Judgement and Hop Aboard The Change Train!

Just back from our granddaughter's Confirmation. Of the 19 Confirmants, 11 were children of mixed marriages. Very tough for some of them but they seem committed so more power to them. Sign of the times I guess.

I did a bit of thinking while I was away and made a few hurried notes. (See 1 below.)

I also received a lot of e mails and will post some of them below. They speak to the question of Obama's judgement or lack thereof. (See 2 - 5)

My friend Elliot Chodoff has some interesting comments about Gaza and Olmert. (See 6 and 6a below.)

More good news from your friendly U.N. (See 7 below.)

This is the Qassam rocket defense that Ehud Barak praised and claimed would defend those under attack living in Sderot etc. . (See 8 below.)

T
Defending the dollar and inflation repercussions seem to be on the Fed's burner again and the price of oil is probably beyond a sustainable level based on true demand and economic uncertainties world wide.

The defeat of the wind fall tax on oil was a rational move on the part of the Republicans . Even courageous in view of the fact that it made the Democrats happy because they have another club to bash them with believing the unwashed masses are stupid enough to believe more taxes produces oil. Maybe they are just that stupid.

We could have had more oil had the Democrats been willing to drill in Anwar and off shore but Clinton vetoed that when oil was less than $20/bbl. We truth of the matter is that we use less oil today as a per cent of GDP than ever before. We are driving more efficient cars and utilities use less oil. Liberals have to suck up to the Greens and Al Gore so they continue to oppose building refineries and nuclear plants. Eventually the energy dependency problem will resolve itself when profitable opportunities appear for alternatives. Until then it is up to the government to challenge industry with incentives and that takes a sensible energy policy.

Congress has bankrupted social security so I would not bet heavily on Congress doing anything rational.

Dick

1)Obama is running for the highest political office and were McCain, Obama (in other words, were the shoe on the other foot) I doubt the public, press and media would be willing to be as accepting of Obama's stealth. Either we are gullible and willing to be sold a bill of goods, no longer hold a candidate for the presidency to high standards or, like Clark Gable in Gone With The Wind, "frankly no longer give a damn."

Obama tells us he has excellent judgement and should be judged accordingly. He also seeks change which he has yet to define.

This is what we do know about Obama:

a)I belonged to a church whose minister was my mentor but he turned out to be racially divisive and damned the country so, instead, I sent my wife and two daughters. I really never heard him or was very active. Judgement?

b)Neither did I pay attention to the guest preachers until I decided to run for president. Judgement?

c)Also many of my former associates turned out not to be the men I knew them to be. One was a radical terrorist who bombed federal buildings and killed people, another is an indicted crook with whom I had some sweetheart dealings - shades of Watergate? Judgement?

d)My wife was also not proud of our country because she thought it would never give her a square deal. I, on the other hand, love my country and show this love by wearing my lapel flag pin every other day. Judgement?

e)I want to end the Iraq War even if it means accepting defeat and so what if small nations like Iran have small nuclear weapons. I belong to a party that has many who do not care about winning and have been outspoken about their defeatist feelings. In order to get my party's nomination I must toe their radical line. Judgement?

f)I am a left leaning socialist and my voting record confirms this. I believe in fairness and oppose "bigness." I distrust big oil companies, big WalMart, Capitalism in general. However, I believe in big government. Judgement?

g)I have run a shallow campaign purposefully and guess that is why I am always having to dig myself out of deep holes. Judgement?

h) I will raise taxes on the rich so government can help narrow the difference between them and the poor. Government is the answer for people who have become dependent. Government knows best for those who are no longer self-reliant. Government is good if you do not mind losing some of your precious freedoms. Government works if you do not care to measure. Government protects but you must protect yourself from its stifling effect. Judgement?

i)Though today's voters were neither slave owners nor slaves I believe in affirmative action and benefit from white guilt. If you challenge my ideas, question me or my wife the news and media pals will brand you a racist so don't tread on the Obama's because I am the new Messiah who has excited the nation's brainless youth. Judgement?

j)Probably no executive search firm would submit my thin resume to become president of a major corporation but in politics I possesses all the requisite skills because of my oratorical abilities. Judgement?

Obama's says McCain is an old war hero who has been around too long and has formed a set of values which restricts McCain's ability to bring about change.

