Netanyahu Responds to Obama’s Speech

From: Commentary Magazine

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has issued a tough response to President Obama’s speech, indicating that his Washington visit next week could get interesting. While Netanyahu said he “appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace,” he added that he “expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both House of Congress.”

The first of these commitments is “Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines.” Obama left some wiggle room on that issue today, saying that a two-state deal would have to be based on the 1967 lines “with land swaps.” Since Obama’s statement has been interpreted in many different ways, Netanyahu is rightly demanding that the president clarify his position.

The prime minister added that Obama needs to assert that “Palestinian refugees will settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel,” and state explicitly that Palestinians must “recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.”

Obama will have a perfect venue to reaffirm these commitments during his speech to AIPAC on Sunday morning. And if he neglects to do so, Netanyahu will then have an excellent forum to respond when he speaks before a joint session of congress next week.

Obama Abandons Decades of U.S.-Israeli Diplomacy

From: Commentary Magazine

Putting aside talk of how President Obama outsourced portions of today’s Middle East address to the speechwriters behind George W. Bush’s Second Inaugural, the President’s diplomatic stance toward Israel was deeply corrosive to the peace process and the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

Obama extended and institutionalized a position that Rick Richman has been hammering for years here on Contentions, one which shrugs off multiple binding letters of assurance that commit the United States to ensuring “defensible borders” for Israel at the conclusion of any peace process. Having abandoned past U.S. assurances on this overarching core issue, the President is now asking the Israelis to take enormous risks—in the aftermath of a Fatah-Hamas merger, no less—based on future U.S. assurances. This frankly bizarre diplomatic and rhetorical strategy seems unlikely to succeed.

The commitment to “defensible borders” was dealt with in letters provided to Jerusalem in 1997 by Secretary of State Warren Christopher and in 2004 by President Bush, written in exchange for Israeli withdrawals from Hebron and the Gaza Strip. In the former case Israel gave up a core claim to ancient Jewish heritage. In the latter case it risked and eventually saw an Iranian proxy occupying Israel’s southern border. Those territorial concessions are functionally irreversible, which is why the US had to provide ironclad assurances in the first place.

The Obama administration, upon taking office, immediately and with public relish unburdened itself of the Bush assurances. On the issue of borders, the White House refused to commit to ensuring “defensible borders,” instead reverting to vague “secure and recognized borders.” The President’s speech this morning continued in that vein, speaking only of “secure and recognized borders . . . for both states.” The gestures that he did make toward Israeli self-defense were untethered from discussions of borders, again—and very pointedly—despite previous American assurances.


“Secure and recognized” borders is an empty phrase grounded in UNSC Resolution 242, where it was used as an placeholder for Israel’s eventual borders. If the phrase had any substantive meaning it was as a rejection of the 1948 armistice lines, but it was left intentionally vague so that the resolution could avoid veto. It’s a diplomatic tautology to support “secure and recognized” borders for Israel. The question is over what the final “secure and recognized” borders will be.

The Israeli answer is that the Jewish State must retain “defensible borders,” a legal, strategic, and diplomatic term of art encompassing a broad range of very explicit Israeli requirements. The phrase encapsulates and describes the specific borders that the Israelis would like to have as their final “secure and recognized” borders, as opposed to other borders. Those are the specific guidelines for which Jerusalem, in exchange for decades of territorial concessions, secured U.S. commitments from Democratic and Republican administrations. Israel gave up Hebron and the Gaza Strip, in other words, so that the U.S. would support these precise “defensible borders” as Israel’s “secure and recognized” borders.

The Obama administration’s continued rhetoric of “secure and recognized” borders opens up a question that was previously settled. It resets negotiations, except now Israel is starting out without the territory it has already abandoned. In addition to betraying an ally and signaling to the world that U.S. assurances are worthless, this approach is poisonous to the peace process.

The diplomatic crisis triggered in 2009 was not just about the White House’s specific demands regarding settlements and borders. It was about the broader spectacle of binding U.S. assurances that—in the style of a banana republic—evaporate from one government to the next. An Israeli diplomat at the time noted angrily that Israel had negotiated an agreement with the United States of America, not with the Bush Administration.

The legacy of the White House’s diplomatic offensive continues to hover over the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

Last November the Obama administration made a last-ditch push to secure an extension of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s settlement freeze, Palestinian President Abbas having run out the clock over the previous ten months. The efforts collapsed after Israeli diplomats, fresh off 18 months of watching in amazement as the administration casually discarded previous agreements, demanded that American commitments be put in writing. The White House refused, and the deal collapsed, a victim of distrust sown by the administration’s past actions.

Now the President is asking the Israelis to believe that, should they make further concessions, the U.S. ensure a demilitarized Palestinian state and will provide them with diplomatic cover during self-defense operations. It would be interesting to know on what, exactly, he expects the Israelis to base their faith.

How Dangerous Are Energy Efficient Light Bulbs?

From: American Thinker

New evidence of CFLs causing fires -- even exploding -- as well as new environmental concerns have come to light since my article The CFL Fraud published. Here are some of the additional fires:

"I had one of these CFL's in my garage socket, and it blew a component (not the glass corkscrew) and caught fire. Fortunately, I was standing four feet away at the time. I turned off the power and smothered the bulb with a towel." LINK

"I heard a sizzling sound like bacon, looked in the direction of the sound and watch the CFL burst into flame with flames licking up onto the ceiling of my house." LINK

"I've had two burn through their base, leaving a hole large enough to stick my little finger in, and scorching the fixture. They are a fire hazard." LINK

"I've had TWO catch fire. I don't trust them. Plus they look silly." LINK

"I've had two CFLs explode on me. One in our bedroom overhead light.... I took a long time cleaning the bedspread and carpeting, because of fears of the mercury residue. Had another one explode in the family room." LINK

How was that bedspread cleaned? Was the person aware it must not be put in a washing machine, according to EPA, "because mercury may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage"? Was that person aware EPA also says never to use a vacuum cleaner to clean up a broken CFL on a carpet? Vacuuming will disperse mercury into the air and contaminate the vacuum cleaner, which for all practical purposes is impossible to decontaminate. LINK

In recognition of the problems of fires and exploding CFLs, Armorlite is marketing a product with a package labeled "A Safer CFL." It is a CFL inside what looks like the shell of an incandescent bulb made with some special coating. Notice that is says a "safer CFL" -- not that it is "safe," just "safer." In other words, less dangerous. The package states: "We do not make any claims or provisions that mercury or glass cannot escape coating."

Armorlite claims a lifetime of 10,000 hours, or nine years, based on 3 hours of use per day, but the warranty is for only two years. So much for all the B.S. about how CFLs last so many thousands of hours longer than incandescents.

If the bulb fails in two years, you can get a replacement from the company. The package states:

$2 Million Jackpot Winner Still Receives Food Stamps

Saw this on Beck. Unbelievable. Actually, it's totally believabble

From: MyFoxDetroit.com

A Michigan man has continued to accept food aid from the state even though he won big in a state lottery game and said he told officials about it.

Leroy Fick won the $2 million jackpot in the "Make Me Rich!" contest in June. Despite receiving about $850,000 in winnings, the Auburn resident is still using his Michigan Bridge Card, an electronic version of food stamps.

