Does anyone recall the first weeks of Barack Obama’s presidency? He was everywhere on the media all the time.
His constant use of TelePrompters became an instant joke, suggesting he could not say anything unless it was scripted. Indeed, listening to him try to speak without them is a painful process of a very slow selection of words and very long pauses in between.
After his first press conference he stopped holding them until 309 days later when he addressed the oil spill in the Gulf. It was such a lame performance that his advisors apparently thought a speech from the Oval Office, his first, would make up for that. It didn’t.
In this age of 24/7 news coverage, Barack Obama has managed to make himself ubiquitous to the point of complete inanity.
So, I have a bit of advice for him: Shut up, Barack.
The seas have not ceased to rise because you were elected (as promised) and the Earth has not “healed itself.” Indeed, it is bleeding oil at a prodigious rate, confounding BP’s engineers, all graduates no doubt of the Acme School of Oil Drilling.
What have we learned about Barack Hussein Obama? If George W. Bush was considered an amiable dunce, Obama has demonstrated to everyone he is the worst kind of ideologue, totally tone deaf to the Voice of the People.
When nearly a million Americans showed up in Washington, D.C. on September 12th last year to protest Obamacare, his communications advisor, David Axelrod dismissed them saying, “They’re wrong.”
Axelrod was on all the network and cable news shows the day following his Oval Office appearance defending a speech that essentially said we don’t know what we’re doing, but we blame BP. The good news is that the president has finally found someone else to blame other than George W. Bush for his own ineptitude and incompetence.
In case you haven’t noticed, Obama’s approval ratings in the polls are in the low 40s and heading south. There is a hard core of about 30% who support Obama no matter what he does or doesn’t do.
In an article by the Editor-in-Chief of CNSnews, Terence P. Jeffrey, he noted that “The middle class is abandoning President Barack Obama, according to data released by the Gallup Poll. The only income bracket among which a majority still says they approve of the job he is doing as president are those earning $2,000 per month or less.”
Anyone still making a living comparable to achieving the American Dream has long since abandoned the great Community Organizer with the exception of union members. When you lose the middle class, you have lost the great engine of the American economy.
With the exception of the growing legion of government workers, the unions had been losing members for years. They were held in generally low esteem and their destruction of General Motors and Chrysler bears out their parasitic relationship with business and industry. Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s support from teacher’s unions suggests why our educational system has been in the toilet for decades.
Every time Obama opens his mouth, his approval falls. It began with his great Apology Tour to the Middle East at the beginning of his presidency, continued with his acceptance of a Nobel Peace Prize for having done nothing notable, and plunged with his advocacy of the much-hated Obamacare shoved down the throats of all Americans.
In addition to advocating a Cap-and-Trade bill that is a huge tax on energy use, he is now babbling about a “clean energy future” that apparently involves paving over America with millions of acres of solar farms and coast-to-coast wind turbines.
Obama doesn’t like coal that provides fifty percent of all the electricity we use every day and, of course, oil that fuels our cars, trucks, tractors, et cetera.
Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
Now that Barack Obama is well into his presidency, it's clear that he is keeping at least one promise he made. He is standing with the Muslims.
In his chapter on "Race" in The Audacity of Hope, then-Senator Obama devoted a section to his post-9/11 concerns over the treatment of Muslim Americans. He makes special mention of meetings he had with Arab- and Pakistani-Americans, drawing attention to the "urgent quality" these meetings had taken after the 9/11 attacks on the WTC.
[T]he stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their [Arab- and Pakistani-Americans'] sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. [Emphasis mine.] - Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope, p. 261
One Pakistani-American just learned that his citizenship meant a great deal of unmolested access to a whole host of possible terror victims. And since President Obama has taken a number of measures to ensure that no Muslim American feels "profiled" in any connection to terror plots, I think we can freely assume that until his arrest on board an Emirates airplane two days ago, Faisal Shahzad felt just as welcome and loved here as he did in the country of his birth and at his favorite mosque. As a naturalized American citizen, Faisal Shahzad moved freely, completely under the radar of any law enforcement entity or terror-watch agency.
Shahzad's bank knew far more about him than our so-called national security people. Our national security employees are those folks making big bucks to find people like Shahzad before they have a chance to blow any of us real American citizens to kingdom come. However, as was the case with the Ft. Hood terrorist,our national security and military personnel have become quite skittish in appearing to make any connection between the Muslim religion/political ideology and worldwide terrorism. Therefore, they don't look at the obvious until it is too late. Instead, resources are being squandered in the president's witch hunt against Tea Party grandmas and kiddies and middle-class homemakers and dads, all waving their American flags.
Shahzad's real estate agent even knew something of this Pakistani's politics. Shahzad virulently hated President Bush and vociferously denounced the Iraq War, just as Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress did.
From Shahzad's outspoken hatred of Bush and the Iraq War, we can deduce that Shahzad was most likely in full agreement with John Kerry's assertion that our troops were "terrorizing" Iraqi women and children in their homes in the "dead of night." Shahzad was most likely nodding his head the day that late Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) publicly convicted -- without a shred of evidence -- the Haditha Marines of "cold-blooded murder." Those Marines, of course, have since been exonerated, but as their acquittals didn't receive nearly the media attention as the charges against them, I doubt Shahzad even knew the Marines were innocent of killing his fellow Muslim civilians in murderous with no cause.
We can also infer that Shahzad may have even cheered the day he saw the video of Rep. Harkin (D-CA) standing in the floor of the once-great American Congress and screamed at his fellow representatives: "You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement." I doubt Faisal Shahzad was amused by this rant; he was most likely incensed.
Once Obama was elected, and as Obama had professed his intention to "stand with the Muslims," Shahzad may have expected an immediate end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. When Obama did not perform as expected, then perhaps Shahzad felt an urgent need to strike out at America, "the great Satan." Shahzad's work visas, prior to his request for citizenship being granted, were in the skilled-labor areas. He was a financial analyst, having earned two degrees at U.S. universities. He seems to have gone completely unnoticed by professors, who do not even remember him. Or perhaps, following this president's lead, these professors are simply refusing to remember any references their student may have made regarding his political/religious extremism.
Shahzad bought a house and lived an apparently quiet, unobtrusive lifestyle...that is, until he spent eight months out of the country, in Pakistan's Taliban-controlled hinterland.
Now, Faisal Shahzad is commonly referred to as the would-be Times Square Bomber. Yes, as his name and heritage indicate, he is a Muslim.
And yes, President Obama is standing with him. Though the president is taking great public pains to appear tough on terror and the real terrorists -- as opposed to the imaginary ones (i.e., conservatives and Tea Partiers) -- Barack Obama has actually gone to great lengths to make sure others like Shahzad remain utterly undisturbed. Others who at this very minute remain undetected among us, ready to strike on orders from radicalized Imams or terror-army chiefs, walk among us, now knowing that they have a true friend and protector in the White House. Barack Obama has successfully purged from the national discourse on terrorism -- excuse me, "man-made disasters" -- any mention of the religion/political ideology which is the undeniable common denominator.
Carefully protecting feelings can be a priority of a mommy tending her babies. Protecting a group's feelings at the expense of a nation's real safety is a huge no-no for a Commander in Chief. And if Barack Obama would prefer to be the nurturing mommy to all Muslims, he ought to resign from the presidency. Trying to be both a mommy to Muslim sensibilities and to perform adequately as our president is a losing formula for every real peace-loving American citizen.
