request for comment, that the chairman had been referring to himself as "the powers that be."
Pittsburgh lawyer Heather Heidelbaugh, whose testimony about ACORN at a March 19 hearing on voting issues prompted Mr. Conyers to call for a probe, said she was perplexed by Mr. Conyers' explanation for his change of heart.
"If the chair of the Judiciary Committee cannot hold a hearing if he wants to, [then] who are the powers that he is beholden to?" she said. "Is it the leadership, is it the White House, is it contributors? Who is 'the power'?"
The comment spurred similar questions by House Republicans, who asked whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was involved in blocking the probe. "Chairman Conyers has a responsibility to explain who is blocking this investigation, and why. Is it Speaker Pelosi? Others in the Democratic leadership? Who in Congress is covering up ACORN's corruption?" said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, ranking Republican on the Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights and civil liberties, said the chairman should be calling the shots.
Mr. Conyers, who heard the allegations against ACORN, was sufficiently impressed to realize a future hearing was needed to thoroughly investigate the matter," he said. "It's unfortunate that people who didn't hear the testimony are making the decisions. The Democratic leadership should step up to disclose who instructed Mr. Conyers to drop his plan."
The office of Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, did not respond to questions about Mr. Conyers' comments.
Capitol Hill had bristled at the prospect of hearings because it threatened to rekindle criticism of the financial ties and close cooperation between President Obama's campaign and ACORN and its sister organizations Citizens Services Inc. and Project Vote.
The groups came under fire during the campaign after probes into suspected voter fraud in a series of presidential battleground states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Mexico and Nevada. ACORN and its affiliates are currently the target of at least 14 lawsuits related to voter fraud in the 2008 election and a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act complaint filed by former ACORN members.
The group's leaders have consistently denied any wrongdoing and previously said they welcomed a congressional probe. The group did not respond to questions about Mr. Conyers being convinced to drop those plans.
Ms. Heidelbaugh, who spearheaded an unsuccessful lawsuit last year to stop ACORN's Pennsylvania voter-registration drive, testified in March that the nonprofit group was violating tax, campaign-finance and other laws by, among other things, sharing with the Barack Obama campaign a list of the Democrat's maxed-out campaign donors so ACORN could use it to solicit them for a get-out-the-vote drive.
ACORN also provided liberal causes with protest-for-hire services and coerced donations from targets of demonstrations through a shakedown it called the "muscle for the money" program, said Ms. Heidelbaugh, a member of the executive board of the Republican National Lawyers Association.
Mr. Conyers, a fierce partisan known for his drive to continue investigating President George W. Bush's administration, had been an unlikely champion for opponents of ACORN. Before calling for the probe, he frequently defended ACORN. In October, he condemned an FBI voter-fraud investigation targeting the group, questioning whether it was politically motivated to hamper a voter-registration likely to turn out supporters for Mr. Obama's candidacy.
But in March, Mr. Conyers dismissed the argument made by fellow Democrats that accusations of voter fraud and other crimes should be explored by prosecutors and decided in court, not by lawmakers in Congress.
"That's our jurisdiction, the Department of Justice," Mr. Conyers said in March. "That's what we handle voter fraud. Unless that's been taken out of my jurisdiction and I didn't know it."
© 2009
Copyright 2009 All Rights Reserved
Friday, June 26, 2009
John Kerry and Liberal Democrats are Terrified of Sara Plain
Why would the liberal establishment be so terrified of Sara Palin? Easy, she is one of us, the common people, the workers, the voters! This alone brings fear to the black hearts of the tyrants and Marxist socialist that we have running our country, on both sides of the aisle.
Sadly, a large percentage of the population still can't come to grips that our America, the land of the free and home of the brave' is headed to third world status in the grips of radical socialist. A nightmare we will not be able to free our selves from for generations, if ever.
Sara Palin believes in the American dream - free enterprise - individual freedom to succeed - the individual right to chose one's own destiny.
Look the mirror and those that voted for Obama say to yourself that you didn't have anything to do with the destruction of our country, even though you voted for Obama. Say, out loud, that you who voted for this man, take no responsibility for his actions.
Keep the faith
Sen. John Kerry Wishes Sarah Palin Had Gone Missing
Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:09 AM
By: Kenneth D. Williams
Sen. John Kerry added to his long list of lame joke attempts yesterday when he wished South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's disappearance on Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
Speaking to some business and civic leaders he had invited to Washington, Kerry quipped: "Too bad if a governor had to go missing it couldn't have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin." The partisan crowd chuckled, but there's nothing funny about Kerry's criticisms of the Alaska governor.
Kerry has a history of making impolitic jokes. Slate magazine recalls two of Kerry's worst:
"Somebody told me the other day that the Secret Service has orders that if George Bush is shot, they're to shoot Quayle . . . There isn't any press here, is there?" (Associated Press, Nov. 16, 1988).
"What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States" (Boston Globe, April 3, 2003).
And don't forget 2006. At a campaign appearance in California for Democratic gubernatorial nominee Phil Angelides, Kerry made the famously awful remark: "You know, education; if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."
Meanwhile, Palin wasn't exactly sitting in Washington, D.C., chatting up businessmen. She was busy doing something very unfamiliar to Kerry: She was on her way to an undisclosed "overseas" location to visit deployed Alaska National Guard troops and offer thanks and support. As she wrote on her Twitter page yesterday: "Travel now to bring appreciation from their Alaska family & Natl Guard leadership to heroes in US European Command's area of responsibility."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Sadly, a large percentage of the population still can't come to grips that our America, the land of the free and home of the brave' is headed to third world status in the grips of radical socialist. A nightmare we will not be able to free our selves from for generations, if ever.
Sara Palin believes in the American dream - free enterprise - individual freedom to succeed - the individual right to chose one's own destiny.
Look the mirror and those that voted for Obama say to yourself that you didn't have anything to do with the destruction of our country, even though you voted for Obama. Say, out loud, that you who voted for this man, take no responsibility for his actions.
Keep the faith
Sen. John Kerry Wishes Sarah Palin Had Gone Missing
Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:09 AM
By: Kenneth D. Williams
Sen. John Kerry added to his long list of lame joke attempts yesterday when he wished South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's disappearance on Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
Speaking to some business and civic leaders he had invited to Washington, Kerry quipped: "Too bad if a governor had to go missing it couldn't have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin." The partisan crowd chuckled, but there's nothing funny about Kerry's criticisms of the Alaska governor.
Kerry has a history of making impolitic jokes. Slate magazine recalls two of Kerry's worst:
"Somebody told me the other day that the Secret Service has orders that if George Bush is shot, they're to shoot Quayle . . . There isn't any press here, is there?" (Associated Press, Nov. 16, 1988).
"What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States" (Boston Globe, April 3, 2003).
And don't forget 2006. At a campaign appearance in California for Democratic gubernatorial nominee Phil Angelides, Kerry made the famously awful remark: "You know, education; if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."
Meanwhile, Palin wasn't exactly sitting in Washington, D.C., chatting up businessmen. She was busy doing something very unfamiliar to Kerry: She was on her way to an undisclosed "overseas" location to visit deployed Alaska National Guard troops and offer thanks and support. As she wrote on her Twitter page yesterday: "Travel now to bring appreciation from their Alaska family & Natl Guard leadership to heroes in US European Command's area of responsibility."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Obama Insults Iranian Opposition Leader Mousavi AND Irainian Freedom Fighters
Since Obama isn't really an American or a Christian, I have to believe he isn't committed to the support of anyone that wants freedom. He instead has indicated in all of his speeches he will throw his support to any tyrant that behave the way he is in America - freedom and the rule of law in a Republic is outdated. Destroy the opposition.
Barack Obama believes that an enslaved world is more productive than a free world. The Obama 'hope and change' theme is 'I hope we can change your life from success to failure and make you like it'. If you don't like it, well then maybe a few months in a 'reeducation camp' will help you to get your mind straight'. You decide which is better!
Keep the faith.
Mousavi Accuses Obama of 'Misleading the World'
Sunday, June 21, 2009 1:38 PM
Author and foreign policy expert Michael Ledeen has published a letter reportedly from the office of Mir Hossein Mousavi, in which the Iranian opposition leader criticizes President Barack Obama for saying Mousavi and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad are "two of a kind."
The letter, addressed to Obama, takes the president to task for the remark, calling it "a grave and deep insult, not just to Mr. Mousavi but especially against the judgment of the Iranian people, against our moral conviction and intelligence, especially those of the young generation that comprises a population of 31 million.
"It is a specially grave insult for those who are now fighting for democracy and freedom, and an unwarranted gift and even praise for [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei, whose security forces are now killing peaceful Iranians in the streets of every major city in the country.
"Your statement misled the people of the world."
Barack Obama believes that an enslaved world is more productive than a free world. The Obama 'hope and change' theme is 'I hope we can change your life from success to failure and make you like it'. If you don't like it, well then maybe a few months in a 'reeducation camp' will help you to get your mind straight'. You decide which is better!
Keep the faith.
Mousavi Accuses Obama of 'Misleading the World'
Sunday, June 21, 2009 1:38 PM
Author and foreign policy expert Michael Ledeen has published a letter reportedly from the office of Mir Hossein Mousavi, in which the Iranian opposition leader criticizes President Barack Obama for saying Mousavi and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad are "two of a kind."
The letter, addressed to Obama, takes the president to task for the remark, calling it "a grave and deep insult, not just to Mr. Mousavi but especially against the judgment of the Iranian people, against our moral conviction and intelligence, especially those of the young generation that comprises a population of 31 million.
"It is a specially grave insult for those who are now fighting for democracy and freedom, and an unwarranted gift and even praise for [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei, whose security forces are now killing peaceful Iranians in the streets of every major city in the country.
"Your statement misled the people of the world."
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Talk Radio Publisher Harrison: Conservative Radio Only a Nich
This is an interesting discussion on Talk Radio in that Harrison believes the popularity of talk radio is strictly one of demographics. That is, a group of like minded individuals finding a radio host that speaks their language. I believe this is true to the extent that the main stream media is so biased liberal. The conservative has no other place to go to find support for what they believe is the foundation and heritage of America.
Secondly, liberal radio, and most other outlets for information that is liberal based, is mostly founded in hate and discord. There is nothing positive about it. The liberal mind set is to tear down anything that is not part of their agenda or hints at individual freedom of thought.
Liberalism is a collective, they get their power from the group where as the conservative get his power from individual freedom of action and thought.
The Conservative, as a rule, doesn't attack the liberal for their way of thinking although they disagree with the entire liberal agenda as a way of life. The liberal on the other hand will attack the Conservative any chance they get to minimize their influence and as a way to deflect their personal frustration they have for anyone that doesn't believe they the way they do.
They are consumed by the inability to identify their own place in the world and therefor hate, totally, anyone that is found comfort in there personal life, i.e.Consevatives.
Conservative talk radio presents a very positive and upbeat attitude, based on provable truths, that a majority of Americas are looking for, hence the huge audience for Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity. They love this country. This country has given them everything. Why would they want to tear it down. Why would anyone want to change something that works.
Liberals hate this country for that very reason. This country was founded on individual accomplishment, that is, hard work and determination to succeed. The liberal has the attitude that this country and it's founding fathers where wrong headed in that a ruling class should make the decisions for the masses as the masses don't have the education and insight that they, the ruling elite have, to be able to see the future that is best for the population at large. We need to be ruled by a supreme being in the flesh. hmmmm
Harrison has some good points but he misses the main theme of the Conservative, it's about freedom to chose one's own destiny, to succeed or fail, and not have their future determined by some else that has no idea what is best for every individual. Harrison believes this is just all about 'niches' and 'groups' of like mind people, but it's really about a philosophy of living, a way of life that has flourished in this country for more than 250 years. It's a way of life that has made this country the greatest country in the history of the world. Why would we want to 'change' it for something that has failed through out history?
Keep the faith
Talk Radio Publisher Harrison:
Dramatic Changes Ahead
Friday, June 19, 2009 4:44 PMBy: Jim Meyers
Michael Harrison, founder and publisher of Talkers magazine, tells Newsmax that a revolution is underway in the media that will soon fundamentally change the way Americans get information.
He suggests that radio and television stations, as well as their print brethren in newspapers, will fall to the wayside as new multimedia platforms crop up on the Web. [Editor's Note: To see the full interview, go here now]
In a wide-ranging interview, Harrison, who founded Talkers magazine in 1990 and is the most widely quoted expert on the talk radio business, offered his views on the transitioning business.
Today, radio hosts broadcasting from more than 1,800 news-talk radio stations cover the nation with chat about everything from politics to sex to automobiles and dozens of other subjects.
Still, the industry has been reeling.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the overall radio industry is in a "hangover" as it witnesses double-digit falls in advertising income. The Journal noted that once titanic Clear Channel and Citadel Broadcasting have been staggering under enormous debt loads. Citadel, which broadcasts talk over the former Disney/ABC network, has seen its stock value plummet, with trades in its shares falling to as low as one penny.
Harrison expects such media heavyweights as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to continue to be powerhouses, though he sees their formats changing.
For Harrison “media stations” will be springing up within five to 10 years, using the Internet as their springboard. He predicts these media stations will offer the same “street spirit” of talk radio today, but will provide their audience with diverse channels: audio, video and text.
Traditional media, "which I call monomedia, is 20th-century thinking; 21st-century media will be multimedia platforms with environments geared to specific demographics," Harrison added.
"I think ultimately talk programming — within five years, 10 years definitely — will be coming out of places called media stations. We currently call them Web sites. But they'll be media stations.
"They'll have audio orientation, video orientation, graphics orientation, and text orientation. Thus they'll be the heirs to what we now consider to be stand-alone radio stations, television stations, newspapers, magazines." He also sees conservatives and the same “street spirit of radio” playing a big role in the new media world just as they have in the old talk radio world. And Harrison, a political independent, sees a clear explanation why talk radio draws huge conservative audiences.
