Monday, August 31, 2009
Herbert London writes about the Obama Administrations undying support to create a sovereign Palestinian State under a Fatah (Chief among princes in the PLO) with Mahmoud Abbas in control. BHO is sticking to this craziness despite the early August 2009 Fatah meeting which reaffirmed it will not recognize a Jewish Israel. The implication being even after Obama gets his way; a Fatah dominated Palestinian State will continue an armed struggle to obliterate Jewish Israel.
Fatah’s True Objectives
Posted by Herbert London
Faith Freedom International
August 4th was not only the birthday of President Obama, it was also the opening date of the Fatah general conference in Bethlehem. Despite concern, the Israeli government surrendered to U.S. pressure and allowed an influx of Palestinian hardliners and notorious terrorists to attend this meeting. According to reports, national security adviser James Jones offered a list of Palestinians the Obama administration wanted present at the Fatah event in order “to save the conference and Abu Mazen.” One of those present was Khaled Abu Esba, who blew up an Israeli bus on the Tel Aviv highway in 1978 killing 35 Israelis.
What was saved at this conference is a matter of some conjecture. Although the Obama administration hoped that this Fatah conference would result in the emergence of moderate positions toward Israel, the obverse was the case. Not only was Israel routinely and ritualistically condemned, but there wasn’t the slightest gesture in the direction of conciliation.
Fatah leaders argued they would continue their armed struggle against the state of Israel engaging in whatever force is necessary to undermine the Jewish state. They made it clear that there wouldn’t be any modification in their charter, thereby avoiding any possibility of recognizing Israel as a legitimate nation. To gild the lily, a number of spokesmen contended that Israel was responsible for the death of Yassir Arafat, a claim made without reference to any evidence.
While President Obama has adhered to what he would describe as an “even-handed policy,” it is clear that his effort to employ Fatah as the moderate counter-weight to radical Hamas will not work. The difference between Hamas and Fatah is that the former want to kill Jews now and the latter want to kill Jews after concessions have been vouchsafed.
The conference comments should disabuse Obama administration officials of the dubious notion that settlements in the West Bank stand in the way of some accord between Israelis and Palestinians. There is little doubt the settlements argument is a ruse designed to make the Israeli government pliable. Moreover, the issue creates a separation between the Obama and Netanyahu governments that can be exploited by the Palestinian leadership. An illusion has been created over settlements that the Israelis are intractable and unwilling to come to the negotiating table in good faith.
Yet the conference in Bethlehem reveals an undisguised truth: It is Fatah that is unwilling to modify its hateful stance towards Israel. In an effort to compete with the sanguinic aims of Hamas, Fatah engages in rhetoric that is remarkable similar. Notwithstanding the words that are used, the Obama administration continues to search for a silver lining. This commitment to Abu Mazen, a man without any real influence or standing in the West Bank, would be comical were it not so tragic.
In the incandescent precincts in Washington, Israel is the problem and all evidence to the contrary, including the language and intent of Fatah, is either ignored or rationalized. According to Obama spokesmen, there is a policy in place for a two state solution and Israel’s withdrawal from territory in much of the West Bank is its critical feature. That condition remains unaltered whatever the circumstances on the ground.
Peace, the much abused work in these discussions, can be achieved overnight if Fatah would stop armed resistance against Israel and recognize Israel as a legitimate nation. If Obama wants Israeli flexibility, this is the way to achieve it. All other negotiating points merely bypass the central issue. Whether Fatah can bring itself to adopt this argument seems unlikely since the coherence in the organization depends on armed aggression.
President (sic) Netanyahu has tried to persuade President Obama of this Middle East reality, but obsessions and policy obduracy stand in the way. As a consequence, all of the talk in this multilateral negotiation, excluding Russia, the EU and the UN, can come to nothing productive. Should President Obama squeeze Israel, which he seems inclined to do, he only increases the likelihood of future bloodshed which withdrawals from Gaza and southern Lebanon presaged.
If there is pressure to be applied, there is one side where the application makes sense. I doubt there will be a policy shift in the administration, but it would make sense for the president and his aides to read a transcript of the conference in Bethlehem. After doing so, I wonder if erstwhile Gen. Jones can describe who he is saving and for what end.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Herbert London is president of Hudson Institute and professor emeritus of New York University. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001) and America’s Secular Challenge (Encounter Books).
© 2009 Faith Freedom International.
© August 31, 2009
The Mainstream Media (MSM) has been a little better at telling both sides of the story of Rifqa Bary, but not much.
The August 30, Orlando Sentinel is still on board to portray Rifqa as a rebellious teen and goes out of its way to portray Mohamed Bary as a friendly typical Westernized Muslim. The Sentinel goes out of it’s way to express that the Bary family is not a radical-Islamic family (BUT THE FAMILY ATTENDS A RADICAL ISLAMIC MOSQUE). The Sentinel claims to have interviewed friends and neighbors who say they are shocked that Rifqa Bary would say her father wants her dead for converting to Christianity. One must wonder if Mohamed Bary is such a tolerant moderate Muslim why does he attend the Noor Islamic Cultural Center.
Most of the MSM has taken their cue from the Orlando Sentinel. I did find a FOX and Friends interview in which a former Muslim who is now a Christian Pastor in Ohio confirmed that Rifqa’s claims of mortal fear are not something that is a spur of the moment whim by a confused teenager: video found on Infidel’s Paradise. This Pastor counseled with Rifqa about a year ago about her fears of being outed about her Christianity. The Pastor said that at the time she had been a Christian for three years (hence four years now) and told her story of being Born Again.
My bet is if the MSM and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have their influence and money to snatch Rifqa back to Ohio, she will disappear into an anonymous asylum for lunatics or found dead in Sri Lanka.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
A few days ago I posted some rather generous (for a Conservative) thoughts about Senator Ted Kennedy’s passing entitled, “Senator Kennedy: What if …?” SlantRight.com is the flagship blog which I post at mostly because my son owns the domain name and he created the site for his Dad – me. I post often at other social blogging networks including a Blogger blog which is a mirror to the flagship.
On some of the social networks I received some pretty harsh language of which some of those utilize very descriptive objections to my generosity. I have attempted to take a stand of not speaking wickedly of the dead even when he was an evil Leftist.
The epithets I read really did not change my mind on Senator Ted Kennedy. As a Christian I thought it better to find something nice to say in this life and that God Almighty would be the Judge in the next life.
I have to tell you though. I was pointed to the Human Life International (HLI) statement release on Senator Ted Kennedy’s passing. The statement was written by Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer who is also the organizations President. I actually know little about HLI except that is pro-life and very Roman Catholic.
Fr. Euteneuer actually delivers a very eloquent statement yet also a very harsh statement about the Senator’s passing.
The reasoning utilized by Fr. Euteneuer has me wondering why the heck my thoughts of Ted Kennedy were generous at all. Read the statement.
JRH 8/29/09 (Hat Tip: Jim: Eye of the Culture Wars)
John R. Houk
© August 29, 2009
Here is an alert from ACT! For America concerning the hypocrisy of the Left toward America’s National Security.
The ACLU took clandestine photos of covert CIA agents involved with extracting information from Gitmo Islamic terrorists. The Washington Post reported on the now public photos. It is interesting there are no cries to prosecute the ACLU for endangering the identities of covert CIA agents.
Let’s preface this alert with a little memory lane.
First there is the Plamegate scandal in which the Left was calling for Presidential impeachment and/or the clearing of the unpopular Bush Administration staffers. The Left MSM accused a leak coming directly from the White House divulging that Valerie Plame the wife of State Department hack Joe Wilson worked for the CIA.
Can you remember the LEFTIST OMG that the Bush Administration would leak information about the existence of a “covert” CIA operative out of vengeance for Joe Wilson’s hack report about Niger yellow cake and Saddam Hussein?
There was even screaming for a Special Prosecutor. That turned out to be Leftist bloodhound Patrick Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald went after everyone until he latched onto the rumor that Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff Scooter Libby allegedly divulged Plame’s information to the public.
