Anti-Semitism is a particularly viral strain and resurrects itself during periods of world economic stress, tension and the increasing prospect of military confrontations. It gains respectability when prominent people become its advocate and sponsor, ie. Father Coglin, Henry Ford and now Jimmy Carter, John Mearsheimer etc.
The article below, by Caroline Glick, minces no words, as is her style and mine. (See 1 and 1a below.)
Our current president is basking in the prospect of winning another four years by turning attention from his lack of achievements, the increased deficit and poor response of unemployment to his lavish wasteful and politically motivated spending by attacking the rich and blaming them for the nation's ills. This too demonstrates a sick and dangerous perverseness. The price this nation will pay for win at any cost will take us further down, down, down.
AH, but is this our own individual fate?
"Three sisters, ages 92, 94 and 96, live in a house
together.. One night the 96-year-old draws a bath. She puts
her foot in and pauses. She yells to the other sisters,
'Was I getting in or out of the bath?' The
94-year-old yells back, 'I don't know. I'll come
up and see.' She starts up the stairs and pauses
'Was I going up the stairs or down?' The 92-year-old was
sitting at the kitchen table having tea listening to her
sisters, she shakes her head and says, 'I sure hope I
never get that forgetful, knock on wood...' She then
yells, 'I'll come up and help both of you as soon as
I see who's at the door."
---
On a different topic, Gary Bauer, also minces no words. (See 2 below's abridged version.)
---
The song the great entertainer, Billie Daniels sang and made famous: "That Old Black Magic" and whose words were "...down, down, down I go round, round, round I go..." etc. has relevance to our nation's spiral. (See 2 below.)
---
One of my dearest friends and clients who also reads my memos sent me this pertaining to a previous quote attributed to Lincoln: "According to Snopes.com, even Ronald Reagan attributed the quote to Abraham Lincoln, but the author was Rev. William John Henry Boetcker,
a Presbyterian minister. Evidently the following words were on one
side of a printed pamphlet and quotes by Abraham Lincoln were on the
other side. Over the years all were attributed to Lincoln.
Regardless who said it, they are wise words and applicable today.
Powerful Words to Remember:
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income
You cannot further the brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money
You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man’s initiative and independence
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and
should do for themselves
---
My friend Kyle-Anne Shiver makes her point. I understand the predicament she portrays and I gave her my response. (See 3 below.)
What Newt's S.C. victory means to some. I concur if he will stay on message and control his bad side. That remains to be seen. (See 3a below.)
---
Georgia Judge will not allow the issue of PNF/F's legality to die. (See 4 below.)
---
One's thought on SOTU! (See 5 below.)
My thought is Goofy and mice living in a fantasy land are a perfect background. (See 5a below.)
Dick Morris explains what motivates Obama:http://www.youtube.com/v/LdTyUvY66Mw?version=3.
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Mainstreaming anti-Semitism
By Caroline Glick
Anti-Semitism may not yet be a litmus test for social acceptability in the US, but it has certainly become acceptable.
Proof of this dismal state of affairs came this week with the publication of a supportive profile of University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer in The Atlantic Monthly written by the magazine's in-house foreign policy guru Robert Kaplan.
Mearsheimer is the author, together with Harvard's Kennedy School of Government's Prof. Stephen Walt, of the infamous 2007 book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. Since the book's publication, Mearsheimer has become one of the most high-profile anti-Semites in America.
Kaplan's article was a clear bid to rehabilitate Mearsheimer in order to advance his pre-Israel Lobby theory of realism in international affairs. Mearsheimer's realist theory argues that the international arena exists in a state of perpetual anarchy. As a consequence, the factor motivating states' actions in international affairs is their national interests. Morality, he claims, has no place in international affairs.
This theory's considerable intellectual underpinning rendered Mearsheimer one of the most prominent political scientists in America during the 1990s. As a realist himself, particularly in relation to the rise of China as a superpower, Kaplan perhaps believed that by rehabilitating Mearsheimer, he would advance his goal of convincing US policy-makers to adopt a realist approach to China.
But whatever his motivations for writing the profile, and whatever its eventual impact on US policy towards China, Kaplan's profile of Mearsheimer served to mainstream a Jew-hater and in so doing, to give credibility to his bigotry.
It has become necessary to rehabilitate Mearsheimer because in the years since he and Walt published their conspiracy theory against Israel and its American supporters, Mearsheimer has actively embraced fringe elements in the US and the world in order to advance his campaign to discredit Israel and its supporters. As Alan Dershowitz highlighted in November, Mearsheimer wrote an enthusiastic endorsement of a psychotically anti-Semitic book written by British jazz musician and prolific anti-Semite Gilad Atzmon.