Fick's lawyer said his client hasn't done anything illegal.

"He did call the state," John Wilson, the Midland attorney representing Fick, told The Bay City Times for a story Wednesday. "Not to mention, the state knows he won. They issued the check."

Further, Wilson said, Fick's case was recently reviewed and his eligibility was confirmed.

"It's not him," Wilson said. "As far as him doing the right thing by the (Department of Human Services), he did the right thing."

Fick told WNEM-TV in Saginaw that more than half the lottery prize went to taxes. He said the department told him he could continue to use the card, which is paid with tax dollars.

"If you're going to ... try to make me feel bad, you aren't going to do it," he said.

Fick appeared on the lottery show after winning $1,000 on one of the lottery's $20 instant games.

Department spokeswoman Gisgie Gendreau said that, under federal guidelines, if a person receives a lump-sum payment, the winnings are not counted as income. The money is considered income if the person receives regular, ongoing payments.

DHS inspector general's office director Al Kimichik said food assistance on the Bridge card is guided by federal regulations but authorities are taking steps to change the policy.

California Is Screwed

Californians have their head in the sand. They're broke and now pass single payer.

From: McClatchy

The national debate over health care can be summed up in a bill being debated in Sacramento.

Supporters of Senate Bill 810 say the legislation would be the only way to provide medical coverage for every Californian.

Opponents deride the measure as socialized medicine.

The California Universal Healthcare Act was introduced by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco. The bill would initiate single-payer universal health care for the state of California, Leno said. "What that means in short is Medicare for all," he said.

Supporter Keith Ensminger, a Merced resident and owner of Kramer Translations, said the largest benefit of the legislation probably would be that it would include everyone. "Everybody would have insurance, regardless of their income and regardless of their position in life," he said. "One of the bigger benefits for us is that nobody in the Central Valley would be required to remain poor for Medi-Cal. They would still have their insurance paid."

A high percentage of Central Valley residents are on Medi-Cal.

There would be other positive effects from the bill, said Ensminger, who's a member of Health Care for All, a statewide organization that helped developed the bill. It would lower the cost of insurance for most people, everybody in the state would have a health insurance plan and it would aid people in having medical conditions treated early rather than waiting.

In addition, it would prevent medical bankruptcies, he said.

Dr. Bill Skeen, executive director of the California's chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program, said the organization supports the legislation because it's the only way of providing coverage for everyone and controlling the skyrocketing costs of the health care system.

Ron Paul, Hookers, and Heroin

A Fine Rebuttal

From: The Daily Beast By Michael Medved

The 2012 presidential candidate has gone off the deep end in defending the right to sell sex and drugs as personal liberty—and stretched libertarianism past the breaking point, writes Michael Medved.

How would you describe a perennial presidential candidate who insists in a televised debate that government has no more right to interfere with prostitution or heroin than it does to limit people’s right to “practice their religion and say their prayers”?

The phrase “crackpot” comes immediately to mind—and in any contemporary political dictionary that term would appear alongside a photograph of Congressman Ron Paul.

The Mad Doctor, who proudly consorts with 9/11 Truthers, announced his third race for the nation’s highest office on Friday the 13th (appropriately enough) by declaring that if he were president he never would have authorized a lethal strike against Osama bin Laden. The firestorm over this remark distracted attention from previous controversial comments just eight days earlier, when he used the first debate of the 2012 race to stake out exclusive territory on the lunatic libertarian fringe.

Asked by Chris Wallace of Fox News about his insistence that “the federal government should stay out of people’s personal habits,” and his specific opposition to restrictions on cocaine, heroin, and prostitution, the candidate claimed that social conservatives would nonetheless vote for him “if they understand my defense of liberty is the defense of their right to practice their religion and say their prayers where they want to practice their life. But if you do not protect liberty across the board it’s the First Amendment-type issue… You know, it’s amazing that we want freedom to pick our future in a spiritual way but not when it comes to our personal habits.”

In other words, as long we’re free to seek salvation in heaven, we must be free to enjoy drugs and hookers while we’re alive?

This addle-brained attempt to equate religious freedom with liberty to pursue profit as pimps or pushers counts as daft rather than deft. As a preening “Constitutionalist,” Paul ought to understand that the First Amendment explicitly protects “free exercise” of religion but says nothing about a right to operate bordellos or market recreational drugs.

As long we’re free to seek salvation in heaven, we must be free to enjoy drugs and hookers while we’re alive?

Wallace also asked the crotchety candidate if he was “suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise in liberty?” In effect, Paul agreed that they were. “Well, you know, I’d probably never use those words, you put those words some place,” he stammered, “but yes, in essence, if I leave it to the states, it’s going to be up to the states.”

This suggestion of leaving regulation to local authorities makes no sense at all when it comes to the drug trade, which usually involves international (or, at the very least, interstate) commerce. Moreover, his invoking of the First Amendment in the need to “protect liberty across the board” means that the states would have no more right to outlaw bongs and brothels than the federal government. The Supreme Court has federalized Bill of Rights protections since 1925 (Gitlow v. New York), meaning that First Amendment protections restrict state power (under the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection”) just as much as they limit the Washington bureaucracy.

Smoke and Fire: Why France Was Silent About Strauss-Kahn's Womanizing

From: TIME Magazine

When news of the arrest of Dominique Strauss-Kahn broke in France, Emmanuel Pierrat remembered the young woman who came seeking legal advice about half a decade ago. She said she had had an encounter with Strauss-Kahn and, says the lawyer Pierrat, "wanted to know whether I thought what I heard would form the basis for a solid legal case against him." Pierrat says the news out of New York City last weekend was "something I had heard before" because of what the young woman several years ago had described as "the modus operandi of the attacker, [whom] she said was Strauss-Kahn." Says Pierrat: [It] "was almost identical to the details [described by] the woman [who said she was] attacked Sunday in New York."

On Monday, Strauss-Kahn, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund and a onetime likely presidential candidate in France, was arraigned in New York City on charges of sexual assault and attempted rape, including preventing a hotel worker at a Manhattan Sofitel from leaving his expensive quarters, groping her and forcing her to perform oral sex on him. He has pleaded not guilty; his legal team is reportedly planning to argue that the sex was consensual. (See pictures of the career of Dominique Strauss-Kahn.)

Recalling his experience with the client to TIME, Pierrat says he told the young woman that he believed she had a case. "There were sufficient elements for a legal complaint to be filed and for a judicial investigation into them to be granted," he says. But in the end, the woman chose not to go ahead. Pierrat explains that it was "because she knew there'd be a lot of public and media attention, knew she'd come under pressure, be cast as a liar, a woman who was looking for trouble, get tagged as the villain who took down Dominique Strauss-Kahn — or tried to. She knew there'd be a high price to pay for trying to do the right thing and knew she would probably be tarred for it."

"In addition to my client," says Pierrat, "I also have a personal friend who came to me and described an unwanted, forceful sexual advance by Strauss-Kahn that she was forced to literally fight off. They're all essentially the same account, the same kind of behavior, with only the places changed."