Obama, on the other hand, has not been corrupted by living in D.C. He is a neighborhood activist turned Senator from Chicago. That is all you need to know. So hop aboard the Change Train and prepare yourself for the ride of your life.

2) Bill Cosby on Rev. Wright
(Article from Wall Street Journal:)


Rev.Wright epitomizes the thoughts and actions that have prevented and continue to prevent black America from moving ahead and achieving their potential as a people. He suggests that this United States of America made up of sons and daughters of immigrants (I'm talking of the millions of 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation immigrants in this country) of every race, creed, color and religion each and everyone of them who had nothing to d o with slavery, some how owe something to a group of people who have never been slaves? Its amazing. It seems everyone is to blame for the shambles black society is in with its violence, drugs, high school drop out rates, misogyny, and a host of other real and virulent problems, except for the very people who engage in such behavior.

Enough. As a society, culture or people, they should look within themselves and fix their problems.

When did this man become the spokesman for the 'black church'? And of course his church is different, but that doesn't mean his me ssage and philosophy is acceptable, or productive or non-offensive or not-racist or indicative of our greater cultural behaviors, values and norms of Americans.

And yes, the link between this man and Obama really does matter. At a very minimum, it provides insight into the political and philosophical strain that Obama adheres to.

Comment by Bill Cosby

3) OBAMA'S VP SEARCH MISTAKE
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN


On his first day as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama made his first clear, serious mistake: He named Eric Holder as one of three people charged with vice-presidential vetting.

http://pr1.netatlantic.com/t/6347219/30050409/591511/0/ As deputy attorney general, Holder was the key person who made the pardon of Marc Rich possible in the final hours of the Clinton presidency. Now, Obama will be stuck in the Marc Rich mess.

If ever there was a person who did not deserve a presidential pardon, it's Marc Rich, the fugitive billionaire who renounced his US citizenship and moved to Switzerland to avoid prosecution for racketeering, wire fraud, 51 counts of tax fraud, evading $48 million in taxes, and engaging in illegal trades with Iran in violation of the US embargo following the 1979-80 hostage crisis.

Seventeen years later, Rich wanted a pardon, and he retained Jack Quinn, former counsel to the president, to lobby his old boss.

It was Holder who had originally recommended Quinn to one of Rich's advisers, although he claims that he did not know the identity of the client.

And he gave substantive advice to Quinn along the way. According to Quinn's notes that were produced to Congress, Holder told Quinn to take the pardon application "straight to the White House" because "the timing is good."

And once the pardon was granted, Holder sent his congratulations to Quinn.

In 2002, a congressional committee reported that Holder was a "willing participant in the plan to keep the Justice Department from knowing about and opposing" the Rich pardon.

It is one thing to reach back to Obama's pastor to raise doubts about his values. But it is quite another to scrutinize the record of his first appointee.

It couldn't be a bigger mistake.

4) An Old Newness
ByThomas Sowell


Many years ago, a great hitter named Paul Waner was nearing the end of his long career. He entered a ballgame with 2,999 hits -- one hit away from the landmark total of 3,000, which so many hitters want to reach, but which relatively few actually do reach.

Warner hit a ball that the fielder did not handle cleanly but the official scorer called it a hit, making it Warner's 3,000th. Paul Warner then sent word to the official scorer that he did not want that questionable hit to be the one that put him over the top.

The official scorer reversed himself and called it an error. Later Paul Warner got a clean hit for number 3,000.

What reminded me of this is the great fervor that many seem to feel over the prospect of the first black President of the United States .

No doubt it is only a matter of time before there is a black president, just as it was only a matter of time before Paul Warner got his 3,000th hit. The issue is whether we want to reach that landmark so badly that we are willing to overlook how questionably that landmark is reached.

Paul Warner had too much pride to accept a scratch hit. Choosing a President of the United States is a lot more momentous than a baseball record. We the voters need to have far more concern about who we put in that office that holds the destiny of a nation and of generations yet unborn.

There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president -- especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.

Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a Homecoming Queen.

The three leading candidates for their party's nomination are being discussed in terms of their demographics -- race, sex and age -- as if that is what the job is about.

One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of responsibility that office carries.

Just the power to nominate federal judges to trial courts and appellate courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, can have an enormous impact for decades to come. There is no point feeling outraged by things done by federal judges, if you vote on the basis of emotion for those who appoint them.