The book, titled The Wandering Who? is replete with Holocaust denial, claims that Jews control the world and America, characterizations of the Jewish God as evil and corrupt, and claims that Israel is worse than Nazi Germany.
In his endorsement, Mearsheimer called the book “fascinating,” and said it “should be read widely by Jews and non-Jews alike.”
As far as Kaplan was concerned, Mearsheimer's embrace of Atzmon was a simple mistake. But it wasn't. It was part of an apparent decision on Mearsheimer's part to use his own celebrity to legitimize his anti-Semitic views.
In a speech to the Palestine Center in April 2010, for example, Mearsheimer distinguished between “righteous” Jews and “New Afrikaner” Jews. The former are Jews who oppose and attack Israel and the latter are Jews who support and defend Israel. By sanitizing Mearsheimer's bigotry in his sympathetic profile, Kaplan mainstreamed his hatred.
And Kaplan is not alone.
KAPLAN'S PROFILE of Mearsheimer is part of a larger trend in US letters, politics and culture in which anti-Semitism is becoming more and more acceptable. As Adam Kirsch noted in an article in Tablet online magazine this week, The Israel Lobby's central contention, that a cabal of disloyal Jews and sympathizers has forced the US to adopt a pro-Israel policy against its national interests, has found recent expression in the writings of mainstream journalists including New York Times' columnist Tom Friedman and Time's Joe Klein.
Last week, The Washington Post-owned online magazine Foreign Policy – which publishes a regular blog by Stephen Walt, published an article by Mark Perry claiming that in 2007 and 2008 Mossad agents posed as CIA agents in a false-flag operation whose aim was to build a cooperative relationship with the Pakistani/Iranian Baluchi anti-regime Jundallah terror group.
Perry's report was based solely on anonymous sources. Its obvious purpose was to discredit the very notion of Israeli-US intelligence cooperation on Iran.
Following the publication of Perry's article, Israel abandoned its general policy of never commenting on intelligence issues. The Foreign Ministry denounced his report as “utter nonsense.”
What Foreign Policy failed to tell its readers is that Perry is not an objective reporter. He is a former adviser to Yassir Arafat and an advocate of US engagement with Hamas and Hezbollah. By failing to mention his biases, Foreign Policy became an accessory to the mainstreaming of anti-Semitism. Like The Israel Lobby, Perry's report in Foreign Policy adds to the legitimacy of the attitude that there is something fundamentally wrong with having a close relationship with the Jewish state.
Perhaps if Mearsheimer and Walt had published their updated version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in 1997 instead of 2007 they would have been received in the same manner.
That is, they would have sat in the mainstream doghouse for a few years but then gradually acceptance and support for their bigotry would have moved from the margins to the mainstream. And within five years they would have been rehabilitated by the establishment. But in all likelihood, that wouldn't have been the case.
It is a fact that since the turn of the century, and particularly in the wake of the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in 2000 – a collapse precipitated by Arafat's rejection of Palestinian statehood; and in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on the US, anti-Semitism has become far more acceptable in the US and throughout the world. The volume of attacks against Jews has skyrocketed and the intellectual war against Israel and its Jewish supporters has grown ever more virulent.
The rise of anti-Semitism in the US has many causes, but three parallel developments stand out. First, the development of Arab satellite stations like Al Jazeera has brought the open Jew-hatred of the Arab world into the Western discourse.
True, most Westerners reject the Arab annihilationist form of anti-Semitic propaganda as crude and wrong. But the Jew-hatred propounded by these broadcasts has had a corrosive impact on the Western discourse. It has deadened observers to the lies at the heart of the propaganda.
That is, whereas they may reject the daily calls to destroy the Jews, Westerners have increasingly internalized the basic claim that Jews deserve to be hated. Take for instance a Washington Post story last week on Egypt's decision to bar Jewish worshipers from making their annual visit to the grave of Torah sage Rabbi Yaakov Abuhatzeira.
The story claimed that the Egyptians oppose Israel because of its treatment of Palestinians and because the Egyptian cross-border terror attack on Israel last August “led to the killing of at least five Egyptian border guards as Israeli troops pursued alleged militants.”
That is, according to the Washington Post, just as the pan-Arab media claims, Israel is entirely responsible for Arab hatred of Jews.
THEN OF course there is the European media.
This week, the Dutch Christian newspaper Trouw published an article about prenatal care in Israel written by Ilse van Heusden. Van Heusden wrote of the superior medical care she received in Israel where she lived temporarily and where she gave birth to a healthy son.