After millions of dollars of taxpayer money Fitzgerald came up with bupkis. Evidently Fitzgerald needed some kind of justification for his license to the Leftist bidding of disrupting the Bush Administration.
So Fitzgerald’s million dollar staff poured over the ‘under oath’ statements provided to the Special Persecutor.
There was STILL no smoking gun linking anyone in the Bush/Cheney staff to outing not really so-covert Valerie Plame. Who knows how many times the statements taken received scouring until a new strategy to persecute someone among the Bush/Cheney staff?
Here is the confirmation that Fitzgerald ALREADY KNEW who released Plame’s name to the press? It was an anti-Bush Republican then working in the Defense Department, specifically Richard Armitage.
I guess it was not worth going after an anti-Bush Republican for Armitage never received a public “We gotcha” from Fitzgerald.
The new strategy entailed looking for statements that did not match from each individual under oath. Apparently Scooter Libby was the only person high enough for Fitzgerald to destroy. Libby was indicted for perjury.
Evidently it was more of a Federal crime to not remember recollections than it was for a sitting President to specifically get lying via DNA. Libby was indicted and convicted. Go figure! President Clinton perjured himself about sex with a White House intern and was impeached, but was found innocent by the then dominated Democratic Party Senate. Equal justice definitely was not spread out between the Left and the Right.
O yes, one other thing. Special Persecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent millions of taxpayer dollars and did not convict one person for his Special Prosecutor mandate to find and prosecute anyone placing CIA operatives in mortal danger for revealing their cover. Fitzgerald’s lone conviction was a lame perjury verdict over memories that had to do with meetings and little to do with insignificant Valerie Plame.
Here is the ACT! For America email alert sent to me on 08/28/2009 01:56 PM :
Political Correctness Can Be Deadly
Political correctness can be annoying, frustrating, even exasperating.
But sometimes it can be deadly.
The commentary below [Editor: Michelle Malkin commentary link] exposes what can only be described as an infuriating excess of political correctness that will not only compromise our war against Islamist terrorism — it may cost people their lives.
The ACLU, in its obsession to put the “rights” of alleged terrorists ahead of law-abiding citizens and CIA agents, has been caught surreptitiously photographing CIA agents in order to show their pictures to alleged terrorists the ACLU is defending.
By doing so the ACLU has put these agents’ lives at risk in what appears to us to be an obvious violation of federal law, such as The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.
Will the Justice Department properly investigate the ACLU? We hope so.
But given Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent wrong-headed decision to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate interrogation actions by CIA interrogators, it’s difficult not to conclude that Holder’s sympathies lie more with the ACLU than they do with safeguarding the lives of Americans and CIA agents.
Many experts and observers are concluding that the direction the Justice Department is going will ultimately undermine our intelligence gathering as interrogators, fearful they may eventually be prosecuted, will choose to avoid any tactic that even remotely could be interpreted as “excessive.” How many terrorist plots will thus not be foiled, and how many people will die as a result? Only time will tell.
One of the interrogation practices that is being questioned is the blowing of cigar smoke in the face of an alleged terrorist. Can anyone outside of the anti-American left, the ACLU, and Eric Holder honestly believe that blowing cigar smoke in the face of a terrorist is “excessive,” or worse than the ACLU photographing CIA agents to show their pictures to terrorists?
This goes beyond absurd. This goes beyond political correctness run amok.
America, we must rise up against this insanity.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Hat tip The Conservative Underground.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Have you heard of Rifqa Bary yet? If you have only heard of her from Mainstream Media (MSM) outlets you think seventeen year old Rifqa is an irresponsible runaway that may have been brainwashed (or even kidnapped) by a Christian Church in Florida.
If you take the time to listen and watch Rifqa in her own words I would hope you change your mind about what most of the dhimmified MSM media is reporting. Rifqa fears for her life for being a Muslim Apostate who converted to Christianity.
Rifqa’s father (Mohamed Bary) is waging a court battle to have Rifqa extradited Florida and returned to Ohio. Mohamed Bary has gone public to say he loves his daughter and would never harm her. He claims his daughter can be a Christian BUT she must study her own religion (meaning Islam/Mohammedanism) while she is under 18. Rifqa’s story and case are further damaged by the fact that the Columbus, Ohio police believe Mohamed Bary over daughter Rifqa.
The local Florida MSM in the guise of the Orlando Sentinel posted a pro-Mohammed and anti-Rifqa media judgment implying Rifqa is simply a disgruntled teenager who had a dispute about coming home late with mother (Aysha). Evidently the scolding tactic mother used was such personal behavior of irresponsibility will lead the family to move back to Sri Lanka. As far as writer Mike Thomas is concerned, end of story – send her back to Ohio.
Thomas ignores the growing reports of Muslim families considered to be good working middle class families yet go on an honor killing vendetta. The growing reports are in Europe and America. Thomas ignores this because he chalks the honor killings to the reports of anti-Muslims on extremist Muslims. Thomas this is ignorance gone to seed.
Mohamed Bary has also accused the Florida Church – Global Revolution Church – of being a cult Church who brainwashed his daughter over the Internet. Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs has been championing Rifqa’s cause and she proves Rifqa was a Christian at least two years before she sought refuge with the Global Revolution Church. Mohamed Bary’s “cult” accusation is Muslim hyperbole to rope in the Islamophiles in the MSM to work against Rifqa.
Check out the Global Revolution Church’s statement of vision and values:
To create a community that leads to the holiness of transformed lives which will ignite a spiritual revolution to prepare for the return of Jesus Christ.
Statement of Faith:
We believe Jesus Christ is both God and man.
We believe Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins.
We believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and sits on the right hand of God.
We believe Jesus Christ is coming back again.
1. We believe in a presence-based church where people genuinely and authentically encounter God.
2. We believe in the radical "Sermon on the Mount" lifestyle.
3. We believe in a spiritual revolution that will ignite the transformation of our culture.
4. We believe in leadership based on sound Biblical principles.
5. We believe in global preparation for the return of Jesus Christ, especially through 24/7 prayer and worship and through raising up end-time messengers.
6. We believe in building a spirit-led organization into true excellence.
7. We believe in building aBiblical family culture, nurturing parents and children alike, and ushering them into the presence of God.
8. We believe in building the body to be the bride of Christ - without spot, wrinkle or blemish.
9. We believe Israel is the prophetic key to the return of Jesus Christ.
10. We believe in signs and wonders that confirm that Jesus Christ is Lord.
This is the appearance of a typical Protestant Word of God based Church offering to share the Good News of Christ and to aid Christians on their path alongside God Almighty centered on Jesus Christ the Lord. The “Revolution” is the expectation of Christians to be doers of the Word of God and not merely bench sitting hearers. There is nothing screaming brainwashing cult.
With the amount of media attention that Rifqa has received (unfavorable or favorable) I doubt Mohamed Bary would honor kill his daughter in America. Chances are Mohamed Bary would fly his beloved daughter back to Sri Lanka to do the deed or have Sri Lankan family do the deed to cleanse the dishonor that Rifqa is perceived to have brought Islam through the Bary family.
So keep your eyes open to write a Congressman or keep the story alive until Rifqa is free from her Muslim family. Someone has put together a Rifqa Bary website that is supposed to function as a place to see updates and seek aid. I personally have not vetted the authenticity of the website but if you are interested it is http://rifqabary.com/.
Pamela Geller has been a lioness for Rifqa Bary exposing the media lies and the potential duplicity of Mohamed Bary. The two posts I ran into are “Media Lies about Rifqa Bary” and “’Apostate’ Girl’s Father.”
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
I have also read some of the comments by some of my fellow Conservatives which can be summed up in the invective goodbye of “Good Riddance.” Amazingly some more vile words were used as well.