It's a terrible thing when Americans have to face the day not only needing to know where their own children are, but also asking the haunting question: Do you know where your Muslim neighbor is, and what he's up to?
We have to ask that question now because our president and his people will not.
So in the end, Barack Obama has brought about the exact scenario he has worked so hard to avoid. If Americans were assured that our president and our national security employees are doing the necessary watching and profiling, then we would also know we don't have to do it. We could be nice, hospitable, and open to our American Muslim neighbors and coworkers.
But when we know that the people paid to fight terrorism refuse to see the obvious, then we are necessarily put on high alert. We take on their jobs. We watch. We stare. We shy from the company of those we know might become our worst nightmare.
Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at www.kyleanneshiver.com.
Note: Ah, if only more Americans had taken time to read the book of lies, written by Obama (or a Ghost writer) before voting on that fateful day in November 2008. What is common knowledge today, was either denied or covered over by the faithful Obama media-worshippers. He fooled lots of folks; anyone who dared question his background was immediately called a "racist" and his background is still a mystery that would cause a former game show "To Tell the Truth" to be stumped.
So, the cat is out of the bag now! Yes, he is Muslim. Some will say, "So what if he is Muslim", he is still our president and should be respected for being America's "leader".
Okay, I'll run with that thought for a moment. It would not matter if he had not lied on the campaign trail and told the America people he was Muslim. Why didn't he? Perhaps because we we were (and still are) fighting a war on two fronts - dare I say it, a War against Islamic radical terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps it would have cost him votes, since Americans had not forgotten that it was Islamic terrorists - all nine of them - who attacked America on Sept. 11th.
So, for whatever reasons known only to Obama, he lied to America before he became president. Has he lied since becoming the 44th president? You be the judge of that before next elections. Has he fulfilled any of his promises?
As the writer of this article states, "Yes - he promised to stand with the Muslims" and stand he does, with all the dictators and radicals in the world, while betraying the friendship of Israel, Britain, and other American allies. Kyle-Anne Shiver is correct - he cannot bow and serve Islam, while his purpose as president is to "protect and serve" the United States. The United States is NOT an Arab/Muslim nation. The United States is a democracy.
His loyalty to Islam gets in the way of the Constitution and America. It was noted yesterday that the Palestinian leader, Abbas has stated "the United States has promised to get rough with Israel. The United States shares the ideal of the Muslims." When you have Arab leaders relying on Obama to get "rough" Israel, while supporting those same Arab leaders who honor terrorists by naming streets after murders of Israeli's, then yes, Obama being Muslim does get in the way of protecting, serving, and being loyal to America.
As Kyle-Anne Shiver has presented so beautifully, let Obama resign and spend his waking hours defending Islam; we need a president who will defend America and America's allies - anything less, places our country in jeopardy. Bee Sting
The US president has approved the targeted killing of a fellow American. So what has changed the principled politician?
Back in the old days, when Barack Obama was one of the hopefuls trying to get his party's presidential nomination, he was asked a specific question: does the American constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charge as unlawful enemy combatants? The would-be candidate's response was unequivocal, rejecting the idea that there was any such power. No wonder, then, that so many people were startled when it emerged last week that the Obama administration has authorised not only the detention but the "targeted killing" of an American citizen, the extremist Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
For decades, the CIA was suspected of covertly plotting political assassinations, but the practice was believed to have been banned by President Gerald Ford. Under the Bush administration, such an admission would have caused more outrage than astonishment, but isn't Obama supposed to be more principled than his predecessor?
Perhaps we shouldn't have been caught off guard. The ground for the announcement was prepared in February when the director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, said that targeted killings of American nationals were theoretically possible: "We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community. If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that." He must have had Awlaki in mind: the Muslim cleric was born in New Mexico and was an imam in the US before he went to Yemen, where he's believed to be hiding.
President George W Bush famously talked about wanting Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" after the 9/11 attacks. Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qa'ida after the suicide-bombings and its operatives are considered to be enemies of the US, exempting them from Ford's ban on assassinations. Now Awlaki finds himself in the same category, accused of escalating from verbal threats to getting involved in actual plots, with counter-terrorism officials claiming he has recruited individuals to attack US interests. But specific details of what he's accused of have not been released.
None of this is to suggest that Awlaki is anything other than a religious fanatic who has set himself up as a poster-boy for naive young men who see Muslims as victims. Anyone who doubts it should read the interview conducted with him in 2007 by the former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg, who on Awlaki's release from prison in Yemen, invited him to meet his supporters in the UK and confronted him with challenging questions such as this: "What was your response to the outpouring of support and concern, the campaigns, petitions, Facebook groups and the messages that you've received since your release?"
A more accurate portrait of Awlaki emerged two months ago from an interview with al-Jazeera in which he admitted that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man who tried to blow up a plane on its way to Detroit on Christmas day, was "one of my students". Awlaki denied issuing a fatwa telling Abdulmutallab to bomb the plane but said: "I support what Umar Farouk has done."
Three months earlier, Awlaki hailed US army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan, currently facing 13 charges of murder following a massacre at Fort Hood in Texas, as a "hero"; Hasan attended the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Virginia Falls when Awlaki preached there and the two men exchanged emails before the killings. Awlaki is also accused of being spiritual leader to three 9/11 hi-jackers.
It's not hard to see why American counter-terrorism officials have lost patience with the cleric, whom they now accuse of being a senior operative of the organisation al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula.
"The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual – through his own actions – has become one,"an unnamed official said. None of which explains how Awlaki poses an imminent threat to the US, which is the sole justification for adding someone's name to a capture-or-kill list.
At the beginning of his presidency, Obama appeared to row back from the Bush administration. Even Bush himself has had second thoughts, admitting a couple of years ago that he regretted his emotional post-9/11 outburst about bin Laden. Now the Obama administration has taken the risk of announcing a possible assassination of an American citizen in advance, a move so extraordinary that it prompts several lines of speculation.
One is that Obama is deliberately trying to break with the CIA's murky past; if the President has been persuaded that such desperate measures must be adopted, he may believe it's better to have the whole thing out in the open rather than risk a series of damaging leaks.
Another possibility is that an operation to seize or kill Awlaki is imminent, and public opinion is being prepared for its inflammatory consequences in Muslim countries.
But whatever lies behind the announcement, it does not remove the moral problem of political assassination as official policy for dealing with a country's enemies when it is not, strictly speaking, at war. (Most people would say that trying to assassinate Hitler in 1938 is quite different from attempting it in 1942.)
A young civil rights lawyer called Barack Obama would have had strong views, I suspect, about imposing an extra-judicial death penalty on an American citizen who hasn't even had a trial. But that was in another country, so to speak; and besides, that idealistic youth is now President of the United States.
The latest AJC poll on American Jewish opinion is a reminder that there is a disturbing tendency among my co-religionists, as one commentator poignantly put it, to “despise their familiars and love The Stranger who hates them — and hates them all the more for their craven pursuit of him.” What do American Jews think of Obama’s Israel policy? 55 percent approve and only 37 percent disapprove. And they still are among thee presidents’ most loyal supporters: 57 percent of Jews approve of Obama’s performance. (By contrast, his RCP poll average is hovering around 47 percent.) But then this gets really wacky.
