Hillary - Shredding The Myth The Media Helped Create!

As the Jewish New Year approaches I wish you and yours a year of good health , peace and hope that all your dreams are granted.
---
Response to previous article about Michelle's possible comment at the 9/11 flag ceremony. This response is from a dear friend , a very bright attorney and the epitome of what it is to be a lady. She speaks with knowledge: "Have you seen the video? I’m not a skilled lip reader, but it sure looks like that is what she is saying. Whatever she said, it was inappropriate behavior during a flag folding ceremony. A First Lady ought to know how to behave in public. By not behaving properly, she set herself up for this controversy regardless of what she said. I have long observed that all the education and status in the world can’t make a female into a “lady.” Michelle Obama may be the President’s wife, but she is no lady."

And this from one of my closest friends, a solid money manager, who, for years ,liked Obama. I constantly punched at him, in a gentle way, and perhaps now has seen the light. Another pro Obamaite bites the bullet.

"Subject: RE: "Class warfare"

Jim,

As a PAST supporter of President Obama I kindly ask that you take me off this email list. I have spent the past ten years of my life working in the financial services industry. My company operates a mutual fund and a hedge fund. What success we have had since I have been working here has come from our investments AGAINST forces (policies) that were hurting the U.S. economy, most notably housing. We were not profiteers who saw others misfortune and took advantage. Rather, we were investors who warned of trouble building as early as 2005. Our (and others’) warnings went unheeded.

Now the administration I ardently supported in 2008 has painted a target on my back. I am a wealthy hedge fund manager who needs to do more (pay higher taxes) to support his country. Make no mistake: I am not against paying higher taxes. I am however against being bullied and having my industry slandered in an intellectually dishonest way in the name of politics.

What I find intellectually dishonest is attacking hedge fund taxation. A majority of the income I receive comes from a year-end performance-related bonus. If our fund does not do well, neither do I. This year-end bonus is taxed at rates much higher than ordinary income. As a result, I pay a higher average tax rate than those receiving ordinary income. I am okay with this as I believe I could not achieve the success I have achieved in life, without the protection and freedom our nation provides. What I am not okay with is being told I do not pull my share of the weight. What I am not okay with is having my President, a man for whom I voted, telling the public that they are carrying more of the burden than am I.

I believe President Obama is a smart man who knows very well what he is talking about. That leaves me to the conclusion that he is knowingly misinforming the public to gain political advantage. That I find despicable.

If you want to tax me more that is fine. But don’t slander me and my industry in the process.

Your former supporter,"

---
David Brooks comes clean and admits to being a 'sap.' I commend Brooks for his honesty but what took you so long David? A tough journalist must never put them self in the position of wanting to believe. It distorts their vision.(See 1 below.)
---
Anthony Blinken's defense of Obama, vis a vis being a friend of Israel, is correct in one regard. The Pentagon is much closer to Israel today than at any time.

The problem is that, as my son says, Obama may claim he saved the roof but his appeasing foreign policy actions and apologetic pronouncements flooded the basement.

The situation in the Middle East is far more precarious for America and Israel than before Obama took office. I would remind the reader of Turkey, Iran, Syria and The Arab Spring, but I will let Romney and Perry carry the ball.

Granted it is the political season and they are currying favor with those sympathetic to Israel but their comments ring true, nevertheless. (See 2 and 2a below.)

With friends like Obama, who needs enemies? Instead of playing hard ball with fascist Islamists, Obama continues to extract concessions from Netanyahu. (See 2b.)
---
Time will tell but my bet remains, Obama beats himself thus lowering the bar for Republicans. However, they still need someone credible. Perry - Rubio fit the bill but Romney-Rubio might sell better.(See 3 below.)
---
Dunn sees a presidential race based on Race. (See 4 below.)
---
Those with thin skins are even more vulnerable when they become the butt of jokes. (See 5 below.)
---
Morality aside, were Israel to be wiped off the map there would be some hypocritical hand ringing for a while but the actual effect would be significant in terms of Israel's contributions to the improvement in the life of peoples throughout the world. What have Arab/Muslim haters done for world comfort? (See 6 below.)
---
If you think Obama is a patsy Hillary is no better. Yes, there are those who now regret voting for Obama and dissing Hillary but she would have been a pushover disaster as president as well. The liberal media and news folks spent years building her up, making her bigger than life and then when they fell in love with Obama they tore her down and shredded the myth they helped create.

Now theses same media mavens are having second thoughts and want to rebuild Hillary so radical progressives can hold onto the reins of government.(See 7 below.)
---
Is it not time for Netanyahu to quit funding his enemies? Has he become so intimidated by pressure from world leaders, and specifically Obama, his ability to protect Israel's security and economic interests have been compromised? (See 8 below.)
---
Let's face it, Obama has told us he believes filthy rich Americans are scumbags, they are greedy, they are selfish and they deserve to be raped by his government. They should be drafted into the military and sent to Afghanistan! Worst of all they are Un-American and under taxed! Go Obama - you are on a roll! Obama's rhetoric in support of re-distributing earned wealth is fraudulent but a clever campaign scheme and should help further stifle the economy he is well on his way to crippling.

Obamais at his best/worst when engaged in his purposeful strategy of them versus us - rich versus poor! Our ' Chicago ward heeler' 'president delights in divide and conquer tactics. (See 9 below.)
---
Too long to publish: "Our Economic Nightmare Is Just Beginning - John Judis, The New Republic."

Another article, too long to publish, records the lack of faith Americans have that their government spends wisely: "Poll: Federal Gov't Wastes Over Half of Every Dollar - Jeff Jones, Gallup."

White House shoots their own messenger. (See 10 below.)

I suspect one way for Obama to achieve his purposeful goal of 'radical change' is to force Americans to lose faith in their government. He might accomplish by an overwhelming level of spending thereby, causing Americans, literally, to rise in open revolt and take to the streets. Sound far fetched? All you have to do is look at what is happening in Greece today and previously in Wisconsin when teachers taught their students they would not stand idly by as their 'entitlements' were reduced. Stay tuned!
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Obama Rejects Obamaism
By DAVID BROOKS

I’m a sap, a specific kind of sap. I’m an Obama Sap.

When the president said the unemployed couldn’t wait 14 more months for help and we had to do something right away, I believed him. When administration officials called around saying that the possibility of a double-dip recession was horrifyingly real and that it would be irresponsible not to come up with a package that could pass right away, I believed them.

I liked Obama’s payroll tax cut ideas and urged Republicans to play along. But of course I’m a sap. When the president unveiled the second half of his stimulus it became clear that this package has nothing to do with helping people right away or averting a double dip. This is a campaign marker, not a jobs bill.

It recycles ideas that couldn’t get passed even when Democrats controlled Congress. In his remarks Monday the president didn’t try to win Republicans to even some parts of his measures. He repeated the populist cries that fire up liberals but are designed to enrage moderates and conservatives.

He claimed we can afford future Medicare costs if we raise taxes on the rich. He repeated the old half-truth about millionaires not paying as much in taxes as their secretaries. (In reality, the top 10 percent of earners pay nearly 70 percent of all income taxes, according to the I.R.S. People in the richest 1 percent pay 31 percent of their income to the federal government while the average worker pays less than 14 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.)

This wasn’t a speech to get something done. This was the sort of speech that sounded better when Ted Kennedy was delivering it. The result is that we will get neither short-term stimulus nor long-term debt reduction anytime soon, and I’m a sap for thinking it was possible.