I was no fan or friend of Ted Kennedy; nonetheless my fellow Conservatives who detest Leftist ideology you should respect a man who spent much of his adult life serving the United States as an elected Senator from Massachusetts.
I was about seven years old when President JFK was assassinated. I was about twelve years old when Senator RFK was assassinated. My lower working class family was staunch Democrats believing that President FDR saved America and American people from jobless poverty of The Depression. It did not matter if there were moral or political differences with Democrats. All that mattered was Joe Working American had work and thus food to put on the table.
I would even venture to say that my family could give a hoot about politics in general. The man that enabled Americans to work and take care of his family was a Democrat; ergo every President my family voted for was a Democrat. Mom would not talk about it but I bet she even voted for McGovern.
What I am getting at is that it was engrained into me the Kennedys were Democrats and hence of the line of the saviors of the American worker. Because of this familial attitude, an emerging affinity to politics in general and my impressionable youth; I too was a bastion of the Democrat Left with a huge appreciation of (neoconservative) Democratic Party Hawks like Senator Henry (Scoop) Jackson. My admiration of Jackson was to be the evidence of my current Republican Neocon slant in politics.
Nonetheless, from ages twelve (1968) through nineteen (1976 and Carter) I was an altruistic ideologue Leftist.
Then the first President I was eligible to vote for – Jimmy Carter – turned out to be an indecisive idiot. How in the world could a Democrat President manage the American economy into despair and allow America to have the air of a decrepit paper tiger abroad?
The 1980 election campaign approached. And as if Sir Lancelot came on his horse to save the honor of the Democratic Party, Senator Ted Kennedy decided to challenge the incompetent incumbent President Carter. Man as a young Leftist I was drooling. Unfortunately my fellow Democrats did not overwhelmingly share my Kennedy adoration.
Before Senator Kennedy announced his candidacy the opinion polls placed huge favor on Kennedy above the incumbent Carter. Unfortunately as the campaign came into full swing, Carterites were able to use trust issues because of the Chappaquiddick scandal that Senator Kennedy was involved in on July 18, 1969.
Was Ted drunk? Was married Roman Catholic Ted having an affair with Mary Jo Kopechne? Was there a sex act being performed before Ted ran the car into the river? Why did Ted abandon Kopechne in the submerged car swimming to safety and not call for help? Why did Ted wait until the next day to report he was the driver?
All these questions were never answered adequately probably due to big money, political familial patronage and political power in general. Kennedy’s demise to dethroning the incumbent Carter was a “Can you trust this guy?”
And so my last Democratic Party Lancelot bit the Presidential dust.
I was a confused Leftist with the choice between President Carter and Ronald Reagan. Considering my indoctrination and the Reagan Cold War rhetoric he often spoke, I thought a vote for Reagan was a vote to push buttons and launch the nuclear arsenal.
So I voted Libertarian in 1980. Thank GOD President Reagan won the day! I evolved into a Conservative.
If Senator Ted Kennedy had pulled the upset and defeated incumbent President Carter for the Democratic nomination, would I have stayed the Leftist path? As much as I despise Leftist ideology today, I cannot fathom when or if I would have become a Conservative with a President Edward Kennedy.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
© August 25, 2009
Not long ago Rifqa Bary ran away from home out of fear for her life. Bary is seventeen and ended up in Florida.
Did Bary fear a sexual predator in the family? Perhaps a neighborhood gang was threatening her life. Maybe Bary is a juvenile delinquent and is a cause for distress in her family via drugs, thievery and so on.
Guess what? Rifqa is a non-American residing in Ohio from Sri Lanka. Her family is adherents to Islam.
So why did Rifqa flee Ohio for Florida? It is because seventeen year old Rifqa experienced the Redemption of Christ Jesus. She consciously and willing left the Muslim faith.
Islam is kind of like the mafia, the only way to leave is by execution. Rifqa has lived in America to speak English with an American for I watched her heart felt plea not to be sent back to her father who has already threatened Rifqa with death for converting to Christianity.
ACT! For America has sent me an update of Rifqa’s plight to date:
Rifqa Bary Protected – For Now
On Friday, the judge presiding over the case regarding Rifqa Bary’s request not to be returned to her parents, ruled that there was sufficient evidence to raise concerns about Rifqa’s safety. As a result, the judge ruled that Rifqa should stay in Florida for the time being, and scheduled a follow-up hearing for September 3rd.
Governor Charlie Crist and House Majority Leader Adam Hasner both weighed in on behalf of Rifqa. Governor Crist issued a press release stating that he had instructed the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to petition the judge to have Rifqa stay in Florida pending a thorough investigation.
Did the hundreds and hundreds of emails and phone calls to Governor Crist’s office from ACT! for America Florida members have an impact on the Governor’s decision? We can’t know for sure, but we believe it’s reasonable to assume that such an outpouring of grassroots support and concern at the very least put the issue front and center in the Governor’s office. This wouldn’t have happened without our grassroots response.
And whenever the public profile of an issue like this is increased, elected officials naturally pay more attention to them. Who knows what would have happened in this case if there had been no outcry from the public, which has helped to generate a great deal of media attention as well.
The DCF has stated there are disconcerting inconsistencies in the statements given by Rifqa’s family, and has asked for a law enforcement investigation.
What’s more, the “Atlas Shrugs” website has uncovered [SlantRight Editor: Pamela Gellar has a lot of posts relating to Rifqa Bary. If you happen to stumble this and wish to read the Atlas Shrugs info, type in “Rifqa Bary” and I am certain the articles will manifest.] what may be another “inconsistency” on the part of Rifqa’s parents.
Mohammed and Aysha Bary were provided court-appointed attorneys, paid for by the taxpayers, as a result of their testimony that they were indigent and could not afford to pay an attorney.
Yet as “Atlas Shrugs” has uncovered, Mohammed Bary has stated his business earns more than $237,000 per year. If it turns out that Mr. Bary and his wife did not tell the truth about their financial status, this begs an obvious question: If they were willing to mislead authorities about their financial status, should they be believed when they allege that Rifqa is not telling the truth and is not in danger?
Florida law enforcement and child protection authorities would do well to investigate this case very, very carefully, and not simply take at face value what Rifqa’s family says.
As we noted last week, we are convinced that Florida authorities should err on the side of believing Rifqa’s assertions that her life is in danger if she is returned to her family.
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure..
Monday, August 24, 2009
One Jerusalem has sources that indicate President Barack Hussein Obama is going to join the anti-Israel bloc in the United Nations to pressure Israel about Jerusalem and a return to pre-1967 borders. This is an insidious backing of nations and peoples that HATE Jewish Israel. The very concept will again make Israel vulnerable to Arab nations sympathetic to Arabs calling themselves Palestinians to aid them in the destruction of Israel.
Alert! OBAMA PLANNING ISRAEL AMBUSH AT OPENING OF UN ASSEMBLY!
Several sources have informed One Jerusalem that the Obama Administration is planning to significantly step up the pressure on Israel by announcing a comprehensive plan for Israel and the Palestinians at the opening of the United Nations General in September.
Picture this: The anti-Israel nations of the world surrounding President Obama as he demands that Israel give up sovereignty over Jerusalem, abandon settlements, and recognize a terrorist state on the West Bank.
If this happens, Israel will be isolated from the rest of world in a very dramatic manner.
The first sign that something was up came when Egyptian President Mubarak said that the Obama Administration was ready to propose a plan in September and the White House rushed to dampen expectations by declaring that they are nowhere near to readying a plan.
Our sources confirmed that the Obama administration is contemplating this ambush of Israel at the United Nations.
At the moment, friends and supporters of Israel can help derail this insidious plan by:
- 1. Helping to publicize the intentions of the Obama administration. Use your access to the Internet to spread the news to family and friends.
2. When you come across a a news story or discussion about Israel write a comment, and copy the link to this Alert page.
3. Encourage friends and family to Sign the One Jerusalem Petition.
By focusing public attention to this ambush, we can help avert it.