What about a Palestinian state? Only 48 percent approve of the idea. What about compromising on Jerusalem? Oh, 61 percent disapprove of that idea. 75 percent of Jews agree with this statement: “The goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel.” Do they know what Obama’s Israel policy is? It’s hard to fathom how their support for his policy meshes with their policy preferences, which are antithetical to Obama’s. One is forced to conclude that this is a near Pavlovian response: “Obama=approval.” (One caveat: the poll was taken between March 2 and 23 so it may be that many responses were registered before the full Obama onslaught against Israel was apparent.)
On Iran it’s a slightly more mixed picture. Here only 47 percent approve of Obama’s policy and 42 percent don’t. But again, asked about the component parts of that policy, Jews sound a decidedly un-Obama-like note. 68 percent say there is little to no chance that sanctions will halt Iran’s nuclear program. On a military strike, 53 percent favor a U.S. action and 62 support an Israeli one. Again, do they know (or care) what Obama’s actual Iran policy is? Hard to tell.
If Israel supporters hope to apply pressure on the administration to reverse its approach to Israel and Iran, I have a suggestion: get some gentile support. Left to their own devices, a great number of American Jews seem to be out to lunch when it comes to the damage that Obama is inflicting on the U.S.-Israel relationship and on Israel’s security.
With its unprecedented decision to sanitize the basic document defining U.S. national security strategy – cleanse from it terms that connect Islam to terror, jihad, extremism and the like – President Obama is once again propagating Orwellian babble.
And there’s little doubt but that the MSM are primed to parrot far and wide, as opposed to critically assess, the president’s now squeaky clean, official vocabulary of defense. Even after the carnage of 9/11, for example, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews could only bring himself vaguely to identify the attacks as “criminal acts of terror” – selecting out the unpalatable fact that all the terrorists were Islamic radicals.
The administration’s latest rhetorical sleight of hand is just the latest evidence of its zeal for obfuscating the true nature of the terrorist threat. Recall the bizarre memo, originating from Obama’s Office of Management and Budget that instructed Defense Department staffers to use the term “Overseas Contingency Operation” in place of “Long War” or “Global War on Terror.”
Steven Emerson, a leading expert on terrorism, has called Obama’s avoidance of associating radical Islam with terror “absurd” and “dangerous.” Islamic extremism in its many manifestations (Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc.) is in fact, he shows, responsible for three decades of “murder or attempted murder of tens of thousands of civilians in nearly every corner of the globe.” Banning the word Islamic from the designation “Islamic terrorists”
… does not diminish the willingness to use violence or the religious hatred that radical Muslims hold for Jews and the United States. What the self-sanitization does is to exonerate Muslim leaders from having to confront the monster in their own communities, monsters that in many cases they helped create. Because it is radical Islamist groups—feigning recognition as civil-rights organizations, often with the connivance of news organizations and even government agencies—that have deliberately tried to erase the distinction between moderate Islam and radical Islam. Why? So these groups can tar anyone who criticizes militant Islam as a racist or Islamophobe or as someone trying to portray the U.S. at war with the religion itself.
We are at war with these monsters, and for our own president to shrink from naming them – denying before the world the religious fanaticism that motivates them to perpetrate violence against us and our allies – is to help to doom us by losing this war.
The purging of the language – meaning, intent and guidance – of our leading national security blueprint must not be allowed to stand. Call the enemy by its rightful name, Mr. President.
In 2008 the Democratic Party hoped that Americans were insecure enough and unhappy enough with the way things were in Washington D.C., that they would buy the "Change" brand sight unseen. But it's 2010 and the American People are quickly waking up to the real price of change.
The American People had thought that "Change" meant responsible management and a wake up call to the establishment, instead it proved to be the ad slogan that greedy and partisan Democrats used to fool the public long enough to claw their way and start spending money like drunken sailors. This alone might have been bad enough, though the public has become all too used to congressmen and presidents treating the US Treasury as if it was play money. But ObamaCare was one straw too many, because it was not just another decimal in the national debt anymore, it was a burden placed directly on the taxpayer, it was a tax added directly to household income, it was an attack on the health care system designed to benefit the people who voted for Obama because they thought he would pay their bills for them.
The "Trust" is gone now and the "Change" brand means something else than it used to. Today Change means getting the Democrats out of D.C. And while the Democratic plan is still to run as the Candidates of Change, they are the candidates that the average voter wants to change. The Democrats have lost crossover Republicans. They've lost Independent voters. And they've lost a lot of Conservative Democrats too. The Change brand is gone. All that's left is Hope, the hope that the shrinking number of their supporters will even bother to turn out in favor of the incumbents.
“This time we will make the case that supporting a Republican is simply turning back the clock to Bush economic policies, the same policies that got us into this mess to begin with, and the Republicans will I think put themselves clearly in the position where they represent the status quo and that the Democrats, while we have the White House and both houses of Congress, remain the party of change and reform.”
Chris Van Hollen, Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
The psychological crossed wires in which the chairman of the congressional campaign committee that is in the majority in both houses, can seriously contend that he does not represent the status quo, is unfortunately all too prevalent among liberals, who like to believe that they're the voice of the opposition fighting "the man", even when they are in power, and they are "the man".
But it's also a tenet of liberal ideology, which is rooted in the progressive vs conservative formula, that they always represent reform, while their enemies represent the status quo. Unfortunately Van Hollen, like many of his peers, is confusing his ideological position, with what the public is actually prepared to believe.
Liberals always see themselves as revolutionary insurgents, but the public isn't buying that brand right now. Anti-Incumbent fever is running high and the Democrats are the incumbents. Van Hollen's strategy would require incumbents to argue that they represent change, while their challengers who are mostly new to D.C., represent the status quo. This sort of paradox would fit in neatly in a Doublespeak book of grammar, but would only elicit laughter from the average voter.
Worse yet Van Hollen would like to refight 2006 and 2008, much as so much of his party think in terms of the Vietnam War, but his party squandered their victories of 2006 and 2008 by repeatedly betraying the public trust.
Van Hollen's troops want to warn ominously about a return to Bush era economic policies, a threat that would carry more resonance if it wasn't coming from the people who tripled the deficit in a single year. Even the worst Bush era economic policies look good compared to those of Obama, Reid and Pelosi. When you've got an administration whose economic policy is run by tax cheats and one of whose leading economic advisers insists that huge deficits are actually a good thing, the Bush Administration looks like a beacon of fiscal sanity.
Van Hollen's approach is as ridiculous as Gorbachev insisting that if Communism falls, Russians will have to face Czarist era economic policies. The Russian people at that point were not too terrified of an economic situation where there might actually be food in stores. And the American people are not that terrified of a return to an economic situation where they get tax cuts and aren't forced to buy health insurance, and the deficit is a whole lot smaller.
The Pre-2006 Democratic congress economic situation looked a whole lot better than the last 4 years. And the post-2008 economic situation is a whole lot worse than it was beforehand. As Democratic control has tightened, the economic situation has spun further out of control. And while Van Hollen might imagine that the public is too stupid or gullible to know the economy is in bad shape or to have any idea where to place the blame, the polls show that he is deeply wrong.
Because the entire high profile rollout of programs by the Obama Administration means that the public knows exactly who is to blame. ObamaCare is the Waterloo that tops them all. The Democrats would like to shove it all off on Bush, but that could only have worked if Obama had avoided major initiatives and spent his first year on damage control. Instead his first year was all major initiatives, and so instead of playing a Nero who fiddled while D.C. burned, he instead created his own starring role as the arsonist who burned it all down.