Yes, I’m a sap. I believed Obama when he said he wanted to move beyond the stale ideological debates that have paralyzed this country. I always believe that Obama is on the verge of breaking out of the conventional categories and embracing one of the many bipartisan reform packages that are floating around.

But remember, I’m a sap. The White House has clearly decided that in a town of intransigent Republicans and mean ideologues, it has to be mean and intransigent too. The president was stung by the liberal charge that he was outmaneuvered during the debt-ceiling fight. So the White House has moved away from the Reasonable Man approach or the centrist Clinton approach.

It has gone back, as an appreciative Ezra Klein of The Washington Post conceded, to politics as usual. The president is sounding like the Al Gore for President campaign, but without the earth tones. Tax increases for the rich! Protect entitlements! People versus the powerful! I was hoping the president would give a cynical nation something unconventional, but, as you know, I’m a sap.

Being a sap, I still believe that the president’s soul would like to do something about the country’s structural problems. I keep thinking he’s a few weeks away from proposing serious tax reform and entitlement reform. But each time he gets close, he rips the football away. He whispered about seriously reforming Medicare but then opted for changes that are worthy but small. He talks about fundamental tax reform, but I keep forgetting that he has promised never to raise taxes on people in the bottom 98 percent of the income scale.

That means when he talks about raising revenue, which he is right to do, he can’t really talk about anything substantive. He can’t tax gasoline. He can’t tax consumption. He can’t do a comprehensive tax reform. He has to restrict his tax policy changes to the top 2 percent, and to get any real revenue he’s got to hit them in every which way. We’re not going to simplify the tax code, but by God Obama’s going to raise taxes on rich people who give to charity! We’ve got to do something to reduce the awful philanthropy surplus plaguing this country!

The president believes the press corps imposes a false equivalency on American politics. We assign equal blame to both parties for the dysfunctional politics when in reality the Republicans are more rigid and extreme. There’s a lot of truth to that, but at least Republicans respect Americans enough to tell us what they really think. The White House gives moderates little morsels of hope, and then rips them from our mouths. To be an Obama admirer is to toggle from being uplifted to feeling used.

The White House has decided to wage the campaign as fighting liberals. I guess I understand the choice, but I still believe in the governing style Obama talked about in 2008. I may be the last one. I’m a sap
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)The Obama Administration Is a Good Friend to Israel

Regarding Dan Senor's "Why Obama Is Losing the Jewish Vote" (op-ed, Sept. 14): For more than 60 years since Israel's founding—during periods of war and peace, calm and crisis—U.S. administrations of all stripes have worked to safeguard Israel's security, a cornerstone of our foreign policy that should be beyond the reach of partisan politics.

That is why commentary that has re-emerged in recent days is so troubling: misleading analyses and outright falsehoods that have festered for far too long about the Obama administration's policy toward one of our closest friends and allies.

These charges came just days after President Obama's personal intervention helped avert catastrophe when a violent mob stormed the Israeli Embassy in Cairo. Afterward, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said of the president:

"I requested his assistance at a decisive—I would even say fateful—moment. He said he would do everything possible, and this is what he did. He activated all of the United States' means and influence—which are certainly considerable. I believe we owe him a special debt of gratitude."

That influence was only the most recent manifestation of our administration's iron-clad commitment to Israel's security, a commitment that has led to a level of cooperation that Mr. Netanyahu himself has rightly called "unprecedented." Simply put, no American administration has done as much as ours with Israel and for Israel's security.

Our dedication to maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge is not talk; we are walking the walk. Since coming to office, we have launched the most comprehensive and meaningful strategic and operational consultations, across all levels of our governments, in the history of this relationship. These interactions, from our heads-of-state on down, are what averted tragedy in Cairo—and they only exist between the closest of allies.

In October 2009, our nations' armed forces conducted their largest ever joint military exercise, Juniper Cobra. In 2010, nearly 200 senior-level Department of Defense officials visited Israel, and senior Israeli officials visit the U.S. just as often.

And this year, despite tough fiscal times, President Obama fought for and secured full funding for Israel in our 2011 budget, including $3 billion in military assistance—the most ever.

We secured an additional $205 million to help produce Iron Dome. This short-range rocket defense system has been a godsend for besieged communities along Israel's border with Gaza, and it has now been installed in the north, along the Lebanon border, as well. Already it has intercepted dozens of rockets that might otherwise have struck homes, schools or hospitals, providing peace of mind for people, like the residents of Sderot whom President Obama visited in 2008, living perpetually in the line of fire.

To guard against more distant, but also more dangerous threats, we have worked with the Israelis on the Arrow weapons system, to intercept medium-range ballistic missiles, and David's Sling, for shorter-range missiles. And we have collaborated on a powerful radar system linked to U.S. early warning satellites that could buy Israel valuable time in the event of a missile attack.

We know that Israel sees the threat posed by Iran as existential. And make no mistake: An Iran armed with nuclear weapons on long-range missiles would pose a direct and serious threat to the security of the U.S. as well.

That is why we are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And we have backed up that commitment by building an unprecedented coalition to impose the most far-reaching sanctions Iran has ever faced. As a result, Iran finds itself increasingly isolated from the international community. It finds it harder than ever to acquire materials for its nuclear and weapons programs and to conduct transactions in dollars and euros. And it has struggled to buy refined petroleum and the goods it needs to modernize its oil and gas sector.

Already close to $60 billion in Iranian energy-related projects have been put on hold or discontinued. And world-leading companies are deciding to stop doing business there, including: Shell, Total, ENI, Statoil, Repsol, Lukoil, Kia, Toyota, Siemens and foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms such as GE, Honeywell and Caterpillar, among many others.

Standing up for Israel's security also means remaining ever vigilant against attempts to delegitimize Israel in the international arena. As President Obama has said, including in the speech he gave in Cairo, the heart of the Arab world, Israel's legitimacy is not a matter for debate.

That is why we stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself after the Goldstone Report on the 2009 Gaza War was issued, and why we refuse to attend events that endorse or commemorate the flawed 2001 World Conference Against Racism, which outrageously singled out Israel for criticism.

That is also why we are working literally around the clock and around the world to try to prevent steps taken at this month's U.N. General Assembly meeting from further isolating Israel or undermining efforts to reach a secure, negotiated peace with the Palestinians.

Our administration is justifiably proud of this record. And we are confident that none of our predecessors has done more for Israel's security than we have.

That does not mean we will always see eye to eye on everything. Even the closest of allies disagree, and when we do, we make our views clear. That is a sign of our mutual respect and of a relationship robust and mature enough to overcome our differences.

What could actually harm U.S.-Israeli relations, and the security of the Jewish state, is subjecting either to the vagaries of partisan politics or turning them into election-year talking points. For generations, Israel has been a bastion of bipartisan consensus, an issue off-limits to those seeking to score cheap points. The stakes are too high—for us, and for Israel—to let that change now.

Antony J. Blinken

Washington

Mr. Blinken is deputy assistant to the president and national security adviser to the vice president.



2a)Romney, Perry: Obama Threw Israel Under the Bus

Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry on Tuesday criticized the Palestinian Authority's effort to seek a formal recognition of statehood by the U.N. General Assembly and assailed the Obama administration's broader policies in the Middle East.

Perry pledged strong support for Israel and criticized President Barack Obama for demanding concessions from the Jewish state that Perry says emboldened the Palestinians to seek recognition by the U.N.