Even the well connected had qualms about confronting Strauss-Kahn. A regional Socialist Party official stepped up on Monday to say that her daughter had come under sexual attack during a 2002 interview with Strauss-Kahn. The official, Anne Mansouret, repeated the allegations made by her daughter Tristane Banon during a 2007 TV program about how a well-known politician [Strauss-Kahn's name was bleeped out] tried to overpower her with a sexual embrace. What took so long for Mansouret to back up her daughter and name Strauss-Kahn? She told French TV that she had dissuaded her daughter from filing charges because Strauss-Kahn was en route to greatness — and derailing the ascent of a fellow Socialist Party official would be bad form. She also said that because Strauss-Kahn's second wife was Banon's godmother, blowing the whistle on the alleged attacker would create rifts within Mansouret's circle of family, friends and intimates.


A Paris attorney who specializes in defending victims of sexual violence, who didn't want to be named, says he has "an entire pile of complaints" from women who say they were attacked by Strauss-Kahn. Like Pierrat, he says last weekend's news evoked déjà vu. And like Pierrat, he says he has a consistency of accusations against Strauss-Kahn. "It's all so similar," he says. "The lock thrown on the door, the pulled or ripped undergarments, the physical force that turned violent as resistance mounted, all of it.

President Obama To Demand Israel Withdraw to 1967 Border

I guess he doesn't remember that the extended border is the result of defending against assault from their neighbors.

From: Xinhua net.com

U.S. President Barack Obama will call on Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders and agree to additional concessions that will enable a resumption of the peace process, Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth revealed on Tuesday.
 
The newspaper claimed to have obtained a draft of Obama's planned speech at the State Department on Thursday in which he will outline his administration's Middle East policy, in light of the anti-government protests that have swept the region over the past year.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said Sunday that Obama would raise the need for progress in the peace process. However, he did not reveal whether the president planned to present a diplomatic initiative to revive the process, after negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians broke down last September.

According to Yedioth Ahronoth, Obama will call on Israel to withdraw to the 1967 cease-fire lines with territorial adjustments that will be agreed on in the negotiations with the Palestinian National Authority. The president will label the West Bank settlements as "illegal" and emphasize that Israel must halt their construction.

Obama's position on the settlement blocs, which Israel slates to remain under its sovereignty in any peace deal, is yet unclear.

The president is also expected to announce his solution regarding the status of Jerusalem and call for its division. The U. S. envisions the city as the shared capital of the two states, Israel and Palestine, side by side in peace.

Goodwin Liu, Appointee to 9th Circuit: In His Own Words

Obama's Radical Judges

FROM: Pajamas Media

The FBI’s “Most Wanted Fugitives” list has been around since 1950. President Obama’s penchant for nominating political activists and radical academics to the federal judiciary has resulted in a new list: the “Most (Un)Wanted Judges.” This list is comprised of nominees who (with two exceptions) are now pending a vote in the Senate.

The federal judiciary is not the place for political agendas and academic fads. But the Left has used the federal courts for decades to advance their political goals at the expense of the Constitution and the rule of law. The worst of the worst judicial nominees would, if confirmed, set back our liberty, our economic freedom, and the hard work that constitutionalists have been doing to reestablish the limits on the power of government envisioned by the Framers.

Here is the who’s who of the worst:

Goodwin Liu: If you think the Ninth Circuit, the most liberal and out-of-control appeals court in the country, couldn’t get any worse, you haven’t met Goodwin Liu, associate dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law.

For starters, Liu does not even meet the standard for federal judgeships outlined by the American Bar Association, which requires substantial courtroom and trial experience and at least 12 years practicing law.

Liu has no experience as a trial lawyer. He hadn’t even been out of law school for 12 years when he was nominated.

In his writings, Liu has shown a disturbing judicial philosophy that fits neatly within the activist mold Obama wants nominees to fill. Liu “envisions the judiciary … as a culturally situated interpreter of social meaning.”

Judges are not supposed to be interpreters of “social meaning” who base their decisions on the latest cultural meanderings of academia. They are supposed to be interpreters of the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. But it is this kind of nebulous culturally situated interpretation that allows judges to ignore the plain and ordinary meaning of the law and to replace it with what they personally think is the “best” outcome based upon their own highly subjective, biased, and often radical interpretation of “social meaning.”

Just how would this interpretation of “social meaning” manifest itself? One way, according to Liu, would be a court-created constitutional right to welfare. Liu desires a “reinvigorated public dialogue” about “our commitments to mutual aid and distributive justice across a broad range of social goods.” He wants the courts to recognize “a fundamental right to education or housing or medical care … as an interpretation and consolidation of the values we have gradually internalized as a society.”

Why Goodwin Liu’s Nomination Should Be Defeated

From: National Review Online

Here’s a quick stab at some key points, distilled from the selected repository of my extensive documentation of the case against the controversial nomination of Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to the Ninth Circuit:

1. This confirmation battle should be framed by the fact that Liu raced to launch a shoddy attack against the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court and, testifying at Samuel Alito’s confirmation hearing, demagogically smeared Alito. As Miguel Estrada has said of Liu, “The one thing that ought to be reasonably clear … is that someone who personally contributed to the sorry state of the confirmation process, by jumping in the mud pit with both feet and flinging the mud with both hands, is not well positioned to demand that standards be elevated solely for his benefit.”

2. Liu presents a volatile mix of aggressive left-wing ideology and raw inexperience. He’s the rare nominee who would threaten to make the Ninth Circuit worse than it already is.

3. Liu advocates that judges adopt a freewheeling constitutional approach to generate a plethora of extreme left-wing results, including:

The invention of a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

The invention (usually in an “interstitial” role, he says, as though that’s significant comfort) of constitutional rights to a broad range of social “welfare” goods, including education, shelter, subsistence, and health care.
Pervasive racial quotas—in education, employment, and contracting—in perpetuity.

Overruling “firmly embedded” precedents that he dislikes—San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (education is not a fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment), Milliken v. Bradley (limiting the availability of interdistrict school desegregation remedies), and Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (racial classifications imposed by the federal government must be subject to strict scrutiny)—and having them “swept into the dustbin of history.”

Unprincipled resort to foreign law to redefine the meaning of provisions of our Constitution.

Syria Christians fear for religious freedom

From: Jerusalem Post

Syria's minority Christians are watching the protests sweeping their country with trepidation, fearing their religious freedom could be threatened if President Bashar Assad's autocratic but secular rule is overthrown.

Sunni Muslims form a majority in Syria, but under four decades of rule by Assad's minority Alawites the country's varied religious groups have enjoyed the right to practice their faith.\

Calls for Muslim prayers ring out alongside church bells in Damascus, where the apostle Paul started his ministry and Christians have worshipped for two millennia.

But for many Syrian Christians, the flight of their brethren from sectarian conflict in neighboring Iraq and recent attacks on Christians in Egypt have highlighted the dangers they fear they will face if Assad succumbs to the wave of uprisings sweeping the Arab world.

"Definitely the Christians in Syria support Bashar al-Assad. They hope that this storm will not spread," Yohana Ibrahim, the Syriac Orthodox Archbishop of Aleppo, told Reuters.