He notes that conservatives like talk radio because they have a "more definable state of mind" and feel the rest of the media is too liberal and "wishy-washy." They also are one of the nation’s largest demographic groups.
A recent Gallup poll found that conservatives comprise the largest ideological group in the U.S., with nearly twice as many Americans saying they are conservatives as those claiming to be liberal. Harrison also explained one of the reasons for the success of top-rated talker Rush Limbaugh’s show, now broadcasting in its third decade nationally.
Harrison says Rush is actually the "guest" on his own show — and predicted that talk programming will change dramatically in the next few years. Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella asked him why conservative hosts flourish on talk radio and liberals flop.
"I think conservative works better on talk radio than liberal because conservative is a more definable and identifiable state of mind," said Harrison.
"Liberal means a whole spectrum of attitudes, lifestyles, demographics, ethnicities. Conservative tends to be more of a bull's-eye, easier to target.
"Radio, whether it's talk or music, is a niche format," and talk radio appeals to "the conservative element in America — particularly those that are politically minded and feel that the rest of the media is too moderate, too liberal, too wishy-washy, and doesn't address their card-carrying conservative status.
"The conservative element tends to rally around the conservative talk show hosts and gives what is called conservative news talk radio a critical mass that's large enough to show up in the ratings as a significant format. "With liberals, you're talking to so many different kinds of people. It's very hard to gather them around and make them feel a certain sense of community when it comes to any one radio station or radio host." Martella quoted Harrison as saying talk radio is the most accurate bellwether of American public opinion, and asked him to elaborate.
"If you listen to all of talk radio, not just one host, you will get a good idea of what the American public is thinking," Harrison responded. "But you have to listen to a variety of shows because talk radio, just like music radio used to be, is a street medium and … has to reflect popular mass opinion and taste. "Therefore if you listen to what people are saying and what the hosts are talking about, you're getting this across-the-board research about what's on the minds of people.
Because if talk show hosts didn't, within each of their niches, address the issues that people care about in this country, they wouldn't get ratings. So they do the research for you.
"If you just listen to a variety of them you'll have probably the most accurate bellwether of American public opinion in the mass media today."
Harrison has predicted that talk shows featuring guest interviews would surpass caller-driven shows in popularity. Yet Rush Limbaugh is by far the most popular talk show host, Martella noted. "I think Rush Limbaugh is actually the guest on the show and he interviews himself," Harrison explained. "The callers are props… "You can't compare Rush Limbaugh to anybody because he's such a brilliant personality, regardless of what his politics happen to be. He is the attraction, and in fact when he does his monologues he plays the role of his own guest."
Martella said Rush has become a lightning rod for liberals, the Obama administration and some Democrats in Congress, and asked: "Is that by design?" "I think Rush Limbaugh is a very clever radio performer," said Harrison. "He knows how to get ratings and he knows how to stay controversial enough to stay in the news. "By being involved in any kind of front-page dispute with the president of the United States or with members of his own party, the conservative Republicans, he's winning."
Martella asked Harrison how he accounts for the sudden surge in popularity of talker Glenn Beck. "Glenn Beck has been a steady rising star, so it's not that suddenly he's a popular star out of nowhere. What I think [accounts for] the current explosion of Beck mania on both radio and television has been his move from CNN Headline News to the Fox News Channel, where he's been able to be more of a pure form of himself. "In the process of doing that I think Beck has found his inner show biz character, and he's taken it to the extreme."
[Editor's Note: To see the full interview, go here now]
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Secondly, liberal radio, and most other outlets for information that is liberal based, is mostly founded in hate and discord. There is nothing positive about it. The liberal mind set is to tear down anything that is not part of their agenda or hints at individual freedom of thought.
Liberalism is a collective, they get their power from the group where as the conservative get his power from individual freedom of action and thought.
The Conservative, as a rule, doesn't attack the liberal for their way of thinking although they disagree with the entire liberal agenda as a way of life. The liberal on the other hand will attack the Conservative any chance they get to minimize their influence and as a way to deflect their personal frustration they have for anyone that doesn't believe they the way they do.
They are consumed by the inability to identify their own place in the world and therefor hate, totally, anyone that is found comfort in there personal life, i.e.Consevatives.
Conservative talk radio presents a very positive and upbeat attitude, based on provable truths, that a majority of Americas are looking for, hence the huge audience for Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity. They love this country. This country has given them everything. Why would they want to tear it down. Why would anyone want to change something that works.
Liberals hate this country for that very reason. This country was founded on individual accomplishment, that is, hard work and determination to succeed. The liberal has the attitude that this country and it's founding fathers where wrong headed in that a ruling class should make the decisions for the masses as the masses don't have the education and insight that they, the ruling elite have, to be able to see the future that is best for the population at large. We need to be ruled by a supreme being in the flesh. hmmmm
Harrison has some good points but he misses the main theme of the Conservative, it's about freedom to chose one's own destiny, to succeed or fail, and not have their future determined by some else that has no idea what is best for every individual. Harrison believes this is just all about 'niches' and 'groups' of like mind people, but it's really about a philosophy of living, a way of life that has flourished in this country for more than 250 years. It's a way of life that has made this country the greatest country in the history of the world. Why would we want to 'change' it for something that has failed through out history?
Keep the faith
Talk Radio Publisher Harrison:
Dramatic Changes Ahead
Friday, June 19, 2009 4:44 PMBy: Jim Meyers
Michael Harrison, founder and publisher of Talkers magazine, tells Newsmax that a revolution is underway in the media that will soon fundamentally change the way Americans get information.
He suggests that radio and television stations, as well as their print brethren in newspapers, will fall to the wayside as new multimedia platforms crop up on the Web. [Editor's Note: To see the full interview, go here now]
In a wide-ranging interview, Harrison, who founded Talkers magazine in 1990 and is the most widely quoted expert on the talk radio business, offered his views on the transitioning business.
Today, radio hosts broadcasting from more than 1,800 news-talk radio stations cover the nation with chat about everything from politics to sex to automobiles and dozens of other subjects.
Still, the industry has been reeling.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the overall radio industry is in a "hangover" as it witnesses double-digit falls in advertising income. The Journal noted that once titanic Clear Channel and Citadel Broadcasting have been staggering under enormous debt loads. Citadel, which broadcasts talk over the former Disney/ABC network, has seen its stock value plummet, with trades in its shares falling to as low as one penny.
Harrison expects such media heavyweights as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to continue to be powerhouses, though he sees their formats changing.
For Harrison “media stations” will be springing up within five to 10 years, using the Internet as their springboard. He predicts these media stations will offer the same “street spirit” of talk radio today, but will provide their audience with diverse channels: audio, video and text.
Traditional media, "which I call monomedia, is 20th-century thinking; 21st-century media will be multimedia platforms with environments geared to specific demographics," Harrison added.
"I think ultimately talk programming — within five years, 10 years definitely — will be coming out of places called media stations. We currently call them Web sites. But they'll be media stations.
"They'll have audio orientation, video orientation, graphics orientation, and text orientation. Thus they'll be the heirs to what we now consider to be stand-alone radio stations, television stations, newspapers, magazines." He also sees conservatives and the same “street spirit of radio” playing a big role in the new media world just as they have in the old talk radio world. And Harrison, a political independent, sees a clear explanation why talk radio draws huge conservative audiences.
He notes that conservatives like talk radio because they have a "more definable state of mind" and feel the rest of the media is too liberal and "wishy-washy." They also are one of the nation’s largest demographic groups.
A recent Gallup poll found that conservatives comprise the largest ideological group in the U.S., with nearly twice as many Americans saying they are conservatives as those claiming to be liberal. Harrison also explained one of the reasons for the success of top-rated talker Rush Limbaugh’s show, now broadcasting in its third decade nationally.
Harrison says Rush is actually the "guest" on his own show — and predicted that talk programming will change dramatically in the next few years. Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella asked him why conservative hosts flourish on talk radio and liberals flop.
"I think conservative works better on talk radio than liberal because conservative is a more definable and identifiable state of mind," said Harrison.
"Liberal means a whole spectrum of attitudes, lifestyles, demographics, ethnicities. Conservative tends to be more of a bull's-eye, easier to target.
"Radio, whether it's talk or music, is a niche format," and talk radio appeals to "the conservative element in America — particularly those that are politically minded and feel that the rest of the media is too moderate, too liberal, too wishy-washy, and doesn't address their card-carrying conservative status.
"The conservative element tends to rally around the conservative talk show hosts and gives what is called conservative news talk radio a critical mass that's large enough to show up in the ratings as a significant format. "With liberals, you're talking to so many different kinds of people. It's very hard to gather them around and make them feel a certain sense of community when it comes to any one radio station or radio host." Martella quoted Harrison as saying talk radio is the most accurate bellwether of American public opinion, and asked him to elaborate.
"If you listen to all of talk radio, not just one host, you will get a good idea of what the American public is thinking," Harrison responded. "But you have to listen to a variety of shows because talk radio, just like music radio used to be, is a street medium and … has to reflect popular mass opinion and taste. "Therefore if you listen to what people are saying and what the hosts are talking about, you're getting this across-the-board research about what's on the minds of people.
Because if talk show hosts didn't, within each of their niches, address the issues that people care about in this country, they wouldn't get ratings. So they do the research for you.
"If you just listen to a variety of them you'll have probably the most accurate bellwether of American public opinion in the mass media today."
Harrison has predicted that talk shows featuring guest interviews would surpass caller-driven shows in popularity. Yet Rush Limbaugh is by far the most popular talk show host, Martella noted. "I think Rush Limbaugh is actually the guest on the show and he interviews himself," Harrison explained. "The callers are props… "You can't compare Rush Limbaugh to anybody because he's such a brilliant personality, regardless of what his politics happen to be. He is the attraction, and in fact when he does his monologues he plays the role of his own guest."
Martella said Rush has become a lightning rod for liberals, the Obama administration and some Democrats in Congress, and asked: "Is that by design?" "I think Rush Limbaugh is a very clever radio performer," said Harrison. "He knows how to get ratings and he knows how to stay controversial enough to stay in the news. "By being involved in any kind of front-page dispute with the president of the United States or with members of his own party, the conservative Republicans, he's winning."
Martella asked Harrison how he accounts for the sudden surge in popularity of talker Glenn Beck. "Glenn Beck has been a steady rising star, so it's not that suddenly he's a popular star out of nowhere. What I think [accounts for] the current explosion of Beck mania on both radio and television has been his move from CNN Headline News to the Fox News Channel, where he's been able to be more of a pure form of himself. "In the process of doing that I think Beck has found his inner show biz character, and he's taken it to the extreme."
[Editor's Note: To see the full interview, go here now]
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Obama Dosen't Like Critism : Hello Fox News
With 99.8% of all media in the tank for Obama and any left wing nutjob that happens along, Obama has to complain about Fox asking him real questions that he doesn't like. Little wonder he won't go on that network,
Major Garet of Fox is part of the White House press corp and has more than once asked some good subjective questions. And, as usual, Obama never answeres the questions.
Here, Dick Morris explains why Obama talks about one network that is consistently in an "attack" mode. It's all about spin.
Dick Morris:
Obama's Ruse in Fox News Attack
Political analyst Dick Morris says President Barack Obama's complaint about Fox News' coverage of his administration is meant to deflect talk that the media is in the tank for him.
Obama on Tuesday told CNBC's John Harwood: "I've got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration . . . That's a pretty big megaphone. You'd be hard-pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front."
Obama did not disagree when Harwood suggested that he was talking about Fox News.
During the Wednesday broadcast of "The O'Reilly Factor," host Bill O'Reilly asked Morris if Obama was merely "whining." "No, it's got nothing to do with whining," said Morris, whose latest book is "Catastrophe: How Obama, Congress, and the Special Interests Are Transforming . . . a Slump into a Crash, Freedom into Socialism, and a Disaster into a Catastrophe. . . and How to Fight Back." "He is getting an avalanche of incredibly positive publicity. One network had a two-day series with him at the White House. Another network is invited to do a full day's broadcasting from the White House as long as they focus on healthcare reform. With that kind of sloppy sentiment coming from the media, he has to talk about criticism."
Morris went on to say: "He has to appear that the media is being fair and balanced to him and he has to say, oh, I'm being criticized, so he can counterbalance public perceptions that he is getting a sweetheart deal from the media."
O'Reilly asked, "You feel it's because he wants the American public to think that the media is not in the tank for him?"
Morris said, "Exactly."
O'Reilly: "Everybody knows the media's in the tank for him."
Morris: "That's why he had to say the opposite . . . He in fact is getting media adulation on a scale no president has ever gotten."
Obama complained about Fox News as long ago as October, Newsmax reported at the time. He said in an interview, "I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls . . . If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn't vote for me, right?"
Major Garet of Fox is part of the White House press corp and has more than once asked some good subjective questions. And, as usual, Obama never answeres the questions.
Here, Dick Morris explains why Obama talks about one network that is consistently in an "attack" mode. It's all about spin.
Dick Morris:
Obama's Ruse in Fox News Attack
Political analyst Dick Morris says President Barack Obama's complaint about Fox News' coverage of his administration is meant to deflect talk that the media is in the tank for him.
Obama on Tuesday told CNBC's John Harwood: "I've got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration . . . That's a pretty big megaphone. You'd be hard-pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front."
Obama did not disagree when Harwood suggested that he was talking about Fox News.