"We would not be here today at this very precipice of such a dangerous move if the Obama policy in the Middle East wasn't naive and arrogant, misguided and dangerous," Perry said. "The Obama policy of moral equivalency which gives equal standing to the grievances of Israelis and Palestinians, including the orchestrators of terrorism, is a very dangerous insult."

Perry also criticized the administration's belief that any negotiations should be based on the borders Israel had before a 1967 war that expanded the Jewish state. Perry called that stance "insulting and naïve."

Mitt Romney called the jockeying at the United Nations this week an "unmitigated diplomatic disaster." The former Massachusetts governor accused Obama's administration of "repeated efforts over three years to throw Israel under the bus and undermine its negotiating position."

"That policy must stop now," Romney said, calling on Obama to unequivocally reaffirm the U.S. commitment to Israel's security and a promise to cut foreign assistance to the Palestinians if they succeed in getting U.N. recognition.

Both Perry and Romney said the U.S. should reconsider funding for the U.N. itself if the global body recognizes a Palestinian state.

The U.S. promised a veto in the Security Council. However, Palestinians can press for a more limited recognition of statehood before the full — and much more supportive — General Assembly. The Obama administration pushed hard for countries around the world to block the Palestinian bid, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday there was still time to avert a divisive showdown.

Obama has been criticized by Republicans and many pro-Israel activists for seeming to push the Jewish state harder than the Palestinians to make compromises to achieve peace. Among other things, Obama has called on Israel to cease building housing settlements in the West Bank and to negotiate the scope of the Palestinian state using 1967 borders as a starting point — a diplomatic position the U.S. has long maintained but one that has never before been explicitly embraced by a U.S. president.

Complaints about Obama's Israel policy helped a Republican, Bob Turner, win a special election in a heavily Jewish and Democratic New York congressional district last week.

"It's vitally important for America to preserve alliances with leaders who seek to preserve peace and stability in the region," Perry said. "But today, neither adversaries nor allies know where America stands. Our muddle of a foreign policy has created great uncertainty in the midst of the Arab Spring." .


2b)ECI'sRecommendation to President Obama: Five Steps Toward a Pro-Israel Presidency
September 19, 2011


Over the past two and a half years, President Obama has built a record that is not pro-Israel. He tells Jews they cannot build in Jerusalem; he has criticized Israel at the UN; he has pressured Israel to apologize to terrorists; he seeks the division of Jerusalem.

Because of these policies, Israel and the Palestinians have never been further from peace. As Israel faces hostility and instability in the Middle East, it is more important than ever that America and our leaders stand with our democratic ally, Israel.

During his 2008 campaign for president, Senator Obama promised to be a staunch and reliable friend of the Jewish State. There is still time for President Obama to keep that promise. Here are five steps that would begin to put his presidency on such a path:

1. When President Obama speaks to the UN General Assembly, he should refrain from criticizing Israel, as he has done in the past. Instead, he can deliver a ringing and unqualified defense of Israel as a democratic and Jewish state, denounce efforts to scapegoat and delegitimize Israel, and reassert the deep and unbreakable U.S. commitment to Israel’s security and wellbeing. And he can act in line with this commitment by announcing the United States’ departure from the appalling, anti-Israel UN Human Rights Council.

2. President Obama can make clear that there will be real consequences for the Palestinian Authority’s plans to unite with Hamas and declare statehood at the UN in defiance of its agreements with Israel and the United States. He can state that doing so will jeopardize U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority.

3. President Obama can revive the pledge he made in 2008 that Jerusalem will never be divided, and he can state that it is the policy of the U.S. government that Jerusalem is and will remain Israel’s undivided capital.

4. President Obama can reaffirm the 2004 Bush-Sharon letter, which endorsed Israel’s need for secure, defensible borders, rejected the so-called Palestinian “right of return,” and acknowledged that Israel should not be expected to withdraw to the pre-1967 armistice lines.

5. President Obama can announce that he plans to visit Israel to reaffirm the U.S.-Israel relationship and to show Israel’s antagonists in the region that his administration stands clearly and proudly with Israel.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The Ticket Obama Fears Most
By Bruce Walker

The talking heads on Fox News Special Report this Friday concurred that Marco Rubio will be on the Republican ticket next year as the vice presidential nominee.

There is virtually no downside to Rubio and the advantages to the ticket are prohibitive. He is youthful, attractive, and articulate. Rubio won a tough three-way race in Florida last year. His life story is compelling as the child of Cuban parents who worked up the hard and legal way. His conservatism on social and economic issues is unwavering. Rubio is slightly too young and inexperienced to run as president, but eight years as vice president would make him ideal presidential timber.

If Senator Rubio becomes the running mate of Governor Perry, which is increasingly likely, President Obama could face his worst electoral nightmare. At the outset, both men are excellent campaigners -- articulate, likeable, attractive, and accustomed to winning elections in the diverse and large populations of Texas and Florida .

Unlike Republican nominees since Reagan, Rick Perry knows how to work crowds. Perry, like Rubio, has never lost a political race. Although it is a relatively small section of his resume, his time successfully selling Bible reference books door-to-door may be as important as background in running for president.

Both Perry and Rubio have life stories, which demonstrate that the American Dream really works. Perry grew up on a cotton tenant farm in the middle of nowhere and worked hard up every step in his path to success. Rubio's parents worked in menial jobs so that their son could have a better life.

Imagine Rubio campaigning in Las Vegas , where his parents worked like so many Hispanics today, cleaning rooms and tending bars. The greatest impact of these life stories is that the Republican ticket could say just how poor people need not stay poor if government gets out of the way.

Perry and Rubio are both social and economic conservatives.The left tries to downplay the appeal of social conservatism, but to take just a single social conservative issue, abortion, the latest Rasmussen Poll shows that 55% of Americans believe that abortion is morally wrong while only 30% believe that abortion is morally acceptable and 41% of Americans believe that it is too easy to get an abortion in America while only 14% believe that it is too hard to get an abortion.

The vanilla question about whether Americans are "pro-choice" or "pro-life" is meaningless, if Republican candidates have the gumption to ask Obama in a debate whether he believes abortion is moral or immoral -- leaving the question of federal policy on abortion aside.

This particular ticket would also have profound appeal to Hispanic voters, whose support for Obama has dropped a dramatic 36 points since he took office. The impact of Rubio on the ticket, of course, is obvious: he would be the first Hispanic on a major party ticket in American history. Big chunks of Hispanic voters in 2008 voted for Obama because he was a "person of color." Reelecting a black man president has much less psychological value to Hispanic voters than electing a Hispanic who could easily be president in eight years.

The impact of Rick Perry is real, but underestimated by Beltway punditry, which listens more to high-ranking Hispanic organizational leaders rather than ordinary Hispanics. Perry has won many statewide elections in Texas , including three as governor. Almost 40% of the state is Hispanic. Governor Perry speaks Spanish, but more than that, just as a New York City or Chicago politicians grasp the nuances of European ethnic differences, so Perry understands the largely Mexican-American minority and has steadily improved his percentage of the Hispanic vote in Texas elections.

Politically savvy Perry with the first Hispanic on a national ticket as his running mate could disarm the traditional skittishness that some Hispanics have had about voting Republican. Combine that with the very real success that Perry has had in creating jobs in Texas -- compared with Obama nationally or California Democrats -- and he could make a strong argument that Perry-Rubio is precisely what most Hispanics really want in Washington .