Protests erupted in Syria two months ago, triggered by anger and frustration at widespread corruption and lack of freedom in the country ruled with an iron fist by the Assad family for nearly half a century.

Although some Christians may be participating in the protests, church institutions have not supported them.

Christians contacted by Reuters said they backed calls for reform but not the demands for "regime change", which they said could fragment Syria and give the upper hand possibly to Islamist groups that would deny them religious freedom.

"The Christians in Syria -- whether Orthodox, Armenians, Maronites, Anglicans, Assyrians or Catholics -- consider themselves first (Syrian) citizens, the sons of the land," said Habib Afram, president of the Syriac League.

"The general atmosphere from the churches' positions and from Christian figures is fixed on stability and security because religious freedom is absolutely guaranteed in Syria," he said.

Syrian Christian: Minority "ruled by the military or the turban of a cleric"

Is the IRS Targeting Campaign Contributors?

From: The Wall Street Journal

We're starting to see a pattern here. Since the Supreme Court restored the First Amendment rights of businesses and unions in last year's Citizens United ruling, Democrats have been searching for a way to claw back control over political speech. The latest bureau to get the memo is the Internal Revenue Service, which may retroactively tax top donors to political advocacy groups.

In the crossroads, er, cross-hairs, are nonprofit groups that register under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code and spent millions on political advertising in the last election cycle. Big donations to those groups, the agency now says, should have been subject to gift taxes and may be owed retroactively. In a letter to one donor, the IRS noted that it "had received information that you donated cash to . . . an IRC Section 501(c)(4) organization . . . and your contribution should have been reported on your 2008 federal gift tax return."

The letters are especially odd since the purpose of the gift tax has traditionally been used in coordination with the estate tax, to prevent people from avoiding the tax by divesting their wealth before they die. Contributions to 501(c)(4)s aren't a routine death tax avoidance mechanism, and the contributions now under scrutiny are a pittance compared to overall gift tax revenues. So, hmmm, what could be the reason to start asserting the provision now, and only against a handful of high-profile political donors?

New report finds medical costs to rise 8.5 percent in 2012

From: The Hill

U.S. employers can expect an 8.5 percent increase in their medical costs next year due in some part to the healthcare reform law, the consulting firm PwC said in a report Wednesday.

The widely read annual report on cost trends points to three main drivers of healthcare costs, two of which are exacerbated by the new law.

At the same time, PwC said the law will have a "minimal effect" on 2012 prices because the provisions that go into effect before 2014 are "small changes for which employers already have fully accounted."

Still, the consulting firm said employers will have to work with health insurers and providers to ensure better care and pricing as the law is implemented further.

The report identified the following cost drivers:

Protests Mount in Spain; Sovereign Debt Crisis to Follow

From: Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

My friend Bran emails from Spain...

Hello Mish

Street protests are starting in Spain. Protesters call for real democracy and an end to corruption and big corporation rule, amongst other things. Organizers estimate the protest yesterday in Madrid was around 25,000.

Now there are protests planned in twenty main cities with camp-ins. It seems this is a non-union, non-partisan protest movement, particularly youth.

All the best, Bran.

Protests Mount

Ben Stein's Disgusting Defense

I considered doing a point by point rebuttal but I don't think it's necessary. It reads badly enough.

From: The American Spectator

By Ben Stein on 5.17.11 @ 8:07AM

Now for a few humble thoughts about Dominique Strauss-Kahn and his recent brush with law and journalism, bearing in mind that it's possible indeed, maybe even likely, that he is guilty as the prosecutors charge:

1.) If he is such a womanizer and violent guy with women, why didn't he ever get charged until now? If he has a long history of sexual abuse, how can it have remained no more than gossip this long? France is a nation of vicious political rivalries. Why didn't his opponents get him years ago?

2.) In life, events tend to follow patterns. People who commit crimes tend to be criminals, for example. Can anyone tell me any economists who have been convicted of violent sex crimes? Can anyone tell me of any heads of nonprofit international economic entities who have ever been charged and convicted of violent sexual crimes? Is it likely that just by chance this hotel maid found the only one in this category? Maybe Mr. Strauss-Kahn is guilty but if so, he is one of a kind, and criminals are not usually one of a kind.

3.) The prosecutors say that Mr. Strauss-Kahn "forced" the complainant to have oral and other sex with him. How? Did he have a gun? Did he have a knife? He's a short fat old man. They were in a hotel with people passing by the room constantly, if it's anything like the many hotels I am in. How did he intimidate her in that situation? And if he was so intimidating, why did she immediately feel un-intimidated enough to alert the authorities as to her story?

The Undermining of Honduran Democracy

From: American Thinker

The political situation of Honduras, our long-time Central American ally with a history of aversion to Communism and Socialism, appears to be lurching toward danger.


On Monday, May 2, a Court of Appeals in Honduras reviewing the criminal charges against ousted former President Manuel "Mel" Zelaya voted to annul the criminal charges against him, possibly paving the way for his return to the country. An appeal was rejected on May 5. But the opportunity for further appeal remains for sixty days.


The return of Zelaya, without fear of prosecution, is a condition which is being insisted upon by the leftist-dominated Organization of American States, as requirement for allowing Honduras to be readmitted to the organization. After the annulment of the charges, both the OAS and the U.S. State Department issued statements approving the developments.


Zelaya turned to Marxism after being elected president, and he drew support from Venezuelan Marxist dictator Hugo Chávez in an attempt to overthrow the Honduran Constitution. He was kicked out of Honduras in 2009 after tripping special clauses in the Honduran Constitution designed to prevent such a takeover.


Zelaya had already been granted amnesty for political crimes as part of a general amnesty in 2010. So with the annulment of criminal charges, Mel is apparently free to return to Honduras without consequence. While neither the OAS nor the U.S. is publicly calling for him to be returned to the presidency at this moment, this is still an alarming prospect. The cause for alarm becomes clear when one considers the fact that Zelaya's backer, Hugo Chávez, is a man who was once granted immunity for attempting a takeover in Venezuela in 1992. He is now the dictator of that country.


Since 2009, the previously taboo subjects of presidential reelection and of calling a "Constituyente" (an overthrow of the present constitution) have been increasingly introduced into open discussion in Honduras. But the call for presidential reelection and the call for a Constituyente are supposed to be expressly forbidden by the Tegucigalpa/San Jose Accords, which were signed in an attempt to diffuse the 2009 crisis. 

David Letterman - Martin Short's Osama Farewell

Is Greece the New Lehman Brothers?

From: The Guardian

It was less than three years ago that the failure of Lehman Brothers sent tremors through the global financial system, threatening the existence of every major bank and triggering the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression. As Europe's policy elite met for fresh crisis talks today, the dark fear that haunted everyone around the table was this: if the bankruptcy of a middling-sized Wall Street investment bank with no retail customers could have such dire consequences, what would happen if the Greeks decide they have had enough and renege on their debts?

Could Greece, in other words, be the new Lehmans? Given the structure of modern financial markets, with their chains of derivative trades and their pyramids of debt, there is only one answer. Greece could certainly be the next Lehmans. The likelihood that a Greek default would pose a threat to the future of the eurozone as well as to the health of the world economy means it has the potential to be worse than Lehmans. Much worse.
Given that gloomy prognosis, the European Union and the currently rudderless International Monetary Fund know something has to be done but are not quite sure what.