Copyright © 2009 by OneJerusalem.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
You can listen to the President here:
Ben’s Blog refutes the understanding which President BHO surreptitiously attempted to emanate. Ben is a bit brutal but is still worth the read.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
DEBKAfile reports that Abbas believes that this will gain him 100% support to establish a Palestinian State beyond the National Security concerns of Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu. That means Obama will use the strong arm of America’s might to force Netanyahu to act favorably for a Palestine State.
By extension one could surmise Mahmoud Abbas’ anti-Israeli existence sentiment and the presumption that President Barack Hussein Obama will cripple Israel by forcing pre-1967 borders on the Jewish State is still part of Arab terrorist design.
Food for thought: The pre-1967 borders would force Israel to give up half of its Capital City Jerusalem. That is Islamic Supremacist hogwash!
Friday, August 21, 2009
I suspect Gore’s popularity was an after affect of Clinton’s popularity. The popularity of both was a remarkable mystery to me.
Clinton had a series of scandals pertaining to infidelity that he denied. Then he was busted when the result of DNA placed Clinton sperm on Monica Lewinsky’s clothes. Of course Clinton tried to spin the “I did not have sex with that woman” by implying the sexual gratification of a fellatio induced ejaculation was not sex.
Well that Presidential explanation became an example for Middle School and High School teens giving and receiving fellatio because after all … it is not sex.
If President Clinton lied followed by justifying sex with a White House intern what else might he have lied about?
Anyway I’m beginning to slide away from that which is more current. The point is this though about Clinton: his scandals ran the gambit from licentious immorality, criminal activity and even murder. AND America loved this guy anyway. Even the embarrassing hissy fits he provided for wife Hillary in her Presidential run did not dissuade his popularity.
This popularity of Clinton is the only fathomable reason I can think of that enabled twilight zone Al Gore to win more votes than G.W. Bush but fortunately not more Electoral Votes.
Then the MSM and the Left began what turned out to be a frenzy of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) that went through two Bush Administrations and continues today.
I am betting Left will begin to blame failed President Barack Hussein Obama goal implementations on Obama Deranged Syndrome. Especially this will happen when (or if) Obamacare directives fail to pass Congressional legislation.
I suspect I
As in the case of Clinton, BHO simply has a past deserving of closer scrutiny. BHO has way too many associations and mentors that most people would agree are anti-American in their beliefs and/or rhetoric. BHO has spent millions of dollars to lawyers to keep many things private should have and should be available to public scrutiny. It is not like BHO is private citizen entitled by the Constitution to protect his privacy. If that were the case I would be the first to support BHO’s rights to privacy. However, we all know that the Office of President of the United States of America is a public servant leadership role. “Public” means there is a certain degree of privacy that must be shed to vet for the highest Public Office under the Constitution of the USA.
The radical Left and an amazingly cooperative MSM has aided BHO to not publicize the reality of associations and mentors as well as the insane secrecy of things such as Long Form Birth Certificates and College papers.
I am guessing BDS was (and still is) so virulent that the MSM promoted an eloquently smooth talking Afro-American with a lot of charisma as the man to discredit the Conservative Right. Why? The Conservative Right is considered the political by-product responsible for eight years of President G.W. Bush. The election of an Afro-American as President is a HUGE success story of the American Way evolving past racism at least to the degree that a non-White person could land that Highest Office. In fact Americans should be proud to have progressed to the point of the election of an Afro-American as President. I know I am.
There is just one problem with BHO that stretches way beyond America’s racist past to the chipping away of racism in the present. That problem goes back to something I consider a big mystery. How do American voters embrace a man whose associations and mentors have either been Marxists or racists or both? AND how can American voters not clamor for the openness of documents and papers that define what BHO’s character and core beliefs have evolved to shape the person?
When Barack Hussein Obama promises “Change” for American politics as usual, Americans need to comprehend the potential of BHO’s concept of “Changed.
I personally am convinced BHO’s associations and mentors mean “Change” is an egalitarian Marxist bent to transform America into some form of socialist utopia.
Frankly part of Marxist ideology is to lie to the masses to get them on board unwittingly to a plan that the masses may find to be economically, socially and politically abhorrent. The good Marxist believes that their concept of the greater good will eventually bring the masses (I guess really the “proletariat” in Marxist terminology) on board. The lie then becomes the necessary evil of means to justify a fanciful good utopian end.
Consider these brief phrases on Marxism:
Although so clearly seeing that lying to the masses was an essential ingredient of Stalinist policy, and so solemnly abjuring it for yourself, you continued to run with the Stalinist chiefs. You never exposed their political lies, or said publicly what you said to me in private. For a very long time you played friends with both Lie Communists and Truth Communists, and gave your money with one hand to the Stalinists and with die other to independent revolutionary papers which still believed that scientific integrity and honest education of the masses is essential to the proletarian movement. Anybody who plays both sides in quiet times will be found in a crisis on the side with power. And in the issue between truth and political lying, between science and Jesuitism, between intelligence and blind bigotry, between education and indoctrination, between the enlightment and manipulation of public opinion, between the life of reason and the totalitarian state of mind – and that is the paramount issue upon which in this day the fate of civilization rests – the Moscow trials are a crisis. They carry the whole cult, art, ideology and technique of political and party lying to so hideous an extreme that every man in the labor and radical movement must take his stand for or against. And you have taken yours with those whom you yourself so clearly defined as the “Lie Communists”, because they are in the ascendant, and because you lack the moral force to stand against them for the truth. (Max Eastman: A Letter to Corliss Lamont – April 1938)
Here is one Communist telling another there “Truth Communists” and “Lie Communists.” Any Marxist or Communist who considers them self a Truth Communist walks in a fantastical delusion. The only Marxism that is real is described in the next phrase:
So, from whatever point of view we look at this question, it always comes down to the same dismal result: government of the vast majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority, the Marxists say, will consist of workers. Yes, perhaps of former workers, who, as soon as they become rulers or representatives of the people will cease to be workers and will begin to look upon the whole workers' world from the heights of hte state. They will no longer represent the people but themselves and their own pretensions to govern the people. ...
But those elected will be passionately committed as well as learned socialists. The words "learned socialist" and "scientific socialism," which recur constantly in the writings and speeches of the Lassalleans and Marxists, are proof in themselves that the pseudo-popular state will be nothing but the highly despotic government of the masses by a new and very small aristocracy of real or pretended scholars. The people are not learned, so they will be liberated in entirety from the cares of government and included in entirety in the governed herd. A true liberation!
The Marxists sense this contradiction, and, recognizing that a government of scholars, the most oppressive, offensive, and contemtuous kind in the world, will be a real dictatorship for all its democratic forms, offer the consoling thought that this dictatorship will be temporary and brief. They say that its sole concern and objective will be to educate the people and raise them both economically and politically to such a level that government of any kind will soon become unnecessary and the state, having lost its political, that is, ruling, character, will transform itself into a totally free organization of economics interests and communities.
There is a flagrant contradiction here. If their state is to be truly a people's state, then why abolish it? But if its abolition is essential for the real liberation of the people, then how do they dare call it a people's state? Our polemics against them have forced them to recognize that freedom, or anarchy - that is, the voluntary organization of the workers from below upward - is the ultimate goal of social development, and that any state, including their people's state, is a yoke which gives rise to despotism on the one hand and slavery on the other.
They say this state yoke, this dictatorship, is a necessary transitional device for achieving the total liberation of the people: anarchy, or freedom, is the goal, and the state, or dictatorship, the means. Thus, for the masses to be liberated they must first be enslaved.
For the moment we have concentrated our polemic on this contradiction. They claim that only a dictatorship (theirs, of course) can create popular freedom. We reply that no dictatorship can have any objective than to perpetuate itself, and that it can engender and nurture only slavery in the people who endure it. Liberty can be created only by liberty, by an insurrection of all the people and the voluntary organization of the workers from below upward. ... (Marx’s Program of State Dictatorship, Mikhail Bakunin)
Frankly I neither wish to live in a godless moral relativist society nor do I want my descendants to live in that society in which choice is limited to what the State gives you to choose from.