This could be complemented by the rise of Hispanic Republicans in 2010. Susana Martinez, the conservative Republican governor of New Mexico , next door to Texas , is a prime example. The first female Hispanic governor in American history could travel throughout the Rocky Mountain region touting a Perry-Rubio ticket. It is not just Hispanic "people of color" that could connect with Hispanics. Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley, both articulate and strongly Republican governors could both show that conservatives welcome immigrants from lands as distant as India .

Black voters will go overwhelmingly for Obama, but black voters vote overwhelmingly for Democrats no matter what Republicans have tried. If Hispanic voters, already accustomed to conservative Republicans senators and governors, vote in substantial numbers for conservative Republicans at the national level, then not only is Obama in trouble, but so is his party. That is why Perry-Rubio could be the ticket Democrats fears most.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Beating the Racism Card
By J.R. Dunn

Obama is finished. It's not so much the past six weeks, rough as they were, as his own actions and responses that have finished him. His showdown with Congress over the debt limit, which he then ran away from. His bewilderment at the fact that markets responded to that level of stress with a serious slump. The lousy job numbers, which anybody but Obama and his kept economists could have predicted. His insistence on his precious vacation at a time when the country was deeply shaken over economic matters. The painfully bogus "people's hero" photos released in the wake of "hurricane" Irene. The uproar over his jobs speech, an attempt to embarrass the GOP which merely added to his reputation for incompetence. The speech itself. These were not the actions of a leader, a statesman, or even an adult. They will be neither forgiven nor forgotten.

It's hard to see how he recovers from any of this. (And this is not even to mention the unfolding Solyndra, LightSquared, and Fast and Furious scandals; add the AttackWatch debacle and my cup runneth over.) He has no shred of reputation left to build on, no reservoir of goodwill to draw from. His approval rate is 40% or below, a number no first-term president has ever come back from. According to Gallup, he is running effectively neck-and-neck with every GOP candidate, even exotics like Ron Paul, and the campaign has scarcely begun. The triumph of Bob Turner in NY-9, a district that hasn't voted Row B since glaciers covered Long Island, merely puts the seal on it.

At this point, he has only two possibilities -- a GOP screwup, or a dirty campaign.

The GOP looks promising. This, after all, is the party that allowed the entire MSNBC politburo to moderate its first debate. You can wrack your brains from now 'til Election Day for the rationale behind this, and you will get nowhere. An official explanation from the GOP national committee would produce something so 19th-century in nature as to be incomprehensible to a contemporary mentality.

All the same, the GOP, with its infuriating mixture of obtuseness, cleverness, and ability, cannot be depended on for certain failure. The Dems will have to look elsewhere.

So a dirty campaign it is. And we don't have to look far for the source of the muck. In fact, we don't have to look at all, since it has kindly made its way to us. This campaign is going to be about one thing: racism. No matter what else happens, racism will be the theme. If we are invaded by hive entities from Tau Ceti, if the economy collapses to the point of barter, if Yellowstone goes up as a supervolcano to rival the Toba Event, if the Archangel Gabriel appears in the east with blazing sword and announces that he's really a Muslim, the reason will be "racism." That is the alpha and omega of the 2012 campaign.

How can I say this with certainty? Because it's already happening. Consider Obama's adoption of the Rockwell painting "The Problem We all Live With" as a personal emblem. Consider the empty hysterics over Rick Perry's "black cloud" remark. Consider Andre Carson's claim that many of his congressional colleagues would like to lynch him. The whole thing was given official black cultural legitimacy with the appearance of an article in "The Root," AOL's black site, titled "Let's Face It: There's Only One Explanation for Some of the Attacks on President Obama."

If you are tired of this already, find a cave. We'll be hearing it to the point of insanity for the next fourteen months.

It is a remarkable thing, passing all logic, that the racism card has proven such a useful tool for American liberals. It's well-understood that the Democrats were the party of racism and the strongest force keeping segregation alive. Many of liberalism's grand heroes were not only racists, but crazy racists, obsessive, unbalanced, and cruel. Woodrow Wilson had blacks fired en masse from the Postal Service, where they had found an employment niche similar to that of the Irish with the police. He attempted the same with the Navy, where blacks had found a place as ship's stewards. (The Navy officially "obeyed," but kept most of them on surreptitiously. That's how shipmates behave.)

Millard Tydings is a liberal hero for opposing the monstrous Joe McCarthy. He was also a racist of the type who couldn't bear having a black individual enter the same room. Tailgunner Joe financed his defeat at the hands of a political neophyte who ran on a civil rights platform -- something the libs never see fit to mention.

While never die-hard crusaders for civil rights, the GOP did strive to act fairly when opportunity presented. It was Eisenhower who enforced the Brown decision in 1954, and it was Eisenhower who attempted to pass a civil rights bill in 1956, which went down to defeat at the hands of the segregationist Dixiecrats. When the Democrats did get around to offering a civil rights bill eight years later, it was Republican minority leader Everett Dirksen who got the bill passed after liberal Democrat Hubert Humphrey failed.

This is the outfit that has set itself up as judge, jury, and lord high executioner of American racists. Which means simply "Americans," since the vast majority of them, like Rick Perry, the GOP rank and file, and the Tea Party members, are not racists at all.

A recent incident reveals the power of the accusation. During the 2006 senatorial campaign, George Allen of Virginia was being stalked by a Democratic operative wearing a circa-1982 punk-band mohawk. Allen took to mocking him, and at one point called him "macaca." Well, it turned out that this was considered racist by some authoritative sources. Allen said -- and there's no reason to doubt it -- that he got the term from his mother, who had spent her early years in an African colony where the word was in wide use. While never explained by the press, it's likely that it was derived from "macaque," a species of monkey, and would describe any mischievous or obnoxious individual. But that made no difference, nor did the fact that the kid in question was Hindu, and thus just as much a Cauc as Allen, myself, George Washington, or Willy McGilly.

Allen lost heavily to James "Gunslinger" Webb, whose platform claimed that George W. Bush was a war criminal, and who soon after the election revealed himself as one of the most unbalanced members of any recent Congress -- there was a strange contretemps involving an illegal pistol and the suicide of an aide that was never adequately unwound. Webb is not running for reelection, and that is a good thing.

But the accusation was effective, which is why it was used. So the question arises -- how to deprive it of that effect?

Absurdity usually limits the force of this kind of thing (as it did with the wilder claims of feminism), but for reasons I don't fully understand, this factor is not operative where race is concerned. Accusations of racism have the same impact no matter how asinine, irrelevant, or ridiculous they may be. Considers two of the latest. A TV commercial for a Dove soap product was yanked off the air amid widespread wailing over the return of Jim Crow. The ad showed three women washing their faces one after the other -- a black woman, a Latina, and a white woman. Apparently we were supposed to take this as meaning that Dove soap bleaches brown skin -- I mean, what else could it be? You don't think they were just selling soap, do you?

The same thing occurred with an ad for some kind of Nivea grooming product which showed clean-cut males racing out and tossing away obviously fake caveman-style heads, bearded and shaggy, with slogans about "recivilizing yourself." One model was white, the other black, and since he was black, that meant -- well, I don't know what it meant, but it had to be something bad.

Note that in both cases, the ad companies were simply trying to live up to the unwritten rule of Always Showing Minorities as Prominently as Whites. In other words, in bending over backwards not to appear racist, the advertisers wound up appearing racist. This is the essence of totalitarian thought control: you cannot win, you cannot remain aloof, you cannot get out of the game.