While the media will go into overtime assuring voters that an economic recovery is underway, people who do their own household budgets know exactly what the score is. The people who are out of work, the people who are afraid that they will be out of work, and the people who unlike the free spending politicians in Washington, pay their own bills, know when there is an economic recovery. And it won't be because the media runs 300 choreographed stories sung to the tune of "Happy Days are Here Again" trumping the economic recovery.
If Van Hollen and his colleagues have to try and make the argument that they represent a more responsible brand of economic management, the numbers alone won't bear them out. They may try to take credit for fixing the economy, but that requires actually fixing the economy, which is hard when everything you've done has only made the economy steadily worse. So what's left?
The public no longer wants the old change that the Democrats were shopping in 2008. They want a new change, and to survive in that environment, the Democrats have to do what the Republicans tried to do in 2008, which is run away from their own man at the top. The "Change" brand is heavily associated with Obama. As is every major program over the last year. But ObamaCare's climactic vote makes it possible for them to run very far. Because in the end even Stupak had to come back to Obama. And when there's nowhere to run, then there's nothing left except spite.
The Democrats now own the economic catastrophe. They own it politically in a way that no amount of spin campaigns can change. But while that might be bad enough, it wouldn't have been fatal. Obama and the Democrats could have always argued for more time, asked for more patience and promised that results were coming. But ObamaCare changed that too. Because while the public was suffering, what they saw on the TV screens was an out of touch congress and administration determined to ram through a piece of legislation that they generally did not want and did not think addressed their real economic concerns.
The Democrats had not simply failed, they were out of touch-- and that combination is utterly deadly to politicians in a democratic society. A politician can survive failure by being responsive or survive being out of touch when things are going well-- but surviving both at the same time is a whole other story, because the combined formula is a statement that says, "I'm making things worse and I don't care." And very few people will vote for that. The bills for the real price of change are coming in, and the American People are getting ready to respond with some pink slips of their own.
Sultan Knish
From NY to Jerusalem, Daniel Greenfield Covers the Stories Behind the News
Whatever else Hamid Karzai may be, he's always been a survivor. And now he's trying to survive the Obama Administration. Karzai knows that unlike Bush, Obama has no commitment whatsoever to Afghanistan. What Obama wants is to pull out as quickly as possible in time for his own 2012 election. And he wants to do it without the appearance of a disaster and a defeat. And there's only one way to do that, cut a deal with the Taliban.
To that end the Obama Administration is operating on two tracks. Track 1, the public and visible track, is the military approach that Obama got pushed into, a temporary surge to push back the Taliban and allow him to declare victory ahead of a pullout. Meanwhile behind the scenes Track 2, the invisible diplomatic track, is meant to sideline Karzai with a coalition of pragmatic "moderate" Taliban, who will end the fighting and provide an appearance of normalcy for the pullout to come.
The surge was supposed to be a show of force, to force them to the table, but the real gambit was to put the Taliban back in power.
For Obama, Afghanistan is a threat to his political neck. For Karzai, it's a threat to his actual neck, and Karzai is a survivor. And so he in turn began sabotaging Obama's Track 2. If the Obama Administration wanted a show of force and some high profile prisoners, he helped give it to them, by routing Pakistan's capture of top Taliban leaders who were willing to negotiate with the US. Meanwhile Karzai was using Pakistan's ISI, which had helped fund the Taliban, to conduct his own talks with them. The resulting situation is one in which both Karzai and the Obama Administration are competing to cut a deal with the Taliban-- even as they're fighting them.
This disaster was brought to you courtesy of the Obama Administration, which demonstrated its absolute disregard for the future of Afghanistan and tried to cut Karzai out of the loop in order to make a deal with the Taliban. Karzai's response, within the context of the Afghani system, is completely unsurprising. A successful US deal with the Taliban would mean that Karzai is on his own. And so Karzai rushed ahead to double cross us first.
With both the US and the "legitimate" Afghani government courting Taliban factions, the chaos has grown incrementally, with internal betrayals by the Taliban and the collaboration of ISI yielding spectacular captures. This has led to some short term successes, but the real problems are only growing.
Both Karzai and the Obama Administration now essentially agree that the Taliban will take over again, the disagreement is who will cut the deal and on whose terms it will happen. Karzai wants to stay in power and maintain a stable coalition with his own warlords. Obama wants a problem-free pullout, with no video of US helicopters abandoning pleading crowds in Kabul. But whichever of them gets their way, the pleading crowds will still be there, because the people we promised to liberate have been sold out instead.
Neither Obama nor Karzai care very much about what will happen to the girls' schools we set up, to the women escaping their husbands, to the translators who worked with us, and all those who really believed that we were bringing a new day with us. Some of these will get visas to come to the United States. A few will even get invites to the White House for a convenient photo op, so long as they keep their mouths shut. The rest will be back under Taliban rule, because a deal might be cut to let Obama wave his "Mission Accomplished" flag, or one to let Karzai maintain a coalition, but the day to day Islamic law will be back either way.
Worse yet Afghanistan's future will send a message once again that no one should put their faith in the US. That any liberation that comes will be strictly temporary and then the people we drove out will be back. And that means the next time we come after the Taliban or terrorists anywhere else, allies will be much harder to come by.
The lesson we've taught is that not only will we negotiate with terrorists, but we'll sell out those who helped us and replace them with the very people who were killing us. We did it in Iraq not too long ago. So it's no surprise that we're set to do it again in Afghanistan. Karzai knows it too, so unsurprisingly he's threatening to join the Taliban. And why not. If we reserve our best rewards for our worst enemies, then it pays more to be our enemy than our friend.
Don't believe me? Just ask Israel, which has spent the last two decades being blamed for every Muslim terrorist attack and hostility toward America by Muslim regimes. Just ask Taiwan which stood by the US while the Communist Chinese were sending battalions into Korea. Or would have if we hadn't done our best to keep our distance even then. Just ask Columbia, which stood by us, only to face an administration eager to take its showers with Chavez. Just ask England which fought with us in Afghanistan and Iraq, only to be shown the bottom of Obama's shoe. Why would Karzai or anyone else want to be the New Israel, berated, belittled and sold out at every turn. Much better to be the Taliban. Much better to bomb Allied convoys and then demand cash and concessions to stop.
Karzai is a survivor, if nothing else, and he knows exactly what he can expect from Obama. Both men are products of similar environments and cultures, but Karzai is a professional at the game, while Obama is an amateur. Obama has the power, but Karzai is demonstrating that he still has the leverage. If Obama wants to hug a Taliban, Karzai will not only become the Taliban, but become a bigger threat than the Taliban. If Obama wants to cut a deal with the Taliban, he will have to make a deal with Karzai first, and deal with the Taliban through him. That's something the bright foreign policy boys in foggy bottom still don't understand, because while they were getting their oxfords polished, their opposite numbers in Afghanistan were slogging rocket launchers through the mud and cutting each other's throats in the dark.
Under the Bush Administration, Afghanistan was meant to demonstrate that we could take the darkest Islamist corner of the world and bring light to it. Obama instead is demonstrating the brand of Realpolitik that will end any such hope in order to score some political points before his own election. And so another dream dies in betrayal and lies.