During the Wednesday broadcast of "The O'Reilly Factor," host Bill O'Reilly asked Morris if Obama was merely "whining." "No, it's got nothing to do with whining," said Morris, whose latest book is "Catastrophe: How Obama, Congress, and the Special Interests Are Transforming . . . a Slump into a Crash, Freedom into Socialism, and a Disaster into a Catastrophe. . . and How to Fight Back." "He is getting an avalanche of incredibly positive publicity. One network had a two-day series with him at the White House. Another network is invited to do a full day's broadcasting from the White House as long as they focus on healthcare reform. With that kind of sloppy sentiment coming from the media, he has to talk about criticism."
Morris went on to say: "He has to appear that the media is being fair and balanced to him and he has to say, oh, I'm being criticized, so he can counterbalance public perceptions that he is getting a sweetheart deal from the media."
O'Reilly asked, "You feel it's because he wants the American public to think that the media is not in the tank for him?"
Morris said, "Exactly."
O'Reilly: "Everybody knows the media's in the tank for him."
Morris: "That's why he had to say the opposite . . . He in fact is getting media adulation on a scale no president has ever gotten."
Obama complained about Fox News as long ago as October, Newsmax reported at the time. He said in an interview, "I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls . . . If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn't vote for me, right?"
Obama's Cairo 'I AM a Muslim' Speach : A Rabbi Speaks Out
Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz is a Jew that can see the hand writing on the wall when it comes to Obama and his Muslim brethren. Jews know when they have their collective backs to the wall and that is the case now. If Israel is attacked, Obama's reaction will just like it was with the protester in Iran, " let's wait and see how this works out". Obama will not lift a figure to save the Jews from total destruction. It's just who he is.
Obama has shown over and over that he will do most anything to support any action, on matter how hannis in thought or action, that the Muslim community produces to kill Christians or Jews.
After this speech in Cairo, it is almost impossible to believe Obama is a Christian let alone that he believes in the American values of freedom and Democracy.
Keep the faith
By Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz
Our new president did not tell a virulent anti-Semite to travel to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington to kill Jews, but he is most certainly creating a climate of hate against us.
It is no coincidence that we are witnessing this level of hatred toward Jews as President Barack Obama positions America against the Jewish state.
Just days ago Obama traveled to Cairo, Egypt. It was his second trip in a short time to visit Muslim countries. He sent a clear message by not visiting Israel.
But this was code. In Cairo, Obama said things that pose a grave danger to Jews in Israel, in America and everywhere. And if his views are not vigorously opposed they will help create a danger as great as that posed by the Nazis to the Jewish people.
Just last week, Obama told his worldwide audience — more than 100 million people — that the killing of six million Jews during the Holocaust was the equivalent of Israel’s actions in dealing with the Palestinians. This remark is incredible on its face, an insult to the six million Jews who died as a result of Hitler’s genocide — and it is a form of revisionism that will bode evil for Jews for years to come.
While Obama acknowledged that “six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today” — his discussion about the Holocaust was followed by this statement: “On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.”
“On the other hand . . . ”?
Obama’s clever construct comparing the mass genocide of six million Jews to the Palestinian struggle will not be lost on the estimated 100 million Muslims who tuned into to hear him.
Perhaps it was not lost on James W. von Brunn, the 88-year-old white supremacist identified as the alleged attacker Wednesday at the Holocaust Museum. He apparently felt that he could easily take retribution against the Jews for the atrocities Obama implies they are guilty of.
At first blush Mr. Obama’s speech seemed rosy, optimistic — one that espoused tolerance and understanding. If you scratch the surface it is a dangerous document that history will view as a turning point for America and Israel — one that will lead to dangerous times ahead for both Jews and believing Christians.
The immediate danger posed by Obama’s speech is in its incredible re-writing of the history of Jews, Christians and Muslims from Medieval times to the present. Obama, continually throughout his speech, talks of Islam’s peaceful intent. And while there are certainly Koranic verses that support this interpretation, Islam has a long and bloody history of violence against fellow Muslims, Jews and Christians.
Has Obama not heard about the Muslim’s violent conquest of the Middle East, Spain and half of Western Europe? Was he never taught that the Crusades sought to turn back this Muslim onslaught that demanded subjugated populations convert or die?
In his almost hour-long speech, there is not a single word about Islam’s well known and checkered past. Ironically, the American president offered plenty of references to what he sees are America’s evils, such as its “colonialism” and history of slavery. “For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation,” Obama told his audience, citing a litany of American shortcomings. He failed to mention that Arab Muslims were the greatest slave traders in the history of humanity.
According to Obama, Israelis, too, are guilty of wrongdoing, especially when it comes to their supposed maltreatment of the Palestinians.
Isn’t it odd an American president would go to a foreign country and slander his own country and its long-time ally? At the same time he praises — unconditionally — a religion and culture that has a long history of being antithetical to the very values that have made America a great nation?
Mr. Obama even has the unbelievable gall, when talking about the treatment of Muslim women, to condemn Western countries for attempting to stop Muslim women from using the full facial cover, or hijab. This is a symbol of Muslim subjugation of women.
Listen to what Obama said: “Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit - for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.” And Obama not only ignores the gross subjugation of women in many Arab societies — he does not mention even once the almost total religious intolerance throughout the Muslim world against Christians and Jews.
In his speech, Obama’s only plea for Muslim women living in Muslim countries is that they should be afforded an education. How about a discussion of the beheading of Arab women for “crimes” such as adultery? How about the malicious treatment of women in Muslim countries who choose not to wear the hijab?
Obama insists that Islam has promoted tolerance and that in Islamic societies such ideals have flourished.
Obama claimed that “as a student of history” he understands more than most the truth about “civilization's debt to Islam.” He added, “And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”
Does he not know that a Jew or Christian would be beheaded in Saudi Arabia for practicing their religion today, now, this minute?
Of course, Obama offers not one example of where religious freedom is truly tolerated in the Muslim world. Yet, he proudly told his audience that in every state of the union and throughout the U.S. there exist more than 1,200 mosques. But why, Mr. President, is there no Christian Church or Jewish synagogue operating within the borders of Saudi Arabia? Not even one.
Why in many countries, including your host Egypt, Christian churches have suffered vicious and continual persecution? Why is a once vibrant Cairo Jewish community — a home for the likes of Maimonides — today practically extinct?
Why, dear president, has the ancient Christian community in the West Bank and places like Bethlehem been almost completely wiped out by the modern Muslim onslaught?
“On the other hand,” to quote you Mr. President, you avoided mentioning some other truths.
Let’s start with the Israeli Arabs who can claim one of the highest standards of living in the Arab world. Indeed, they have more rights than Arabs in any Muslim country, their religious freedom is completely protected, and they even vote in free elections.
Tell me what Muslim country matches Israel’s record in protecting its minorities?
Even Arabs in the West Bank, during the time of Israeli control, saw their standard of living rise dramatically. Today, Arabs there are among the best educated in the world, thanks to Israel.
In your revisionist view, Israel has acted to harm these people. But it was not Israel that could not abide by United Nations resolutions clearly setting borders for both the state of Israel and an entity that had never existed before named Palestine.
You cleverly omitted any discussion of these facts, or the continual attacks against the state of Israel over six decades by its Muslim neighbors. Nor is it the Israelis who persecute from time to time the Coptic Christians of Egypt. No, Mr. President, I do not accept your assertion that you are seeking religious tolerance or that you are seeking to protect Jews. I do not accept it because you are inventing a false history to fit your own agenda.
Mr. President, I am deeply disturbed that you would offer such a distortion of truth in the hopes of creating a lasting peace. A lasting peace cannot be created out of lies, distortions and half truths.
You profess to be a Christian. But you seem more intent on protecting Muslims. In your speech you talked openly of your Muslim heritage, your admiration of their way of life, and so forth. You said in your speech that you have made one of your chief aims of your presidency repairing the image of Islam.
Why did you hide these views from the American public during the recent presidential campaign?
Why, as president, did you fully bow to the Saudi king, who refuses to allow any religious freedom for any Christian or Jew?
You have made clear, by your words and assertions, that you are re-positioning the United States away from Israel, America’s lone democratic ally in the Mid-East.
You have made clear through your statements and those of your minions that Israel should, under no circumstances, prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. And yes, you have promised to retaliate against Iran if it ever attacks Israel with nuclear weapons.
But you know full well that if Iran succeeds in its admitted goal of “wiping the Jewish state off the map” — and hits this tiny nation with nuclear warheads — there will be no Israel for the U.S. to retaliate on behalf of.
Some Jews may be naïve, but we are not stupid.
Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz is a member of the Reform movement of Judaism and serves as a chaplain for the State of New York. A former Navy and Marine Corps officer and chaplain, he has also served as deputy national chaplain for the Jewish War Veterans of the United States.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Obama has shown over and over that he will do most anything to support any action, on matter how hannis in thought or action, that the Muslim community produces to kill Christians or Jews.
After this speech in Cairo, it is almost impossible to believe Obama is a Christian let alone that he believes in the American values of freedom and Democracy.
Keep the faith
By Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz
Our new president did not tell a virulent anti-Semite to travel to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington to kill Jews, but he is most certainly creating a climate of hate against us.
It is no coincidence that we are witnessing this level of hatred toward Jews as President Barack Obama positions America against the Jewish state.
Just days ago Obama traveled to Cairo, Egypt. It was his second trip in a short time to visit Muslim countries. He sent a clear message by not visiting Israel.
But this was code. In Cairo, Obama said things that pose a grave danger to Jews in Israel, in America and everywhere. And if his views are not vigorously opposed they will help create a danger as great as that posed by the Nazis to the Jewish people.
Just last week, Obama told his worldwide audience — more than 100 million people — that the killing of six million Jews during the Holocaust was the equivalent of Israel’s actions in dealing with the Palestinians. This remark is incredible on its face, an insult to the six million Jews who died as a result of Hitler’s genocide — and it is a form of revisionism that will bode evil for Jews for years to come.
While Obama acknowledged that “six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today” — his discussion about the Holocaust was followed by this statement: “On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.”
“On the other hand . . . ”?
Obama’s clever construct comparing the mass genocide of six million Jews to the Palestinian struggle will not be lost on the estimated 100 million Muslims who tuned into to hear him.
Perhaps it was not lost on James W. von Brunn, the 88-year-old white supremacist identified as the alleged attacker Wednesday at the Holocaust Museum. He apparently felt that he could easily take retribution against the Jews for the atrocities Obama implies they are guilty of.
At first blush Mr. Obama’s speech seemed rosy, optimistic — one that espoused tolerance and understanding. If you scratch the surface it is a dangerous document that history will view as a turning point for America and Israel — one that will lead to dangerous times ahead for both Jews and believing Christians.
The immediate danger posed by Obama’s speech is in its incredible re-writing of the history of Jews, Christians and Muslims from Medieval times to the present. Obama, continually throughout his speech, talks of Islam’s peaceful intent. And while there are certainly Koranic verses that support this interpretation, Islam has a long and bloody history of violence against fellow Muslims, Jews and Christians.
Has Obama not heard about the Muslim’s violent conquest of the Middle East, Spain and half of Western Europe? Was he never taught that the Crusades sought to turn back this Muslim onslaught that demanded subjugated populations convert or die?
In his almost hour-long speech, there is not a single word about Islam’s well known and checkered past. Ironically, the American president offered plenty of references to what he sees are America’s evils, such as its “colonialism” and history of slavery. “For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation,” Obama told his audience, citing a litany of American shortcomings. He failed to mention that Arab Muslims were the greatest slave traders in the history of humanity.
According to Obama, Israelis, too, are guilty of wrongdoing, especially when it comes to their supposed maltreatment of the Palestinians.
Isn’t it odd an American president would go to a foreign country and slander his own country and its long-time ally? At the same time he praises — unconditionally — a religion and culture that has a long history of being antithetical to the very values that have made America a great nation?
Mr. Obama even has the unbelievable gall, when talking about the treatment of Muslim women, to condemn Western countries for attempting to stop Muslim women from using the full facial cover, or hijab. This is a symbol of Muslim subjugation of women.
Listen to what Obama said: “Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit - for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.” And Obama not only ignores the gross subjugation of women in many Arab societies — he does not mention even once the almost total religious intolerance throughout the Muslim world against Christians and Jews.
In his speech, Obama’s only plea for Muslim women living in Muslim countries is that they should be afforded an education. How about a discussion of the beheading of Arab women for “crimes” such as adultery? How about the malicious treatment of women in Muslim countries who choose not to wear the hijab?
Obama insists that Islam has promoted tolerance and that in Islamic societies such ideals have flourished.
Obama claimed that “as a student of history” he understands more than most the truth about “civilization's debt to Islam.” He added, “And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”
Does he not know that a Jew or Christian would be beheaded in Saudi Arabia for practicing their religion today, now, this minute?
Of course, Obama offers not one example of where religious freedom is truly tolerated in the Muslim world. Yet, he proudly told his audience that in every state of the union and throughout the U.S. there exist more than 1,200 mosques. But why, Mr. President, is there no Christian Church or Jewish synagogue operating within the borders of Saudi Arabia? Not even one.
Why in many countries, including your host Egypt, Christian churches have suffered vicious and continual persecution? Why is a once vibrant Cairo Jewish community — a home for the likes of Maimonides — today practically extinct?
Why, dear president, has the ancient Christian community in the West Bank and places like Bethlehem been almost completely wiped out by the modern Muslim onslaught?
“On the other hand,” to quote you Mr. President, you avoided mentioning some other truths.
Let’s start with the Israeli Arabs who can claim one of the highest standards of living in the Arab world. Indeed, they have more rights than Arabs in any Muslim country, their religious freedom is completely protected, and they even vote in free elections.
Tell me what Muslim country matches Israel’s record in protecting its minorities?
Even Arabs in the West Bank, during the time of Israeli control, saw their standard of living rise dramatically. Today, Arabs there are among the best educated in the world, thanks to Israel.
