Would a self-respecting, even if dead, fish wish to be wrapped in this esteemed paper? (See 2 and 2a below.)
The purpose of a liberal government is to create dependency. Maybe that is why Democrats oppose drilling the oil we have because it would make us more independent. (See 3 below.)
Response to my previous: "All About Eve" memo: "Obama will look as if he is moving to the center during the next two years. If elected to a second term, unless the GOP hangs on to one House, look out during his second term."
The health care rescission has begun and for the next several years be prepared to hear all kind of outrageous lies about what such will mean. Also Democrats will try their best to hide the fact that Republicans are not seeking to overturn Obamascare without replacing it with something better. However, whatever alternatives are offered, Democrats will attempt to obscure them with their dark shrill rhetoric of obfuscation. (See 4 below.)
What has happened in Tunisia is significant and proves, once again, the basis of Obama's foreign policy is not working and, in fact, has gone totally off track.
Should Tunisia's revolution spread it will shake the very foundations of and possibly bring down some of the largest Middle East nations. (See 5 below.)
1)The Divorced Barbie Doll!
One day a father gets out of work and on his way home he suddenly remembers that it's his daughter's birthday. He pulls over to a Toy Shop and asks the sales person, 'How much for one of those Barbie's in the display window?' The salesperson answers, 'Which one do you mean, Sir? We have: Work Out Barbie for $19.95, Shopping Barbie for $19.95, Beach Barbie for $19.95, Disco Barbie for $19.95, Ballerina Barbie for $19.95, Astronaut Barbie for $19.95, Skater Barbie for $19.95, and Divorced Barbie for $265.95'.
The amazed father asks: 'It's what?! Why is the Divorced Barbie $265.95 and the others only $19.95?'
The annoyed salesperson rolls her eyes, sighs, and answers: 'Sir..., Divorced Barbie comes with: Ken's Car, Ken's House, Ken's Boat, Ken's Furniture, Ken's Computer, one of Ken's Friends, and a key chain made with Ken's balls.
2)Israeli diplomat ambushed by NY Times staff
The New York Times, flagship of the liberal American media, has never been a friend of the Jewish state. But the newspaper's aversion to Israel turned to open hostility this month when its top editors ambushed and tore into an unsuspecting senior official from the Israeli Consulate in New York City.
The Israeli official was invited by the Times editors, among them rabid columnist Thomas Friedman, to meet with them at their office. Being a veteran at dealing with the American media, the official assumed the invitation was for a friendly discussion and perhaps an interview regarding the peace process and other matters of importance to Israel.
The Israeli had no idea he was being invited for what he described as a lynching.
As the meeting started, the Times editors - most of them Jews, and one of them a former Israeli - began to attack the Israeli diplomat, and refused to give him even a moment to respond.
They blamed Israel for everything, the diplomat told Israel Today.
The Times editors insisted the breakdown of the peace process was Israel's fault, that the lack of peace was Israel's fault, and were adamant that Israel had given nothing to the Palestinians. They accused Israel of being an extremist and racist state, and blasted the diplomat for Israel's "ill-treatment" of President Barack Obama.
In short, the Times staff informed the Israeli in no uncertain terms that they were sick of his country.
The diplomat told us he was shocked by the attack. He tried to respond, but the Times editors were not interested in hearing his arguments.
"I asked them," said the diplomat, "We haven't given the Palestinians anything? How can you say that? Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu broke with his party platform and implemented a 10-month Jewish building freeze, and what did we get in return? More Palestinian refusal to negotiate."
According to the Israeli, the Times editors responded: "Yes, yes. Of course you are going to start telling us about how Israel's security needs are not being met. You just don't get it that we are sick of hearing about that."
There is little doubt that this ambush was led by Friedman, whose hostility toward Israel in his recent columns has surprised even his liberal friends in the Jewish state.
In recent articles, Friedman has accused Israel of being a spoiled child, crazy and extremist. He insisted that the US stop being Israel's "enabler," and pointed out that the rest of the world is fully on the side of the Palestinians, so why not America?