Sultan Knish
From NY to Jerusalem, Daniel Greenfield Covers the Stories Behind the News
For lo the winter is past, the rain is over and gone. The flowers appear on the earth; the time of singing has come, and the voice of the turtledove is heard in our land" (Song of Songs 2:11-12)
Sultan Knish Daniel Greenfiled From NY to Jerusalem, Daniel Greenfield Covers the Stories Behind the News
The voice of the turtledove may be heard in the land now as the weather warms, but the voice of the people is not. Because in less cheerful matters, the Obama Administration continues to ramp up its assault on both American and Israeli Democracy. The Slaughter Rule will allow Obama to rule with a semimajority, thereby subverting the process. The attempt to ram through ObamaCare is a deliberate rejection of every poll and the Massachusetts Senate vote. And it is Obama's template for continuing to ram through his illegal plans for the United States.
The bill will break states. It will break companies. It will put a boot down on the head of the American economy. Which is exactly its goal. The Obama Administration is not interested in economic prosperity, it is interested in a government takeover. People who can make their own way and pay their own bills, are poor candidates for a nanny state. No, the people have to be robbed, browbeaten, left helpless, and only then will they agree to have the chains put around their necks. Or least stop fighting against them as hard.
That's the plan. And the ObamaCare Putsch is meant to send a message to the people that democracy will not get in the way. It's a Chicago style legacy of intimidation that tells the people their votes are useless, except as counters to trade away to unions or organizations promising to represent their interests. It's the left's knife to the neck of democracy. It's the progressive fangs biting deep into the jugular of the American People, and sucking out the prosperity to nourish their network of entitlement organizations.
And the media which has gone back to its chief role as Obama's press corps are doing their part to ensure that only the voice of the liar in chief is heard in the land.
After the scandal has passed, ACORN is back. The media push is slowly underway for "Immigration Reform", to follow "Health Care Reform". Because if you call a whopping and illegal disaster, "Reform", that somehow makes it better.
Which means the real showdown is just beginning. This is no longer simply about left and right. It isn't even about whether ObamaCare is good or bad anymore. It's about whether laws will be passed through the rule of law, or by the fiat of a minority of radicals who have climbed to power subverting the American Republic and its Democratic tradition to get their way... by any means necessary.
Meanwhile after the Obama Administration threw a well choreographed tantrum after Israel dared to build housing for Jews in established Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem-- Netanyahu tried to appease Obama with an apology and political gestures.
And in return, Obama's cronies are openly laughing at him and celebrating their victory. On the BBC (the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation that helped spawn Al Jazeera), Hillary Clinton boasted that pressure on Netanyahu had produced results.
Joe Biden, who was supposedly deeply insulted by Israel's home building, meanwhile went on to make jokes at Israel's expense.
Because clearly that is not an insult.
The quartet which includes Hillary Clinton, George Mitchell and Communist EU Baroness Catherine Ashton, meanwhile issued its demands to Israel in a statement which includes repeated condemnations of Israel and repeated praise of the Palestinian Authority, despite the fact that the latter is continuing to engage in terrorism against Israel. The statement is a horse load of hypocrisy and gleeful lies. Consider the following
The proximity talks are an important step toward the resumption, without pre-conditions, of direct bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues as previously agreed by the parties.
Except of course the statement itself contains multiple pre-conditions, all directed at Israel. Including a freeze in Jerusalem. An end to natural growth. Opening up Israeli borders to Islamic terrorists. And the rights of the PA to Jerusalem. When it rejects pre-conditions, it simply means that Israel is not allowed to demand an end to Islamic Arab terrorism before negotiations begin.
The Quartet believes these negotiations should lead to a settlement, negotiated between the parties within 24 months, that ends the occupation which began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors.
Considering that the Palestinian Arab areas are currently divided into one run by the Islamist Hamas and one run by the Marxist-Islamist Fatah, neither of which can get along with each other, the creation of such a single state is currently obviously impossible. The Quartet reps are well aware of this, they simply have no interest on acknowledging it.
The Quartet reiterates its call on Israel and the Palestinians to act on the basis of international law and on their previous agreements and obligations – in particular adherence to the Roadmap, irrespective of reciprocity
The key phrase there is, irrespective of reciprocity. Which is a fancy way of saying that Israel again has no right to expect the absence of terrorist attacks, but must nevertheless make concessions to the terrorist groups waging war with it... even during the negotiations.
The Quartet urges the government of Israel to freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth, to dismantle outposts erected since March 2001, and to refrain from demolitions and evictions in East Jerusalem. The Quartet also calls on both sides to observe calm and restraint and to refrain from provocative actions and inflammatory rhetoric especially in areas of cultural and religious sensitivity. Noting the significant progress on security achieved by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, the Quartet calls on the Palestinian Authority to continue to make every effort to improve law and order, to fight violent extremism and to end incitement. The Quartet emphasizes the need to assist the Palestinian Authority in building its law enforcement capacity.
Note that the Quartet condemns Israel and demands a housing freeze. It makes no such demands of the Muslim side, which continues to seize and buy land.
It makes a general statement about avoiding inflammatory rhetoric, without actually condemning the constant calls for Jihad emanating from the Palestinian Authority. And makes it in such a bland generic way that it could be read as applying to just about anything.
Finally the Quartet praises the Palestinian Authority for unstated "significant progress", and calls on it to fight, not terrorism, but "violent extremism". And puts the burden on others to assist it.
This is followed by a statement denying that Israel has any rights in East Jerusalem. It essentially states up front that the negotiations would have to grant the PA its own capital in Jerusalem. Which shows up the hypocrisy of its claims that there should be no pre-conditions.
The Quartet calls for a solution that addresses Israel’s legitimate security concerns, including an end to weapons smuggling into Gaza; promotes Palestinian unity based on the PLO commitments and the re-unification of Gaza and the West Bank under the legitimate Palestinian Authority
What in the world is the legitimate Palestinian Authority? Is it the Hamas one that won the elections or the Fatah one backed by the Quartet, whose leader is continuing to rule even though his term expired a while back and there have been no new elections.
The Quartet doesn't know or care. Meanwhile Tony Blair, the Quartet's representative, had a secret deal worth 20 million pounds (approx 30 million dollars) with an oil company, and another 1 million pounds from the Kuwaiti royal family.
Meanwhile in his many travels to bring "peace to the region", Blair formed business contacts with Islamic leaders, including the UAE, which amount to another as much as 5 million pounds. And beneath all that is a complex network of 12 entities, whose earnings and associations Blair does not have to disclose.
How does the fact that Blair's Middle East trips have been as much about making him some money from the Muslim world, as about bringing peace, influence his Quartet reports? Do you even have to ask.
And do you really think that the Kuwaiti royal family paid Blair 2 million US in order to have him write a report about Kuwait. There's something rotten here and it stinks to high heaven.
Meanwhile, ignored by everyone, the Islamist leader of Turkey, PM Erdogan, warned the hundred thousand or so Armenians living in territory conquered by the Muslim Ottoman Empire, that if they didn't disavow claims that Turkey committed genocide against them, he would ethnically cleanse them from his country.
Now Erdogan didn't do this in some seedy back alley. He didn't deliver a speech to his closest supporters that no one in the West could be expected to notice. He did it on the BBC.
That's right. The Prime Minister of Turkey threatened to ethnically cleanse a Christian minority from his country, if they keep complaining about that genocide... and did it on the BBC. And the UN said nothing. There were no massive protest rallies throughout Europe. No boycott threats against Turkish academics. Nothing.
Instead Erdogan blasted the media for misquoting him, and again warned,
“I re-call on Armenia and third countries to be constructive and responsible,” Erdogan said. “All initiatives that deteriorate the [normalization] process will carry a heavy cost – [not to] Turkey but [to] the creators and supporters of those malicious initiatives.”