To be fair, it's a tough one. A single currency that involved a hard core of European countries that were broadly similar in terms of economic development and industrial structure might just have worked. Bolting together a group of 17 disparate economies with different levels of productivity growth, different languages and different business cultures was an accident waiting to happen, and so it has proved.

The weaker countries, on the fringes of the single currency area, have not been able to cope with the disciplines involved in giving up control of their interest rates and their currencies, with the problem going much wider than the three countries – Greece, Ireland and Portugal – that have sought bailouts. Spain's housing boom and bust was the result of the pan-European interest rate being too low; Italy's increasing lack of competitiveness stems from a lack of exchange-rate flexibility.

Leftists Support Gay-Bashing Palestinians in Effort to Eradicate Gay-Friendly Israel

It is amazing how a progressive country like Israel with gay rights and equality for women are derided by so many liberals in support of Palestinians where women are second class citizens and gays and lesbians are criminals.

From: Commentary Magazine

One of the differences between Israel and its Arab foes is the contrast between the way minorities are treated by the two societies. Israel is not utopia, but it is a liberal democracy in the best sense of the word. And one of the measures of the open nature of Israeli society is its treatment of women and gays. In marked contrast to the way homosexuals are oppressed in Arab societies, and in particular the gruesome treatment meted out to gays by the Islamists of Hamas in Gaza and even by the secular nationalists of Fatah in the West Bank, gays have full and equal rights protection in Israel, including the right to serve openly—and proudly—in the Israel Defense Forces.

But for some gay leftists, it is somehow wrong for friends of the Jewish state to speak of its exemplary record on this issue. That’s the conceit of David Kaufman’s bizarre and confused article in Time magazine that focuses on “pink washing”—the term used by leftists to describe the discussion of Israel’s stance on gay rights. As far as they are concerned, it’s all just a cover to stop people from denouncing Israel for its alleged abuse of the Palestinians. Any reluctance on the part of Jewish gays to join in the “progressive” smears of Israel as an apartheid state would be wrong since gays and Palestinians are fellow victims. In that view, Jews who identify themselves with the LGBT community must put aside the question of gay rights to promote the more important issue of isolating Israel.

The State Pension Crisis

From: Wall Street Journal

The Hidden State Financial Crisis 

By MEREDITH WHITNEY

Next month will be pivotal for most states, as it marks the fiscal year end and is when balanced budgets are due. The states have racked up over $1.8 trillion in taxpayer-supported obligations in large part by underfunding their pension and other post-employment benefits. Yet over the past three years, there still has been a cumulative excess of $400 billion in state budget shortfalls. States have already been forced to raise taxes and cut programs to bridge those gaps.

Next month will also mark the end of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act's $480 billion in federal stimulus, which has subsidized states through the economic downturn. States have grown more dependent on federal subsidies, relying on them for almost 30% of their budgets.

The condition of state finances threatens the economic recovery. States employ over 19 million Americans, or 15% of the U.S. work force, and state spending accounts for 12% of U.S. gross domestic product. The process of reining in state finances will be painful for us all.

Will Obama Be Forced To Raise Taxes On the Middle Class?

The New Republic says the numbers require a middle class tax increase.

From: The New Republic

Because so much of what passes for political debate in this country takes place in a faux-fact zone, it is a welcome change to read Reihan Salam’s latest essay in the National Review. During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama famously promised that taxes would either stay the same or go down for households making less than $250,000 a year. But Salam points out that there’s no way of reducing the budget deficit to acceptable levels, let alone financing the kind of federal government Obama favors, while relying solely on income and payroll tax increases for households making more than that figure. Of course, there’s not much that can be squeezed out of the bottom four income quintiles (households making less than $100,000 per year). On the other hand, relying solely on the rich for added revenues would imply tax rates in excess of 75 percent. But what about the well-off but not rich—those in the fifth quintile who earn between $100,000 and $250,000 a year? Can they really be held harmless?

To dramatize the problem we’re facing, let’s consider the analysis the Urban Institute’s Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane published in January, which looked at taxes and benefits for households in different income brackets. The average couple earning $112,000 and retiring in 2010 will have paid $140,000 in lifetime Medicare taxes, but is expected to receive lifetime Medicare benefits totaling $343,000. Twenty years from now, the same couple would have paid $171,000 in lifetime Medicare taxes and would receive $530,000 in benefits. (Technical note: These amounts are in constant 2010 dollars, adjusted to present value using a 2 percent real interest rate. In calculating net benefits, the authors have taken into account premiums as well as payroll taxes.)

Or consider the analysis USA Today published last week, which found that Americans are paying the smallest share of their income for taxes since 1958—23.6 percent, versus about 27 percent in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. On average, a person making $100,000 this year will pay $23,600 in combined taxes—federal, state, and local, income, payroll, and sales—versus $28,700 in 2000 and $27,300 in 1990. Even when the one-year Social Security tax cut ends, the tax gap between now and a decade ago for individuals making $100,000 will still be more than $3,000.

California's high-speed train wreck

They still support it, but why? One bungle after another in a high speed boondoggle.

From Los Angeles Times

California's much-vaunted high-speed rail project is, to put it bluntly, a train wreck. Intended to demonstrate the state's commitment to sustainable, cutting-edge transportation systems, and to show that the U.S. can build rail networks as sophisticated as those in Europe and Asia, it is instead a monument to the ways poor planning, mismanagement and political interference can screw up major public works. For anti-government conservatives, it is also a powerful argument for scrapping President Obama's national rail plans, rescinding federal funding and canceling the project before any more money is wasted on it.

We couldn't disagree more. We pointed out back in 2008, before voters approved nearly $10 billion in state bonds to fund the project under Proposition 1A, that it would be more expensive and difficult to build than its backers were letting on. But we endorsed it anyway because of the economic and environmental benefits the train could bring. The benefits still outweigh the costs, and none of the $43-billion project's troubles are insurmountable. Fortunately, a report last week from the state Legislative Analyst's Office offers strong recommendations for getting the system back on track.

The train's biggest problems can be laid at the feet of the High Speed Rail Authority, which is overseeing its construction. Inexperienced board members appointed by the governor and Legislature on the basis of political patronage rather than expertise have made a host of poor decisions. Not the least boneheaded of these is the board's plan to take a circuitous route from Los Angeles to Bakersfield by veering through Palmdale and Lancaster. Compared with the more direct route along Interstate 5 through the Grapevine, this would add 30 miles to the trip plus $1 billion in construction costs, and make it all but impossible for the train to meet its promised travel time of 2 hours and 40 minutes from L.A. to San Francisco. The legislative analyst calls for slashing the authority's proposed budget for next year by $185 million and eventually eliminating it, transferring the bullet train's oversight to another agency. We heartily agree.

U.S. justified in killing Osama Bin Laden

A brilliant rebuttal to European critics.

From: Los Angeles Times

First came the street celebrations; then the changing accounts of what happened; then the second-guessing — domestic and foreign.