Rather than extol the dedicated care she received, van Heusden attacked it. She claimed that Israel's world class prenatal medicine is a product of its embrace of eugenics and its similarity to Nazi Germany. As she put it, “To be pregnant in Israel is comparable to a military operation. Countless ultrasounds and blood tests should produce the perfect baby, nothing can be left to the luck of the draw. The state demands healthy babies and a lot of them too.”
Trouw's decision to publish van Heusden's anti-Semitic assault is of a piece with countless articles published in the European media portraying Israelis as evil Jews intent on using science and every other means at their disposal to advance the Jews' malign goals of global domination, genocide, apartheid, and general evil. When Israel dares to complain about these attacks, European politicians and media celebrities are quick to stand up and defend their right to freedom of expression.
So it was that Sweden's Foreign Minister Carl Bildt – who barred all the Muhammad cartoons from being published in the Swedish media – stood by Sweden's leading tabloid Aftonbladet when in 2009 it published an article accusing IDF soldiers of killing Palestinians in order to harvest their organs. In the mind of the anti-Semites, by trying to object to the blood libel, Israel was proving that it seeks to control the media.
The European media's lies about Israel have been translated into official government policies of lying about Israel. So it is that the French National Assembly published a report last month about the geopolitics of water that included a 20-page diatribe claiming that Israel uses water as a weapon of apartheid against the Palestinians.
To write the report, the French legislators had to ignore not only the content of the Israeli-Palestinian agreement on water in the 1995 Interim Agreement. They had to ignore the basic fact that Israel gives the PA far more water than the agreement requires it to give, and to associate malign intent to the Israeli government. That is, they had to embrace the irrationality of anti-Semitism.
Parallel to the penetration of Arab anti-Semitism into the Western discourse through the pan- Arabic media, and the embrace of overt anti-Semitism by the European media and political class, over the past decade, we have witnessed the development of an alliance between the West's political Left and Islamist movements.
The international Left's embrace of the likes of Hamas, the Taliban, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood has increased leftist and isolationist American policy-makers' comfort level in adopting hostile postures towards Israel. So it is that at the same time that the Obama administration is assiduously courting the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian regime, according to Channel 2, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has refused to meet with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman during his upcoming trip to Washington. Channel 2 reported that senior US officials said that “Lieberman is an obstacle to peace. We don't want our pictures taken with him and with what he represents.”
ANTI-SEMITISM IS a prejudice that is based on a rejection of reason. To fight it, it is not sufficient to disprove the contentions of the likes of Mearsheimer. He and his colleagues must be discredited and their enablers must be shamed.
But before this can happen, world Jewry and Israelis alike need to recognize what is happening.
Anti-Semitism is back in style. Its new justification is not race or religion. It is nationalism. Today's anti-Semitism is predicated on preferring Palestinian and pan-Arab nationalism to Jewish nationalism.
And like its racist and religious predecessors, its aim is to deny the right of Jews to be free.
In the face of this onslaught the Jewish people in Israel and the Diaspora have two choices. We can either succumb to our enemies, or we can fight back.
1a)Canada becomes first country to sign the Ottawa Protocol
Ottawa Protocol text at: http://www.antisem.org/archive/Ottawa-protocol-on-combating-antisemitism/
Canada Gets Tough on Anti-Semitism
The government of Canada took an historic step
yesterday by signing the Ottawa Protocol to Combat
Anti-Semitism. By doing so, it recognized anti-Semitism as a
Pernicious evil and a global threat against the Jewish
People, the State of Israel and free, democratic countries
everywhere. As Prime Minister Stephen Harper has noted,
"Those who would hate and destroy the Jewish people would
ultimately hate and destroy the rest of us as
well."
The Protocol is a declaration that hatred of
This nature will not be tolerated in this country. It sets
out an action plan for supporting initiatives that combat
anti-Semitism and provides a framework for other nations to
follow.
It also sets out a vibrant definition of
anti-Semitism which, for the first time in history, links
anti-Semitism to the denial of the right Jewish people have
to their ancestral home land -- the State of Israel. This,
in fact, is what sets post-World War Two anti-Semitism apart
from its historic roots. Today's anti-Semitism is all about
denial: denial of the legitimacy of Zionism as a Jewish
movement to reclaim the land of Israel; denial of a Jewish
History in connection to the holy land and, in particular,
the centrality of Jerusalem to the Jewish people; denial of
the Holocaust (while at the same time accusing Jews of
Nazism); and denial of Jews to live free of anti-Semitism,
hate and intolerance.