Barack Obama has already indicated that he wants judges who make social policy instead of just applying the law. He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults.

Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things -- using the mantra of "change" endlessly -- the cold fact is that virtually everything he says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.

Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not -- all this is a re-run of the 1960s.

We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettos across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.

The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances and hamstringing the police.

Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes -- including the media magic of meetings between heads of state -- was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.

Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.

5) Cocky Ignorance
By Thomas Sowell

Now that Senator Barack Obama has become the Democrats' nominee for President of the United States, to the cheers of the media at home and abroad, he has written a letter to the Secretary of Defense, in a tone as if he is already President, addressing one of his subordinates.

The letter ends: "I look forward to your swift response."

With wars going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan, a Secretary of Defense might have some other things to look after, before making a "swift response" to a political candidate.

Because of the widely publicized statistic that suicide rates among American troops have gone up, Senator Obama says he wants the Secretary of Defense to tell him, swiftly:

"What changes will you make to provide our soldiers in theater with real access to mental health care?"

"What training has the Pentagon provided our medical professionals in theater to recognize who might be at risk of committing suicide?"

"What assistance are you providing families here at home to recognize the risk factors for suicide, so that they may help our service members get the assistance they need?"

"What programs has the Pentagon implemented to help reduce the stigma attached to mental health concerns so that service members are more likely to seek appropriate care?"

All this sounds very plausible, as so many other things that Senator Obama says sound plausible. But, like so many of those other things, it will not stand up under scrutiny.

What has been widely publicized in the media is that suicides among American troops have gone up. What has not been widely publicized is that this higher suicide rate is still not as high as the suicide rate among demographically comparable civilians.

No one needs to be reminded that suicide is a serious matter, whether among soldiers or civilians. But the media have managed to create the impression that it is military service overseas which is the cause of suicides among American troops, when civilians of the same ages and other demographic characteristics are committing suicide at an even higher rate at home.

Moreover, this is not the first time that military service overseas has been portrayed in the media as the cause of problems that are worse in the civilian population at home.

The New York Times led the way in making homicides committed by returning military veterans a front page story, blaming this on "combat trauma and the stress of deployment." Yet the New York Post showed that the homicide rate among returning veterans is a fraction of the homicide rate among demographically comparable civilians.

In other words, if military veterans are not completely immune to the problems found among civilians at home, then the veterans' problems are to be blamed on military service-- at least by the mainstream media.

Does Senator Obama know how the rate of suicides or homicides among military veterans compares to the rate of suicides or homicides among their civilian counterparts? Do the facts matter to him, as compared to an opportunity to score political points?

Perhaps even more important, do the media even care whether Senator Obama knows what he is talking about? Or is the symbolism of "the first black President" paramount, even if that means a President with cocky ignorance at a time of national danger?

The media have been crucial to Barack Obama's whole candidacy. His only achievements of national significance in his entire career have been media achievements and rhetorical achievements.

Perhaps his greatest achievement has been running as a candidate with an image wholly incompatible with what he has actually been doing for decades. This man who is now supposedly going to "unite" us has for years worked hand in glove, and contributed both his own money and the taxpayers' money, to people who have sought to divide us in the most crude demagogic ways.

With all his expressed concern about the war in Iraq, he has not set foot in Iraq for more than two years-- including the very years when progress has been made against the terrorists there.

You don't need to know the facts when you have cocky ignorance and the media behind you.




6) Gaza Going Wrong
By Elliot Chodoff






According to reports this morning, the Israeli leadership is contemplating a “medium-size” military operation against the terrorists in Gaza, to be followed by a cease fire (“Gaza Op- Likely before J’lem Signs Truce”, Jerusalem Post, June 8, 2008). If these reports are to be believed (and with this government, we can believe anything), it will be the wrong operation, for the wrong objectives, and will result in a predictable failure.



It would perhaps be politically correct to agree to a “cease fire” with Hamas, as Israel continues to face pressure from Europe and segments of the American administration to demonstrate that it is willing to compromise with the Palestinians. Publicly that means compromise with “moderate” Fatah, and not necessarily “radical” Hamas. Nonetheless, as everyone seems to realize, there is little difference between the two organizations, save a nominal secular vs. religious tone and the finer points of rhetoric. Fatah is a secular Muslim Palestinian terrorist organization; Hamas is a radical Islamic Palestinian terrorist organization. Fattah’s leadership has learned to lie with greater facility than have the leaders of Hamas. Maybe religion has some value. In any event, the two organizations are already cooperating in Gaza, and are working toward a formal agreement to share power and form a single front against Israel.