In your revisionist view, Israel has acted to harm these people. But it was not Israel that could not abide by United Nations resolutions clearly setting borders for both the state of Israel and an entity that had never existed before named Palestine.
You cleverly omitted any discussion of these facts, or the continual attacks against the state of Israel over six decades by its Muslim neighbors. Nor is it the Israelis who persecute from time to time the Coptic Christians of Egypt. No, Mr. President, I do not accept your assertion that you are seeking religious tolerance or that you are seeking to protect Jews. I do not accept it because you are inventing a false history to fit your own agenda.
Mr. President, I am deeply disturbed that you would offer such a distortion of truth in the hopes of creating a lasting peace. A lasting peace cannot be created out of lies, distortions and half truths.
You profess to be a Christian. But you seem more intent on protecting Muslims. In your speech you talked openly of your Muslim heritage, your admiration of their way of life, and so forth. You said in your speech that you have made one of your chief aims of your presidency repairing the image of Islam.
Why did you hide these views from the American public during the recent presidential campaign?
Why, as president, did you fully bow to the Saudi king, who refuses to allow any religious freedom for any Christian or Jew?
You have made clear, by your words and assertions, that you are re-positioning the United States away from Israel, America’s lone democratic ally in the Mid-East.
You have made clear through your statements and those of your minions that Israel should, under no circumstances, prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. And yes, you have promised to retaliate against Iran if it ever attacks Israel with nuclear weapons.
But you know full well that if Iran succeeds in its admitted goal of “wiping the Jewish state off the map” — and hits this tiny nation with nuclear warheads — there will be no Israel for the U.S. to retaliate on behalf of.
Some Jews may be naïve, but we are not stupid.
Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz is a member of the Reform movement of Judaism and serves as a chaplain for the State of New York. A former Navy and Marine Corps officer and chaplain, he has also served as deputy national chaplain for the Jewish War Veterans of the United States.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Obama's Vision For America : New World Socialism
Obama vision for this country is one that details how he will destroy the America of the last 250 years and remake it into a failed state reminiscent of Europe in the early twenty century.
As history shows, nearly all of these states failed, and the ones that didn't fail completely are continuing only as marginalized states, in the 21st century, but that doesn't matter to Obama - as long as he can change the way will live our lives, that is, take control of all aspects of the American way of life, he can then proclaim the 'old America' of freedom and Democracy, individual rights and the 'old Constitution' null and void. All power to the victors!
The new America that will arise, in Obama's mind, will be one that will make everyone equal to everyone else, except of course, for those that must lead - they will have to have special privileges. And he can say that from now on there will be only one philosophy that will guide us all into the future that will make us all better people and that will liberalism, a progressive Marxists socialism.
How does the old saying go, " the more things change, the more they stay the same". The question remains, will we allow this to happen or will we stand up for what we know is right?
Keep the faith
How will Obama's liberalism shape America?
from the February 11, 2009 edition -
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0211/p09s01-coop.html
The answer lies in understanding the three waves of liberalism in America's past.
By Charles R. Kesler Claremont, Calif.
Despite all his efforts to transcend partisanship, President Barack Obama is demonstrably a liberal. But what kind of liberal is he? And what does his brand of liberalism augur for America?Even in the Democratic primaries, he shunned the "liberal" label. (Hillary Clinton did, too, preferring to be called a progressive.)
Mr. Obama's favorite tack was to assail the whole argument between left and right as cynical and outdated. In its place he offered a pragmatic, hopeful, allegedly nonideological way forward. On Election Day, his "working majority for change" turned out for him and the Democratic Party. Since then, Obama has tried to live up to his inaugural pledge to put an end to "the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for too long have strangled our politics."
He has emphasized national unity and invoked the Founding Fathers. He met with congressional Republicans, and dined with conservative commentators at George Will's home. Yet how nonideological can a politician be who was recognized by the National Journal as the most liberal-voting senator in 2007?
Almost his first act as president was to issue executive orders repealing the policies of his Republican predecessor.
Obama's healthcare and foreign-policy ideas are standard liberal issue. His stimulus bill, meanwhile, did not get a single Republican vote in the House, and won't get many in the Senate. The problem is that the bill stimulates Democratic constituency groups – government employees, unions, community organizers – more obviously than it does the economy. Obama's "new politics for a new time" looks increasingly familiar – "pork still, with but a little change of sauce," to quote Alexander Hamilton at the Constitutional Convention. But that doesn't mean that this president's liberalism will not be interesting. Indeed, he has endeavored to do no less than complete and perfect the grand liberal project begun a century ago.
Three waves of liberalism
Modern liberalism came to America in three waves, and it's useful to think of Obama in this light. The progressives of the early 20th century were the original liberals, developing the essential tenets of liberalism as a political doctrine. Woodrow Wilson and others argued that the Constitution was an 18th-century document, based on 18th-century notions of rights. While suited to its day, they said, it was now painfully inadequate unless interpreted in a vital new spirit. This spirit was Darwinian and evolutionary, turning Hamilton's "limited Constitution" into a "living Constitution" that must be able to adapt its structure and function to meet the latest social and economic challenges.
To guide this evolution, to organize society's march into the future, presidents had to cease being merely constitutional officers and become dynamic leaders of popular opinion. Obama accepts all the major elements of this evolutionary approach to the Constitution and American government. As he wrote in "The Audacity of Hope," the Constitution "is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world." Likewise, in his inaugural address he declared, "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works…."
This emphasis on what "works" is his nod to pragmatism, which he implies is almost the opposite of ideological liberalism. In fact, however, such pragmatism is part of liberalism. What "works," after all, depends on what you think government's purpose is supposed to be. Pragmatism tries to distract us from those ultimate questions, while assuming liberal answers to them. Thus Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal promised "bold, persistent experimentation." Obama's domestic agenda betrays the same eagerness.
Liberalism's second stage was economic. In the New Deal, the Great Society, and its sequels, liberals turned to the wholesale minting of new kinds of rights. Citizens were thus entitled to socioeconomic benefits through programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Besides these entitlements, the federal government also extended its regulatory authority to areas previously private or under state and local jurisdiction. But this wave crested unexpectedly, and for a while, contemporary liberals seemingly lost their enthusiasm for such top-down regulation and the work of transforming privileges into rights.
With the fall of the Soviet Union and the discrediting of socialist economies around the globe, liberals such as Bill Clinton took a second look at the free market. He populated his Treasury department with highfliers from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms. In left-leaning think tanks and even in the academy, capitalism commanded strange new respect. This rehabilitation of the market, though never more than partial, was the greatest change in American liberalism in the past 40 years.
Obama absorbed it, as did many members of his new administration. But the financial crisis and market meltdown have changed things. It looks like 1932 again, a time for reinvigorated government activism. "Without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control," Obama said in his inaugural. But does the market merely need watching – or some weightier form of "control"?
The final wave of liberalism crashed over America in the 1960s and '70s. Cultural liberalism erupted in the universities but the counterculture quickly went mainstream, bringing sex, drugs, and rock 'n 'roll, not to mention women's liberation, gay liberation, and abortion, to the masses.
So far, the most innovative aspect of Obama's liberalism is how he has tried to transcend its cultural excesses. Whereas Bill Clinton sometimes embodied the immaturity and self-indulgence of the '60s, Obama's demeanor and family life – even his suits – bespeak a mature, serious liberalism that sees self-control and adulthood as cool. Still, Obama's political dealings with cultural liberalism are bound to be complicated. He tries to defuse issues such as abortion and gay marriage by not talking about them, except in front of the relevant audience. But as president, his remarks anywhere will be noticed. Though he claims to believe that gun ownership is an individual right protected by the Second Amendment, his support for sweeping gun-control measures suggests a different perspective.
His landmark speech on race managed to divorce him from the worst of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's fulminations, without quite repudiating the most pernicious of Mr. Wright's assumptions, namely, that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were, at least originally, racist documents.
Obama's religious rhetoric
On such issues Obama's best defense is a good offense, and he will doubtless continue therefore to celebrate the importance of religion in his life and in the country's, and to praise America's founders and heroes. On Jan. 20, from the Capitol's west steps he proclaimed, "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and nonbelievers." But he also invoked God five times and Scripture once. The multicultural reflex cannot be banished, but Obama clearly intends to speak in the name of religion. He does not want to leave a naked public square into which only conservative faiths and believers may stroll.
This determination will make for awkward moments: Are all those faiths equally constitutive of American mores? Whose scripture is being consulted here? (His inaugural cited First Corinthians 13:11.) Nonetheless, he is keen for liberalism to become a firm ally of American religiosity, especially insofar as churches are willing to preach a new social gospel devoted to improving the lives of people in this world and around the globe.The patriotic theme, so prominent in his inaugural, is Obama's reply to the anti-Americanism of the cultural and academic left, those last redoubts of the radical '60s. If he is persuasive, over time he may well heal the worst of the Democratic Party's self-inflicted wounds and prepare it to be the defender of "our better history," as he put it.
A lasting Democratic majority
His ambitions are clear: The speech was a pastiche of themes adapted from FDR and Ronald Reagan, the last two presidents to pull off major electoral realignments (less enduring in Reagan's case). What Obama hopes for is a similar breakthrough for the forces of liberalism in this generation. An enduring Democratic majority is not out of the question. The wild scramble to stop the economic and financial downturn may well leave America with a politically controlled economy that would corrupt the relationship between citizens and the federal government – sapping entrepreneurship and encouraging new forms of dependence on the state, as in much of Europe. That would be consistent with the more socialized democracy that liberalism has been striving for ever since the Progressive Era.
Obama likes to emphasize that America is more like the world than we realize, and must become still more like it if the US is to remain the world's leader. Despite his summoning oratory, his sense of American exceptionalism thus is far less lofty, far more constrained, than Reagan's or FDR's.
The greatest stumbling block to Obama's ambition is likely to be the inability of this exceptional president to persuade Americans to follow him into so unexceptional a future.
• /Charles R. Kesler is a senior fellow at The Claremont Institute, editor of the Claremont Review of Books, and a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College/.Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links <http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0211/p09s01-coop.html>
As history shows, nearly all of these states failed, and the ones that didn't fail completely are continuing only as marginalized states, in the 21st century, but that doesn't matter to Obama - as long as he can change the way will live our lives, that is, take control of all aspects of the American way of life, he can then proclaim the 'old America' of freedom and Democracy, individual rights and the 'old Constitution' null and void. All power to the victors!
The new America that will arise, in Obama's mind, will be one that will make everyone equal to everyone else, except of course, for those that must lead - they will have to have special privileges. And he can say that from now on there will be only one philosophy that will guide us all into the future that will make us all better people and that will liberalism, a progressive Marxists socialism.
How does the old saying go, " the more things change, the more they stay the same". The question remains, will we allow this to happen or will we stand up for what we know is right?
Keep the faith
How will Obama's liberalism shape America?
from the February 11, 2009 edition -
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0211/p09s01-coop.html
The answer lies in understanding the three waves of liberalism in America's past.
By Charles R. Kesler Claremont, Calif.
Despite all his efforts to transcend partisanship, President Barack Obama is demonstrably a liberal. But what kind of liberal is he? And what does his brand of liberalism augur for America?Even in the Democratic primaries, he shunned the "liberal" label. (Hillary Clinton did, too, preferring to be called a progressive.)
Mr. Obama's favorite tack was to assail the whole argument between left and right as cynical and outdated. In its place he offered a pragmatic, hopeful, allegedly nonideological way forward. On Election Day, his "working majority for change" turned out for him and the Democratic Party. Since then, Obama has tried to live up to his inaugural pledge to put an end to "the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for too long have strangled our politics."
He has emphasized national unity and invoked the Founding Fathers. He met with congressional Republicans, and dined with conservative commentators at George Will's home. Yet how nonideological can a politician be who was recognized by the National Journal as the most liberal-voting senator in 2007?
Almost his first act as president was to issue executive orders repealing the policies of his Republican predecessor.
Obama's healthcare and foreign-policy ideas are standard liberal issue. His stimulus bill, meanwhile, did not get a single Republican vote in the House, and won't get many in the Senate. The problem is that the bill stimulates Democratic constituency groups – government employees, unions, community organizers – more obviously than it does the economy. Obama's "new politics for a new time" looks increasingly familiar – "pork still, with but a little change of sauce," to quote Alexander Hamilton at the Constitutional Convention. But that doesn't mean that this president's liberalism will not be interesting. Indeed, he has endeavored to do no less than complete and perfect the grand liberal project begun a century ago.
Three waves of liberalism
Modern liberalism came to America in three waves, and it's useful to think of Obama in this light. The progressives of the early 20th century were the original liberals, developing the essential tenets of liberalism as a political doctrine. Woodrow Wilson and others argued that the Constitution was an 18th-century document, based on 18th-century notions of rights. While suited to its day, they said, it was now painfully inadequate unless interpreted in a vital new spirit. This spirit was Darwinian and evolutionary, turning Hamilton's "limited Constitution" into a "living Constitution" that must be able to adapt its structure and function to meet the latest social and economic challenges.
To guide this evolution, to organize society's march into the future, presidents had to cease being merely constitutional officers and become dynamic leaders of popular opinion. Obama accepts all the major elements of this evolutionary approach to the Constitution and American government. As he wrote in "The Audacity of Hope," the Constitution "is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world." Likewise, in his inaugural address he declared, "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works…."
This emphasis on what "works" is his nod to pragmatism, which he implies is almost the opposite of ideological liberalism. In fact, however, such pragmatism is part of liberalism. What "works," after all, depends on what you think government's purpose is supposed to be. Pragmatism tries to distract us from those ultimate questions, while assuming liberal answers to them. Thus Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal promised "bold, persistent experimentation." Obama's domestic agenda betrays the same eagerness.