In announcing the Protocols,
Foreign Minister John Baird has expressed his government's
unequivocal support for the State of Israel. In referring to
this week's turmoil at the United Nations and the
Palestinian threat to unilaterally declare a state, Baird
said, "Canada will not stand behind Israel at the United
Nations; we will stand right beside it. It is never a bad
thing to do the right thing."
According to Baird,
more and more countries are refusing to participate in the
UN conference dubbed "Durban III" -- otherwise known as an
anti-Semitic hate fest which began as a human rights forum
in South Africa in 2001; the forum ultimately degenerated
into an anti-Semitic slinging match in which repressive Arab
and African countries blamed all the problems facing their
own countries and the world on Israel. The governments of
France, New Zealand and Poland (today) joined Canada and 10
other western nations this week by declaring they will not
take part.
Unquestionably, the Government of Canada's
stance on Israel is based on the principle of standing by
your friends -- especially when they are democracies and
advocates for human rights. Most Jewish leaders would agree
that Israel is indeed Canada's greatest ally in the fight
against hate and intolerance.
But the fight against
hatred and anti-Semitism must be won here in Canada as well.
The Ottawa Protocol is mostly the result of a report
published this summer by a Canadian ParliamentaryCoalition
To Combat Anti-Semitism which was comprised of leading
Canadian politicians who volunteered their time to probe the
increasing and alarming tide of anti-Semitism in
Canada.
In a letter accompanying the report, Chairs
of the Inquiry Panel and the Steering Committee, Mario Silva
and Scott Reid, wrote, "The Inquiry Panel's conclusion,
unfortunately, is that the scourge of anti-Semitism is a
growing threat in Canada, especially on the campuses of our
universities." The report cites numerous examples of
Anti-Semitism on various campuses including the infamous
incident in 2009 when Jewish students at York University
were chased and barricaded themselves in the Hillel lounge
while a mob outside taunted them with anti-Semitic slurs.
The list of examples is quite long and disturbing.
Universities should take note of the
report and the signing of the Ottawa Protocols. They should
put an immediate end to hateful and fallacious events like
Israeli Apartheid Week; they should state unequivocally that
freedom of speech should not be abused to provide a cover
for anti-Semitism; they should ensure that Jewish students
feel welcome on campus, and that their learning environment
should be freed from anti-Israel occurrences and finally,
universities must become accountable for allowing their
private property to be venues for hateful conduct among
students.
The Ottawa Protocol to Combat Anti-Semitism
is a template for every Canadian to consider. But it is
especially a document of significance for universities that
have allowed themselves to become vehicles of hatred and
complicit in its promotion. As my friend, Professor Irwin
Cotler said last night at the Ottawa signing ceremony,
“Anti-Semitism is not only the longest known form of hatred
in the history of humanity -- it is the only form of hatred
that is truly global.”-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)From: Gary L. Bauer
COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY: 291 DAYS TO THE 2012 ELECTIONS
"Last Night's Debate
Here are my thoughts on the Republican presidential primary debate in South Carolina last night.
I think Senator Rick Santorum delivered his best performance so far in this campaign. He was more finely honed in his critique of Barack Obama. For example, during a discussion about veterans, Santorum said:
"We have a president of the United States who said he is going to cut veterans' benefits, cut our military, at a time when these folks are [serving] four, five, six, seven tours, coming back, in and out of jobs, sacrificing everything for this country, and the president of the United States can't cut one penny out of the social welfare system and he wants to cut a trillion dollars out of our military and hit our veterans. And that's disgusting.
Santorum also gave Mitt Romney a difficult time over ObamaCare. He effectively argued that Romney would be hard pressed to make the case against ObamaCare when Romney's former advisors were invited to the White House to help craft ObamaCare. Obama has said repeatedly that RomneyCare was the model he used.
Speaking of Governor Romney, this was the second debate where he has struggled and it is showing in the polls. According to a new Gallup poll, Romney's support nationally has dropped seven points in the past five days. It is puzzling why his campaign, which has otherwise been well run, still hasn't formulated more effective answers on his tax returns, his work at Bain Capital and other issues. Obama and his liberal allies will be far more vicious than any of Romney's fellow Republicans. He says he is expecting those attacks, but if so, I would expect his responses in these GOP debates to be better. I think it is now more than likely that Romney could lose the South Carolina primary tomorrow, coming on the heels of the news that he lost Iowa too.
This has been a frustrating campaign in many respects, including the support Ron Paul gets from many in the pro-life community. This is inexplicable to me given that, as Senator Santorum noted last night, Paul has a terrible voting record on pro-life legislation. Paul can wax eloquent about freedom and constitutional liberty, but then goes on to make the absurd claim that abortion should be a states' rights issue.