What is commonly translated as a cease fire in English is either a tahadiyeh or a hudna in Hamas terms. While there are some differences, these are forms of temporary truce, meant to last a finite period of time, and may be abrogated at will if the circumstances are opportune to do so. Since Hamas steadfastly calls for the destruction of Israel, it is difficult to imagine what Israel has to gain from allowing Hamas time to further beef up its military capabilities.

Having decided to accept a cease fire with Hamas, the Israeli leadership needs to demonstrate that this decision was made out of strength, not weakness. So a “medium-size’ military operation will precede the truce, showing that we are not afraid to fight a few half-hearted battles. This “strategy” (it is really anything but strategy) is strongly reminiscent of that of the failed war in Lebanon in 2006, when battles were fought, and soldiers killed, over cosmetic objectives, to prove that Israel was winning. Of course, when the operation is concluded, and the IDF returns to its bases, Hamas will declare victory regardless of the kill ratios, since it will have survived the experience. A simple fact seems to have eluded the Israeli leadership: when you actually win, you don’t have to convince the other side of the fact, and you don’t have to make excuses, either.

The tragedy is that the Israeli government is apparently incapable of making the difficult decision to do what it must to provide security for the thousands of citizens who have been suffering under sustained rocket attacks out of Gaza for the past seven years. What is required is a full-scale military ground operation, whose objective is to disrupt Hamas’ terrorism, kill many terrorists with as few IDF and noncombatant casualties as possible, and get the forces back, prepared to do it again if the message wasn’t understood. This may not be the clean, neat kind of war that Western society prefers, but it is the only way to secure Southern Israel against an armed organization that is sworn to the destruction of the Jewish State.

6a)Exclusive: Israel debates major Gaza strike amid 18-mortar Palestinian barrage


An IDF counter-attack Tuesday, June 10, killed two Palestinian Hamas mortar-men and injured seven. The mortar shells exploded on open ground near Nahal Oz. Four missiles were fired during the morning as Israeli trucks began to unload wheat and other commodities for the Gaza population at a border crossing. The trucks fled the barrage.

Military sources reported earlier Tuesday that prime minister Ehud Olmert, supported by defense minister Ehud Barak and foreign minister Tzipi Livni, had effectively opted to take up the Egyptian-Hamas informal offer of a truce in Gaza – possibly preceded by a nominal Israeli military attack which leaves Hamas riding high.

Last week, responding after many delays to the distress of a quarter of a million Israelis buffeted by constant Palestinian mortar and missile fire, all three Israeli leaders finally pledged strong military action to smash Hamas’ missile-war machine.

Tuesday, June 10, there was a sudden change of tone for the conference the prime minister scheduled on Gaza, with Barak, Livni, chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi, Shin Bet director Yuval Diskin and military intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin. The pretext? The third letter received by Gilead Shalit’s parents through the Carter foundation, in which the kidnapped soldier is reported to plead for his life.

Middle East sources confirm that, contrary to various claims, Hamas has not accepted Israel’s terms for a truce, any more than the Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas heeded Israel’s ultimatum when he went ahead over the weekend with reconciliation talks with Hamas in Dakar. The Olmert government has quietly bowed to Cairo’s formula and agreed to a tryout of an informal, unsigned truce, which Hamas is free to end at any moment; problems arising would be solved ad hoc.

Tuesday and Wednesday Olmert will go through the motions of consultation with key ministers, followed by the endorsement of this course by his tame majority in the inner defense and foreign affairs cabinet.

The Israeli government thus surrenders to the following situation:

1. Hamas is under no binding commitment to hold its missile fire or force its allied terrorist groups in the territory it governs to join a ceasefire. Although they govern the Gaza Strip, Hamas leaders shrug off responsibility for Jihad Islami and other Palestinian terrorist groups. The missile and mortar attacks from Gaza may slow down for a while but undoubtedly continue. The same applies to Palestinian terrorist incursions across the border.

2. The informal truce arrangement does not provide for the release of the Israel soldier Gilead Shalit, as Olmert promised. He has been held captive for more than two years since he was kidnapped on Israeli soil.