Well that is my Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) emotional release of the day. I pray ODS infects all of America. A good start for that infection is reading an AmericanGrandJury.org piece on one of Barack Hussein Obama’s favorite teachers of Community Organization – Saul Alinsky.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
© August 20, 2009
Recently I have posted on the American healthcare system (HERE and HERE). I am the rare Conservative that strongly believes Universal Healthcare in the 21st century should be an inalienable right. The technology and the knowledge is at such a level it is barbaric that those on a limited income or meet their bills every month with nothing left over for a medical insurance premium are denied at least basic coverage. It is also barbaric that people do not get life saving care due to a lack of insurance.
As I have stated before I am NO SUPPORTER of socialized Universal Healthcare. Some (probably most) insurance companies are not exactly a bastion of moral choices for their insured. How many have heard stories of the catastrophically sick being booted from their insurance plans? Or perhaps you have become eligible for a group insurance plan via employment, but you are notified you will not be insured because you just had cancer. The insurance companies know statistically the cancer may return.
These examples give a picture of how callous insurance companies can be.
Nonetheless, Free Markets still make insurance premiums competitive. Universal Healthcare with government oversight would force insurance to be available to all regardless of income (or lack thereof) or pre-conditions that insurance companies would typically deny or make coverage to expensive to afford.
Socialized Universal Healthcare would make the unfairness of insurance companies look like a picnic. This is where Obamacare needs to be scrutinized. The death panels exposed by Sarah Palin are just a drop in the bucket of the problems Obamacare presents with government managed socialized Universal Healthcare.
I have been reading Judgebob over at his Vox social blog in which he has rightly been castigating President Barack Hussein Obama’s socialized Healthcare. I found the latest installment of Judgebob’s eloquent castigation at his at his BloggersBase site entitled, “History in the Making.”
I encourage you to read his essay for it is brilliant as it demonstrates President BHO as a prevaricator. The only point I disagree with Judgebob on is his statement:
“I would prefer no reform at all over government controlled health care.”
I believe Obamacare would be better than zero reform. BHO is probably willing to make compromises to use a nuclear option to ram a form of Socialized Universal Healthcare thinking he can mold it closer to his Marxist altruism as time goes on.
I am thinking if the voters don’t wise up and begin electing Conservative Republicans beginning in 2010, America will experience the transformative “Change” he promised voters. If the voters wise up then a Conservative Congress can move Universal Healthcare away from government management and toward government oversight of private companies competitively working a Capitalistic Universal Healthcare.
History in the Making
Wednesday, August 19, 2009 1:16 AM
"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program." . . . Barack Obama – 2003 . . .
"I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process" . . . Barack Obama – 2007 . . .
"There is good news from Washington today. The Congress is deadlocked and can't act." . . . American humorist Will Rogers (1879-1935) . . .
"The question of health care is not one of rights but of how best in practice to organize it. America is certainly not a perfect model in this regard. But neither is Britain, where a universal right to health care has been recognized longest in the Western world. Not coincidentally, the U.K. is by far the most unpleasant country in which to be ill in the Western world.. Even Greeks living in Britain return home for medical treatment if they are physically able to do so. The government-run health-care system -- which in the U.K. is believed to be the necessary institutional corollary to an inalienable right to health care -- has pauperized the entire population. This is not to say that in every last case the treatment is bad: A pauper may be well or badly treated, according to the inclination, temperament and abilities of those providing the treatment. But a pauper must accept what he is given. Universality is closely allied as an ideal, ideologically, to that of equality. But equality is not desirable in itself. To provide everyone with the same bad quality of care would satisfy the demand for equality. ... In any case, the universality of government health care in pursuance of the abstract right to it in Britain has not ensured equality. After 60 years of universal health care, free at the point of usage and funded by taxation, inequalities between the richest and poorest sections of the population have not been reduced. But Britain does have the dirtiest, most broken-down hospitals in Europe. There is no right to health care -- any more than there is a right to chicken Kiev every second Thursday of the month." . . . British physician Theodore Dalrymple . . .
"Every doctor knows, as I did when I practiced years ago, how much unnecessary medical cost is incurred with an eye not on medicine but on the law. Tort reform would yield tens of billions in savings. Yet you cannot find it in the Democratic bills. And Obama breathed not a word about it in the full hour of his health-care news conference. Why? No mystery. The Democrats are parasitically dependent on huge donations from trial lawyers." . . . columnist Charles Krauthammer . . .
"Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should ‘do something' about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don't have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom." . . . Stanford Hoover Institution economist Thomas Sowell . . .
"Only a large-scale popular movement toward decentralization and self-help can arrest the present tendency toward statism.... A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers." . . . British author Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) . . .
"As our president bears no resemblance to a king so we shall see the Senate has no similitude to nobles." . . . Tench Coxe, An American Citizen, No. 2, 1787 . . .
Every bill passed through Congress and enacted into law is history in the making. Each one is a testament to the level of freedom vs. security we, as a culture are willing to endure for our own good. Security means restricted movement, behavior to prevent risk. Security means payment deductions from your wealth. Single payer security means everybody is automatically included. If you earn or create, you are required to submit a portion of your earnings or creations to the government (singlepayer) automatically. With government bureaucracy, your health care security will be run like the Department Motor Vehicles, the Post Office, or the Veterans Administration. The DMV doesn't compete for your business. The Post Office competes with Fed Ex and UPS, but still doesn't turn a profit and still has a monopoly on the letter delivery business. The VA is the sole distributor of Veterens' benefits. There is no competition in their field either. Government programs are run with backwards logic. The field budget manager knows that his funding depends on his needs. The result is he ensures he has a need for the budget. If he wants an increased budget, he must have excuses often resulting in manufactured problems. Examples include perfectly good 1 year old testbooks being tossed in the dumpster at state run schools, politicians cutting emergency services rather than defunding art programs which produce PissChrist and DungMary or even more controversial tax funding of abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Centralizing power only provides greater opportunity for abuses such as these. Tossing all our health care eggs into one basket will grow government to the tune of 11 Trillion dollars in newly excused tax revenue. I do not want this backward traveling mule hitched to my cart. I would prefer no reform at all over government controlled health care. Don't get me wrong, I want tort reforms for a start, I want regulatory reforms. I want reform that will make the market competitive again. I want reform like what the president of Whole Foods offers his employees. Free choice of doctors and services, a Health Savings Account (tax free) and a set amount of health care dollars which if left unused at the end of the year becomes a bonus in my paycheck. That way, no insurance is involved unless I need catastrophic coverage. The company arranged their health care dollars into a reasonable 'customer cares about the cost so shops around for the best care at the best competitive prices' in house health care plan.
What I most don't want is a mega-bill unread, undebated, and rushed through the Washington process in a 'take this and take it now or get nothing' mega-bureaucrat deal. If you think any of the 5 different bills currently being pushed as 'a plan' the reform of health care, you need to take the time to sit down and read what they're pushing. Its typical Washingtonian power grabbing language does not address tort reform at all, nor does it answer any of the concerns about funding the coverage of millions who currently do not pay anything into the system for their 'uninsured' health care. If you're going to protest in either direction, you need to know what they're trying to sell you and at what cost. If you're going to vote, you need to be informed about the issues and who stands for or against what.
Capitalized Universal Healthcare
John R. Houk
© August 20, 2009
History in the Making
Copyright © 2009 BloggersBase
Mugniyah even founded his own offshoot terrorist organization with the appellation of Islamic Jihad. He notoriously murdered hundreds of U.S. Marines in Lebanon. Bombed and killed Jews at Israeli foreign embassies. He is noted for bombing the Khobar Towers in the heartland of Dar al-Islam; i.e. Saudi Arabia.