Liberalism's second stage was economic. In the New Deal, the Great Society, and its sequels, liberals turned to the wholesale minting of new kinds of rights. Citizens were thus entitled to socioeconomic benefits through programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Besides these entitlements, the federal government also extended its regulatory authority to areas previously private or under state and local jurisdiction. But this wave crested unexpectedly, and for a while, contemporary liberals seemingly lost their enthusiasm for such top-down regulation and the work of transforming privileges into rights.
With the fall of the Soviet Union and the discrediting of socialist economies around the globe, liberals such as Bill Clinton took a second look at the free market. He populated his Treasury department with highfliers from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms. In left-leaning think tanks and even in the academy, capitalism commanded strange new respect. This rehabilitation of the market, though never more than partial, was the greatest change in American liberalism in the past 40 years.
Obama absorbed it, as did many members of his new administration. But the financial crisis and market meltdown have changed things. It looks like 1932 again, a time for reinvigorated government activism. "Without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control," Obama said in his inaugural. But does the market merely need watching – or some weightier form of "control"?
The final wave of liberalism crashed over America in the 1960s and '70s. Cultural liberalism erupted in the universities but the counterculture quickly went mainstream, bringing sex, drugs, and rock 'n 'roll, not to mention women's liberation, gay liberation, and abortion, to the masses.
So far, the most innovative aspect of Obama's liberalism is how he has tried to transcend its cultural excesses. Whereas Bill Clinton sometimes embodied the immaturity and self-indulgence of the '60s, Obama's demeanor and family life – even his suits – bespeak a mature, serious liberalism that sees self-control and adulthood as cool. Still, Obama's political dealings with cultural liberalism are bound to be complicated. He tries to defuse issues such as abortion and gay marriage by not talking about them, except in front of the relevant audience. But as president, his remarks anywhere will be noticed. Though he claims to believe that gun ownership is an individual right protected by the Second Amendment, his support for sweeping gun-control measures suggests a different perspective.
His landmark speech on race managed to divorce him from the worst of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's fulminations, without quite repudiating the most pernicious of Mr. Wright's assumptions, namely, that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were, at least originally, racist documents.
Obama's religious rhetoric
On such issues Obama's best defense is a good offense, and he will doubtless continue therefore to celebrate the importance of religion in his life and in the country's, and to praise America's founders and heroes. On Jan. 20, from the Capitol's west steps he proclaimed, "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and nonbelievers." But he also invoked God five times and Scripture once. The multicultural reflex cannot be banished, but Obama clearly intends to speak in the name of religion. He does not want to leave a naked public square into which only conservative faiths and believers may stroll.
This determination will make for awkward moments: Are all those faiths equally constitutive of American mores? Whose scripture is being consulted here? (His inaugural cited First Corinthians 13:11.) Nonetheless, he is keen for liberalism to become a firm ally of American religiosity, especially insofar as churches are willing to preach a new social gospel devoted to improving the lives of people in this world and around the globe.The patriotic theme, so prominent in his inaugural, is Obama's reply to the anti-Americanism of the cultural and academic left, those last redoubts of the radical '60s. If he is persuasive, over time he may well heal the worst of the Democratic Party's self-inflicted wounds and prepare it to be the defender of "our better history," as he put it.
A lasting Democratic majority
His ambitions are clear: The speech was a pastiche of themes adapted from FDR and Ronald Reagan, the last two presidents to pull off major electoral realignments (less enduring in Reagan's case). What Obama hopes for is a similar breakthrough for the forces of liberalism in this generation. An enduring Democratic majority is not out of the question. The wild scramble to stop the economic and financial downturn may well leave America with a politically controlled economy that would corrupt the relationship between citizens and the federal government – sapping entrepreneurship and encouraging new forms of dependence on the state, as in much of Europe. That would be consistent with the more socialized democracy that liberalism has been striving for ever since the Progressive Era.
Obama likes to emphasize that America is more like the world than we realize, and must become still more like it if the US is to remain the world's leader. Despite his summoning oratory, his sense of American exceptionalism thus is far less lofty, far more constrained, than Reagan's or FDR's.
The greatest stumbling block to Obama's ambition is likely to be the inability of this exceptional president to persuade Americans to follow him into so unexceptional a future.
• /Charles R. Kesler is a senior fellow at The Claremont Institute, editor of the Claremont Review of Books, and a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College/.Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links <http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0211/p09s01-coop.html>
Monday, June 22, 2009
Jimmy Carter : Once a Fool, Always a Fool
I just don't how Jimmy Carter came make himself a bigger fool then he has since leaving office. Of course he was the worst president of all time until Obama came along. Obama is no fool though - he is a Marxist socialist with a mission to destruct America, make no mistake.
But Jimmy is still the biggest fool of all time - the man is insane. Jimmy Carter should be institutionalized. He is a danger to himself and others.
- - - I can't find the right words to describe his condition except he probably has been exposed to tyrants and mass killers, people like Hugo Chavez and Castro, for so long that he has the "Stockholm Syndrome"but with a new twist. He is a victim and a captive at the same time. He is victim of the liberal psychosis and a captive to his own fantasises of competence.
He should be under a doctors care, not being put on display where people can actually hear him babbling his insanity.
Jimmy Carter: Israel Treats Palestinians Like Animals
Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:40 AM
GAZA CITY — Former President Jimmy Carter denounced the deprivations facing Palestinians in Gaza as unique in history, asserting that they are being treated "like animals."
"Tragically, the international community too often ignores the cries for help and the citizens of Palestine are treated more like animals than like human beings," he said Tuesday as he toured the war-torn, blockaded Gaza Strip.
"The starving of 1.5 million human beings of the necessities of life — never before in history has a large community like this been savaged by bombs and missiles and then denied the means to repair itself," Carter said at a U.N. school graduation ceremony in Gaza City.
He was referring to the blockade that Israel and Egypt have maintained on Gaza since June 2007, when Hamas, a group pledged to the destruction of the Jewish state, violently seized power in the territory.
The United States and Europe "must try to do all that is necessary to convince Israel and Egypt to allow basic goods into Gaza," he said. "At same time, there must be no more rockets" from Gaza into Israel.
"Palestinian statehood cannot come at the expense of Israel's security, just as Israel's security cannot come at the expense of Palestinian statehood."
Carter, who brokered the historic 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, called earlier for a halt to all violence around the territory where the Jewish state waged a deadly 22-day war in December-January in response to rocket fire. The offensive killed more than 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis and left large swathes of the coastal strip sandwiched between Israel and Egypt in ruins.
"I have to hold back tears when I see the deliberate destruction that has been wracked against your people," he said earlier at a destroyed American school, decrying the fact that the school was "deliberately destroyed by bombs from F16s made in my country."
"I feel partially responsible for this as must all Americans and Israelis." Carter also is to meet Ismail Haniya, prime minister of the Islamist Hamas movement that runs the territory and Israel and the West consider a terrorist organization. He is expected to pass on a letter from the parents of Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier that Gaza militants including Hamas seized in a cross-border raid almost three years ago, and who remains in captivity.
Israel has insisted that the Gaza blockade, which bars all but essential humanitarian supplies from entering, is necessary to prevent Hamas from arming, but human rights groups have slammed it as collective punishment.
In an interview with an Israeli daily published earlier in the week, Carter urged Israel to lift its blockade and stop treating the 1.5 million aid-dependent residents of the Palestinian territory like "savages." Shortly after entering Gaza, Carter's convoy of white UN 4x4 vehicles stopped briefly in the area of Ezbet Abed Rabbo, one of the most ravaged during Israel's war in the territory in December and January.
The massive destruction in the area has made it a regular stop for the succession of foreign dignitaries who have come to Gaza since the war. As Carter briefly got out of his vehicle to take a look at the damage, one resident ran up, yelling he wanted to talk to the former US leader, and getting into a brief shoving match with bodyguards.
"They all come here and look at us like we're animals and then they go home," said Majid Athamna. "We're not animals, we're human beings."
"If he wants to come and visit us, he has to listen to us."
© Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
But Jimmy is still the biggest fool of all time - the man is insane. Jimmy Carter should be institutionalized. He is a danger to himself and others.
- - - I can't find the right words to describe his condition except he probably has been exposed to tyrants and mass killers, people like Hugo Chavez and Castro, for so long that he has the "Stockholm Syndrome"but with a new twist. He is a victim and a captive at the same time. He is victim of the liberal psychosis and a captive to his own fantasises of competence.
He should be under a doctors care, not being put on display where people can actually hear him babbling his insanity.
Jimmy Carter: Israel Treats Palestinians Like Animals
Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:40 AM
GAZA CITY — Former President Jimmy Carter denounced the deprivations facing Palestinians in Gaza as unique in history, asserting that they are being treated "like animals."
"Tragically, the international community too often ignores the cries for help and the citizens of Palestine are treated more like animals than like human beings," he said Tuesday as he toured the war-torn, blockaded Gaza Strip.
"The starving of 1.5 million human beings of the necessities of life — never before in history has a large community like this been savaged by bombs and missiles and then denied the means to repair itself," Carter said at a U.N. school graduation ceremony in Gaza City.
He was referring to the blockade that Israel and Egypt have maintained on Gaza since June 2007, when Hamas, a group pledged to the destruction of the Jewish state, violently seized power in the territory.
The United States and Europe "must try to do all that is necessary to convince Israel and Egypt to allow basic goods into Gaza," he said. "At same time, there must be no more rockets" from Gaza into Israel.
"Palestinian statehood cannot come at the expense of Israel's security, just as Israel's security cannot come at the expense of Palestinian statehood."
Carter, who brokered the historic 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, called earlier for a halt to all violence around the territory where the Jewish state waged a deadly 22-day war in December-January in response to rocket fire. The offensive killed more than 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis and left large swathes of the coastal strip sandwiched between Israel and Egypt in ruins.
"I have to hold back tears when I see the deliberate destruction that has been wracked against your people," he said earlier at a destroyed American school, decrying the fact that the school was "deliberately destroyed by bombs from F16s made in my country."
"I feel partially responsible for this as must all Americans and Israelis." Carter also is to meet Ismail Haniya, prime minister of the Islamist Hamas movement that runs the territory and Israel and the West consider a terrorist organization. He is expected to pass on a letter from the parents of Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier that Gaza militants including Hamas seized in a cross-border raid almost three years ago, and who remains in captivity.
Israel has insisted that the Gaza blockade, which bars all but essential humanitarian supplies from entering, is necessary to prevent Hamas from arming, but human rights groups have slammed it as collective punishment.
In an interview with an Israeli daily published earlier in the week, Carter urged Israel to lift its blockade and stop treating the 1.5 million aid-dependent residents of the Palestinian territory like "savages." Shortly after entering Gaza, Carter's convoy of white UN 4x4 vehicles stopped briefly in the area of Ezbet Abed Rabbo, one of the most ravaged during Israel's war in the territory in December and January.
The massive destruction in the area has made it a regular stop for the succession of foreign dignitaries who have come to Gaza since the war. As Carter briefly got out of his vehicle to take a look at the damage, one resident ran up, yelling he wanted to talk to the former US leader, and getting into a brief shoving match with bodyguards.
"They all come here and look at us like we're animals and then they go home," said Majid Athamna. "We're not animals, we're human beings."
"If he wants to come and visit us, he has to listen to us."
© Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
Obama Betrays Iranian Protesters
Whatz news here? - he has betrayed America too. Obama believes people in power should stay in power by any means necessary.
Iranians Betrayed by Obama Administration
Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:34 AM
by: Kenneth R. Timmerman
More than 1.5 million protesters took to the streets of Tehran on Monday, marking the largest anti-regime demonstration Iran has seen since the final days of the shah in early 1979.
Seven people were killed by anti-riot police and roving bands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad supporters. Many of those supporters shielded their faces from surveillance videos that plainclothes police were shooting.
The protesters included some unlikely participants: 16 Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps officers pledged to join the people’s movement, according to initial reports from Tehran. That signaled that the once-solid support of the guard corps for Ahmadinejad is beginning to crack.
The 16 officers were arrested after meeting secretly with top regular army officers on Monday night. Many of the older men and women who took to the streets also demonstrated to bring down the shah 30 years ago, wrote Kaveh Mohseni, who publishes the French-language Web site, Iran-Resist.
Now, “people are waiting for international support,” Mohseni wrote. That support wasn’t coming — at least not from President Barack Obama's administration in Washington.
"It is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be. We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran," Obama said during the weekend. He reiterated his long-held position that his administration wants to pursue a "tough, direct" dialogue with Tehran.
For many Iranians, Obama’s words were reminiscent of President Bill Clinton, who washed his hands when reporters asked him on July 9, 1999, whether the United States would come to the aid of Iranian students who were revolting in 18 cities across Iran. America could do nothing, Clinton said — echoing almost exactly the taunt Ayatollah Khomeini had used repeatedly during the revolution.
The Obama administration’s quandary comes after it covertly threw its support behind the election campaign of former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi. Mousavi made his first appearance since the election at Monday’s rally. Many in the crowd wore red scarves, a color favored by supporters of Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former shah.
In two messages in Persian, widely circulated through the Internet during the weekend, Pahlavi called for nationwide nonviolent resistance to the regime — the first time he has called for an open revolt since leaving Iran in 1979.
“I stand united with my fellow Iranians and call for the end of the Islamic Republic, or any other prefix in front of the name of my beloved Iran that indicates theocracy or any other form of disregard for democratic and human rights,” he said in one of the messages.
To some, this latest protest — and similar demonstrations in Shiraz, Kerman, Isfahan, Mashad, Tabriz, Rasht, and other major Iranian cities — shows that the regime finally has awakened Iran’s silent majority.