Let me say this again: Federalism is an important principle for conservatives, but it is not our most important value. Either we possess a God-given right to life that should be inviolable at any level of government or we do not. National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru further dissects Paul's "nuttiness" on the sanctity of life here.
Of course, no analysis of the debate would be complete without recognizing Newt Gingrich's command of the stage. Newt has many critics, but he understands one thing: You can't win a debate playing defense. You have to be able to take a blow to the chin and hit right back. As soon as CNN's John King hit below the belt, Gingrich went for the jugular. Fed up with the liberal media that regularly overlooks issues like Obama's past cocaine use and his 20-year attendance at a church with a racist pastor but jumps at the chance to dredge up Newt's decades-old divorce, the crowd roared its approval of Gingrich's indignation.
We will be watching the South Carolina primary tomorrow with great interest and will analyze the results on Monday. While Romney's hopes of locking up the nomination in South Carolina may not materialize, the fact remains that Romney has spent $3 million in Florida already and it has largely gone unanswered by his opponents.
Obama At Disney World
As you probably know by now, Barack Obama went to Disney World yesterday to make the case for his economic agenda. That's a very appropriate venue since most of his policies seem to be coming out of Fantasyland!
I can imagine the ads now: An Obama lookalike saying, "Unemployment is up. Gas prices are up. I've socialized the healthcare industry and turned America into Europe." "What are you going to do now, Mr. Obama?" "I'm going to Disney World!"
By the way, while Obama was making his economic pitch about how his policies would help grow the economy, did anyone compare his nose to Pinocchio's?
Alienating Allies
The fallout continues from Barack Obama's stunning decision to reject the latest permit request for the Keystone XL pipeline.
Bloomberg News reports that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed his "profound disappointment" in a phone call yesterday with Obama, and warned that "Canada will continue to work to diversify its energy exports." In other words, if Obama doesn't want Canada's oil, Harper will have no choice but to sell it to China, which desperately wants it.
The Bloomberg report notes, "Currently, 99 percent of Canada's crude exports go to the U.S." But Obama is putting all that at risk, not to mention the lost jobs, in order to appease his radical left-wing base. Meanwhile prices at the pump have doubled since Obama took office. Thanks to decisions like this and his earlier ban on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, they aren't likely to come down anytime soon..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Top Ten, But Falling
By Ed Feulner
If you were to rank the countries of the world in terms of economic freedom, where would the United States fall? First, or at least in the top three? The top five, surely.
Guess again.
Because there is, in fact, a resource that ranks every country by this measure -- the 2012 Index of Economic Freedom, and the United States comes in at No. 10. That’s right: the nation that is supposed to lead the world in liberty finishes behind nine others, including Ireland, Chile, Switzerland and Canada. Even the small African nation of Mauritius beats us.
And while this ranking represents a new low for the U.S., which was ninth last year, it’s part of a recent trend. As recently as 2008, the U.S. ranked seventh worldwide, had a score of 81 (on a 0-100 scale, with 100 being the freest), and was listed as a “free” economy. Today, the U.S. has a score of 76.3 and is “mostly free,” the Index’s second-highest category.
Now before we explain why, let’s back up and briefly touch on how the editors of the Index -- published annually since 1995 by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal -- figure out the scores. Each country is evaluated in four broad areas of economic freedom:
1) Rule of Law. Are property rights protected through an effective and honest judicial system? How widespread is corruption -- bribery, extortion, graft, and the like?
2) Regulatory Efficiency. Are businesses able to operate without burdensome and redundant regulations? Are individuals able to work where and how much they want? Is inflation in check? Are prices stable?
3) Limited Government. Are taxes high or low? Is government spending kept under control, or is it growing unchecked?
4) Open Markets: Can goods be traded freely? Are there tariffs, quota or other restrictions? Can individuals invest their money where and how they see fit? Is there an open banking environment that encourages competition?
For the most part, of course, the United States does very well on these measures. Finishing 10th out of 179 countries, after all, is impossible if you don’t have a large degree of economic freedom, and the U.S. is very free. Property rights are strong. Our court system is independent. Business start-up procedures are efficient. The labor market is flexible.
But in certain key areas, the United States is lagging badly. A big one is government spending. The U.S. now ranks 127th in the world in this category. Spending by government consumes 42.2 percent of gross domestic product. Total public debt is now larger than the entire economy.