An "extrajudicial execution," that's what many in the international community are now calling the killing of Osama bin Laden. The U.N.'s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has called for an investigation. According to a U.N. special rapporteur, if the U.S. commandos were under shoot-to-kill orders and did so without offering Bin Laden a "meaningful prospect of surrender," his killing could have been a "cold-blooded execution." In that case, the soldiers who shot him, together with President Obama and any other U.S. commanders who issued the kill orders, would in principle be guilty of murder and should be prosecuted as war criminals.

These claims are absurd. Under any sane construction of the laws of war, the killing of Bin Laden was lawful regardless of whether he "raised his hands in surrender" or whether the American soldiers were under orders to shoot without giving him a chance to surrender. By suggesting otherwise, human rights lawyers only make international law look out of step with basic morality and common sense.

The opportunity to surrender is a cherished, civilized and valuable part of warfare. But accepting an enemy's white flag in the heat of battle is a life-endangering proposition: The flag could be a ruse; a bomb could be hidden; the captors could end up dead. We give enemy soldiers the benefit of this dangerous doubt for two reasons. First, because soldiers who have fought honorably, complying with the laws of war, have earned it. And second, because we want the enemy to treat our soldiers the same way.

Neither reason applies, however, to enemies who flagrantly violate the laws of war, targeting civilians for death, hiding bombs behind burkas, using children as shields or — yes — faking a Red Cross, upraised hands or other symbolic white flags to perpetrate lethal attacks. A white flag makes a statement. It says, I'm giving up; I'm unarmed and pose no threat; I respect the laws of war under which this flag must never be used as a ruse, and I am not using it as a ruse to attack you. Even if we imagine Bin Laden actually waving a little white sock on a stick in Abbottabad, there would have been no reason for our soldiers to credit these statements. No soldier had a duty to take the slightest risk to his own life because Osama bin Laden promised to be good from now on.

Putting Humanity On Trial?

HMMMMMM. is there a case of jury tampering.

From: The Local

Around 20 Nobel prize winners will preside over a mock courtroom in Stockholm on Tuesday, with the Planet Earth and humanity on opposing sides of the case, as part of a symposium to highlight global sustainability.

"It's a civil court case to see whether we've breached our relations" with the planet, "and to see how to restore that relationship," symposium chair Johan Rockström told reporters at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

The "trial" will be one of the sessions at the third biennial Nobel laureate symposium on global sustainability -- a three-day event that opened in the Swedish capital Tuesday.

Stephen Hawking is No Albert Einstein

From: Real Clear Science

The brilliant astrophysicist Dr. Stephen Hawking, who your correspondent personally admires, has become less lovable these days. It's no secret that Dr. Hawking does not believe in God, but for some reason, he has decided to become progressively more obnoxious about it. He said to the Guardian:

I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.

That is perfectly fine for him to believe. Intelligent people for millennia have disagreed on the existence of God. But what Dr. Hawking is doing is different; by calling religious belief a "fairy story for people afraid of the dark," he's essentially calling believers childish, perhaps even stupid.

What's worse is that he is still a well-respected and beloved figure, not just by scientists but by everybody. It's not an exaggeration to say Stephen Hawking is probably as popular as Albert Einstein. Most likely, Einstein didn't believe in God, either -- at least not in the same way that most Americans believe in a personal God. But, Einstein didn't go around telling people how childish they were; Hawking is. Why?

Iran Placing Medium-Range Missiles in Venezuela

From: Hudson,New York

Iran is planning to place medium-range missiles on Venezuelan soil, based on western information sources[1], according to an article in the German daily, Die Welt, of November 25, 2010. According to the article, an agreement between the two countries was signed during the last visit o Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to Tehran on October19, 2010. The previously undisclosed contract provides for the establishment of a jointly operated military base in Venezuela, and the joint development of ground-to-ground missiles.

At a moment when NATO members found an agreement, in the recent Lisbon summit (19-20 November 2010), to develop a Missile Defence capability to protect NATO's populations and territories in Europe against ballistic missile attacks from the East (namely, Iran), Iran's counter-move consists in establishing a strategic base in the South American continent - in the United States's soft underbelly.

According to Die Welt, Venezuela has agreed to allow Iran to establish a military base manned by Iranian missile officers, soldiers of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Venezuelan missile officers. In addition, Iran has given permission for the missiles to be used in case of an "emergency". In return, the agreement states that Venezuela can use these facilities for "national needs" – radically increasing the threat to neighbors like Colombia. The German daily claims that according to the agreement, Iranian Shahab 3 (range 1300-1500 km), Scud-B (285-330 km) and Scud-C (300, 500 and 700 km) will be deployed in the proposed base. It says that Iran also pledged to help Venezuela in rocket technology expertise, including intensive training of officers

New Jersey Gains $913 Million Additional In Tax Revenue (Unexpectedly?)

I guess that Chris Christie was on the right track after all.

NJ.com

New Jersey is projected to take in $913 million more than expected in tax revenue through June 2012, according to new projections by the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services.


The revised estimate will likely spark a partisan battle over how to spend the unexpected windfall as lawmakers consider Gov. Chris Christie’s proposed $29.4 billion budget.

OLS will be present the figures today to the Assembly Budget Committee, according to two sources familiar with the report who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it. State Treasurer Andrew P. Sidamon-Eristoff is also expected to give the committee the administration’s revenue estimates. A Treasury spokesman declined to comment today.

The surge will come from an unexpected increase in income tax revenue, according to a section of the OLS report obtained by The Star-Ledger. All other taxes were below administration estimates for the 14-month period, according to the report.

The new numbers will be announced as the state Supreme Court is considering whether Gov. Chris Christie and lawmakers need to provide up to $1.7 billion more in school funding.

The news will likely change the tone of the budget debate underway in Trenton that has up to this point largely focused on modest restoration to cuts in programs.

Philadelphia Police violate rights of open carrier at gupoint

The New NLRB: Boeing Is Just the Beginning

The New NLRB: Deciding what state you can open a business.

From: National Review Online

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) raised a lot of eyebrows by filing a complaint against Boeing for opening a new plant in a right-to-work state. But that action is just the beginning of the board’s aggressive new pro-union agenda. An internal NLRB memorandum, dated May 10, shows that the board wants to give unions much greater power over employers and their investment and management decisions.

Under current NLRB rules, companies can make major business decisions (like relocating a plant) without negotiating with their union — as long as those changes are not primarily made to reduce labor costs. For example, a business can unilaterally merge several smaller operations into one larger facility to achieve administrative efficiencies. Companies only have to negotiate working conditions, not their business plans.

The NLRB apparently intends to change that. In the internal memorandum, the board’s associate general counsel, Richard Siegel, asks the NLRB’s regional directors to flag such business-relocation cases. Siegel explains that the Board is considering “whether to propose a new standard” in these situations because the chairman of the NLRB, Wilma Liebman, has expressed her desire to “revisit existing law in this area” by modifying the rule established in a case called Dubuque Packing.

Apparently, Liebman did not like having to apply the Dubuque Packing rules in a recent case involving the Embarq Corporation and the AFL-CIO. The NLRB decided that under the Dubuque Packing rules, Embarq did not violate the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain with the union over its decision to close its call center in Las Vegas (a right-to-work state) and relocate that work to its call center in Florida (also a right-to-work state).