In Tabriz, there were reports that the city’s business district had shut down on Sunday as a sign of joining the anti-regime protests. Many of the protesters shouted, “Death to the dictator,” a slogan not heard in large crowds of demonstrators for decades.
“The protests are a natural expression of the frustration and insult that have been dealt by the regime,” said Roozbeh Farahanipour, a leader of the 1999 student revolt who now is the spokesman for the nationalist Marze por Gohar (Glorious Frontiers Party). “Iranians will tolerate a lot, as the last 30 years attest to, but being treated as stooges is where they draw the line.”
In Tehran on Monday, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported that former President Mohammad Khatami traveled to Cairo during Obama’s trip there and met with a “senior administration official” to discuss the upcoming Iranian election.
Although Ahmadinejad controls the news agency, Iranian observers believed the report was accurate, because it is hard to openly slander such a public person as a former president even in Iran.
Newsmax asked spokesmen for Obama and Vice President Joe Biden to comment on the allegation but received no reply.
Earlier, there were reports that a senior administration official met with Mousavi’s campaign manager, Mehdi Khazali, in Dubai two weeks before the election to offer support.
In the days before the election, editors at the Voice of America’s Persian Service apologized to anti-regime Iranians they normally invite to their shows, saying they no longer could appear on the air because the editors were under orders to invite only guests who supported “reformist” candidates Mousavi and Mehdi Karrubi.
On Tuesday morning, the Guardians Council in Tehran announced it would engage in only a “limited recount” of individual ballot boxes whose results had been disputed by one of Ahmadinejad's three opponents, erasing earlier hopes that they might annul the disputed election because of fraud.
Getting the Guardians to examine the election results at all took a great deal of pressure.
When Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei first announced Ahmadinejad’s victory, he defiantly called the election a “divine assessment” and certified the results immediately.
But pressure from within the ruling clerical elite gave him pause.
The next day, former President Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani announced with great fanfare that he was traveling to Qom, 80 miles south of Tehran, to convene the Assembly of Experts, a council of 86 top clerics who have the authority to name the supreme leader, or depose him.
Rafsanjani chairs the Assembly of Experts and said he wanted them to examine Khamenei’s decision to certify the election, giving rise to rumors that he was hoping to depose Khamenei as leader.
Monday’s massive demonstration also suggests that the Iranian people have loosened the shackles of fear, Kaveh Mohseni said.
In a third message to Iranians, Reza Pahlavi called on the police and security forces to “never forget that these demonstrators confronting you in the streets are your brothers and sisters who are fighting for your rights.”
Joining him was his mother, who spoke to the security forces “as a mother and as an Iranian” to encourage them “not to use violence against their brothers and sisters.”
Iranian political activists have long criticized Reza Pahlavi for his inaction, and U.S. government analysts say they doubt that he has many supporters inside Iran.
But the protests inside Iran go way beyond one person, one faction, or one party. They have become a national grass-roots movement, a budding revolt that could soon reach a tipping point. And a regime change could spark reform in other areas.
Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer said, “Our only hope of changing the nuclear issue with Iran is not in the negotiations. It would be in the change of regime.”
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Iranians Betrayed by Obama Administration
Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:34 AM
by: Kenneth R. Timmerman
More than 1.5 million protesters took to the streets of Tehran on Monday, marking the largest anti-regime demonstration Iran has seen since the final days of the shah in early 1979.
Seven people were killed by anti-riot police and roving bands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad supporters. Many of those supporters shielded their faces from surveillance videos that plainclothes police were shooting.
The protesters included some unlikely participants: 16 Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps officers pledged to join the people’s movement, according to initial reports from Tehran. That signaled that the once-solid support of the guard corps for Ahmadinejad is beginning to crack.
The 16 officers were arrested after meeting secretly with top regular army officers on Monday night. Many of the older men and women who took to the streets also demonstrated to bring down the shah 30 years ago, wrote Kaveh Mohseni, who publishes the French-language Web site, Iran-Resist.
Now, “people are waiting for international support,” Mohseni wrote. That support wasn’t coming — at least not from President Barack Obama's administration in Washington.
"It is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be. We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran," Obama said during the weekend. He reiterated his long-held position that his administration wants to pursue a "tough, direct" dialogue with Tehran.
For many Iranians, Obama’s words were reminiscent of President Bill Clinton, who washed his hands when reporters asked him on July 9, 1999, whether the United States would come to the aid of Iranian students who were revolting in 18 cities across Iran. America could do nothing, Clinton said — echoing almost exactly the taunt Ayatollah Khomeini had used repeatedly during the revolution.
The Obama administration’s quandary comes after it covertly threw its support behind the election campaign of former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi. Mousavi made his first appearance since the election at Monday’s rally. Many in the crowd wore red scarves, a color favored by supporters of Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former shah.
In two messages in Persian, widely circulated through the Internet during the weekend, Pahlavi called for nationwide nonviolent resistance to the regime — the first time he has called for an open revolt since leaving Iran in 1979.
“I stand united with my fellow Iranians and call for the end of the Islamic Republic, or any other prefix in front of the name of my beloved Iran that indicates theocracy or any other form of disregard for democratic and human rights,” he said in one of the messages.
To some, this latest protest — and similar demonstrations in Shiraz, Kerman, Isfahan, Mashad, Tabriz, Rasht, and other major Iranian cities — shows that the regime finally has awakened Iran’s silent majority.
In Tabriz, there were reports that the city’s business district had shut down on Sunday as a sign of joining the anti-regime protests. Many of the protesters shouted, “Death to the dictator,” a slogan not heard in large crowds of demonstrators for decades.
“The protests are a natural expression of the frustration and insult that have been dealt by the regime,” said Roozbeh Farahanipour, a leader of the 1999 student revolt who now is the spokesman for the nationalist Marze por Gohar (Glorious Frontiers Party). “Iranians will tolerate a lot, as the last 30 years attest to, but being treated as stooges is where they draw the line.”
In Tehran on Monday, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported that former President Mohammad Khatami traveled to Cairo during Obama’s trip there and met with a “senior administration official” to discuss the upcoming Iranian election.
Although Ahmadinejad controls the news agency, Iranian observers believed the report was accurate, because it is hard to openly slander such a public person as a former president even in Iran.
Newsmax asked spokesmen for Obama and Vice President Joe Biden to comment on the allegation but received no reply.
Earlier, there were reports that a senior administration official met with Mousavi’s campaign manager, Mehdi Khazali, in Dubai two weeks before the election to offer support.
In the days before the election, editors at the Voice of America’s Persian Service apologized to anti-regime Iranians they normally invite to their shows, saying they no longer could appear on the air because the editors were under orders to invite only guests who supported “reformist” candidates Mousavi and Mehdi Karrubi.
On Tuesday morning, the Guardians Council in Tehran announced it would engage in only a “limited recount” of individual ballot boxes whose results had been disputed by one of Ahmadinejad's three opponents, erasing earlier hopes that they might annul the disputed election because of fraud.
Getting the Guardians to examine the election results at all took a great deal of pressure.
When Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei first announced Ahmadinejad’s victory, he defiantly called the election a “divine assessment” and certified the results immediately.
But pressure from within the ruling clerical elite gave him pause.
The next day, former President Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani announced with great fanfare that he was traveling to Qom, 80 miles south of Tehran, to convene the Assembly of Experts, a council of 86 top clerics who have the authority to name the supreme leader, or depose him.
Rafsanjani chairs the Assembly of Experts and said he wanted them to examine Khamenei’s decision to certify the election, giving rise to rumors that he was hoping to depose Khamenei as leader.
Monday’s massive demonstration also suggests that the Iranian people have loosened the shackles of fear, Kaveh Mohseni said.
In a third message to Iranians, Reza Pahlavi called on the police and security forces to “never forget that these demonstrators confronting you in the streets are your brothers and sisters who are fighting for your rights.”
Joining him was his mother, who spoke to the security forces “as a mother and as an Iranian” to encourage them “not to use violence against their brothers and sisters.”
Iranian political activists have long criticized Reza Pahlavi for his inaction, and U.S. government analysts say they doubt that he has many supporters inside Iran.
But the protests inside Iran go way beyond one person, one faction, or one party. They have become a national grass-roots movement, a budding revolt that could soon reach a tipping point. And a regime change could spark reform in other areas.
Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer said, “Our only hope of changing the nuclear issue with Iran is not in the negotiations. It would be in the change of regime.”
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
The Liberal Brain Washing Agenda : Textbook Stockholm Syndrome
This is a great article on how becoming a victim of the liberal brain dead hoard can have a positive effect on your life - this woman, after being attacked on a street down town at midday, in a nice part of town - awaken to the simple fact that she was a different person and struggled with trying to find why her understanding of life was suddenly so confusing.
She suddenly realized she could no longer live the way she had, so she looked for answers to questions she had never asked her self before. This is a little long but a great read on how one person awakened to the reality of how the liberal mind set of 'victimization' is destroying us, and started doing something about it -
Keep the faith
Why Do Liberals Bleed?
*June 17, 2009* **By*
*Robin of Berkeley* <http://www.americanthinker.com/robin_of_berkeley/>
I've been thinking about learning how to fire a gun, maybe even buying one. Now if you are a lifelong conservative, Red State dweller, and NRA member, you might be thinking, "Big yawn. What's next? She'll be telling us what she had for breakfast?"So let me try to convey to you the enormousness, the Alice in Wonderland quality of my even posing the question, something I've never, ever considered in my life.
No one I know owns a gun. I've never seen a gun (well on a holster of a police officer but I never wanted to get up close and personal with it). I have given lots of good money over the years for gun control. Learning to fire a gun seems as ludicrous as deciding to take up brain surgery. But, I am rethinking absolutely everything. There is not a single thing that I believed, that I held absolute and holy, that is not up for grabs. My brain is in a tizzy 24/7 and I don't know if up is down, or if east is west. And the thought about a gun just came to me last week when I was listening to talk radio. A caller related how an armed citizen in the South stopped a take over robbery in a fast food restaurant. A light went on in my head.
Suddenly I realized that the Red States may be on to something: the police are strongly supported, the citizens have guns, and, therefore, the gangsters may be a little reluctant to take over the local Burger King. Contrast that to the Blue States where few liberals own guns and the police are being emasculated. You may have heard of the horrendous case in Oakland where four cops were killed by a known felon, on a parole violation for child rape. But the powers that be in Oakland sent out the message to the police to make nice and not scare the populace, so the officers never drew their guns when approaching this felon. (Anyone else notice how the Left is slowly but surely disarming the police and military, situation-by-situation?)
When I expressed my heartfelt grief to a friend about the deaths of these brave officers, he said, "The man who shot them was a human being too."(I'd like to say that, as a psychotherapist, I responded in a sophisticated and psychologically crafty manner. No such luck. I almost blew a gasket, turned bright red, and said with barely contained anger, "He lost his claim to be human when he raped a child." To the friend's credit -- and perhaps some fear on his part -- he shut up.)
So what I realized during the talk show is that in places like Berkeley, only the criminals have the power. Not only do they have the power of guns, they are supported by several thousand brainwashed zombies who give the green light to criminals because they are the victims of someone else's "privilege" and "supremacy" and "imperialism." (Although I was a leftist until recently, I was the rare exception: I never excused crime because of the bad guy's race, creed, age, sex, or daddy being a meanie.)
I recall vividly what a Berkeley police officer once told me: "Berkeley is a city of victims. You try to understand the street people and the criminals and sit down and talk to them and then they hit you on the head and steal your purse. The police come and then you refuse to press charges. The criminals know this and prey on you."And he's right: almost everyone I know has been a victim of some awful crime, from being in restaurants during takeover robberies (not uncommon here), to being robbed at gunpoint, to being assaulted for no other reason except a thrill for the assailants.
A neighbor, who had lived all over the world, once said to me, "Berkeley is the most dangerous place I've ever lived." Her husband was robbed at gunpoint as were almost all her friends. She couldn't wait to get out of here. I wish I could say I'm an exception to the victim rule. But several years ago I was coming out of a restaurant in a decent area and was mugged. As Gavin de Becker states in his seminal book <http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Fear-Gavin-Becker/dp/0440508835/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245166723&sr=8-1>, /The Gift of Fear/, (which I, unfortunately, read after the fact), victims generally sense when they're about to be victimized but ignore the signs in order to be nice and not judgmental. This was my situation exactly.
I could tell right away that the guy looked sinister. But it was a major street, at high noon, and I didn't want to seem racist, so I turned the corner a few feet to reach my car, and a minute later, had my purse stolen as well as all my feelings of being safe in the world. I'll spare you (and me) the horrible details, but the incident ended with my having a broken nose and two black eyes, and needing surgery for the nose several days later. People wrote bad checks and stole rental cars in my name for a year afterwards.
I developed a fear not only of people, but of the phone and the mail, as every day was another reminder of what happened.
Witness the response of a left wing friend, Judy, when I told her I was mugged. She said, and I quote, "I don't think what you went through was so bad. And anyway he was a victim too." (Maybe it's a good thing I wasn't armed back then.) So I'm asking myself whether I should become armed, and I'm also wondering why so many "educated" people (I might have just answered my own question) put up with crime infested streets?
Why are the biggest protests against the cops? Why are the innocent viewed as guilty, and the guilty innocent? Why is no one up in arms about liberals literally bleeding? Then it occurred to me: Stockholm Syndrome, the same brainwashing that turned Berkeley resident Patty Hearst into Tania the bank robber. She was tortured, sexually abused, and kept in isolation by the far left group, the Symbionese Liberation Army (kissing cousins of Bill and Bernadine's Weather Underground).