Although Israel has not officially claimed the glory for assassinating Mugniyah in Damascus, it is widely agreed by Western and Islamic international political watchers that Israel is the
So here is the thing. The Middle East and particular medieval minded Muslims living there are really into the vengeance blood libel thing. Since Israel is the perceived hero that terminated the Islamic lunatic murderer, it is widely expected the Islamic group – Hezbollah – who Mugniyah was associated with will seek payment for the blood libel.
Hence a war of words has been exchanged between Israel and Hezbollah. Lee Smith writing for Hudson Institute speculates that the war of words may elevate into an actual war (again) between Israel and Hezbollah.
Of course the geopolitics involved in another war against Hezbollah in Lebanon is that Hezbollah is a client terrorist organization of Twelver-Shi’ite psycho Iran. Currently Iran is on a path to build a nuclear arsenal and has not been shy about publicly saying that Israel needs to be wiped off the map.
Israel in its turn has not been shy about saying the existence of a nuclear Iran is unacceptable.
So people may be wondering, “What would Iran do in another armed conflict between Israel and Hezbollah?”
I think that is the incorrect question.
The question should be as Israel finds an excuse to invade Lebanon because Hezbollah acts of vengeance in Israel or toward Israelis in foreign lands: Will Israel use an invasion of Lebanon to make a stealth attack on Iranian nuke locations?
After all it assumed that Iran would unleash Hezbollah on Israel anyway if an attack on Iranian nuke facilities occurred. Why not engage Hezbollah preemptively as a distraction then artfully attack Iranian nuke sites?
Sure Israel will be castigated by the Western Left and maybe some token vitriol by surrounding Sunni Muslim nations; nonetheless if Hezbollah gives Israel a good chance to invade Lebanon to punish a transnational terrorist organization that is utilizing a near puppet Lebanese government as a base, Israel should preemptively invade Lebanon then strike Iran nuke sites.
I believe the Sunni Arab nations will secretly be happy that Israel made an effort to set the Iranian nuke program behind if not lucky enough to obliterate it completely.
Syria would be the only wild card in this scenario. Syria has some kind of aggression pact with Iran and is the Iranian conduit to supply Hezbollah militarily (and probably the Sunni Hamas movement as well). Syria has a history of gutlessness when the possibility that war may mean a regime change of the Assad family from power. On the other hand Assad’s Syria may use this as an excuse in trying to retake the Golan Heights lost to Israel in 1967 after Syria (one of a few Arab nations) invaded the Land of Israel.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
© August 19, 2009
As much as I sympathize with the Birthers; however according to the Timeline that I have seen there is no way President Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya. Star Trek science fiction technology would have had to exist for the thought to even be conceivable.
Barack Senior married Ann Dunham in a ceremony in Maui, Hawaii. Prior to the nuptials Barack Junior was already growing in momma’s womb. An educational timeline indicates that Barack Senior went from Hawaii to Massachusetts to work on his Masters. (Check out this 2007 article about Barry, Jr. It is an indication of Barack Senior before Birther controversy did not move to Kenya from Hawaii.)
The Star Ship Enterprise would have to beam Barack, Sr. and Ann Durham from Honolulu to Mombasa for little Barry to be born then back to Honolulu to register little Barry with the State Hawaii.
The great mystery for me is this: Why does Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. spend so much in legal funds to prevent his long form Hawaiian birth certificate from becoming public?
Now here is the other thing Mrs. Ann Obama divorces Barack Sr. shortly after abandoning her in Honolulu. Ann evidently having a thing for secular minded Muslim men marries Lolo Soetoro who like Ann’s first husband was a foreigner attending college in Hawaii. Soetoro took the new wife and little Barry back to Jakarta, Indonesia.
Now here is where some formative thinking must have occurred for little Barry between ages 6 and 10. Obviously Soetoro was a bit more Western oriented than a practicing Muslim; however he did not renounce Islam either.
Little Barry went to a Catholic school in Jakarta but registered as a Muslim. This is no doubt because step-daddy was a Muslim. Here the cultural snag that Islamic Supremacy rings through pertaining to registering as a faith that the step-father is associated with.
Regardless of what President Barack Hussein Obama says about practicing Christianity as his faith it is for political purposes. Only a moron would believe his African Muslim heritage and growing up with Islam between ages six and ten would not affect the BHO outlook on Islam.
Hence it is not surprising President Barack Hussein Obama will sympathize for Jew-hating Muslim Arabs that call themselves Palestinians. This can be evidenced by pre-Presidential associations with Muslims that either support the Palestinian cause or are actively involved with Palestinian terrorist organizations.
- • Rashid Khalidi
• Edward Said (or Sayyid)
• Ali Abunimah
• Obama Foreign Policy Advisors: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley and Samantha Power
• Daniel Kurtzer
• Merrill "Tony" McPeak
• There are many other anti-Israel/pro-Arab people I don’t have time to look for but which others could add to this Obama anti-Israel list.
Seeing this President Barack Hussein Obama sympathy for his Muslim heritage, it should come as no surprise that his Administration is either supporting or looking the other way as American tax money is going to the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) which is using the American tax funds to help finance Islamic terrorist organizations like Hamas in its spread lies and fraudulent propaganda about Israel.
Steve Emerson has the details. Go their and be shocked and comprehend the BHO path to cripple the existence of democratic Israel.
U.S. Taxpayers Fund Pro-Hamas Propaganda
By Steven Emerson
August 19, 2009 / 29 Meanachem-Av 5769
Jewish World Review
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/ With the federal government facing trillions of dollars in red ink, one might think that the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), which receives upwards of $30 million a year from the taxpayers, would want to show Congress it wasn't squandering money on propaganda for terrorist groups like Hamas.
But that hasn't happened. Instead, USIP has issued a new report that twists reality to argue that Hamas has moderated and Israel needs to negotiate with the terror organization. The authors of the report are a Jew and Muslim, USIP informs readers: Paul Scham, a visiting professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Maryland College Park, and Osama Abu-Irshaid.
USIP identified Irshaid as a writer who "is completing a Ph.D. thesis on Hamas at Loughboro University, U.K., and is founder and editor in chief of Al-Meezan newspaper, published in Arabic in the United States." But USIP (and Foreign Policy magazine, which has published lengthy excerpts of the report ) neglected to inform readers that Irshaid used to be editor of Al-Zaytounah, the biweekly Arabic-language newspaper published by the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP).
In the summer of 2007, evidence in the Hamas-support prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) and its officers showed that the IAP played a central role in the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee. The committee was created to advance Hamas' agenda in the United States by, among other things, "what it needs of media, money and men and all of that."
For example, a November 1991 status report approved by the Shura Council explained that the Ikhwan, or Muslim Brotherhood, created IAP "to serve the cause of Palestine on the political and media fronts." It added that "The Association's work has developed a great deal since its inception, particularly with the formation of the Palestine Committee, the beginning of the Intifada at the end of 1987 and the proclamation of the Hamas Movement."
Evidence also included a 1992 internal memo urging the Palestine Committee to work to "increase the financial and the moral support for Hamas" to "fight surrendering solutions" and publicize "the savagery of the Jews." A July 30, 1994 report found in the home of a former Hamas official listed IAP as a member of the Committee.
Al Zaytounah also printed communiques glorifying Hamas suicide attacks. In its October 27, 1994 issue, Al Zaytounah's headline was: "In its greatest operation, Hamas takes credit for the bombing of an Israeli bus in the heart of Tel Aviv." IAP was listed among more than 300 unindicted co-conspirators in the HLF case. In November 2008, the HLF and five of its senior officials were found guilty on all charges. Read more here.
Given Irshaid's background, it should come as no surprise that the report he co-authored for USIP calls for a "reexamination of our assumptions" that Hamas cannot coexist with Israel. "Indeed, Hamas has been carefully and consciously adjusting its political program for years and has sent repeated signals that it may be ready to begin a process of coexisting with Israel," Irshaid and Scham write. They add that Hamas "has indicated on a number of occasions" its "willingness to accede to a hudna [truce] for a specified period of time] with Israel" if "basic Palestinian rights" are agreed to.