Scott Walker Wants WI. To Stop Defending Domestic Partnership

A great, objective assessment of Governor Walker's efforts in Wisconsin. He, as stated in the linked story below is employing tactics by opponents of California's Proposition 8.

From: Gay Patriot.net

First, on this occasion, I disagree with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. He should let the state’s domestic partnership registry stand. And as chief executive of the Badger State, he wrong to ask that the state be allowed to stop defending it:

Gov. Scott Walker believes a new law that gives gay couples hospital visitation rights violates the state constitution and has asked a judge to allow the state to stop defending it.
Democrats who controlled the Legislature in 2009 changed the law so that same-sex couples could sign up for domestic partnership registries with county clerks to secure some – but not all – of the rights afforded married couples.
Wisconsin Family Action sued last year in Dane County circuit court, arguing that the registries violated a 2006 amendment to the state constitution that bans gay marriage and any arrangement that is substantially similar.

It does seem I already blogged about this.

One In Five Obamacare Waivers In Pelosi's District

From: The Daily Caller

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.

For instance, Boboquivari’s restaurant in Pelosi’s district in San Francisco got a waiver from Obamacare. Boboquivari’s advertises $59 porterhouse steaks, $39 filet mignons and $35 crab dinners.

Then, there’s Café des Amis, which describes its eating experience as “a timeless Parisian style brasserie” which is “located on one of San Francisco’s premier shopping and strolling boulevards, Union Street,” according to the restaurant’s Web site.

“Bacchus Management Group, in partnership with Perry Butler, is bringing you that same warm, inviting feeling, with a distinctive San Francisco spin,” the Web site reads. Somehow, though, the San Francisco upper class eatery earned itself a waiver from Obamacare because it apparently cost them too much to meet the law’s first year requirements.

Schwarzenegger Admits to Fathering Staffer's Child

"South Park" Threat Leads to New Charge

From: IPT

A second man has been charged in connection with threats made last year against the producers of the Comedy Central program "South Park."

Jesse Curtis Morton, (aka Younus Abdullah Mohammad) is charged with communicating threats. Morton helped run a website, RevolutionMuslim, with Zachary Chesser. Chesser is serving a 25-year prison term after pleading guilty to a similar charge and to trying to provide material support to the Somali terrorist group al-Shabaab.

After a "South Park" episode in April 2010 mocked the violent reaction of radical Islamists by portraying the Prophet Mohammad covered by a bear suit, Chesser posted a statement warning producers Matt Stone and Trey Parker that they "will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show."

Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker who was killed on an Amsterdam street after producing a short film protesting the treatment of women in Islam.

According to an affidavit from FBI Special Agent Paula Menges, Chesser then collaborated with Morton on a "clarification statement" triggered by media inquiries.

"The Clarification Statement contained pages of justification under Islamic law for the death of those who insult Islam or defame its prophet, and for Muslims to bring about such deaths," Menges wrote. "In it, Morton and Chesser asserted in pertinent part that 'we will never tolerate the mocking or insulting of any one of the prophets,' and explained that the Islamic ruling on this situation was that 'the punishment is death.'"

Though the statement indicated they were not inciting violence, it included a quote from Osama bin Laden that threatened those responsible for Danish cartoons depicting Mohammad with "the freedom of our actions" as payback for their free speech.

That, Menges wrote, crosses the line between protected speech and conveying a threat because it warned Stone and Parker they "would be on the receiving end of actions analogous to those of bin Laden if they refused to change their ways."

The clarification statement included a picture of Van Gogh's body after a stranger killed him "for making a film that was perceived to have insulted Islam." Even if they were not making a direct threat, their statement posted on radical Islamist websites could inspire others to act. "[B]y issuing that statement, they certainly knew that violence was likely to be incited by it anyway."

In an interview on CNN before the "South Park" controversy, Morton said Islam commands Muslims to terrorize disbelievers. "The Koran says very clearly in the Arabic language ... this means "terrorize them." It's a command from Allah."

Read more at: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2870/south-park-threat-leads-to-new-charge

Fond Memories of Olbermann at ESPN: 'We Felt Not S...

JammieWearingFool: Fond Memories of Olbermann at ESPN: 'We Felt Not S...: "A look at Keith Olbermann's days in Bristol . Not always a pretty picture. Suzy Kolber SportsNight co-anchor The night before we went on ..."

We Hit the Debt Limit Today: The World Did Not End

So, we hit the wall today and the world as we know it has changed forever. We hit the debt limit. And didn't approve a debt limit increase. Looks like the doom and gloomers were right. We surely will default. 

What's that you say? We didn't default like President Obama said we would? Really? But everyone was so sure of our imminent collapse if those irresponsible House Republicans hadn't acted. 


You mean to tell me that the only way to go into default is if President Obama were to instruct Treasury Secretary Geithner not to pay our debt? So, it wasn't urgent to pass an increase? Do you mean to tell me that our illustrious leader was being "disingenuous" about our debt? 

Wow, I guess you can't believe everything you hear. Even from the "MESSIAH".

Chris Matthews Tries To Smear Ron Paul

The video of the encounter is below. Congressman Ron Paul was making the media rounds on Friday and stopped in on Chris Matthews show. A couple quick questions for Ron Paul.

First, why are you appearing on a show whose host once infamously said that Barack Obama sent a "tingle" up his leg? Secondly, just how many GOP primary voters are you reaching with an appearance on MSNBC? Thirdly, don't you remember your son Rand's post primary interview on the same network with Rachel Maddow?

The bigger question is why do you insist on answering every historical hypothetical question posed to you? Presidential campaigns are about keeping focused on your message, not the "gotchas" of Chris Matthews. Why would you bother to mention you would not have voted for the Voting Rights Act of 1964? Did you not foresee the reflexively liberal response? It is quite strangely the mark of a political amateur to become so ensnared.

Ron Paul is quite capable of defending his positions without my assistance, but Chris Matthews assertion that he is racist for a hypothetical vote in history is classic demagoguery. But not surprising.

Ron Paul's hypothetical vote is grounded in a strict Libertarian view that the states are responsible for conducting elections, not the federal government. Ron Paul is wrong about the Voting Rights Act. But Chris Matthews rather than engaging with a legitimate rebuttal, grounded in history decided to keep it simple and play the race card.

Chris Matthews could have explained that while the states conduct elections, many states were systematically denying people their voting rights based on skin color alone. The deprivation of voting rights were either directly or indirectly undermined by state and county governments that were empowered to conduct elections. Constitutional empowerment, however does not justify denying fundamental rights. When the states violate their trust and deny any right, the federal government must intervene,guarantee the rights of those victimized and hold the guilty parties to account. The Voting Rights Act of 1964 secured the rights of those, who by virtue of their race were disenfranchised at the polls. It was the right thing to do.

Chris Matthews as was noted did not do that. It would've made for a better, more substantive conversation. Ron Paul has his Libertarian blinders on and they have clouded his judgement on the historic 1964 law, but as flawed as he is in that regard and to my mind as unqualified as he is to serve as President that does not make him a racist.