That being the case, the game board must be broken, the pieces scattered, and the rules burnt. What do we find when we analyze the response to such accusations? Almost without exception, victims break and run. At best, an abject apology is offered. At worst, the victim retreats from public life. That was George Allen's response -- after a bout of public groveling, he effectively ceased campaigning (and he's been lying low in this year's campaign as well). Some of us will recall the "niggardly" case of a few years back, when use of the word in the presence of a black bureaucrat resulted in his stalking off in a huff. The guilty party (a white bureaucrat) knew what was required of him and resigned immediately.

A more recent case (which has not yet hit national media, thankfully) occurred in New Jersey a few weeks ago when the wife of GOP state representative Pat Delany sent a stupid and ill-thought-out e-mail to Carl Lewis, currently running for state senate, accusing him of using his "dark skin" as a ticket to political success. (In fact, Lewis is probably thinking more of his athletic record.) When the message was made public, Delany immediately resigned. Why? We all know why, even though we couldn't explain it. In a reasonable world, Delany would state that he and his wife were going to straighten the matter out, apologize to Lewis, and that would be the end of it. But that's not this world. Delany knew the script as closely as Allen and the niggardly bureaucrat, and he meekly went along with it.

Compare this to Rick Perry, who was accused of calling Barack Obama a "black cloud" -- fightin' words if any ever existed. Perry responded with the absolute obliviousness of a Texan holding four aces, and the accusation simply evaporated. Obviously neither the media nor the CEOs of the grievance industry thought they'd get anywhere with a man who shoots his own coyotes.

This tells us how to handle these accusations. You don't go along with the script. The script is there to humiliate and destroy, and that is all. Instead, you defy it. Stand up to the accusers and run them off. Since their only power comes from numbers, use numbers against them. The next time an attack occurs during this campaign (as it inevitably will, and probably aimed at Perry), all the candidates must stand as one against the accusers. (All except Huntsman, of course, who might be making the accusation.) The candidates, through public media statements, must make clear their full support of the intended victim. No weasel-wording, no equivocation, no ambiguity. A general statement, signed by all of them, should then be released, presenting a succinct and logical argument as to why such accusations are unacceptable, with each swearing that he or she will stand by the others in any such situation, and ending with a condemnation by name of the accuser.

This can be taken further by conservative columnists, bloggers, and talk-show hosts. The accuser(s) should be keelhauled. The goal will be to make them as miserable as they intended their victims to be, which would act as a form of aversion therapy, forcing them to think twice and then three times about ever pulling the same trick again. (Need I add that the process would also prove valuable in cases involving Congress, industry, state politicians, media, and anywhere else such accusations may arise?)

What will happen is that the accusers will retreat. They are bullies, and that is what bullies do. (Even Andre Carson, a blowhard and loudmouth of the first order, has thought better of his "lynching" comment.) The media will give the GOP candidates all the publicity any pol could want. The GOP voters will go wild. Any further accusations will be unlikely, a benefit to all candidates equally. It would mean a cleaner campaign, an easier victory, and who knows? Perhaps even a step toward a more civil society.

For too long, too many blacks have wallowed in their own private sumps of self-pity, collapsing into whimpers every time somebody mentions blackmail, blackouts, or black markets. It's a pathetic epilogue to the heroism and grandeur of the civil rights movement. It's past time this adolescent posturing was put aside.

It will take some effort to accomplish this. (We'll refer only to the fact that the current incumbent has made no such effort whatsoever.) But the black grievance-hunters are no better than the Dixiecrats of old, using the same methods to keep Americans on edge, in fear, and overcome with anxiety. Using racism for political gain is a cheap and coarse tactic no matter who is involved. It needs to be ended.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Obama's None-Too-Divine Comedy
By Robert Gelinas

The decision of who will become the next president of the United States will be made long before November of 2012. After the current president's most recent tour de farce before a joint session of Congress, it is rapidly becoming a foregone conclusion who it's not going to be.

The Obama-adoring New York Times concedes that their manufactured politician may be in deep trouble as his own base begins to abandon him. Independents have already done so. The right was never on his side. Even the Washington Post doesn't flinch from using the word "laughingstock" when referring to the petty political antics of Obama. And then a Catholic Republican wins a pivotal bellwether election against a Jewish Democrat in a liberal, heavily Jewish New York City congressional district, running on the theme of an Obama referendum!

One could reasonably conclude that a toxic Obama is now rapidly becoming, if not already is, "unelectable."

What? How could the great and powerful Obama ever be considered unelectable? Many mistakenly believed that in 2008, but somehow Obama miraculously proved them all wrong (just ask Hillary). But that was then, when he was largely a blank slate and wore the halo of a saint (Google: "Obama halo pics"). Obama even saw himself as a divine being of superlative stature: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America." (His own words!)

Admittedly, his fall from grace didn't happen overnight, but happen it did, as his profound failures and incompetency have culminated into what will surely be seen by future historians as his seminal "Jobs Bill Speech." This was the moment when the "real" Obama was on grand display -- an all-too-mortal man, showcasing how little substance and value he has to offer.

Obama's political irrelevance has now become so obvious that on the night of his infamous jobs speech the GOP didn't even feel the need to offer a rebuttal to his political theater masquerading as a major policy speech. Even the scheduling of his all-important imperial oration had to take a backseat to a football game and a GOP primary debate on MSNBC.

But far worse than enduring those indignities, during his grand pontification, a unique sound was heard in abundance. Even the Washington Post's Dana Milbank heard it: laughter.

Perhaps for the very first time in his career, the golden child was openly laughed at -- and deservedly so. For it wasn't his regurgitated failed statist policies that generated all the derisive mirth; no, they were laughing at him in dismay (perhaps pity?).

If you watched the debacle, it was understandably difficult not to chuckle, if not laugh out loud, aghast at his impassioned much ado about nothing, grandstanding right there center-stage in democracy's most august venue, as he ridiculously proclaimed that the solution to all of our seemingly insurmountable economic woes was a second helping of his cold leftover failed stimulus stew.

There was no new vision presented, no new ideas, no course correction away from his path of ruin dragging us down in bureaucratic chains over the River Styx into the abyss of the Great Recession, Act 2. All he pitifully offered was recycled hectoring for more debt, more deficits, more crony capitalism, more union handouts, and more "temporary" payroll tax and unemployment gimmicks.

Nevertheless, starkly juxtaposed against all common sense and reality, was displayed the face of failure incarnate, belligerently defiant and not the least bit remorseful over or repentant for the damage he has inflicted upon our country. Here was the true Saul Alinsky-trained radical, on fire, agitating from the bully pulpit, spewing forth lie upon lie with the vigor of Alinsky's own personal muse, Lucifer himself.

One could almost envision Milton's Lucifer from Paradise Lost defiantly arguing why he would rather be cast out and rule in Hell than to have to humble himself and serve in Heaven. Not coincidentally, this selfsame mindset is also why committed Marxists would rather drag entire nations into desperate squalor and despair, as long as they get to rule, as opposed to selflessly serving their fellow man by allowing people to flourish and prosper pursuing individual happiness as freemen.

Rest assured: as horrific as this might sound, Obama's tragic performance was in fact a comedy of sorts, albeit of the noir variety. Yes, the audience laughed and laughed at this most recent episode of Barack's teleprompted clown act, as the finger-wagger-in-chief implored everyone to "stop the political circus." The profound irony of that line was surely lost on an oblivious Obama.

Obama's newly acquired unelectable status isn't the result of bad focus group testing or polls, or any fund-raising shortfalls, or poor messaging content, or an organizational problem. No, his political fortunes have now been truncated as a byproduct of the unvarnished revelation of who he really is, resulting in the erosion and ultimate loss of fundamental credibility and his ability to be taken seriously any longer by friend or foe.