Their case for negotiating with Hamas verges on the farcical, as the authors try to explain away its opposition to any territorial compromise with Israel and its anti-Semitism. Irshaid and Scham note, for example, that Article 11 of the Hamas charter affirms "that the land of Palestine is an Islamic waqf (trust) endowed for Muslim generations until the Day of Resurrection, and should not be compromised entirely or partially." Article 13 states that "various initiatives of settlement, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences to resolve the Palestinian issue contradict the tenets of the Islamic Resistance Movement, as compromising any part of Palestine is equivalent to the omission of a part of our religion." The same article, they point out, declares that there is "no solution to the Palestinian cause save jihad; for initiatives, proposals and international conferences are nothing but a waste of time and absurd nonsense."
Article 7 quotes the famous hadith: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say 'O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'"
Article 22, "draws on mythology of the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic forgery commissioned by the czarist secret police in the early years of the twentieth century and republished many times since, most recently in numerous Arabic editions," Irshaid and Scham write. "Article 22 of the charter refers specifically to Jewish (or Zionist, the words seem to be used interchangeably) control of the media, finance, Freemasonry, etc., and states that Jews are responsible for World Wars I and II."
This suggests that Hamas is irremovably anti-Semitic and hostile to peace. Not necessarily, according to the authors, who argue that Hamas' literature and statements during the movement's "early years" reflect "a genuine confusion about how to deal with Jews." Hamas has subsequently taken a "clearer position," they report, "that reflects hostility to actions by Jews against Palestinians and not hostility to Jews simply on the basis of belief." How comforting.
Article 13 of the Hamas Charter, which rejects negotiations with Israel, isn't a problem either, because Hamas officials now call for a "phased liberation" of Palestine, "which is a fundamental change in policy opening the door to coexistence with Israel." A few paragraphs later, the authors quote Muhammad Nazzal, a member of Hamas' political bureau, stating that "We are for any 'phased solution,' but without recognizing the Israeli enemy or its existence." [Emphasis added]
That sort of begs the question of how one can co-exist with someone whose existence one refuses to recognize. What might such "coexistence" look like? To Hamas, it looks like getting everything it wants and offering nothing in return. In recent interviews with the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, Meshaal said Hamas would respect a ceasefire with Israel and a prisoner swap that would free Hamas fighters (i.e., terrorists) in exchange for kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. He said Hamas would accept a ceasefire based on the June 4, 1967 borders and Israeli acceptance of the "right of return" for millions of Palestinian refugees.
In other words, Meshaal would agree to a 10-year truce as long as Hamas wouldn't have to recognize Israel's existence if Israel would agree to cripple itself by allowing millions of hostile Palestinians to settle in the country. Then, after Hamas armed itself for a decade, it could resume its war to destroy Israel (which by this point would be only eight miles wide, having relinquished the West Bank.) That isn't a peace agreement in any genuine sense but a formula for Israel's destruction.
But that is what Irshaid and Scham are proposing with support from USIP. Congress needs to start asking some serious questions - such as why taxpayers are being forced to fund pro-Hamas propaganda co-authored by an alumnus of the Hamas/ Muslim Brotherhood public-relations apparatus in the United States.
Of Course Obama Will Sell Out Israel
John R. Houk
© August 19, 2009
U.S. Taxpayers Fund Pro-Hamas Propaganda
JWR contributor Steven Emerson is an internationally recognized expert on terrorism and national security and considered one of the leading world authorities on Islamic extremist networks, financing and operations. He now serves as the Executive Director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, one of the world's largest archival data and intelligence institutes on Islamic and Middle Eastern terrorist groups.
© 2009, Steven Emerson
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The Obama Administration may not be at war with Islam or at least aspects of the theo-political cult, but Islam is definitely at war with the West (again) or at least aspects of Islam.
The pondering is posted at United Against Islamic Supremacism and it appears it may be an ongoing discussion.
Monday, August 17, 2009
This seems to be the exact case of many pro-Palin blogosphere Conservatives giving credit to Sarah Palin for exposing the “death panel” concept in the Universal Obamacare national medical proposals.
Evidently the editors of National Review Online (which I read often) were critical of Palin’s exposé of the “death panel” plan within the Obamacare formula.
A post on Conservatives 4 Palin rebuts the NRO and even adds some critics of NRO too boot.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
© August 16, 2009
I have pointed out I am one of those rare Conservatives that is in favor of Universal Healthcare. I must point out though I am not in favor of the Federal government being the direct manager of a National Universal Healthcare. My vision for Universal Healthcare leans more toward government regulation of mandatory health insurance provided by the free market private sector.
My dip into altruism is a plan of government oversight making sure insurance plans are affordable for the poor and not burdensome on small scale entrepreneurs. I can even see the government picking up some of the cost for those whose income precludes a budget of a monthly premium.
The point is Healthcare should be made readily available to all citizens and legal immigrants. It is a travesty that the wealthiest nation in the world does not offer easy access to the medical needs of
Now that I have the Slanted Left salivating in glee and the Slanted Right planning my funeral, I need to provide a little clarification of my thinking.
Government managed socialized Universal Healthcare is a disastrous method to implement Universal Healthcare in America. I am noticing that President Obama’s Universal Healthcare cares less for the human being and more to the molding of a healthy society at the expense of those whose needs may not fit the government litmus test of providing life saving care for those who may die even with such care. Those diagnosed as terminal or a probability of terminal and the elderly Americans may be on the “let them die comfortably” list.
My fellow Americans allowing the government to manage this kind of power over a life should be considered horrific.
Much to my gratification one my favorite Republicans has weighed in on Obamacare. That person is Sarah Palin.
Israpundit has a quote from Sarah Palin’s August 7, 2009 entry on her Facebook page:
On August 7th, Sarah Palin wrote in her facebook page
The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
That reference to death panels caused a storm of protest from Obama’s supporters and Palin haters. But it only took seven days for them to capitulate.
I don’t know if Sarah Palin coined the “death panel” phrase but the existence of such a concept in Universal Healthcare is inhumane and uncaring.
I am also delighted to read that some pundits writing in media that is not considered the so-called right wing fringe had this to say about Palin’s entrance into the Obamacare debate:
If she's dim and Obama is brilliant, how did he lose the argument to her?
The first we heard about Sarah Palin's "death panels" comment was in a conversation last Friday with an acquaintance who was appalled by it. Our interlocutor is not a Democratic partisan but a high-minded centrist who deplores extremist rhetoric whatever the source. We don't even know if he has a position on ObamaCare. From his description, it sounded to us as though Palin really had gone too far.
A week later, it is clear that she has won the debate.
President Obama himself took the comments of the former governor of the 47th-largest state seriously enough to answer them directly in his so-called town-hall meeting Tuesday in Portsmouth, N.H. As we noted Wednesday, he was callous rather than reassuring, speaking glibly--to audience laughter--about "pulling the plug on grandma."
The Los Angeles Times reports that Palin has won a legislative victory as well:
A Senate panel has decided to scrap the part of its healthcare bill that in recent days has given rise to fears of government "death panels," with one lawmaker suggesting the proposal was just too confusing.
The Senate Finance Committee is taking the idea of advance care planning consultations with doctors off the table as it works to craft its version of healthcare legislation, a Democratic committee aide said Thursday.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, ranking Republican on the committee, said the panel dropped the idea because it could be "misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly." . . .
The Palin claim about "death panels" was so widely discredited that the White House has begun openly quoting it in an effort to show that opponents of the healthcare overhaul are misinformed.
You have to love that last bit. The fearless, independent journalists of the Los Angeles Times justify their assertion that the Palin claim was "widely discredited" with an appeal to authority--the authority of the White House, which is to say, the other side in the debate. One suspects the breathtaking inadequacy of this argument would have been obvious to Times reporters Christi Parsons and Andrew Zajac if George W. Bush were still president. And of course this appears in a story about how the Senate was persuaded to act in accord with Palin's position--which doesn't prove that position right but does show that it is widely (though, to be sure, not universally) credited.