Then to complete the obscene farce, Erdogan warned Israel against building housing in Jerusalem.
Erdogan threatened not to normalize ties with Tel Aviv as long as the situation continues. “How can we make contact, my brother?” he asked, addressing Israeli politicians. “First, you need to align with international law and avoid any cruelty or outrages.”
“Turkey will not be present anywhere innocent people suffer,” he said.
Because of course if there's one thing that the Turkish Hitler is known for, it's not being present anywhere innocent people suffer.
Some columnists, such as Can Dundar of daily Milliyet, referred to a new “tehcir,” the term Turks use for the deportation of Armenians in 1915. Dundar indicated that Erdoğan’s remarks amount to saying that “100,000 Armenians are hostages, and if European parliaments don’t stop pressuring Turkey over the 1915 events, we will make them suffer.”
Ergun Babahan of daily Star went the whole way and wrote, “If Hitler had been Turkish, we would also be denying the Holocaust today.” He added, in so many words, that that the spirit of Enver Paşa and his “Ittihadists” was alive and kicking in today’s Turkey.
But then just to rub it in the face of European leaders, Erdogan again made the threat during a joint press conference with Gordon Brown.
And the same British government that repeatedly condemns Israel, its head had nothing but praise for Erdogan's restraint. Instead Gordon Brown expressed support for Turkey after a PKK bombing (unaccompanied by the usual demands that Turkey negotiate with the terrorists that are routinely directed at Israel after a terrorist attack) and signed a UK-Turkish Strategic Partnership, while endorsing Turkey's EU bid.
This with a man who shortly before had threatened ethnic cleansing. And threatened it again during the press conference. The obscenity of this is astounding. It is almost beyond words.
But for the final ugly context. Erdogan just received an award from the Saudi royal family for his "service to Islam". The Saudi royal family was likely behind the rise of Turkey's Islamists, providing covert support and funding. And Erdogan, the Turkish Hitler, is the true face of Islam, offering brutality and hate, subverting his enemies through trade, until he can destroy them.
As for as Erdogan, the Saudis and the Muslim world are concerned, it was the Armenians yesterday, the Jews today and Americans and Europeans tomorrow. But Gordon Brown and the rest of the world are rolling out the Red Carpet for him, even as a UK artist was sentenced to jail for a picture mocking Erdogan, and as Erdogan's Islamist allies roll out another domestic crackdown against "coup plotters", which is the usual excuse for suppressing the political opposition.
It is worth remembering now the naked hypocrisy of the same political establishment that damns Israel, but gives Erdogan a pass. It is worth nothing the cynical deceits of the protesters who daily accuse Israel of "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing", while ignoring when the Turkish PM openly threatens it. There is no moral legitimacy or integrity to this facade. It is about power and appeasing Islam.
That's all there is to it. Meanwhile behind the scenes, the Obama Administration has maintained an arms embargo on Israel. The shipment of bunker busters that Israel needed in order to launch a strike on Iran's nuclear capabilities have been diverted. And while everyone in the Obama Administration howls about Israel's insults, Israel like Bontscha, remains silent.
Niles Gardiner at the Telegraph sums it up best in his column, Barack Obama treats Israel and Britain with sneering contempt
Perhaps only one thing is certain about the course of the Obama administration’s ham-fisted foreign policy – there is no depth to which it will not stoop to kick America’s allies in the teeth while cuddling up to her enemies. In the past month we’ve seen ample evidence of this with the State Department’s appalling decision to openly side with Argentina against Great Britain over the Falklands, and the White House’s bullying of Israel.
Meanwhile, the Obama team swiftly issued a groveling apology to terrorist sponsor Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, for earlier casting aspersions over the Butcher of Tripoli’s call for a jihad against Switzerland. A barbaric Islamist tyrant with American blood on his hands is, incredibly, treated better than the leaders of both Britain and Israel.
Israel is an independent country, not a satellite province ruled by imperial viceroy Rahm Emanuel. It is free to make its own decisions, some of which might upset the current occupants of the White House. Israel has survived for over 60 years in the face of insurmountable odds and an array of hostile regimes and bloodthirsty terrorist organizations backed by Iran and Syria. Like the United States and Great Britain, Israel possesses a tremendous warrior spirit that should be widely admired. It is under constant threat and has to literally fight for its survival on a daily basis. Israel deserves the Obama administration’s full support, not its contempt.
Contrast President Obama’s softly, softly treatment of the Iranian theocracy led by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – which has threatened to wipe Israel off the map – with that of his distinctly aggressive stance towards Israel. Every effort has been made to engage Tehran, and appease its leaders, from remaining silent over its brutal beating and murder of protestors to turning a blind eye to Tehran’s military and financial support for both the Taliban in Afghanistan and terrorist groups in Iraq. At the same time, the Iranians continue to bankroll and arm Hamas and Hizbollah, whose sole aim is the destruction of Israel.
In the space of just over a year, Barack Obama has managed to significantly damage relations with America’s two closest friends, while currying favour with practically every monstrous dictatorship on the face of the earth. The doctrine of “smart power” has evolved into the shameless appeasement of America’s enemies at the expense of existing alliances. There is nothing clever about this approach – it will ultimately weaken US global power and strengthen the hand of America’s enemies, who have become significantly emboldened and empowered by Barack Obama’s naïve approach since he took office.
The Obama presidency is causing immense damage to America’s standing in the free world, while projecting an image of weakness in front of hostile regimes. Its treatment of both Israel and Britain is an insult and a disgrace, and a grim reflection of an unbelievably crass and insensitive foreign policy that significantly undermines the US national interest.
Note that the British government has made a formal protest to Washington over the Falklands. The British Foreign Secretary will not meet with Hillary Clinton, itself an obvious diplomatic snub. But don't expect the ObamaMedia to cover any of this.
Caroline Glick is even more direct and to the point
Obama’s ultimatum makes clear that mediating peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not a goal he is interested in achieving.
Obama’s new demands follow the months of American pressure that eventually coerced Netanyahu into announcing both his support for a Palestinian state and a 10-month ban on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria. No previous Israeli government had ever been asked to make the latter concession.
Netanyahu was led to believe that in return for these concessions Obama would begin behaving like the credible mediator his predecessors were. But instead of acting like his predecessors, Obama has behaved like the Palestinians. Rather than reward Netanyahu for taking a risk for peace, Obama has, in the model of Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, pocketed Netanyahu’s concessions and escalated his demands. This is not the behavior of a mediator. This is the behavior of an adversary.
Which is exactly what we should expect from Hussein.
With the US president treating Israel like an enemy, the Palestinians have no reason to agree to sit down and negotiate. Indeed, they have no choice but to declare war.
And so, in the wake of Obama’s onslaught on Israel’s right to Jerusalem, Palestinian incitement against Israel and Jews has risen to levels not seen since the outbreak of the last terror war in September 2000. And just as night follows day, that incitement has led to violence. This week’s Arab riots from Jerusalem to Jaffa, and the renewed rocket offensive from Gaza are directly related to Obama’s malicious attacks on Israel.
And this is a taste of what that war looks like
A group of young soldiers in Hevron were lucky to escape with their lives Thursday when they encountered an angry Arab mob while trying to get to Kiryat Arba. The soldiers were on their way to a training exercise and made the mistake of asking a local Arab man for directions. The man directed them to a Palestinian Authority (PA) controlled neighborhood of the city, where the mob was waiting.