Ultimately, while the melodramatic sound and fury of his voice might have been that of the fiery radical-in-chief, his overall countenance has at last been unmasked to be seen as -- no, not that of a devil -- but rather, as that of...oh...Shakespeare described it best in Macbeth:

... a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Could there be a more apropos summation of both the man and his legacy? "An idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

But isn't labeling someone an "idiot" just childish name-calling? Not if it's true -- and even worse if it isn't just your adversaries who are saying it. And therein lies the key distinction.

It's typical for key leaders of all political stripes to be strongly opposed, disagreed with, disparaged, fought tooth and nail, even disliked or vehemently despised by their opponents in the rough-and-tumble blood sport of politics. But it's vastly different to be considered a "failure," a "loser," a "laughingstock," or "damaged goods" by the general populace, independents, and a rapidly growing number of people in your own party -- especially if these appellations just happen to be substantively true and subsequently become the source of widespread ridicule and laughter (Ref: the fate of Anthony Weiner, and Twitter trend #attackwatch.) Barack Obama has become all of the above, so perhaps there's an even more appropriate word: pariah.

Barack Obama will therefore not be reelected for the simple reason that, despite all the false hype and marketing, media sycophancy, corporate cronyism, community organizing, special interest-pandering, and union thuggery, and that solely by virtue of his dismal performance in office and the disaster he has wrought upon our people and our progeny, a majority of Americans have come to learn over these past three years that Barack Obama simply isn't a trustworthy man of truth and integrity. Rather, he's an impotent, naïve leader and an intransigent ideologue; and despite his Ivy League education, he isn't brilliant or even well-informed, and possesses no special wisdom, expertise, common sense, or talents beyond that of a local TV news anchorman empathetically reading a teleprompter with charm and aplomb. He can't perform messianic miracles; he was not the hope and change he claimed the world was waiting for; nor can he fundamentally transform our country into his own personal Kingdom of Heaven on Earth with social and economic justice for all, forever and ever, Amen. And any remaining delusion to the contrary, like him, is one hell of a joke
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6)If Israel Disappears
By Cal Thomas


The world -- or at least the large part of it that hates Israel and wishes it would go away -- moves a step nearer that goal this week when the United Nations votes on whether to recognize a Palestinian state. The vote violates the Declaration of Principles signed by the PLO in 1993, which committed the terrorist group and precursor to the Palestinian Authority to direct negotiations with Israel over a future state. This violation is further evidence the Palestinian side cannot be trusted to live up to signed agreements and promises. Caroline Glick, whose column appears in these pages, rightly calls the prospective UN vote "diplomatic aggression."

Israel -- like the Jewish people for centuries -- has become the fall guy for people who prefer their anti-Semitism cloaked in diplomatic niceties. The Palestinians could have peace any time they wish and probably a state, too, if they acknowledged Israel's right to exist and practiced verbal, religious and military disarmament. One has a right to question the veracity of a people who claim they want peace, while remaining active in ideological, theological and military warfare aimed at its publicly stated objective: the eradication of the Jewish state.

The United States has pledged to veto the Palestinian Authority's membership application if it comes before the U.N. Security Council, but the General Assembly is another matter. There only a majority vote would be needed to grant the Palestinian government permanent observer status. From that point forward it would be death by a thousand diplomatic cuts until Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad finally decides to fulfill his own prophecy and drop a nuclear bomb on Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. Following that horror, European and American diplomats will wring their hands and say it would not have happened had Israel been more "flexible" and ceded additional territory.

Before Israel is allowed to disappear again (as Palestinian maps and school textbooks already depict) and the Jews who survive are sent into exile (who would take them?), it is worth noting a few of the numerous contributions Israel has made to the world, compared to what the Arab-Muslim-Palestinian culture has contributed.

This tiny land with less than 1/1,000th of the world's population, has produced innovative scientists that have contributed to cellphone, computer and medical technology, including the development of "a disposable colonoscopic camera that makes most of the discomfort surrounding colonoscopies obsolete," discovery of "the molecular trigger that causes psoriasis," as well as "the first large-scale solar power plant -- now working in California's Mojave Desert." Read about many more Israeli contributions to the world at http://www.israel21c.org/didyouknow/didyouknow.

These innovations, and many others, took place while Israel was engaged in wars, suffering terrorist attacks from enemies who seek its destruction and spending more per capita on its defense than any other country.

If Israel were to be made even more vulnerable and possibly eradicated by unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state, the moral stain on the West would be a "mark of Cain" for generations to come. What other nation, what other people, would the so-called "civilized" world allow to be targeted for annihilation like Israel has been?

Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will come to the UN to deliver a speech on the same day Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas is scheduled to give his speech calling for the body to support Palestinian statehood. "The General Assembly is not a place where Israel usually receives a fair hearing," Netanyahu said last week, "but I still decided to tell the truth before anyone who would like to hear it."

The UN can't handle the truth and few member states will like hearing it. The blood of the Jewish people will be on their hands if they continue to empower individuals and nations whose goal is to create Holocaust II and a "Palestine" without Jews
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)Diplomacy of September’
By Frank J. Gaffney

In her Pulitzer Prize-winning book, "The Guns of August," Barbara Tuchman chronicles how a cascading series of seemingly minor developments led inexorably to World War I and the worst carnage known to man up to that time. In the future, historians may point to the present "Diplomacy of September" as the catalyst for the next horrific conflict now in the offing in the Middle East, and potentially beyond.

I am thinking specifically of three agenda items slated to take place in the United Nations or on the margins of its meetings in coming days:

The first is a portentous move by the Palestinians with the strong backing of the 57-member bloc now known as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The idea is to secure international recognition of Palestinian statehood by, if possible, the U.N. Security Council and - failing that in the event of a U.S. veto - by the General Assembly.

The true purpose of this gambit, as the Wall Street Journal called it in an editorial Monday, could not be more invidious: "Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas offered a hint of his real ambition when he wrote, in the New York Times in May, that 'Palestine's admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only as a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Criminal Court.'

"That means not the usual feckless resolutions at the U.N.'s Human Rights Council, but travel bans and international arrest warrants for Israeli soldiers involved in the 'occupation' of a supposedly sovereign state. In other words, what Palestinians seek out of a U.N. vote isn't an affirmation of their right to a state, but rather another tool in their perpetual campaign to harass, delegitimize and ultimately destroy Israel."

Secondly, the U.N. shortly will host the third in a series of gabfests aimed at furthering this campaign - the so-called "Durban III" Conference. It is absolutely predictable that, like its predecessors in Durban, South Africa, in 2001 and in Geneva in 2009, this event will amount to an international anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hate-fest. One clue: The stated purpose of Durban III is to memorialize Durban I, which was so toxic toward the Jewish state and its friends that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell directed the U.S. delegation to walk out.

The Durban trilogy serves to reinforce and legitimate the hostility toward Israel that will, when combined with the recognition - de facto if not de jure - of "Palestine" as a U.N. member-state occupied by another member-state, encourage military action to rectify this "injustice."

Third, it appears that meetings of OIC representatives with U.S. government officials - possibly including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton - will occur in conjunction with the U.N.'s September follies. The purpose will be to try to "bridge" differences between the OIC's 10-year campaign to prohibit expression that offends Muslims and the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Now, it is unclear how Shariah blasphemy law can be squared with freedom of speech. But Mrs. Clinton seems to be pushing forward with the idea that, by focusing on the "consequences" of expression, one can find a basis for meeting the OIC's demands for prohibiting and criminalizing what some call "Islamophobic hate speech."