Wrote Friedman in one of his columns: "Israel, when America - which has given you billions over the past 50 years and defended you in the international arena - asks you to stop building settlements for three months in order to jump start peace talks, there is only one correct answer, and that is 'yes, whatever you say.'"
2a)An Open Letter to NY Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr.,
First of all let me thank you for having a newspaper that is loaded with information from around the world. This letter is not so much about the liberal slant that your paper has versus the conservative bent that I have. It is based on fairness and unbiased treatment of others in your reporting and in your interviewing of Israeli officials. The article titled "Israeli diplomat ambushed by NY Times staff" written Sunday, December 26, 2010 by Israel Today Staff http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx) , which I pray you will read, demonstrates a very hostile position towards Israel and its government and is apparently very one-sided.
Who gave the right to pass judgment or implement condemnation without a cause - your job is to report the news not express your political views or try to influence or encroach upon others you deem hostile to your way of thinking. You act like political and social activists. Is that the job of a newspaper?
The behavior of your editors was downright nasty and cruel. You are acting like an editorial "Mafia" You owe the Israeli Government and the consulate official an apology for such untoward and ruthless attacks. You took advantage of his generosity to be interviewed in a civil manner, not to be hoodwinked by a bunch of typewriting wolves whose only interest is one-sided and bias.
Lastly, I'm appalled that being fellow Jews you are so adamant against the land of your fore-fathers. What you need to learn is that history repeats itself and you are playing in the hands of the same diabolic forces that created the complacent attitude of silence in America while 6 million Jews were being slaughtered in Europe. You are providing the same platform for Jew haters, Bible haters, Israel haters, and ultimately you will bear responsibility for inciting anti-Israel bias which always ignites anti-Semitism around the globe. One would expect such treatment form Arab newspapers, but the NY Times which is being operated by many Jewish people should at least exhibit understanding and compassion of the Jewish State.
Golda Meir rightly said "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us"
Also, you must have heard the quote that if the "Palestinians" would lay down their arms there would be peace in the middle east, but if Israel would lay down her arms Israel they would be destroyed. Islam is bent on a so-called "peace journey" in the guise of becoming dominating the world and making everybody else their slaves; that's the only "peace" they know about, its embedded in their "Book", and in their culture. The Holocaust should be proof enough that when you do nothing, say nothing against an evil power, you will eventually become powerless to help the innocent - for by then the damage has been done and it is too late. The "Palestinian" problem is the result of their own desire to destroy Israel, but if they would cease from their embedded hatred against the Jews, automatic peace would be the result.
Your newspaper's attitude against Israel is a reproach against everything the Jews have suffered, you ought to be ashamed that you would betray your own people and the Land that God has forever deeded them. I'm sure as a fellow Jewish person, you had relatives who died in the Holocaust. I had many who perished in those horrible gas chambers. Jews in America during this terrible time in history were mostly silent for fear of backlash and didn't openly fight back until it was too late.
Dr. K. Daniel Fried, Director
Hope of Israel Baptist Mission
3)About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program
on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to
Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like
a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in
the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more
than all the Middle East put
together." Please read below.
The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April
2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it
big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on
how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota,
western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana ...... check THIS
The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since
Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American
dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA)
estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is
recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth
more than $5...3 trillion.
"When I first briefed legislators on this, you could
practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.." says
Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.
"This sizable find is now the highest-producing
onshore oil field found in the past 56 years," reportsThe Pittsburgh Post
It's a formation known as the WillistonBasin , but is
more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' It stretches from Northern
Montana , through North Dakota and into
Canada . For years, U. S. oil
exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil'
companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago.. However,
a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive
and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because
this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans
just $16 PER BARREL!
That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for
2041 years straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor,
then this next one should - because it's from 2006!
U.. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World
Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky
Mountains lies the largest untapped oil
reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005
President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of
high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil
why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?
They reported this stunning news: We have more oil
inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.. Here
are the official estimates:
- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
- 500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it's all right here in the Western
United States .
HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because
the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America
independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of
people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?
James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've
got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East
-more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the
proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver
Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this
find? Think again! It's all about the competitive
marketplace, - it has to. Think
OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?