Residents of the local Jewish community blamed the IDF's non-confrontational policy vis-a-vis Arab rioters for the incident. “The fact that the soldiers did not shoot when they saw they were in danger is a direct result of the orders forbidding them from dealing with the Arab rioters [in Hevron] over the past few weeks,” residents said. Instead of putting a stop to violent riots, “IDF soldiers have been told to stand by and wait for PA forces, who are the only ones authorized to restore order.”
The residents' opinion was backed by a commander from the Shimshon regiment, the regiment in which the soldiers in question serve. Speaking to Arutz Sheva's Hebrew-language news service, the commander warned that the IDF's policies regarding use of force were leaving soldiers with their hands tied in the face of PA Arab violence.
"We've been given orders that forbid firing in the air” to warn off attackers, he said. “If they throw firebombs at us, we're told to hide or to run away – that is the unequivocal order,” he continued.
"The situation is intolerable,” the commander stated. Soldiers are forbidden even to use non-fatal means of riot dispersal, such as tear gas or rubber bullets, when confronted by violent mobs, he said. “We can only use riot dispersal methods if the regiment commander gives his approval. There have been cases where they threw rocks and firebombs at us, we called the operations room to see what we could do, and we were told 'either wait for backup, or leave the area,'” he recalled.
Soldiers have been punished for firing warning shots in the air or using riot dispersal equipment even in cases where their lives were in danger, he reported.
This is exactly what Obama hopes to accomplish. The destruction of Israel. And all the while Obama is treating the terrorists with the softest of kid gloves. Gitmo terrorists are now getting laptops. That's right, laptops for 9/11 terrorists.
The Pentagon allowed five captured al Qaeda members currently held at the Guantanamo Bay prison to use laptop computers in detention, raising concerns among security officials that the terrorism suspects could pass sensitive data to terrorists in the future, according to U.S. officials.
The computers, without Internet access, were provided to Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other suspected 9/11 conspirators at the prison at the U.S. naval base in Cuba after approval by senior Pentagon officials in September 2008.
Go to Jihad Watch to read the rest of the article. But just to get this straight, while US soldiers are fighting and dying against terrorists, the terrorists responsible for 9/11 are getting government laptops.
What else is there to say, except that this is an administration of the terrorists, by the terrorists and for the terrorists. And as Don Feder at Family Security Matters points out, "Our Inability to say the I Word" is leading to this.
The Religion of Peace had a swinging time in Nigeria, with what it swings best – machetes. On March 7th, Muslim mobs, thus armed, massacred more than 500 Christians in three villages in the northern part of the country.
Many of the victims, including women and children, were decapitated or scalped. Others had limbs severed. Chindum Yakubu described how her 18-month-old daughter was ripped from her arms and hacked to death as the family tried to flee a predawn attack.
The mainstream media tried to explain away the atrocities (surprise!)
...
Difficult as it is to believe, the Pentagon’s Fort Hood report isn’t the most glaring example of our New PC Army.
Interviewed on “Meet the Press,” within days of the shootings, Army Chief of Staff, Gen. George Casey, tearfully pleaded: “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. If our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”
In other words, 13 dead U.S. soldiers are far less important than maintaining the sanctity of diversity – in this case, an appreciation for the killer creed. Casey sounds more like a community organizer in uniform than the type of fighting man who won two World Wars.
And that is who is truly endangering the US military and the United States. Not those who fight Islamic terrorism, but those who give in to it.
Jack Kemp meanwhile looks at the political consequences and impacts of the ObamaCare War.
Professional pollsters, including Democrat Pat Caddell are saying the Democratic Party could lose "30 or more House seats" (try 70 or more, Pat) in November. A defeated Democratic Congressperson who in early November 2010 now knows that their career is over gets approached by Nancy Pelosi with an offer of a job if they now vote "yes" on the healthcare bill. Remember, the defeated Democrats still are in office until early January, effectively in power until Christmas. Will these lame duck Democrats take such an offer from their party? Or will they be so bitter - and well connected - that they see taking such an offer from Madame Speaker (a possible soon-to-be ex-Speaker) as a detriment to their future in general or as a Democrat in particular?
This opens up numerous possibilities for the Republican party to go the other way. See what Governor Christie is doing in New Jersey at Doug Ross.
New Jersey spends $11 billion more annually than it takes in -- the largest percentage deficit in the U.S.
• New Jersey's total debt has tripled since 2002, skyrocketing from $17 billion to $51 billion. Each family of four living in New Jersey is therefore on the hook for more than $16,000.
• And in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, New Jersey's public sector added 11,300 jobs in 2009 while private enterprise hemorrhaged 121,000 jobs.
Sanity: Governor Chris Christie is amputating large portions of the budget. Because it's the only way.
Israpundit meanwhile has a JINSA report on the folly of training Fatah's IslamoMarxist army of terrorists.
Fairly authoritative sources have noted that Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, the U.S. Army general responsible for training Abu Mazen’s Palestinian security force/army, has become increasingly marginalized by the Fatah government. Last summer his staff was reportedly no longer directly involved in training or planning and had been “expelled” from the Palestinian Authority (PA) “Strategic Planning Department.” Then came news that American DynCorp International’s contract for training and mentoring Palestinian forces had not been renewed. Now, another shoe has dropped.
According to Janes’ Defence Weekly as reported by wire services, the PA has drafted a plan to end American training and supervision of the force entirely. “Dayton’s role would be limited to bringing money and equipment for the security forces. He would not deal with PA operations or deployment,” a Palestinian official was reported to have said. “Officials said the PA leadership…determined that U.S. intervention was hampering security force development and undermining the legitimacy of the regime.”
We suspect that Lt. Gen. Dayton would retire rather than be in that position, but that would suit the PA as well. He has already done the job they wanted done. He’s built their army and now they want to use it as they see fit.
Of course the Fatah PA militias have never been anything but thugs and terrorists in the guise of police forces and an army. And now the US can look forward to having trained a new army of terrorists, some of whom will carry out attacks against the US... sooner or later.
Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors is holding a special event with Knesset Member Danny Danon.
MK Danny Danon is generally considered the leading nationalist among the Likud MKs. He is Chairman of World Likud, and he vigorously opposed the forced evacuation of Jews from Gaza. MK Danon has taken a strong and aggressive stance in favor of the rights of Jews to settle anyplace in the Land of Israel, including Judea and Samaria, in favor of protecting Jewish heritage sites, against the settlement freeze, and against appeasement of the Arabs. MK Danon is widely considered a likely candidate for Prime Minister in future elections.
This is a rare opportunity to meet and hear MK Danny Danon.
Stop by the CJHS LA site to learn more.
As a result of Obama's political war against Israel, on behalf of Islamic terrorists, Z Street is assembling a list of names for its public statement. Current blogging signatories include Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, Yael Lieberman of Boker Tov Boulder, as well as many others.
The full statement and current list of names follows. If you would like to be included, go to ZStreet.org now, and leave them a message.
PUBLIC STATEMENT REGARDING ATTACK ON ISRAEL'S APPROVAL OF BUILDING HOUSES FOR JEWS IN JERUSALEM***
THE TIME IS NOW It is time to speak out, for all who believe that Jews have the same political freedom, national, civil and religious liberties as every other people to live anywhere in the world, including the right to live anywhere in Jerusalem, Judaism’s eternal capital. To suggest, demand, or even submit to anything less is to support overt religious persecution.