Lest anyone think that Shariah blasphemy laws cannot come to the United States even if Mrs. Clinton wants them to, consider the case of Fred Grandy. Mr. Grandy, a former Republican congressman from Iowa and past president of the billion-dollar charity Goodwill Industries, was the host of the top-rated morning drive talk show in Washington - until, allegedly, he ran afoul of Shariah activists who were "offended" by the reporting about that doctrine that he and his wife, Catherine (aka "Mrs. Fred"), provided each week.

Not content with denying Mr. Grandy gainful employment, proponents of Shariah have enlisted the leadership of the Democratic Party in Maryland's legislature and Montgomery County to denounce him publicly as a "divisive" figure and to object to him addressing a private meeting of Republicans in the Washington suburbs. Such conduct by people who have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States is a scandal. It should be strenuously denounced by their fellow Democrats, as well as by Americans of every other stripe.

The effect of the Clinton-OIC exercise, like the others at the U.N. this week, will be to reinforce the perception on the part of freedom's Islamist enemies that Israel, the West and the United States are in retreat and in decline. Recognizing Palestine, excoriating Israel and restricting free expression will seen by such enemies for what they are: acts of submission. According to the threat doctrine they call Shariah, its adherents are required in the face of submissive behavior to redouble their efforts to make, in the words of the Koran, the infidels "feel subdued."

When combined with the ascendancy throughout the Middle East and North Africa of Islamist organizations and regimes that make no secret of their determination to wipe Israel off the map, we stand at the precipice. Tragically, the weapons with which the next war will be fought - an avoidable war brought on by the "Diplomacy of September" - will make the lethal "Guns of August" seem like pop-guns by comparison.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8)Funding the enemy
By Caroline B. Glick


Israel must issue new policy supporting cutting off foreign aid to Palestinians, stop transferring tax revenues if status upgraded at UN


Speaking Sunday at the UN's conference of donors to the Palestinian Authority, Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon warned that while Israel supports economic assistance to the PA now, that is liable to change within the week.

As he put it, "Future assistance and cooperation could be severely and irreparably compromised if the Palestinian leadership continues on its path of essentially acting in contravention of all signed agreements which also regulate existing economic relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority."

Ayalon's position is eminently reasonable. Unfortunately, it contradicts utterly the official position of the Government of Israel.

The government's position was transmitted on Friday to the same donor conference that Ayalon was participating in. According to the government document, "Israel calls for ongoing international support for the PA budget and development projects that will contribute to the growth of a vibrant private sector, which will provide the PA an expanded base for generating internal revenue."

Israel's move was reportedly championed by the Defense Ministry and the IDF senior brass, which reportedly adamantly opposes cutting off any aid to the PA, including aid to the US-trained and financed Palestinian army in Judea and Samaria. As The Jerusalem Post reported on Sunday, senior Defense Ministry officials argue that an aid cutoff is liable to lead to the PA's collapse and PA employees - which comprise the majority of Palestinian workers - may become violent.

As one Defense Ministry senior official told the paper, "It is important that we retain financial stability, even after their unilateral moves. Stopping money transfers could lead to a financial crisis which could lead to a violent escalation."

In other words, the Defense Ministry argues that if the donor countries stop paying off the Palestinian militias - including the US-trained and funded Palestinian army - then their supposedly moderate forces will turn to the terror business to support themselves.

Aside from being strategically insane, this position bespeaks an unjustifiable unwillingness on the part of the leftist-dominated Defense Ministry to understand the basic nature of the Palestinian cause and what it requires from Israel.

Since the IDF and the Foreign Ministry and the rest of the government bureaucracy embraced the PLO as Israel's "peace partner" 18 years ago, they have been operating on the assumption that the PLO and its spinoffs - Fatah and the PA - are interested in reaching a peace deal with Israel. But this has never been the case.

For the PLO and its spinoffs, the Palestinian conflict has always been and will always be a zero sum game. The goal of the Oslo process, the goal of the PA, of the Palestinian militias, and of the UN bid is one: to strengthen the Palestinians and weaken Israel.

As far as Israel's "peace partner" is concerned, Israel can never concede enough. There is no deal that Israel can ever offer that the Palestinians will ever accept. Even if Israel offered to destroy itself and hand its ruins to the Palestinians, the Palestinians would pocket the concession and then declare war against whatever remnants remain of the defunct Jewish state in order to "liberate" the land from its Jewish "occupiers."


We know this is the case because this is what the Palestinians - led by the PLO/Fatah/PA - did in Gaza after Israel unilaterally surrendered. The last military vehicle had barely cleared the border when the Palestinians torched the synagogues Israel had left standing.

So too, after Ehud Barak essentially offered the Palestinians Israel's head on a platter when he offered them the Temple Mount, they pocketed his offer and began butchering Israelis in a bid to "liberate" the Temple Mount.

The much vaunted Palestinian security forces organized, funded and directed the terror war. And the internationally financed PA budget paid for it.

The reason that the Palestinians are turning to the UN is not because they cannot receive statehood in the framework of a peace deal with Israel. They are going to the UN because they don't want a peace deal with Israel. They want sovereignty and they want to remain at war with Israel.

For 18 years the IDF's top brass has refused to recognize the game that the PLO has been playing since the onset of the fake peace process. Informed by the leftist establishment, the IDF's senior officers vacuously argue that Israel's only option is to strengthen the PA, including its US-trained and funded army.

This appeasement mindset has paralyzed the IDF's ability to develop comprehensive strategies for victory for nearly a generation. And the IDF's leadership clings to appeasement despite the fact that the public has completely rejected it due to its consistent failure.

The basic rule of commonsense policy-making is to be good to your friends and bad to your enemies because then people will want to be your friends and they will not want to be your enemies. The appeasement mindset turns this rule on its head.

As far as the appeasers are concerned, you must be good to your enemies and bad to your friends because your enemies will stop hating you if you're nice to them. As for your friends, they are wrong to be your friends since you have yet to be worthy of friendship since you have not yet appeased your enemies.

By supporting continued foreign aid to the Palestinians in the aftermath of their UN bid the government has adopted a classic appeasement policy. It has told the Palestinians that they will pay no price for their act of aggression. Worse, Israel just told them they will be rewarded. Israel has gone on record saying it cannot manage without the Palestinian governing body that exists to destroy it.

As for Israel's friends, the government just pulled the rug out from under their feet. Cong. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is a true friend of Israel. Her bill calling for a cutoff of US aid to the PA and a massive decrease of US aid to the UN in the event the UN upgrades the Palestinians' diplomatic status is one of the most important pieces of pro-Israel legislation to be introduced in the US Congress in a generation.

By announcing it opposes an aid cutoff, Israel undermined Ros-Lehtinen's position. It betrayed its good friend.

No doubt Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman were under great pressure from the IDF and from the Obama administration to call for continued international funding of the PA. But the public didn't elect them with the expectation that they would abandon Israel's national interest and harm its friends just because they feel the heat.

The appeasers claim that Israel wins international approval by being good to its enemies. But 18 years of consistently attacking its friends and praising its foes has brought Israel to the brink of international isolation. We have empowered our foes and demoralized our friends. And now we continue to squander what little diplomatic influence we still have left in a bid to again aid the Palestinians in their continued war against us.