One can hardly deny that Palin's reference to "death panels" was inflammatory. But another way of putting that is that it was vivid and attention-getting. Level-headed liberal commentators who favor more government in health care, including Slate's Mickey Kaus and the Washington Post's Charles Lane, have argued that the end-of-life provision in the bill is problematic--acknowledging in effect (and, in Kaus's case, in so many words) that Palin had a point.
If you believe the media, Sarah Palin is a mediocre intellect, if even that, while President Obama is brilliant. So how did she manage to best him in this debate? Part of the explanation is that disdain for Palin reflects intellectual snobbery more than actual intellect. Still, Obama's critics, in contrast with Palin's, do not deny the president's intellectual aptitude. Intelligence, however, does not make one immune from hubris.
For a wonderful example of such hubris, check out this post from David Kurtz of TalkingPointsMemo.com:
Is there anything quite as unsettling as when the nation's political class (and I use that term broadly to encompass the occasionally political, like the tea partiers) turns its fleeting but intense focus to a new (for them) and complex topic, like end-of-life issues?
It seems like years of painstaking work to nudge our death-denying culture toward a more frank and humane approach to our own mortality and dying could be erased by one misguided national discussion set off by none other than Sarah Palin.
Except that Palin didn't "set off" this discussion; President Obama did by trying to ram through legislation postalizing the medical system with no time for debate or reflection. How to care for dying patients is a serious, sensitive and complicated matter, one with which American families struggle every day. If you truly don't want the "political class" involved, your quarrel is with the man who is pushing for more federal involvement in this most personal of matters. It's entirely understandable that people would respond to such an effort by shouting, "Keep your laws off my grandma!" (James Taranto in Wall Street Journal)
There is an intellectual coup for Sarah Palin against the Obamassiah.
Ted Belman of Israpundit continues with another Palin Facebook entry:
Troubling Questions Remain About Obama’s Health Care Plan
I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200). It’s gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones.
As I noted in my statement last week, nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time. The rationing system proposed by one of President Obama’s key health care advisors is particularly disturbing. I’m speaking of the “Complete Lives System” advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president’s chief of staff. President Obama has not yet stated any opposition to the “Complete Lives System,” a system which, if enacted, would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential.  Why the silence from the president on this aspect of his nationalization of health care? Does he agree with the “Complete Lives System”? If not, then why is Dr. Emanuel his policy advisor? What is he advising the president on? I just learned that Dr. Emanuel is now distancing himself from his own work and claiming that his “thinking has evolved” on the question of rationing care to benefit the strong and deny the weak.  How convenient that he disavowed his own work only after the nature of his scholarship was revealed to the public at large.
The president is busy assuring us that we can keep our private insurance plans, but common sense (and basic economics) tells us otherwise. The public option in the Democratic health care plan will crowd out private insurers, and that’s what it’s intended to do. A single payer health care plan has been President Obama’s agenda all along, though he is now claiming otherwise. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what he said back in 2003:
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan…. A single payer health care plan – universal health care plan – that’s what I would like to see.” [3
A single-payer health care plan might be what Obama would like to see, but is it what the rest of us would like to see? What does a single payer health care plan look like? We need look no further than other countries who have adopted such a plan. The picture isn’t pretty.  The only way they can control costs is to ration care. As I noted in my earlier statement quoting Thomas Sowell, government run health care won’t reduce the price of medical care; it will simply refuse to pay the price. The expensive innovative procedures that people from all over the world come to the United States for will not be available under a government plan that seeks to cover everyone by capping costs.
Our senior citizens are right to be wary of this health care bill. Medical care at the end of life accounts for 80 percent of all health care. When care is rationed, that is naturally where the cuts will be felt first. The “end-of-life” consultations authorized in Section 1233 of HR 3200 were an obvious and heavy handed attempt at pressuring people to reduce the financial burden on the system by minimizing their own care. Worst still, it actually provided a financial incentive to doctors to initiate these consultations. People are right to point out that such a provision doesn’t sound “purely voluntary.”
In an article I noted yesterday, Charles Lane wrote:
“Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life’send would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it’s good to have a doctor’s perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party — the government — recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.” 
I agree. Last year, I issued a proclamation for “Healthcare Decisions Day.”  The proclamation sought to increase the public’s knowledge about creating living wills and establishing powers of attorney. There was no incentive to choose one option over another. There was certainly no financial incentive for physicians to push anything. In fact, the proclamation explicitly called on medical professionals and lawyers “to volunteer their time and efforts” to provide information to the public.
Comparing the “Healthcare Decisions Day” proclamation to Section 1233 of HR 3200 is ridiculous. The two are like apples and oranges. The attempt to link the two shows how desperate the proponents of nationalized health care are to shift the debate away from the disturbing details of their bill.
There is one aspect of this bill which I have not addressed yet, but it’s a very obvious one. It’s the simple fact that we can’t afford it. But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of Doug Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. He told the Senate Budget Committee last month:
“In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.” 
Dr. Elmendorf went on to note that this health care legislation would increase spending at an unsustainable rate.
Our nation is already $11.5 trillion in debt. Where will the money come from? Taxes, of course. And will a burdensome new tax help our economy recover? Of course not. The best way to encourage more health care coverage is to foster a strong economy where people can afford to purchase their own coverage if they choose to do so. The current administration’s economic policies have done nothing to help in this regard.
Health care is without a doubt a complex and contentious issue, but health care reform should be a market oriented solution. There are many ways we can reform the system and lower costs without nationalizing it.
The economist Arthur Laffer has taken the lead in pushing for a patient-center health care reform policy. He noted in a Wall Street Journal article earlier this month:
“A patient-centered health-care reform begins with individual ownership of insurance policies and leverages Health Savings Accounts, a low-premium, high-deductible alternative to traditional insurance that includes a tax-advantaged savings account. It allows people to purchase insurance policies across state lines and reduces the number of mandated benefits insurers are required to cover. It reallocates the majority of Medicaid spending into a simple voucher for low-income individuals to purchase their own insurance. And it reduces the cost of medical procedures by reforming tort liability laws.” 
Those are real reforms that we can live with and afford. Once again, I warn my fellow Americans that if we go down the path of nationalized health care, there will be no turning back. We must stop and think or we may find ourselves losing even more of our freedoms.
Sarah Palin uses the word “nationalized health care.” She should have used the word “socialized healthcare.” Like I said before there is a need for Universal Healthcare in America; however a socialized government managed Universal Healthcare will be like Big Brother dictating to the lives of Americans eroding personal Liberty in America.
A national standard does need to exist but that is to ensure Capitalism does not run amok down the other side of the scale toward inhumane medical charges to maximize the profit beyond the scope of the life of the individual. Profits and ownership is good and the American way, but human lives are priceless and should not be measured by the profit share. I am saying make money but not by exploitation.
I am also saying do not allow the government to dictate the management of your medical. The government should only certify citizens are protected and that the market is fair. This may also entail reform on how Doctors must maintain insurance for themselves to protect themselves from frivolous litigation.
Unfortunately Obamacare may have to be the starting point for Universal Healthcare to begin in America for I believe the Slanted Right does not have the cajones to initiate a profitable regulated Universal Healthcare because of the lobbyists that prefer the status quo. The status quo is not acceptable. People suffer in the current status quo medical system.
As I have said before better an initiated Obamacare now and the Conservatives chipping away the socialism in exchange for a regulated market as time goes on instead of maintaining the status quo. If some high profile politicians can get on board to offer an alternative to Obamacare then do it now. The alternative plan is the best way to counter the socialistic Obamacare system.
Check out this idea as an alternative at We The People Health. I am not saying this is the best alternative to Obamacare but it is viable option to explore or to build upon for other viable alternatives.