The outrage hurled against the Jewish State by the current US administration for (1) daring to approve the building of homes for Jews in a Jewish neighborhood, two miles from the holiest site in Judaism, the Temple Mount, and for (2) daring to do so when US Vice President Joe Biden was in Israel, is grossly misplaced and is itself an affront. The public expression of this outrage is yet another means to pressure Israel’s government unfairly.
Outrage should, more appropriately, be directed at those expressing the outrage. We are especially appalled at those who claim to be supporters of Israel and yet demand that this policy of religious bigotry be enforced with threats of official shunning both diplomatically and in terms of military support.
Let’s be clear: The only apologies should come from those attempting to bar Jews from building homes and living in any neighborhoods in Jerusalem, and from those who think that if Jews do build in Jerusalem they should do it quietly, and hope that no one notices. We reject any such discrimination and duplicity. We say to all those who claim to support the Jewish State, including Israeli officials, not to be afraid, to say out loud: Yes! Jews can, do, and will build and live in Jerusalem, now and forever. We call on all those who reject this position to explain why an official policy of religious discrimination is acceptable when it is enforced against Jews.
It is most shocking that a US administration claiming to support a strong Israel, would allow its policies to fan the flames of Arab hatred, incitement and violence against its only free and democratic Middle Eastern ally.
IF YOU AGREE WITH THE ABOVE AND ALSO WANT TO PUBLICLY ASSERT YOUR BELIEF IN THE RIGHT OF JEWS TO LIVE ANYWHERE, ESPECIALLY IN ANY NEIGHBORHOOD IN JERUSALEM, PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT BELOW OR EMAIL LORILOWENTHALMARCUS@ZSTREET.ORG This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it AND YOUR NAME WILL BE ADDED TO THIS STATEMENT.
Lori Lowenthal Marcus, president, Z STREET
Eli Hertz, Myths and Facts Helen Freedman, Americans for a Safe Israel Charles Jacobs, Americans for Peace and Tolerance Doris Wise Montrose, Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors Mort Klein, Zionist Organization of America Cherna Moskowitz, The Moskowitz Foundation Rabbi Jon Hausman Rabbi David Jay Kaufman Rabbi Dov Peretz Elkins
Rabbi David Segal
Professor Louis Rene Beres Professor Edward Alexander Professor Judith S. Jacobson Rick Richman, Jewish Current Issues Daniel Greenfield, Sultan Knish Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs
Robert Spencer, Jihadwatch David Goder, One Jerusalem Yael Lieberman, Boker Tov, Boulder Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit Richard A. Baehr, American Thinker
G.S. Don Morris, Ph.D., Doc's Talk Dr. Phyllis Chesler Gary E. Erlbaum
Edward H. Rosen Kenneth G. Langone Richard Fox Adrienne A. Price Joshua Katzen Hillary Markowitz Ruth S. King Rael Jean Isaac Joshua Landes Steven E. Stern Morris Willner Leonard Wisse Alex Grobman Edward M. Snider Craig Snider Richard Cooper Howard A. Cohen Alan B. Miller Bart Blatstein Benyamin Korn Jeffrey S. Wiesenfeld Richard Allen Stephen B. Klein Barri Glick Joseph Wolfson Gloria Z. Greenfield Maxine Elkins Jerome M. Marcus Clive Ginsburg
Alyssa A. Lappen
Lee Miller
David Makowsky
Gary Dalin
Richard Vezina
Diane Dubey
Robert M. Pave
Donald Scharoff Zvi Rona Kenneth H. Ryersky, Esq. Charles Brooks Joseph Rapaport
Ann Green
Monty Pogoda
Stephen Tannenbaum
Myrna Bloom Marcus
Dan Dayanim
Izzy Cominsky
Moshe Brody
Shai Beo
Gerald Kaiden
Ginny Soronow
Judy Lash Balint
Mickey Oberman
Chava Goldman
Aggie Hoffman
Peter Uys
Randi Oze
William Horwitz
Chaya Eitan
Janet Cohen
Robin Ticker
Ephraim Shalom
Dr. Paul Berg
]Reuven Boruch Janet Cohen
Ted Paull
Jerry Miller
Moshe Burt
Arieh Zaritsky
A. Ovadia Salama, Ph.D. Jeff Muchnik
Irmgard Gesund
Lyone Fein
Stan Weitzman
Ralph B. Kostant
Bruce Goldman
Richard Vezina
Jacques Melki
Joel S. Pachter, Ph.D.
Carlotta Rodas
Rachelle Kirschner
Phyllis Zemble
Lidia Zamkov
Imre Herzog
Marc Prowisor
Suzanne Pomeranz
Dr. Merom Klein
Shirley Lewis
Matthew Hausman
Mark L. Harvey
Carol Taber
Susi Appel
Gus Wheeler
Augusta Fuma
Myron Buchman
J Robert Howell
Jack Kemp
Doug Edelman
Channah Kirshner
Gloria Miller
Herb Glatter
Karen Cook
Sylvia Scott
Doug Edelman
Alex Raban
Richard B. Willoughby
David Greenzweig
Ron Dolinsky Phillip Cohen Steven Kurlander Michael Seelenfreund Stacy Johnson Yoram Getzler Daniel Erlbaum Rena Cohen Martin J. Lieberman Gail Mitchell Carol Byers Ron Hoffman Gail Thomas Paul Aston Melech B’n arieh Edward Schrager Fred Hayward Herve Seligmann Hillel Levin Lloyd Kaufman Stacey Bilker Bruce Mazer Manny Jakel Poul Hornsleth
April Hornsleth Manny Jakel Penny Alfonso Laura Liebman Elke Coblens Edward Weinstein Reuben Statman Garth van Homan Kerry Hurwitz Marie Merchel Hal & Joyce Taback Paul Asbjom Myhrer Chaim Moshe ben Avraham Sybil Sullins Daniel A. Cirucci Benyamin Tzeon
Leah Tzeon Pat McCormack James Stephens Michelle Kravitz Jon Crawford Pablo Nankin, MD Brad Fisher Marleen Perret Andy Vidikan Leona Hiley Francine Lipstein
Richard Becker Paul Schnek Alexander Heppenheimer Anderson D. Harkov, Esq. Judith Reich, Esq. Jonathan Grauman Henry D. Saruya Morton Friedman Alan Stein
Victor Gutierrez Marty Lamb Lynne Kessler Lechter Reuven Kossover Stephen Rubin Geoffrey Kirshner Chaya Eitan D’Vorah Joy Hoffman Lynne Kessler Lechter Eric Goldschmidt
Jack Rosenblum John Center
Jerry Sobel Henry Kadoch Marcia Hetlinger Jill Hiatt Tanya Gorlin Andrew Gorlin Elise Goldstein-Clark Daniel H. Clark Judith Weinstein Kai Gregory Eric Schoen Smith Jeanette Potter Bob McCarty Francisco Calderon Rabbi David Segal Tony DeSanto Enzo Greco Mike Packer Naomi Vilko, M.D. Al Cinamon Ann Birulin Sol Birulin Gary Acheatel Jeff Daube, Director, ZOA Isael Office Boris Gorbis Bernard Baruch Paul Warner Shari Goodman, Ch. Leader C-W. Calley ACT! Edward Martenfeld Helen Goldfeld John Gargano Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. Yedida Shraga Leah Kabaker Rick S. Geiger Sanford Weinstock, D.P.M. Aaron Price Tammy Shatz Gary Lainer Oren M. Levin-Waldman, Ph.D.