Taxes are another problem. The U.S. score isn’t helped by the fact that the U.S. tax structure relies so much on taxes on capital and investment, which restrict growth. Regulations continue to grow in number, making it harder than necessary for our economy to recover. How bad is it? More than 70 major rules have been imposed since 2009, and they cost Americans nearly $40 billion last year.
The deterioration of the U.S. score on freedom from corruption is especially troubling. Blame the government (read: taxpayer) bailouts of troubled industries such as automakers. These create the perception of corruption. As far as many Americans are considered , it’s politically well-connected companies and special-interest groups who get the breaks. They see the more than 1,100 companies that have won exceptions to Obamacare, and they can’t help but wonder if some form of cronyism is involved.
We can’t hope to create the number of jobs we need under these conditions.
That’s why we have to get serious about cutting government down to size, overhauling our tax system, and transforming costly entitlement programs. Otherwise, the United States has just completed its last year as a top-10 finalist in the Index.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Dear Dick:
What a pickle we find ourselves in. Nothing but flawed, human candidates. Not a political messiah in the whole bunch. What rotten luck at such a time as this, when our Republic is on the line and we are staring into the abyss of debt-enabled ruin and global threats so dire that not even Ronald Reagan could have imagined them.
Well, my own cat's out of the bag at last. I'm supporting Gingrich. And to think that just a few short months ago, I wrote it would take a cold day in hell to get me to vote for the man of the Scarlet-A too big to fit on his puffed-up chest. My husband bet me $50 (no, not $10,000!) that I might very well change my mind. That man knows me better than I know myself. I paid off the bet a month ago.
Bless Mitt's sweet, gentlemanly heart. I just don't believe Romney stands a ghost's chance of beating Obama's Alinsky Jujitsu. When you're going into a dirty fight with a thug, you don't take a poodle. You take a doberman. And you juice that doberman with as much testosterone and arrogance and fire in the belly as you can find. Well, that's Newt. Even all the GOP insider enemies Newt has made recognize the doberman in him.
So, you may as well read all about how I'm putting my country over the matron's sisterhood on this one and giving Newt a pass on the Scarlet-A factor:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/why_im_giving_newt_a_pass_on_the_scarlet-a_factor.html
As always, I'm very interested in knowing how you think on this and look forward to your comments.
Very warm regards and God save this great Republic!
Kyle-Anne
My response: " I Understand your logic,not sure I agree with your taste.
Romney may be decent personable enough so against PNF/F the voters will awake and see the contrast.
Agreed a snarling dog can be a good fighter but what happens should he win? He could turn on you, even himself and he might not win because he turns so many off." Me
3a)Newt has grabbed hold of this thing as we hoped he would. It is obvious that being tough, frank, blunt, and telling it like it really is, is what the voters want. They are tired of their possible candidates being mealy mouth, dancing around the obvious issues like theyare scared of their own remarks and scared of their own shadows. I think the bottom line in this election is that the voters believe that politicallycorrect is just a bunch of meaningless elitist baloney----The results of this election say---screw PC, we want our county saved from the currentmadness the dems have created----"yes, damn it, we want our country back from the abyss and back on the road to prosperity, security,and pride that we all love and cherish!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) JUDGE WHACKS OBAMA IN ELIGIBILITY CASE'Defendant has failed to enlighten the court with legal authority'
A Georgia judge has refused a demand from Barack Obama to quash a subpoena to appear at a series of administration hearings Jan. 26 at which residents of the state are challenging, as allowed under a state law, his name on the 2012 presidential ballot.
WND reported this week when Obama outlined a defense strategy for a number of state-level challenges to his candidacy in 2012 which argue that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.
“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings in Atlanta Jan. 26.
“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.
Judge Michael M. Malihi, however, took a different view.
“Defendant argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,” he wrote in his order, released today.
“Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,” the judge continued.
“Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.’”
Hearings have been scheduled for three separate complaints raised against Obama’s candidacy. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.
It is states, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.
The schedule for the hearings was set by Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.
Three different plaintiffs’ groups are lined up for separate hearings, including one represented by California attorney Orly Taitz. She had the judge sign a subpoena for Obama’s testimony, and Michael Jablonski, Obama’s attorney for the cases, argued that he should be exempted.
“Make no mistake about it. This is the beginning of Watergate Two or ObamaForgeryGate. I believe this is the second time in the U.S. history a sitting president is ordered to comply with a subpoena, and produce documents, which might eventually bring criminal charges to the president and a number of high-ranking individuals,” Taitz said.
She told WND that it’s been 40 years since any court issued such a ruling concerning a president.