I don't agree with Ron Paul on many things, except on the budget where I find kinship, but he is politically honest which is rare. He has at the least something of value to offer public discourse. I used to watch Chris Matthews show many years ago but ceased because I found he had become overly cynical and arrogant. Unlike Ron Paul, Chris Matthews has nothing to offer except an abundant ego bred of mediocrity typical of pundits.

I remember watching Comedian Robert Wuhl comment: "Will Rogers, a man who never met Chris Matthews". To Ron Paul I say. Stop wasting your time with losers like Chris Matthews,it brings us all down to his level and demeans civilized conversation.

Arab Spring=Winter for Coptic Christians and Jews

A great post from Don Surber

From: Don Surber

As events in Egypt unfold — violently — the wisdom of Hosni Mubarak shines through, as does the stupidity of President Obama.

On February 11, 2011, President Obama said of the overthrow of President Mubarak by the Muslim Brotherhood and other nefarious groups: “Egypt will never be the same… Over the last two weeks the wheel of history turned at a blinding pace as the Egyptian people demanded their universal rights.”

The president also intoned martin Luther King: “There’s something in the soul that cries out for freedom.”

There is something in the president’s soul that also cries insipid.

RomneyCare Is Problem

From: Mark Steyn, Investors.com

Unless things change, the man (or woman) elected in 2012 will be the last American president to preside over the world's leading economy. If things get really bad, he will find himself presiding over the early stages of American collapse.

Not "decline" but "collapse." "Decline" is what happens when you're Britain in the 1940s and you cede global dominance to a major ally that shares your language, legal system, cultural inheritance and broad geopolitical objectives. That deal isn't on offer this time round.

Nor was the United Kingdom circa 1948 in thrall to anything like the same levels of spendaholic insanity. The current debate on the "debt ceiling" testifies to how thoroughly public discourse has flown the coop of reality.

Sure, Congress can vote to raise the debt ceiling — just as you and your spouse can reach a bipartisan agreement on raising your own debt ceiling. Go on, try it: Hold a vote in your rec room, come up with a number and then let MasterCard know what you've decided on.

In the real world, debt ceilings are determined by the lenders, not the borrowers. In March, Pimco (which manages the world's largest mutual fund) calculated that 70% of U.S. Treasury debt is being bought by the Federal Reserve.

So under the 2011 budget, every hour of every day, the United States government spends $188 million it doesn't have, $130 million of which is "borrowed" from itself. There's nobody else out there.

A Great Rebuttal To Boehner’s Catholic Critics

From: National Review Online

By Fr. Robert A. Sirico

Speaker of the House John Boehner, a practicing Catholic, is scheduled to deliver the May 14 commencement address to the graduating class of the Catholic University of America (full disclosure: my alma mater). Now a group of Catholic academics, largely from Catholic University, have released what boils down to a theological/moral critique of the Ohio Republican’s voting record and, implicitly, his view of the state’s role in the economy.

The authors, who are drawn from multiple disciplines outside moral theology and include academics from architecture, media, social work, theatre, and dance departments from across the United States, say that the speaker’s voting record “is at variance from one of the Church’s most ancient moral teachings.”

Now what could that be? The Church’s teaching that marriage consists of one man and one woman for life? The Church’s insistence upon the need to legally protect unborn human life? Probably not, because Speaker Boehner has, from an orthodox Catholic standpoint, an excellent record on those questions, especially compared to his predecessor.

They go on: “From the apostles to the present, the Magisterium of the Church has insisted that those in power are morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor.”

Nakba Day History Lessons

From: Commentary Magazine

The conventional wisdom of our chattering classes holds that the key to Middle East peace is more Israeli territorial withdrawals will pave the way for a two-state solution. That will end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. But as Palestinians mark the anniversary of Israel’s birth with Nakba Day demonstrations, border incursions, and terror attacks, even those Palestinian leaders who say they will accept a two state solution can’t afford either to accept Israel as a Jewish state or give up on the right of return. Millions of Arab who claim to be descendants of refugees from Israel’s War of Independence are still kept stateless in countries around the borders of Israel. Their plight is the driving force behind the Arab war on Israel, and the refusal of the Arab world to accept any resolution of their situation that does not involve their “return” to what is now the state of Israel remains the primary obstacle to peace.

George Mitchell and Nakba Day

From: Commentary Magazine

As Rick recalled earlier today, when George Mitchell assumed the role of President Obama’s Middle East peace coordinator on the second day of the administration’s existence, he bragged about his success in brokering the Good Friday peace agreement in Northern Ireland and said that there was no reason why similar persistence would not be rewarded with a Palestinian state living in peace alongside a Jewish one.

Two years later, we can dissect the Obama foreign policy team’s mistakes, such as its foolish decision to pick fights with Israel over settlements that ensured that the Palestinians would dig in their heels and refuse to even negotiate with the Netanyahu government.

The Nakba Day Tragedy?

From: Commentary Magazine

The Palestinians have institutionalized the establishment of Israel as their “Nakba,” their catastrophe, but it is important to remember that the 1948 war actually started not with the Israeli declaration of independence on May 14, 1948 (the day the British Mandate ended), but six months earlier—on November 30, 1947, the morning after the UN endorsed a two-state solution.

But for the Arab rejection of even a miniscule Jewish state, and the Arab war commenced in response to the UN resolution, there would not have been a single refugee, and Palestinians would today be celebrating the 63rd year of their state. There would also never have been, as Jonathan observes, an even larger number of Jewish refugees created in 1948, who have never been compensated for their losses.

CAIR’s Nezar Hanze "Shocked! Shocked!" At Arrest of Miami Taliban Imam and Sons

From: Big Peace

The American Hamas, i.e., the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR ) South Florida Chapter Executive Director, Nezar Hanze, claimed to be “very shocked…very shocked” (he characterized other members of the South Florida Muslim community as merely “shocked”) at the arrest of the Miami Taliban Imam & Sons.

Florida Imam And Sons Arrested for Helping Finance the Taliban

From: Big Peace

The indictment can be read here, and features charges against the “spiritual” leader of the so-called Miami Mosque:

Hafiz Muhammad Sher Ali Khan is a US citizen and resident of Florida. Khan has been the imam, or spiritual leader at the Miami Masjid, also known as the Flagler Mosque, since at least 1999. At all relevant times, Khan solicited and distributed funds for the Pakistani Taliban, both personally and on behalf of others, and worked with co-defendants and others to support the Pakistani Taliban’s jihad. 

Khan also supported the Pakistani Taliban, through a madrassa, or Islamic school, in Swat, known by various names, including Madrassa Arabia Ahya-al-Aloom. Khan founded the madrassa while living in Pakistan, and has since continued to control it. Khan has used the madrassa to provide shelter and support for the Pakistani Taliban, and has sent children from his madrassa to learn to kill Americans in Afghanistan.

Also according to the indictment, the patriotic, benevolent, ecumenical imam—once again, a US citizen,
On or about September 22, 2010 Khan participated in a conversation with an individual in which they discussed contact information for Pakistani Taliban militants in Karachi, after which Khan, upon hearing that mujahideen [jihad “warriors”] had killed 7 American soldiers declared his wish that Allah bring death to 50,000 more.