If the government thinks that Ayalon's statement can repair the damage it just caused the country, it should think again. The only way to fix what just happened is for the government to issue a new policy supporting the cutting off of foreign aid to the Palestinians and announcing that Israel will stop transferring tax revenues to them if their status at the UN is upgraded in any way. And Netanyahu should pick up the phone and personally apologize to Ros-Lehtinen for his government's disgraceful behavior.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9)Obama Speech was “Obama Unplugged”
By Peter Wehner

In re-reading yesterday’s speech by President Obama, several things stand out.

The first is its crass distortions. In his remarks in the Rose Garden, the president said, “If we’re not willing to ask those who’ve done extraordinarily well to help America close the deficit … then the logic, the math says everybody else has to do a whole lot more: We’ve got to put the entire burden on the middle class and the poor.” As others have pointed out, the top 10 percent of earners pay nearly 70 percent of all income taxes and the richest one percent pay more than 30 percent of their income to the federal government, while the average worker pays less than 14 percent. In addition, almost half of the public do not pay any income taxes at all. This is known as a progressive tax system. Now, one may argue the wealthy should pay even more than they do in taxes – but to pretend not embracing Obama’s plan would place the “entire” burden on the middle class and the poor isn’t “math”; it’s a massive distortion.


The second notable thing about Obama’s speech is its insight into the president’s state of mind. Obama has a deep, almost desperate, need to portray himself as the opposite of what he is. This appears to involve more than simple political considerations. Obama has an unusual capacity to conceive of himself in a way that is at odds with reality. And so the most profligate spender in history warns the rest of us about profligacy and not placing a debt burden “on our children’s shoulders.” The man on whose watch America amassed more than $4 trillion in debt says, “Washington has to live within its means.” The president whose stimulus package was among the most wasteful and ineffective in history insists we have to “go through the budget line-by-line looking for waste.” The same individual who ridiculed Speaker Boehner for his “my way or the highway” approach then threatened, in the very same speech, to issue a veto unless he got his way. And the man who professes solidarity with the poor has seen poverty increase each year of his presidency, with a record number of people (46 million) now living in poverty. If that weren’t enough, Obama also wants to reduce the tax benefit for charitable giving.

Then there’s the fellow who lectured us yesterday about fighting for the middle class “as hard as the lobbyists and some lawmakers have fought to protect special treatment for billionaires and big corporations.” This admonition comes from the same fellow who presides over a White House that inappropriately pressured the Office of Management and Budget to approve half-billion dollars to a company, Solyndra, which wasn’t deserving of the money and has now gone belly up. The reason the money was fast-tracked and funneled to Solyndra was because its chief investor, George Kaiser, is a significant fundraiser for Obama. Kaiser, by the way, is a billionaire.

What Obama is acting out is similar to a phenomenon we sometimes see among ministers. It isn’t simply that they avoid sermonizing about areas they themselves are failing in. They actually portray themselves to their congregations as mastering the very sins that beset them. Cynicism and hypocrisy are obviously at play in these circumstances — but often something more complicated is at work. These people have a compulsive need to cover up their vices by trumpeting an imaginary set of virtues. At some point this habit – to view oneself in a way that is utterly divorced from, and even the opposite of, reality – can become unsettling.

A third thing that stands out in Obama’s speech was its undiluted, rank appeal to class envy. The president is clearly hoping to win re-election by running hard against millionaires and billionaires, which is a (silly) political strategy. But that political strategy is anchored in a political philosophy, one that views wealth creators as people for whom the rest of us should have animus. More than that, they deserve to be punished because they are successful. People may do well –but the job of the federal government is to make sure they don’t do too well. That is a near constant sub-text of the entire Obama presidency. Rather than encouraging wealth creation, Obama has attempted to make it a badge of dishonor (except for rich people who support his campaign, in which case they are given a pass). None of this is surprising, given the intellectual milieu in which Obama spent his formative years.

One senses yesterday’s speech was Obama Unplugged, the real deal, the man in his essence. It wasn’t pretty and it wasn’t impressive. But it was authentic.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10)White House Officials Attack Book, Author, With Whom They Cooperated

Despite having cooperated with author Ron Suskind for years, White House officials today attacked him and disputed the veracity of his book “Confidence Men”, which portrays a meek President Obama being rolled by his economic advisers.

“I lived the original, and the reality I lived — we all lived together — bears no relation to the sad little stories I heard reported from that book,” Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said today.

Geithner is portrayed in the book as never following through on a presidential instruction to prepare for the dismantling of Citigroup.

Numerous administration officials disputed the characterization, suggesting that Suskind either misunderstood or deliberately twisted the actual events. Officials said there was a debate internally about what to do if the stress tests of the banks such as Citigroup made it necessary for the government to assume majority ownership of Citi or any of the other banks. But that didn’t come to pass so the debate was academic.

One former senior administration official told ABC News that it “would be crazy” to prepare a plan for Citi dismantling before the results of the stress test came in. The existence of such a plan would leak and cause a run on Citi and other banks perceived to be weak, the official said.

Geithner today disputed that he would simply refuse to carry out the president’s orders. “I would never do that,” he said. “I’ve spent my life in public service. My great privilege to serve this president, and I would never contemplate doing that.”

Author Suskind declined to comment, given an exclusive deal he has with another media outlet.

The book’s central thesis – that the president was essentially controlled and manipulated by those on his economic team who had a less progressive view of how to handle the financial crisis – rings false in many instances. It was well known, for example, that both Geithner and then-National Economic Council director Larry Summers opposed the “Volcker Rule,” restricting the size and scope of banks, which the president pushed anyway.

That said, many of the other stories in the book have been verified by ABC News.

Many anecdotes portray an economic team plagued by in-fighting. After former Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag writes a memo to the president urging him to push a tax on financial transactions, Summers yells at him, “What you’ve done is immoral!”

At another point in the book Summers tells Orszag, “We’re home alone. There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes.’

And as ABC News covered at the time, in the Fall of 2009, many of the women who worked at the White House expressed concern that the “boy’s club” atmosphere was in some ways discriminatory. Former White House communications director Anita Dunn tells Suskind that “looking back, this place would be in court for a hostile workplace…Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” Dunn later underlined to the Washington Post that she did not think the White House was actually a hostile workplace.

The book also describes former Council of Economic Advisers chair Dr. Christina Romer resenting the boy’s club atmosphere, which several of Romer’s colleagues say accurately reflected her views. Romer did not respond to a request for comment. White House press secretary Jay Carney today attacked the book by noting that “very simple things, facts that could be ascertained — dates, titles, statistics, quotes — are wrong in this book. ..One passage seems to be lifted almost entirely from Wikipedia in the book. I think, based on that, I would caution anyone to assume that if you can’t get those things right, that you suddenly get the broader analysis right.”

The “passage” Carney is referring to, first noted by Mike Allen of Politico, is the following Wikipedia sentence about Fannie Mae: “in 1968 it converted to a publicly held corporation, to remove its activity and debt from the federal budget.” Suskind writes: “In 1968 it officially became a publicly held corporation, to remove its debt and related activities from the federal balance sheet.”

More broadly, Carney took issue with the book’s central thesis.

“The extraordinarily difficult times that this country was going through when this president took office and the extraordinarily complex and difficult decisions that this administration, this president, took, they weren’t easy, but they were necessary,” Carney said. “And it took decisive leadership. It took a clarity of vision about where we needed to move the country. And it took a willingness to suffer political risk in order to do the right thing for the country. And that was absolutely at the heart of all the decisions the president made, and the president made them.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------