Successfully brainwashed, she joined their twisted and sick "army."In the real Stockholm, the hostages were locked in a vault for days, came to "love" their captors in that perverted way that an abused woman loves her husband, and refused to testify against them in court. One even became engaged to her captor. SS (good acronym, huh?) is rooted in a basic, primordial instinct for self protection in the wake of extraordinary trauma and terror. To survive, the victim identifies with the captors and merges psychologically with them.
But SS takes on a life of its own when victims stop seeing their own humanity and want only to serve the abuser. Living in places like Berkeley, being force fed propaganda, with police afraid to protect you, your friends unsympathetic, and no one armed, SS can spread like a virus.
What starts out as compassion morphs into complicity.
Occasionally there may be someone, like me, who snaps out of the trance they've been in for decades. After all, Tania woke up and became Patty Hearst again and, interestingly, married her bodyguard. (I bet that they own a whole lot of weapons.) But she had to leave Berkeley for a leafy, sheltered life elsewhere to do this. But then again, I never bought into the notion of collective guilt, that groups of people are guilty because of the color of their skin, and individuals are exonerated because of some protected victim status. I'm the rare bird.
In Berkeley, most people are so over identified with their ideology, that their logical, questioning minds have flown the coop along with a God-given knowledge, possessed by every 5 year old, of right and wrong. As a good, loyal liberal, I always expected others to take care of me. If I gave my unqualified loyalty to the system, I could sleep well at night. But now, with victims left bleeding, a dangerously naive government, and sheep like masses, I see the absurdity of my thinking.
I heard a philosopher once say that one of the biggest existential tasks of life is giving up the fantasy of the ultimate rescuer.
Liberalism reinforced this fantasy for me, as it does for so many others. Now I see the truth: We come into this world alone, and we will leave it alone. When we live our lives in the back seat of the car expecting Daddy to drive us, we only have a child's view of the world. On that very dark day in November years ago when I became an object of someone's evil and inhumanity, I glimpsed a truth I never wanted to see: that there really is no protection, not in the way I had always thought, not by other flawed humans.
I didn't know what to do with this insight until 1 1/2 years ago when I discovered that there were others out there like me, that there was something called conservatism, and now slowly but surely the pieces are coming together for me, one by one. As I continue on the path to independence and personal responsibility, perhaps looking to myself for protection is another step on my journey. /*A frequent AT contributor, Robin is a psychotherapist marooned in Berkeley.*/
She suddenly realized she could no longer live the way she had, so she looked for answers to questions she had never asked her self before. This is a little long but a great read on how one person awakened to the reality of how the liberal mind set of 'victimization' is destroying us, and started doing something about it -
Keep the faith
Why Do Liberals Bleed?
*June 17, 2009* **By*
*Robin of Berkeley* <http://www.americanthinker.com/robin_of_berkeley/>
I've been thinking about learning how to fire a gun, maybe even buying one. Now if you are a lifelong conservative, Red State dweller, and NRA member, you might be thinking, "Big yawn. What's next? She'll be telling us what she had for breakfast?"So let me try to convey to you the enormousness, the Alice in Wonderland quality of my even posing the question, something I've never, ever considered in my life.
No one I know owns a gun. I've never seen a gun (well on a holster of a police officer but I never wanted to get up close and personal with it). I have given lots of good money over the years for gun control. Learning to fire a gun seems as ludicrous as deciding to take up brain surgery. But, I am rethinking absolutely everything. There is not a single thing that I believed, that I held absolute and holy, that is not up for grabs. My brain is in a tizzy 24/7 and I don't know if up is down, or if east is west. And the thought about a gun just came to me last week when I was listening to talk radio. A caller related how an armed citizen in the South stopped a take over robbery in a fast food restaurant. A light went on in my head.
Suddenly I realized that the Red States may be on to something: the police are strongly supported, the citizens have guns, and, therefore, the gangsters may be a little reluctant to take over the local Burger King. Contrast that to the Blue States where few liberals own guns and the police are being emasculated. You may have heard of the horrendous case in Oakland where four cops were killed by a known felon, on a parole violation for child rape. But the powers that be in Oakland sent out the message to the police to make nice and not scare the populace, so the officers never drew their guns when approaching this felon. (Anyone else notice how the Left is slowly but surely disarming the police and military, situation-by-situation?)
When I expressed my heartfelt grief to a friend about the deaths of these brave officers, he said, "The man who shot them was a human being too."(I'd like to say that, as a psychotherapist, I responded in a sophisticated and psychologically crafty manner. No such luck. I almost blew a gasket, turned bright red, and said with barely contained anger, "He lost his claim to be human when he raped a child." To the friend's credit -- and perhaps some fear on his part -- he shut up.)
So what I realized during the talk show is that in places like Berkeley, only the criminals have the power. Not only do they have the power of guns, they are supported by several thousand brainwashed zombies who give the green light to criminals because they are the victims of someone else's "privilege" and "supremacy" and "imperialism." (Although I was a leftist until recently, I was the rare exception: I never excused crime because of the bad guy's race, creed, age, sex, or daddy being a meanie.)
I recall vividly what a Berkeley police officer once told me: "Berkeley is a city of victims. You try to understand the street people and the criminals and sit down and talk to them and then they hit you on the head and steal your purse. The police come and then you refuse to press charges. The criminals know this and prey on you."And he's right: almost everyone I know has been a victim of some awful crime, from being in restaurants during takeover robberies (not uncommon here), to being robbed at gunpoint, to being assaulted for no other reason except a thrill for the assailants.
A neighbor, who had lived all over the world, once said to me, "Berkeley is the most dangerous place I've ever lived." Her husband was robbed at gunpoint as were almost all her friends. She couldn't wait to get out of here. I wish I could say I'm an exception to the victim rule. But several years ago I was coming out of a restaurant in a decent area and was mugged. As Gavin de Becker states in his seminal book <http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Fear-Gavin-Becker/dp/0440508835/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245166723&sr=8-1>, /The Gift of Fear/, (which I, unfortunately, read after the fact), victims generally sense when they're about to be victimized but ignore the signs in order to be nice and not judgmental. This was my situation exactly.
I could tell right away that the guy looked sinister. But it was a major street, at high noon, and I didn't want to seem racist, so I turned the corner a few feet to reach my car, and a minute later, had my purse stolen as well as all my feelings of being safe in the world. I'll spare you (and me) the horrible details, but the incident ended with my having a broken nose and two black eyes, and needing surgery for the nose several days later. People wrote bad checks and stole rental cars in my name for a year afterwards.
I developed a fear not only of people, but of the phone and the mail, as every day was another reminder of what happened.
Witness the response of a left wing friend, Judy, when I told her I was mugged. She said, and I quote, "I don't think what you went through was so bad. And anyway he was a victim too." (Maybe it's a good thing I wasn't armed back then.) So I'm asking myself whether I should become armed, and I'm also wondering why so many "educated" people (I might have just answered my own question) put up with crime infested streets?
Why are the biggest protests against the cops? Why are the innocent viewed as guilty, and the guilty innocent? Why is no one up in arms about liberals literally bleeding? Then it occurred to me: Stockholm Syndrome, the same brainwashing that turned Berkeley resident Patty Hearst into Tania the bank robber. She was tortured, sexually abused, and kept in isolation by the far left group, the Symbionese Liberation Army (kissing cousins of Bill and Bernadine's Weather Underground).
Successfully brainwashed, she joined their twisted and sick "army."In the real Stockholm, the hostages were locked in a vault for days, came to "love" their captors in that perverted way that an abused woman loves her husband, and refused to testify against them in court. One even became engaged to her captor. SS (good acronym, huh?) is rooted in a basic, primordial instinct for self protection in the wake of extraordinary trauma and terror. To survive, the victim identifies with the captors and merges psychologically with them.
But SS takes on a life of its own when victims stop seeing their own humanity and want only to serve the abuser. Living in places like Berkeley, being force fed propaganda, with police afraid to protect you, your friends unsympathetic, and no one armed, SS can spread like a virus.
What starts out as compassion morphs into complicity.
Occasionally there may be someone, like me, who snaps out of the trance they've been in for decades. After all, Tania woke up and became Patty Hearst again and, interestingly, married her bodyguard. (I bet that they own a whole lot of weapons.) But she had to leave Berkeley for a leafy, sheltered life elsewhere to do this. But then again, I never bought into the notion of collective guilt, that groups of people are guilty because of the color of their skin, and individuals are exonerated because of some protected victim status. I'm the rare bird.
In Berkeley, most people are so over identified with their ideology, that their logical, questioning minds have flown the coop along with a God-given knowledge, possessed by every 5 year old, of right and wrong. As a good, loyal liberal, I always expected others to take care of me. If I gave my unqualified loyalty to the system, I could sleep well at night. But now, with victims left bleeding, a dangerously naive government, and sheep like masses, I see the absurdity of my thinking.
I heard a philosopher once say that one of the biggest existential tasks of life is giving up the fantasy of the ultimate rescuer.
Liberalism reinforced this fantasy for me, as it does for so many others. Now I see the truth: We come into this world alone, and we will leave it alone. When we live our lives in the back seat of the car expecting Daddy to drive us, we only have a child's view of the world. On that very dark day in November years ago when I became an object of someone's evil and inhumanity, I glimpsed a truth I never wanted to see: that there really is no protection, not in the way I had always thought, not by other flawed humans.
I didn't know what to do with this insight until 1 1/2 years ago when I discovered that there were others out there like me, that there was something called conservatism, and now slowly but surely the pieces are coming together for me, one by one. As I continue on the path to independence and personal responsibility, perhaps looking to myself for protection is another step on my journey. /*A frequent AT contributor, Robin is a psychotherapist marooned in Berkeley.*/
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Missile Threat Grows While Obama 'Fiddles'
Don't worry about another attack - Obama says all we have to do is talk to these people that want to destroy us, and explain how we are sorry that we were so bad in the past and that we really want to be friends with everyone.
Obama can make this happen through the power of his personality alone and demanding that America stand down as leader of the free world.
Missile Threat Grows Against U.S.
A new report by the National Air and Space Intelligence Center reveals that the missile threat to the U.S. from potentially hostile nations is growing.
The report, "Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat," details the dangers posed by the missile programs of North Korea, Iran, China, Russia and other nations.
It comes as the Obama administration is planning to reduce spending on missile defense systems, the Washington Times observes.
The NASIC report discloses that since 2006, North Korea has deployed nearly 50 new missiles with a range of more than 2,000 miles. It has also tested the Taepodong-2 missile, which has a range of 3,400 miles. Both tests of the missile have been failures, but the report says they demonstrate North Korea's "determination to achieve long-range ballistic missile and space launch capabilities."
It also warns that the Taepodong-2 could be exported to other countries in the future.
The NASIC report cites Iran's April launch of a missile that "can serve as a testbed for long-range ballistic missile technologies."
China, the report notes, has "the most active and diverse ballistic missile development program in the world," and the number of Chinese ICBM warheads capable of threatening the U.S. is expected to grow to "well over 100 in the next 15 years."
Russia has increased its arsenal of warheads on its SS-18 ICBMs by 250 in recent years. Russia is also developing new technology "to allow Russian strategic missiles to penetrate missile defense systems," according to the NASIC report obtained by the Times.
The Pentagon, meanwhile, recently announced that its next budget includes a $1.5 billion cut in missile defense funding.
Obama can make this happen through the power of his personality alone and demanding that America stand down as leader of the free world.
Missile Threat Grows Against U.S.
A new report by the National Air and Space Intelligence Center reveals that the missile threat to the U.S. from potentially hostile nations is growing.
The report, "Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat," details the dangers posed by the missile programs of North Korea, Iran, China, Russia and other nations.
It comes as the Obama administration is planning to reduce spending on missile defense systems, the Washington Times observes.
The NASIC report discloses that since 2006, North Korea has deployed nearly 50 new missiles with a range of more than 2,000 miles. It has also tested the Taepodong-2 missile, which has a range of 3,400 miles. Both tests of the missile have been failures, but the report says they demonstrate North Korea's "determination to achieve long-range ballistic missile and space launch capabilities."
It also warns that the Taepodong-2 could be exported to other countries in the future.
The NASIC report cites Iran's April launch of a missile that "can serve as a testbed for long-range ballistic missile technologies."
China, the report notes, has "the most active and diverse ballistic missile development program in the world," and the number of Chinese ICBM warheads capable of threatening the U.S. is expected to grow to "well over 100 in the next 15 years."
Russia has increased its arsenal of warheads on its SS-18 ICBMs by 250 in recent years. Russia is also developing new technology "to allow Russian strategic missiles to penetrate missile defense systems," according to the NASIC report obtained by the Times.
The Pentagon, meanwhile, recently announced that its next budget includes a $1.5 billion cut in missile defense funding.
American Energy Act : Republicans Finally Take A Stand
WOW - This should have been brought forward years ago - where were these guys?. This is something that most of us knew to be true ever since the price of fuel starting going up. Liberal Democrats saw rising fuel prices as a way to strangle the economy.
Why is common sense so hard to understand? - I guess some people's agendas are so strong that they refuse to accept any other point of view. As the saying goes, " 'tis folly to be wise when ignorance is bliss". And the number of ignorant people in this country is staggering.
Keep the Faith -
The GOP's Energy Alternative
June 11, 2009 WSJ
We need more nuclear power.
By MIKE PENCE <http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=MIKE+PENCE&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND>,
JOHN SHIMKUS <http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=+JOHN+SHIMKUS&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND> and FRED UPTON <http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=FRED+UPTON&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND>
While the price of gasoline has risen 50% in the past five months, Democrats in Congress nevertheless seem determined to make our energy situation even worse.
Case in point: Legislation sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey to establish a cap-and-trade system that will sharply limit carbon-dioxide emissions and increase energy prices. Independent analyses by Charles River Associates Inc. and the National Association of Manufacturers predict the Waxman-Markey bill will cost millions of domestic jobs as manufacturers relocate plants to countries with less draconian environmental regulations.