Separately, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona told WND he also had gotten a subpoena to be at the hearings in Georgia. He said the goal apparently is to ask him about his Cold Case Posse investigation of Obama’s eligiblity, but he said since the investigation remains open, he wouldn’t be able to say much about it.
Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield.
Hatfield also had filed with the court a “Notice to Produce” asking for Obama’s documents and records.
He wants one of the two original certified copies of Obama’s long-form birth certificate.
Also, required are medical, religious administrative and other records about Obama’s birth; passports, applications and related records; college and university applications; bar association applications and materials; details on the citizenship of Obama’s father and other documents.
Taitz had filed an opposition to the motion to quash, taking Obama directly to task over what many consider an important constitutional question – the eligibility of a presidential candidate.
“It is noteworthy, that [the quash request] comes on the heels of his extended 17 day Hawaiian vacation, which cost U.S. taxpayers 4 million dollars. Mr. Obama has earned a dubious distinction as a Vacationer in Chief, Tourist in Chief, Partier in Chief and a Golfer in Chief due to his endless vacations, parties and rounds of golf. Considering … it is not too much to ask for Mr. Obama to show up once at a hearing and present his original identification records, which were not seen by anyone in the country yet,” she argued.
Obama’s attorney, Jablonski, also had argued that the state should mind its own business.
“The sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. … Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,” the filing argues.
Taitz’s supporters joined a discussion on her website, where she also solicits support for the expenses of the battles she’s confronting, judging that Obama is on the defensive.
“What a joke. He claims to be too busy performing the duties of the president of the United States. How many days of vacation has he taken? How many rounds of golf? If he is too busy to provide the documents that provide the basis for meeting the requirements of the office, then perhaps he better sit out the next four years,” said one.
Wrote another, “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant. … This is complete utter nonsense!”
In fact, a presidential elector in California brought a lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility at the time of the 2008 election and was told the dispute was not yet ripe because the inauguration hadn’t taken place. The courts later ruled that the elector lost his “standing” to bring the lawsuit after the inauguration.
Barack Obama |
Irion said his argument is that the Founders clearly considered a “natural born citizen,” as the Constitution requires of a president and no one else, to be the offspring of two citizen parents. Since Obama himself has written in his books that his father, Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan, and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Irion argues that Obama is disqualified under any circumstances based on his own testimony.
Those who argue against his birth in the United States note that numerous experts have given testimony and sworn statements that they believe Obama’s Hawaiian birth documentation to be fraudulent.
It is that concern that also has prompted Arpaio to turn over an investigation of that issue to his Cold Case Posse. Its investigative report is expected to be released in the next few weeks.
The Georgia hearing apparently will be the first time among dozens of so-far unsuccessful lawsuits brought over Obama’s eligibility issue that evidence will be heard in a court. Other cases all have been dismissed over issues such as standing, without a presentation of the evidence.
There are similar challenges to Obama’s 2012 candidacy being raised before state election or other commissions in Tennessee, Arizona, Illinois, New Hampshire and other states.
The image released by the White House in April:
Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House |
Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a “natural born citizen” is born of parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen.”
That case states:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.
“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”
If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.
“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5lObama in Fantasy Land
This Tuesday, when President Obama delivers his State of the Union Address, we can count on it to be filled with the same platitudes, anecdotes, false promises, cooked stats and tenuous connection with reality we find in everything the man does. It will be a laundry list of progressive fantasy, couched in populist rhetoric and designed to make middle-class Americans think he has something more than the zero connection and concern for them he has.
President Obama doesn’t give a damn about the middle class, jobs, the economy or much of anything that distracts from his progressive agenda. But what do you expect from someone who shows such contempt for the nation’s pastime as to wear “mom jeans” when throwing out the first pitch at the All-Star game?
I’m kidding about “mom jeans,” of course, though only mostly. But about the contempt…not at all.
Last week President Obama went to Disney World – returning to his home country of Fantasy Land to deliver a speech about the need to boost tourism. Tourism is hurting, there’s no doubt about that. But taking a vacation is hardly a priority when you’re unemployed, and for the unemployed, Mr. Obama smacked them across the face with a dead fish.
The administration announced he would block the Keystone XL pipeline, a plan to move oil from Canada to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast. The green left hates it because…well, it’s real energy rather than the “green” energy racket they love to milk for government subsidies. If it’s good for humans, you can count on these people to oppose it unless they’re lining their pockets with tax dollars or preparing to profit from forced customer base through regulation.
The pipeline would have meant jobs, good jobs, lots of them … but it seems, as Vice-President Joe Biden so artfully put it, that three-letter word that is President Obama’s No.1 priority – J-O-B-S – isn’t as much a priority as pleasing the cronies he desperately needs for his reelection.