Got your attention yet? Now, while you're thinking
about it, do this:
Pass this along. If you don't
take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next
time you complain about gas prices - by doing NOTHING, you forfeit your
right to complain.
Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if
every one of you sent this to every one in your address book.
By the way...this is all true. Check it out at the link
GOOGLE it, or follow this link. It will blow your
4) Krauthammer: Democrats Will Continue To Lose Debate Over Health Care
Members of Congress know their health insurance plan can’t deny coverage for their kids. Congressmen can rest assured that their insurance plan won’t drop their families if they get sick. The Affordable Care Act gave your family the same health protections members of Congress get, but Republicans want to take that protection away from your family.
O'Reilly:The Affordable Care Act is ObamaCare. Joining us now from Washington is Fox News political analyst Charles Krauthammer. So, what did you think of that spot, first of all, Charles?
Charles Krauthammer: Well, it works on somebody who thinks that those two provisions are all that are in a bill of 2,300 pages. The problem is that most Americans know that there's a lot else in there. That’s why the Democrats have lost the debate for the last year and a half. That’s why they’re going to continue to lose the debate over the next two years. They know that the price for those goodies is a trillion dollars of new spending, 138 or so new commissions and regulators getting between you and your doctor, 100,000 pages of new regulation and, essentially, a federal government takeover of a sixth of the U.S. economy. That’s a high price to pay for a couple of goodies which you could get without any of that.
O’Reilly: OK. Now the Affordable Health Care legislation -- that’s what the side that likes ObamaCare is branding it, because they’re trying to say –- and the argument has been made, the CBO, we’ve all heard all that –- that it will bring down health care costs, which is of concern to every American. So, is that a smart tactic?
Krauthammer: I think it can’t work for the reason it didn't work for the last year and a half. People are not stupid. If people say, “We’re passing a bill that is going to expand coverage to 33 million Americans who haven’t had it, and this is going to reduce the deficit,” they know you’re talking out of your hat or that you’ve jiggled the numbers in such a way as to make it look like that. The argument against this deficit reduction is so clear, is so obvious, so easy to make, if Republicans can’t make it, they don’t deserve to be the opposition.
O’Reilly: OK. Now, we assume it will pass the House handily tomorrow. And then it goes over to the Senate. Now the Senate has some vulnerable senators like Ben Nelson in Nebraska, Claire McCaskill in Missouri, so it’s likely they'll pick up a couple of Democratic votes to repeal ObamaCare. I’m going to ask you to make a prediction here. What is going to happen in the Senate?
Krauthammer: I think the repeal will not come out of the Senate. If the Republicans are smart, what they'll do is pass in the House the repeal they know won’t pass in the Senate. However, I think what they ought to do after that is to pass repeal of one provision, the individual mandate, which people hate. They don’t like the idea of being forced to enter into a private contract with an insurer by the federal government. I think you’ve got enough Democrats in the Senate, like McCaskill, and like the others -- there are 23 Democrats who have to be re-elected in 2012, and a lot of them are in red states. You could get a majority on that. Now, of course, it’s not going to get enough to override a veto. But the whole purpose of this –- nobody expects that ObamaCare will be repealed in the next two years. But it will be one of the major issues in the presidential election, and that I think is what it ought to be.
O’Reilly: Right, because the president will veto anything that comes through.
Krauthammer: Exactly. In the end, he’ll defend it.
O’Reilly: He has to. So you say that the Senate on this vote will vote straight up or down? Or it won’t even come up for a vote?
Krauthammer: I think there will be a filibuster, which will be ironic, and it will be Democrats, the ones who've been screaming --
O’Reilly: But that will hurt the Democratic Party even more.
Krauthammer: It will expose them as hypocrites. But, in the end, here’s the deal. When Clinton was re-elected, he had the virtue, he had the benefit of having health care reform that didn’t succeed. It had failed in the first two years. The albatross was gone. He didn’t have to defend it in his re-election. Obama has a problem. It passed. There’s no way to escape it. It’s now entering into law. It is, it should be, it will be one of the major issues of his re-election. And that ought to decide –- an issue of that size – a presidential election.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5) Turmoil in Tunisia
Political upheaval could trigger revolution in other Islamic countries
By Daniel Pipes
The sudden and yet unexplained exit of Tunisia's strongman, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, 74, after 23 years in power has potential implications for the Middle East and for Muslims worldwide. As an Egyptian commentator noted, "Every Arab leader is watching Tunisia in fear. Every Arab citizen is watching Tunisia in hope and solidarity." I watch with both sets of emotions.