Meanwhile, the electricity rates under a cap-and-trade system would, as President Barack Obama said in January 2008 "necessarily skyrocket," by some estimates up to $4,300 each year.
This is not the way to go.
Instead, House Republicans this week unveiled legislation that will lead to lower prices, more jobs, a cleaner environment, and greater energy independence. The centerpiece of our American Energy Act is a commitment to increase the production of our abundant domestic natural resources, and not to punish traditional energy producers and consumers. The cleanest way for utilities to control CO2 emissions is to increase the supply of carbon-free nuclear energy. This is obvious and simple, but in the thousand-page Waxman-Markey bill nuclear power is hardly mentioned.
The American Energy Act establishes a national goal of licensing 100 new nuclear reactors over the next 20 years. With 31 announced reactor applications already in the pipeline, this goal can be achieved -- and it will revitalize an entire manufacturing sector, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. The bill also streamlines a cumbersome regulatory process by offering a two-year, fast-track approval program for power-plant applications that employ safe reactor designs already approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
As for the problem of spent nuclear fuel rods, our bill emphasizes safe storage and fuel recycling. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be allowed to finish its review of a national repository without political interference, and the federal government will be prevented from blocking other storage facilities if a state and locality choose to contract with a private company for that purpose. The legislation also directs the Department of Energy to contract with private sector entities to recycle spent fuel, lessening the demand on Yucca Mountain and other sites.
Nuclear energy is only one part of a common-sense energy strategy. America also needs to develop more of its own natural resources such as oil and natural gas. Yet areas with tremendous energy resources continue to be off-limits.
The American Energy Act allows for exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and for environmentally sound leasing of oil and natural gas fields in the outer continental shelf and on federally owned lands with oil shale in the West. Revenues generated by the leases would fund development of technologies to increase clean, renewable and alternative energy sources such as wind and solar.
While ensuring plaintiffs their day in court, our bill stops frivolous lawsuits designed to obstruct energy exploration. It does so by establishing a 60-day deadline on legal challenges and by requiring cases to be filed in the D.C. District Court, which has a particular expertise in energy litigation.
Finally, the American Energy Act encourages personal responsibility through conservation. The bill offers tax incentives for the purchase of new plug-in cars and hybrid vehicles. It also expands the successful tax incentives that have encouraged many people to make their homes more energy efficient.
In the midst of a deep recession, Democratic leaders want to impose higher fuel bills on all of us and relocate American jobs overseas in pursuit of an unproven environmental agenda. Instead, the American Energy Act will produce more energy, lower fuel bills, create more jobs, yield a cleaner environment, and lead to a more secure nation. Can there be any doubt what path is best for the country?
*Messrs. Pence, Shimkus and Upton are Republican congressmen from Indiana, Illinois and Michigan respectively. *
Why is common sense so hard to understand? - I guess some people's agendas are so strong that they refuse to accept any other point of view. As the saying goes, " 'tis folly to be wise when ignorance is bliss". And the number of ignorant people in this country is staggering.
Keep the Faith -
The GOP's Energy Alternative
June 11, 2009 WSJ
We need more nuclear power.
By MIKE PENCE <http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=MIKE+PENCE&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND>,
JOHN SHIMKUS <http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=+JOHN+SHIMKUS&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND> and FRED UPTON <http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=FRED+UPTON&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND>
While the price of gasoline has risen 50% in the past five months, Democrats in Congress nevertheless seem determined to make our energy situation even worse.
Case in point: Legislation sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey to establish a cap-and-trade system that will sharply limit carbon-dioxide emissions and increase energy prices. Independent analyses by Charles River Associates Inc. and the National Association of Manufacturers predict the Waxman-Markey bill will cost millions of domestic jobs as manufacturers relocate plants to countries with less draconian environmental regulations.
Meanwhile, the electricity rates under a cap-and-trade system would, as President Barack Obama said in January 2008 "necessarily skyrocket," by some estimates up to $4,300 each year.
This is not the way to go.
Instead, House Republicans this week unveiled legislation that will lead to lower prices, more jobs, a cleaner environment, and greater energy independence. The centerpiece of our American Energy Act is a commitment to increase the production of our abundant domestic natural resources, and not to punish traditional energy producers and consumers. The cleanest way for utilities to control CO2 emissions is to increase the supply of carbon-free nuclear energy. This is obvious and simple, but in the thousand-page Waxman-Markey bill nuclear power is hardly mentioned.
The American Energy Act establishes a national goal of licensing 100 new nuclear reactors over the next 20 years. With 31 announced reactor applications already in the pipeline, this goal can be achieved -- and it will revitalize an entire manufacturing sector, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. The bill also streamlines a cumbersome regulatory process by offering a two-year, fast-track approval program for power-plant applications that employ safe reactor designs already approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
As for the problem of spent nuclear fuel rods, our bill emphasizes safe storage and fuel recycling. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be allowed to finish its review of a national repository without political interference, and the federal government will be prevented from blocking other storage facilities if a state and locality choose to contract with a private company for that purpose. The legislation also directs the Department of Energy to contract with private sector entities to recycle spent fuel, lessening the demand on Yucca Mountain and other sites.
Nuclear energy is only one part of a common-sense energy strategy. America also needs to develop more of its own natural resources such as oil and natural gas. Yet areas with tremendous energy resources continue to be off-limits.
The American Energy Act allows for exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and for environmentally sound leasing of oil and natural gas fields in the outer continental shelf and on federally owned lands with oil shale in the West. Revenues generated by the leases would fund development of technologies to increase clean, renewable and alternative energy sources such as wind and solar.
While ensuring plaintiffs their day in court, our bill stops frivolous lawsuits designed to obstruct energy exploration. It does so by establishing a 60-day deadline on legal challenges and by requiring cases to be filed in the D.C. District Court, which has a particular expertise in energy litigation.
Finally, the American Energy Act encourages personal responsibility through conservation. The bill offers tax incentives for the purchase of new plug-in cars and hybrid vehicles. It also expands the successful tax incentives that have encouraged many people to make their homes more energy efficient.
In the midst of a deep recession, Democratic leaders want to impose higher fuel bills on all of us and relocate American jobs overseas in pursuit of an unproven environmental agenda. Instead, the American Energy Act will produce more energy, lower fuel bills, create more jobs, yield a cleaner environment, and lead to a more secure nation. Can there be any doubt what path is best for the country?
*Messrs. Pence, Shimkus and Upton are Republican congressmen from Indiana, Illinois and Michigan respectively. *
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Obama Cuts Funding for Iranian Freedom Fighters
Here again, Obama is showing just who he is and what he stands for - freedom and Democracy are not his concern - taking care of the Muslim world and their needs is more important.
The question remains - is Obama a Muslim?
Keep the faith
Obama Erases Pro-Democracy Money for Iran
Friday, June 19, 2009 2:40 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
Even as Ayatollah Khamenei blasted the United States for fomenting unrest in a defiant Friday prayer address in Tehran, President Obama has kept silent, focusing instead on domestic policy.
Obama spent more time with TV personality Stephen Colbert, taping a segment for a comedy show, than he did addressing the turmoil in Iran this week.
Newsmax has learned that the Obama administration also has zeroed out funding for pro-democracy programs inside Iran from the State Department budget for fiscal 2010, just as protests in Iran are ramping up.
Funding for pro-democracy programs began in 2004, when Congress earmarked $1.5 million of the State Department budget for “educational, humanitarian, and non-governmental organizations and individuals inside Iran to support the advancement of democracy and human rights in Iran.”
The funding ramped up dramatically two years later, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice requested $75 million for pro-democracy programs. More than half of the $66.1 million Congress finally appropriated went to expand U.S. government-funded Persian language broadcasting services at Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
But no money has been earmarked for such programs in the administration’s fiscal 2010 foreign operations budget request. Congressional sources told Newsmax they doubted that a Democrat-controlled Congress would add it when the budget comes before a committee next week.
Controversy has surrounded the programs from the start, with pro-regime lobbying groups, such as the National Iranian-American Council urging the State Department to cancel the funding.
And although Bush administration officials told pro-democracy activists they wanted to fund projects inside Iran (as called for in the original legislative language), State Department desk officers intervened to block funding for any projects other than cultural exchanges and “think tanks and studies,” insiders told Newsmax.
One key opponent of the funding, who weighed in at meetings to block specific grant requests aimed at helping pro-democracy groups inside Iran, was Suzanne Maloney, who is now at the Brookings Institution.
Speaking at a Washington forum that the National Iranian-American Council sponsored Wednesday, Maloney applauded President Obama’s do-nothing policy. “The best thing we can do for Iranian democracy is sit back and let Iranians fight it out for themselves,” she said, echoing the president’s own words from a brief press statement the day before.
Program supporters say the efforts of people such as Maloney inside the State Department to blunt the original intent have made the funding virtually meaningless. “The State Department never did a lot with all the funding we gave them, so I’m not sure that zeroing it out is a huge loss,” an aide to a key congressional supporter of the funding told Newsmax.
"Of the total $67 million that was appropriated, $42.7 million has been obligated, and $20.8 disbursed,” according to a just-released report from the Congressional Research Service.
Kenneth Katzman, the analyst who wrote the research service's Iran report, told Newsmax that the programs “suffered from finding few participants” inside Iran who were willing to be seen as taking U.S. government money.
“These programs reached a limited number of people in Iran and that would indicate that their effectiveness was limited.” When reporters asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Thursday about the president’s “hands-off approach,” Gibbs said there was “no debate in the White House” over how to address the events in Iran.
“Everybody is on the same page. There’s no difference of opinion. I think the only thing I might take — the only thing I would take — some exception to is the notion that the president has been hands-off.”
The next question from the press was about Father’s Day.
Earlier, the White House and the State Department dismissed Iranian government claims that it was interfering in the election. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reinforced the administration’s “hands-off” policy in a statement to reporters on Wednesday. “It is for the Iranians to determine how they resolve this internal protest concerning the outcome of the recent election,” she said.
At the same time, Clinton defended the phone call by a 27-year old State Department staffer to the CEO of Twitter, urging him to delay scheduled maintenance work to ensure that the social networking service remained available for use by Iranians without interruption.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
The question remains - is Obama a Muslim?
Keep the faith
Obama Erases Pro-Democracy Money for Iran
Friday, June 19, 2009 2:40 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
Even as Ayatollah Khamenei blasted the United States for fomenting unrest in a defiant Friday prayer address in Tehran, President Obama has kept silent, focusing instead on domestic policy.
Obama spent more time with TV personality Stephen Colbert, taping a segment for a comedy show, than he did addressing the turmoil in Iran this week.
Newsmax has learned that the Obama administration also has zeroed out funding for pro-democracy programs inside Iran from the State Department budget for fiscal 2010, just as protests in Iran are ramping up.
Funding for pro-democracy programs began in 2004, when Congress earmarked $1.5 million of the State Department budget for “educational, humanitarian, and non-governmental organizations and individuals inside Iran to support the advancement of democracy and human rights in Iran.”
The funding ramped up dramatically two years later, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice requested $75 million for pro-democracy programs. More than half of the $66.1 million Congress finally appropriated went to expand U.S. government-funded Persian language broadcasting services at Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
But no money has been earmarked for such programs in the administration’s fiscal 2010 foreign operations budget request. Congressional sources told Newsmax they doubted that a Democrat-controlled Congress would add it when the budget comes before a committee next week.
Controversy has surrounded the programs from the start, with pro-regime lobbying groups, such as the National Iranian-American Council urging the State Department to cancel the funding.
And although Bush administration officials told pro-democracy activists they wanted to fund projects inside Iran (as called for in the original legislative language), State Department desk officers intervened to block funding for any projects other than cultural exchanges and “think tanks and studies,” insiders told Newsmax.
One key opponent of the funding, who weighed in at meetings to block specific grant requests aimed at helping pro-democracy groups inside Iran, was Suzanne Maloney, who is now at the Brookings Institution.
Speaking at a Washington forum that the National Iranian-American Council sponsored Wednesday, Maloney applauded President Obama’s do-nothing policy. “The best thing we can do for Iranian democracy is sit back and let Iranians fight it out for themselves,” she said, echoing the president’s own words from a brief press statement the day before.
Program supporters say the efforts of people such as Maloney inside the State Department to blunt the original intent have made the funding virtually meaningless. “The State Department never did a lot with all the funding we gave them, so I’m not sure that zeroing it out is a huge loss,” an aide to a key congressional supporter of the funding told Newsmax.
"Of the total $67 million that was appropriated, $42.7 million has been obligated, and $20.8 disbursed,” according to a just-released report from the Congressional Research Service.
Kenneth Katzman, the analyst who wrote the research service's Iran report, told Newsmax that the programs “suffered from finding few participants” inside Iran who were willing to be seen as taking U.S. government money.
“These programs reached a limited number of people in Iran and that would indicate that their effectiveness was limited.” When reporters asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Thursday about the president’s “hands-off approach,” Gibbs said there was “no debate in the White House” over how to address the events in Iran.
“Everybody is on the same page. There’s no difference of opinion. I think the only thing I might take — the only thing I would take — some exception to is the notion that the president has been hands-off.”
The next question from the press was about Father’s Day.
Earlier, the White House and the State Department dismissed Iranian government claims that it was interfering in the election. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reinforced the administration’s “hands-off” policy in a statement to reporters on Wednesday. “It is for the Iranians to determine how they resolve this internal protest concerning the outcome of the recent election,” she said.
At the same time, Clinton defended the phone call by a 27-year old State Department staffer to the CEO of Twitter, urging him to delay scheduled maintenance work to ensure that the social networking service remained available for use by Iranians without interruption.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