3. Another Israeli condition ignored in the upcoming truce deal is the guaranteed cessation of smuggling to the Gaza Strip through Sinai of Palestinian fighting men, armaments and money. Whereas Egypt offered another of its empty promises to stem the flow, in the last two weeks, an unprecedented volume of smuggled war materiel was allowed to reach the Gaza Strip and top up Hamas’ war arsenal.

4. Israel has quietly agreed to lift its blockade of the Gaza Strip in stages. This entails reopening the border crossings, including the Rafah terminal to Egyptian Sinai. Next are negotiations through Egypt for handing the crossing facilities over to Mahmoud Abbas’ presidential guard. In this way, Israel will let itself be maneuvered into “contributing“ to the Palestinian fence-mending deal between Fatah and Hamas, and accepting Hamas as the ruling power in the Gaza Strip behind a token PA administration. There is nothing to stop the same formula from being extended to the West Bank, installing Hamas as the majority power in Ramallah.


7) REVIEW & Outlook: Your U.N. at Work – IV


The General Assembly of the United Nations voted this week to elect Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann as its new president. Readers with a long memory will recall Father D'Escoto (he's a Catholic priest) was Nicaragua's foreign minister during the Sandinista regime of the 1980s. He's also the winner of the 1985 Lenin Prize. Only at the U.N. does that count as a recommendation.

The U.N. also voted to name the government of Burma – which otherwise has been busy preventing humanitarian assistance from reaching hundreds of thousands of its own needy victims of last month's devastating cyclone – as one of the Assembly's vice presidents. Only at the U.N. is this not considered an embarrassment.

If that weren't enough, a U.S. official was present for the vote – which was by acclamation – when the U.S. could have at least protested the choice with an empty seat. Nor did the State Department make any effort to offer an alternative to Father d'Escoto, who ran unopposed. Somehow, we don't think this would have happened had John Bolton still been ambassador.

Speaking after his election, Father d'Escoto called for greater "democracy" at the U.N. – an odd remark coming from a former servant of a communist dictatorship. He also called for the U.N. to take a stand against "acts of aggression, such as those occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan." That would be American aggression, not the Taliban's, the Mahdi Army's or al Qaeda's.

A former Lenin Prize winner as General Assembly president and cruel Burma as vice president – another sick joke from the U.N.

8)First test of Israel’s Tamir short-range missile interceptor Wednesday

The Tamir interceptor, which are designed to kill artillery shells and short-range rockets, undergoes its first test Wednesday, June 11. Its object is to find out if its response time can be shortened against Palestinian Qassam missiles fired from Gaza or Hizballah’s short-range rockets launched from Lebanon.

These announcements are usually made after the fact. This time the test launch was disclosed with the location of the testing site in southern Israel in advance, giving the Palestinian Hamas a chance to monitor the system’s performance from Gaza.

Defense sources report that prime minister Ehud Olmert and defense minister Ehud Barak have been pushing Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, hard to hurry up and develop the anti-missile system quickly – and even offered personnel bonuses for shortening the time table. An operational short-range missile interceptor would provide them with yet another excuse to avoid conducting a major military operation to break the back of Hamas’ missile campaign from Gaza.

However, US defense experts were pessimistic about the Iron Dome’s prospects when the Senate Intelligence committee discussed Israel’s efforts to develop a short-range missile interceptor,Washington sources report.

Aside from its high cost - $100,000 compared with $60-80,000 for fabricating a primitive Qassam - some experts doubt whether the Iron Dome can be operational by its target date of 2010. They think 2016 is the more realistic timeline.

Furthermore, according to Western defense experts, the air speed of a Palestinian missile fired from Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza is 200 meters per second; it covers the 1,800 meters from Beit Hanoun to the edge of Sderot in 9 seconds, whereas the Iron Dome’s interceptor needs 15 seconds to locate, determine the flight path; it could engage the incoming Qassam missile only 6 seconds after it explodes on target.

The Iron Dome’s interceptor is even less effective against Hizballah’s Katyusha rockets, which are launched from a greater distance in Lebanon; the Israeli system would need 30 seconds to intercept the incoming rocket which would slam into its target in 9 seconds.

The Israeli announcement does not specify whether the Tamir is to be launched by the Iron Dome or some other launch.