During the first era of independence - until about 1970 - governments in Arabic-speaking countries were frequently overthrown as troops under the control of a discontented colonel streamed into the capital, seized the presidential quarters and the radio station, then announced a new regime. Syria endured three coups d'etat in 1949 alone.
Over time, regimes learned to protect themselves through overlapping intelligence services, reliance on family and tribal members, repression and other mechanisms. Four decades of sclerotic, sterile stability followed. With only rare exceptions (Iraq in 2003, Gaza in 2007) did regimes get ousted; even more rarely (Sudan in 1985) did civilian dissent have a significant role.
Enter first Al-Jazeera, which focuses Arab-wide attention on topics of its choosing - and then the Internet. Beyond its inexpensive, detailed and timely information, the Internet also provides unprecedented secrets (e.g., the recent WikiLeaks dump of U.S. diplomatic cables) even as it connects the like-minded via Facebook and Twitter. These new forces converged in Tunisia in December to create an intifada and quickly ousted an entrenched tyrant.
If one exalts in the power of the disenfranchised to overthrow their dull, cruel and greedy master, one also looks ahead with trepidation to the Islamist implications of this upheaval.
The first worry concerns Tunisia itself. For all his faults, Mr. Ben Ali stood stalwart as a foe of Islamism, battling not only the terrorists, but also (somewhat as in pre-2002 Turkey) the soft jihadists in schoolrooms and in television studios. A former interior minister, however, he underestimated Islamists, seeing them more as criminals than as committed ideologues. His not allowing alternate Islamic outlooks to develop could now prove a great mistake.
Tunisian Islamists had a minimal role in overthrowing Mr. Ben Ali, but they will surely scramble to exploit the opportunity that has opened to them. Indeed, the leader of Tunisia's main Islamist organization, Ennahda, has announced his first return to the country since 1989. Does interim President Fouad Mebazaa, 77, have the savvy or political credibility to maintain power? Will the military keep the old guard in power? Do moderate forces have the cohesion and vision to deflect an Islamist surge?
The second worry concerns nearby Europe, already deeply incompetent at dealing with the Islamist challenge. Were Ennahda to take power and then expand networks, provide funds, and perhaps smuggle arms to allies in nearby Europe, it could greatly exacerbate existing problems there.
The third and greatest worry concerns the possible domino effect on other Arabic-speaking countries. This fast, seemingly easy, and relatively bloodless coup d'etat could inspire globally Islamists to sweep away their own tyrants. All four North African littoral states - Morocco, Algeria, Libya and Egypt - fit this description, as do Syria, Jordan and Yemen to the east. That Mr. Ben Ali took refuge in Saudi Arabia implicates that country, too. Pakistan could also fit the template. In contrast to the Iranian revolution of 1978-79, which required a charismatic leader, millions on the street, and a full year's worth of effort, events in Tunisia unfolded quickly and in a more generic, reproducible way.
What Franklin D. Roosevelt allegedly said of a Latin America dictator, "He's a bastard, but he's our bastard," applies to Mr. Ben Ali and the other Arab strongmen, leaving U.S. government policy in seeming disarray. President Obama's ambiguous after-the-fact declaration that he "applaud(s) the courage and dignity of the Tunisian people" can conveniently be read either as a warning to assorted other "bastards" or as a better-late-than-never recognition of awkward facts on the ground.
As Washington sorts out options, I urge the administration to adopt two policies. First, renew the push for democratization initiated by George W. Bush in 2003, but this time with due caution, intelligence and modesty, recognizing that his flawed implementation inadvertently facilitated the Islamists to acquire more power. Second, focus on Islamism as the civilized world's greatest enemy and stand with our allies, including those in Tunisia, to fight this blight.
Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and a visiting fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.