How many jobs? Conservatives say a lot; progressives say not so many. I’m no engineer, but trenches from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico don’t dig themselves, and that pipe won’t magically appear once it’s dug – nor will it maintain itself. So, more than 100 but less than the millions who have lost jobs since President Obama took office. But creating some jobs beats creating no jobs, which is what President Obama chose when he took the side of his “green” elite friends against normal American workers.
Unions wanted the pipeline, too. They like jobs, as long as they’re union jobs. And they are an important part of the progressive brigade. But they cashed out their payoff in the so-called stimulus bill. If they want more of our money to cover their unsustainable, bloated pensions they’re going to have to wait until a second term.
The president was required by law, as part of the payroll tax agreement, to make a ruling on the pipeline by Feb. 21. He called this date “rushed and arbitrary” and said on Wednesday this is part of why he decided against the pipeline. Originally, President Obama had planned to push the decision off until sometime after Nov. 6, a date that is neither “rushed” nor “arbitrary.”
In other words, he wanted to play politics with a critical decision about America’s enemy future. He wanted to wait until after the election, so he wouldn’t anger either group of supporters, Congress forced him to pick one to offend. He went with the one who got the bigger payoff already and, therefore, would be less likely to withdraw support before the election.
So, it was in Fantasy Land this week, where he went to tout the importance of tourism, that President Obama chose to announce a decision that denies jobs to tens of thousands of Americans and compromises our energy security. Those jobs will not be “created or saved,” will not be filled by people who will take their families to Disney World this year and will likely go to China or elsewhere unless we rethink.
It’s fitting President Obama shut down Main Street USA to give his speech at Disney World. He’s been shutting down Main Streets all over the country, from day one. And he’ll continue to do it if he is re-elected. Disney went back to normal after Barack Obama left, but our country will take much longer to recover. We need to start that recovery on Jan. 20, 2013. To borrow a phrase from the president, “We can’t wait.”
5a)Great Deceiver
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Energy: In his very first TV ad of the 2012 campaign, the president is feeding the public false information about America's dependence on foreign fuels. His twisted statistics actually celebrate the Obama recession.
The Obama re-election campaign is already shaping up as the most deceitful in American electoral history. "For the first time in 13 years our dependence on foreign oil is below 50%," the commercial declares, accompanied by goose-bumpy music.
Major economic downturns, in fact, unfailingly produce declines in oil imports. And so do higher gas prices — which went from an average of less than $2 a gallon at the time Obama took office to nearly $4 in the middle of last year and remain well above $3
today.
How could gasoline demand not drop with so many people out of work, businesses dying and jittery investors sitting on a trillion dollars?
Obama's ad dishonestly suggests he's been engineering an alternative energy economic renaissance in America. As hard-hatted workers are shown assembling solar panels, the ad says, "America's clean energy industry? 2.7 million jobs and expanding rapidly."
It's saying Obama created — or "saved" — 2.7 million new clean energy jobs, right? Uh-uh. Turns out that the Brookings Institution report that the ad cites as its source on the 2.7 million was referring to already-existing green jobs.
You'd never know from the Obama commercial that what Brookings actually said was: "Overall, today's clean economy establishments added half a million jobs between 2003 and 2010, expanding at an annual rate of 3.4 %" — a half-million over eight years being a tiny gain. And that "this performance lagged the growth in the national economy, which grew by 4.2% annually over the period."
You wouldn't know, Brookings said, that "many longer-standing companies in the clean economy — especially those involved in housing- and building-related segments — laid off large numbers of workers during the real estate crash of 2007 and 2008, while sectors unrelated to the clean economy (mainly health care) created many more new jobs nationally."
And Brookings' assessment that the green economy is "expanding rapidly"? Its report's conclusion actually warns "against excessive hopes for large-scale, near-term job-creation from the sector" because "the U.S. clean economy remains small where it is fast-growing and relatively slow-growing on balance ... their status as major employers remains a few years off."
In truth, Obama's energy policy is a disaster as to reducing foreign energy dependence. As the Institute for Energy Research points out, "oil production on federal lands has fallen by 43% over the past nine years, according to the Obama administration's Energy Information Administration. And it has dropped rapidly on President Obama's watch."
Dan Simmons, IER's director of regulatory and state affairs, told IBD he's convinced "President Obama is afraid of charges of crony capitalism regarding Solyndra," the solar panel company that got $535 million in taxpayer-funded stimulus loan funds from the administration, then soon went bankrupt.
That's why the Obama re-election campaign's first big lie is that he is the energy president.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment