I have had more than enough! What about you?
---
In politics, dependency pays! (See 1 below.)
---
It is not the apple students bring to their teachers that is rotten to the core! (See 2 below.)
---
Obama did what I have written repeatedly he would do. Netanyahu gets Obama to see red but can't get him to draw lines in the sand.
Does not Netanyahu understand Obama leads from the rear? (See 3 below.)
---
As radical Jihadists and Islamists attack our embassies and kill our personnel is it because Obama has not bowed low enough? No, not at all. It is because of G.W! (See 4 below.)
---
More commentary about media wanting their man, Obama, to win. (See 5 below.)
---
Dershowitz believes Netanyahu snub a politically dumb move.
It is like 'you didn't build that.' It speaks to Obama's true feelings. (See 6 below.)
---
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1)Depending on Dependency
The theme that most seemed to rouse the enthusiasm of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte was that we are all responsible for one another -- and that Republicans don't want to help the poor, the sick and the helpless.
All of us should be on guard against beliefs that flatter ourselves. At the very least, we should check such beliefs against facts.
Yet the notion that people who prefer economic decisions to be made by individuals in the market are not as compassionate as people who prefer those decisions to be made collectively by politicians is seldom even thought of as a belief that should be checked against facts.
Nor is this notion confined to Democrats in America today. Belief in the superior compassion of the political left is a worldwide phenomenon that goes back at least as far as the 18th century. But in all that time, and in all those places, there has been little, if any, effort on the left to check this crucial assumption against facts.
When an empirical study of the actual behavior of American conservatives and liberals was published in 2006, it turned out that conservatives donated a larger amount of money, and a higher percentage of their incomes (which were slightly lower than liberal incomes) to philanthropic activities.
Conservatives also donated more of their time to philanthropic activities and donated far more blood than liberals. What is most remarkable about this study are not just its results. What is even more remarkable is how long it took before anyone even bothered to ask the questions. It was just assumed, for centuries, that the left was more compassionate.
Ronald Reagan donated a higher percentage of his income to charitable activities than did either Franklin D. Roosevelt or Ted Kennedy. Being willing to donate the taxpayers' money is not the same as being willing to put your own money where your mouth is.
Milton Friedman pointed out that the heyday of free market capitalism in the 19th century was a period of an unprecedented rise in philanthropic activity. Going even further back in time, in the 18th century Adam Smith, the patron saint of free market economics, was discovered from records examined after his death to have privately made large charitable donations, far beyond what might have been expected from someone of his income level.
Helping those who have been struck by unforeseeable misfortunes is fundamentally different from making dependency a way of life.
Although the big word on the left is "compassion," the big agenda on the left is dependency. The more people who are dependent on government handouts, the more votes the left can depend on for an ever-expanding welfare state.
Optimistic Republicans who say that widespread unemployment and record numbers of people on food stamps hurt President Obama's reelection chances are overlooking the fact that people who are dependent on government are more likely to vote for politicians who are giving them handouts.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt understood that, back during the Great Depression of the 1930s. He was reelected in a landslide after his first term, during which unemployment was in double digits every single month, and in some months was over 20 percent.
The time is long overdue for optimistic Republicans to understand what FDR understood long ago, and what Barack Obama clearly understands today. Dependency pays off in votes -- unless somebody alerts the taxpayers who get stuck with the bill.
The Obama administration is shamelessly advertising in the media -- whether on billboards or on television -- for people to get on food stamps. Welfare state bureaucrats have been sent into supermarkets to tell shoppers that food stamps are available.
The intelligentsia have for decades been promoting the idea that there should be no stigma to accepting government handouts. Living off the taxpayers is portrayed as a "right" or -- more ponderously -- as part of a "social contract."
You may not recall signing any such contract, but it sounds poetic and high-toned. Moreover, it wins votes among the gullible, and that is the bottom line for welfare state politicians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)"A" Is for Agitation: Radical Chicago Teachers on Parade
Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis walks, talks and barks like a rootsy Occupy Wall Street activist. But this Big Labor loudmouth who's leading the abandonment of nearly 400,000 schoolchildren in the Windy City is just another power-grabbing union fat cat.
Instead of academic excellence, she rails about "social justice." Instead of accountability, she fumes about "profits" and curses merit pay. Lewis has marched with the Occu-clowns denouncing capitalism and promoting "socialism (as) the alternative." She raves: "Occupy Wall Street and the whole concept of the 99 percent is an extraordinarily important movement."
And she earned praise as a "fist-in-the-air, crowd-rousing, dynamic union leader" by former Communist Party revolutionary turned Obama-funded "school reformer" Michael Klonsky.
While she pays solidarity lip service to the 99 percent, Lewis is part of the deep-pocketed elite of public employee union chiefs who blame everyone else for their own financial and educational ruin. She's good at pandering to her Che Guevara T-shirt-wearing colleagues and trash-talking the political machine. But she is the machine.
The Chicago Teachers Union rakes in nearly $30 million in forced dues from rank-and-file teachers every year. CTU is an affiliate of the behemoth AFL-CIO, which dropped an estimated $100 million in forced dues to support Democratic candidates and causes during the 2008 and 2010 election cycles.
Before Lewis took control of the CTU, the union was teetering on bankruptcy and owed millions of dollars in loans. The previous CTU president pulled down nearly $300,000 a year in base salary and compensation. Local union watchdogs reported that top CTU officers and staff with six-figure salaries and bonuses also received:
"... a monthly expense account for each administrator -- officers, coordinators and field representatives -- of $1,500; a car allowance of $7,000 per year (whether or not you have a car); 85 percent of car insurance and expenses paid; parking allowance; cellphone allowance; life insurance paid with union dues; and among other perks, a 53rd week of yearly pay for "working" over the Christmas holiday."
Lewis assumed the CTU presidency in June 2010. "Teachers union officials declined to provide information on Lewis' salary," The Chicago Tribune reports, but records show that she made more than $71,000 for half a year's work in 2010 -- along with compensation from the Illinois Federation of Teachers in 2011 totaling at least an additional $64,000 on top of her unknown base salary and benefits.
When she's not urging other teachers to ditch the classroom or organizing traffic blockades to impede everyone else in Chicago from getting to and from their jobs, Lewis spends her time trashing public charter schools and business leaders trying to reform our Soviet-style monopoly in education. The results speak for themselves: While CTU members earn an average of $74,000 a year and are now spurning 16 percent pay hikes, 71 percent of the third-largest school district's 8th-grade students can't attain the most basic level of science proficiency, and nearly 80 percent are not grade-level proficient in reading.
Lewis, a vulgar standup comic wannabe who has joked publicly about smoking weed in college, sneered at parent-centered charter schools that defied the strike on Monday as not "real" schools. Competition is the enemy of union-enforced stagnation. She also played the race card like a Vegas poker pro. And in a stem-winder straight out of the Barack Obama/Elizabeth Warren/Occupy rhetorical handbook, Lewis blasted the "wealthy" at a strike rally this week: "You don't make money by yourself," she hissed.
Nope. In Social Justice World, you make that money by climbing up the public employee union ladder and extracting it forcibly through a compulsory dues racket that redistributes hard-earned dues from nearly 30,000 captive members to the union leadership's class-warfare demagogues.
It bears repeating often: The goals of the teachers union radicals are not academic excellence, professional development and fairness. The goals are student indoctrination, social upheaval and perpetual grievance-mongering in pursuit of bigger government and spending without restraint: 2, 4, 6, 8! One agenda: Agitate!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Obama to Israel: You're On Your Own
No 'red lines' for Iran and no time to meet Netanyahu.
Does President Obama want Israel to bomb Iran before the election? If we had more faith in this Administration's competence, we'd be tempted to think so.
Both publicly and behind the scenes, Administration officials have insisted they oppose a unilateral Israeli strike for many reasons: Diplomacy and sanctions still need time to work; an Israeli attack could destabilize the region; Israel doesn't have the military means to do the job thoroughly; and so on.
It's no secret the Israelis don't want to strike Iran either, provided the U.S. is serious about keeping a bomb out of the mullahs' hands. But Israel's confidence in Mr. Obama's seriousness is fading fast. This week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Bloomberg Radio that "we're not setting deadlines" for Iran to halt its program.
Reuters
President Barack Obama, right, with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations in New York in September last year.
That prompted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to note that "those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel."
That's the kind of tough diplomatic exchange that an Administration should want to smooth over, at least if it's truly intent on forestalling an Israeli attack. But now comes word that Mr. Obama will not even meet with Mr. Netanyahu during the latter's visit later this month to the U.S. Scheduling conflicts, you know.
Late Tuesday the White House issued a statement saying the two leaders had talked and denying any snub. But the message that's reaching Jerusalem these days is closer to "you're on your own, pal" than to "we've got your back." Israel will have to factor that into its security calculations as it contemplates whether to act against Iran, and when.
It's possible this is how President Obama wants it, in order to leave the job of stopping Iran to Israel while avoiding American entanglements. But it's hard to imagine an Israeli attack that didn't ultimately entangle that country's most important ally.
The Administration's diplomatic rebukes to Israel are also telling Iran that it is that much freer to move ahead with its nuclear plans. If Israel does strike Iran, Mr. Obama's mishandling of our ally will be a major reason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Obama’s Statement on Libya Attack
The U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was killed when suspected Libyan religious extremists stormed the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi late Tuesday night, according to Libyan Deputy Prime Minister Mustafa Abushagour.
Below is a statement by U.S. President Barack Obama on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America’s commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya’s transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.
5)
MEDIA DESPERATELY WANTS OBAMA RE-ELECTED
By Russ Jones
With the Republican and Democratic conventions over, and Mitt Romney and Barack Obama back on the campaign trail, an expert gives OneNewsNow a comparative analysis on how the media covered both political gatherings.
Media researchers claim a stark contrast between the way the mainstream media covered the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida, and last week's Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.
The Media Research Center (MRC) notes that "a day after CNN salivated over Michelle Obama's DNC address, ABC hyped the enthusiasm at the Democratic convention as hitting unprecedented levels on Wednesday night."
Tim Graham, MRC's director of media analysis, witnessed excessive exaggeration regarding the reporting on the DNC.
"The coverage of every speech is 'superb.' Every utterance is 'resonating,'" he details. "There's no worry about how something might hurt the Democrats."
Graham especially notes the graciousness the media showed toward former President Bill Clinton following his speech Thursday night. He says the way the media's handling of the address gives the Democratic Party a distinct advantage in attracting undecided voters.
"The media wasn't telling me that this was the man who had committed all of the offenses and scandals that he's committed, with the lying under oath, the having sex with interns in the White House … extreme disparagement of the special counsel investigating him -- all that gets left by the wayside," the analyst laments.
"Just the way that this Democratic Convention can present [the late Senator] Ted Kennedy as a hero to women, they're going to present Bill Clinton as a hero to women -- the massive exclusion of evidence that that requires."
Graham contends the mainstream media so desperately wants to get Obama re-elected to a second term that they ignored the facts about how Clinton "disgraced the presidency."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz predicted on Tuesday that President Obama’s apparent snub of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will put the critical swing state of Florida at “substantial risk” in the November election and threatens to further ratchet up the likelihood of a military strike against Iran.
“I think that the Democrats are in danger of losing even at this point a majority of the Jewish voters,” asserted Dershowitz in an exclusive interview with Newsmax. “What matters is how many votes they get in Florida. And I think they are putting Florida at substantial risk.”
Faced with growing tensions between the two countries over Iran's nuclear threat, the White House had earlier rejected a request by Israel’s leader to meet with President Obama when he visits the United States this month, according to Reuters.
Netanyahu's aides had asked for a meeting when he visits the United Nations this month, and "the White House has got back to us and said it appears a meeting is not possible,” an unnamed Israeli official told the wire service. “It said that the president's schedule will not permit that."
Dershowitz, a Newsmax contributor, who has largely been supportive of Obama’s handling of the Iranian threat, insists that it’s a “mistake” for the president not to meet with Netanyahu, something that has not happened on any of Netanyahu’s previous trips to the U.S. since 2009.
“It suggests that the United States will permit the development of nuclear weapons and will not take military action, notwithstanding that the president has said that containment is off the table and that no military option is off the table,” Dershowitz said. “This sends a very confusing message to the Iranians and thus also to the Israelis.”
Dershowitz believes that Israel will be more likely to take “unilateral action” against Iran as a result.
“The people of Israel will say ‘look, if the president of the United States won’t even meet with the prime minister at a time like this how can Israel count on the United States to keep its promise not to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons?” he explained.
Such unilateral action could come even before the November presidential election is decided, but there are other considerations that are more likely to factor into Israel’s military planning.
“It’s really not the election that’s the factor. It’s the seasons and the timing, the winter months, when it’s appropriate to take military action from a military point of view,” observed Dershowitz. “I think the dynamics have now changed, and I think the odds on Israel taking action between now and the winter season have gone up somewhat.”
Even more troubling to Dershowitz than Obama’s apparent snub is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comments that the U.S. would not impose a so-called “red line” on Iran, referring to a specific deadline, and maintaining that there is still time for diplomacy to work after four rounds of U.N. sanctions.
“What the United States has to do is send a clear message to Iran that they will not be able to develop nuclear weapons. Why endure the difficulty of sanctions if they are not going to be able to develop nuclear weapons anyway?” said Dershowitz.
“The president has to say in no uncertain terms that no matter what happens [the Iranians] will not be permitted to develop nuclear weapons,” he added. “One hopes that they will be stopped non militarily but if it takes military action to stop them from developing nuclear weapons then that military action has to take place. The president has to make that as clear as could be.”
Dershowitz said that Obama can send such a message through Netanyahu, the United Nations or by other means. The forum is not as important as clarity.
“It’s absolutely essential that that message be sent, and that the two audiences for that message are both the mullahs in Iran and the leadership in Israel,” according to Dershowitz.
Acknowledging the president’s majority support among Jewish voters, Dershowitz said that support is likely to be eroded by a combination of recent events.AC
“A combination of the fiasco that occurred involving the platform and how it was handled and the refusal, if it’s true, to meet with Netanyahu,” he said, “and the refusal to send the clearest possible message to Iran I think will make it more difficult, not only for Jewish voters by the way, but for very many non-Jewish, pro-Israel voters.”
He did not directly say whether he felt that the Obama administration could have been reacting to Netanyahu’s comments that the U.S. had forfeited its moral right to stop Israel from taking action against Iran.
“I don’t think the United States ever has the right to stop a sovereign nation from defending its own citizens from the risk of apocalyptic nuclear attack — just as Israel would not have the right to stop the United States from taking action to protect its own citizens,” he said.
“I think it would have been better — and still would be better — if the United States were to send unequivocal messages both to Iran and to Israel saying ‘no need to take action now. The United States not only has your back, but makes a commitment that Iran will never under any circumstances be permitted to develop nuclear weapons.’”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)
Dershowitz to Newsmax: Obama’s Netanyahu Snub Puts Fla. at ‘Substantial Risk’ for Democrats
By Paul ScicchitanoHarvard law professor Alan Dershowitz predicted on Tuesday that President Obama’s apparent snub of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will put the critical swing state of Florida at “substantial risk” in the November election and threatens to further ratchet up the likelihood of a military strike against Iran.
“I think that the Democrats are in danger of losing even at this point a majority of the Jewish voters,” asserted Dershowitz in an exclusive interview with Newsmax. “What matters is how many votes they get in Florida. And I think they are putting Florida at substantial risk.”
Faced with growing tensions between the two countries over Iran's nuclear threat, the White House had earlier rejected a request by Israel’s leader to meet with President Obama when he visits the United States this month, according to Reuters.
Netanyahu's aides had asked for a meeting when he visits the United Nations this month, and "the White House has got back to us and said it appears a meeting is not possible,” an unnamed Israeli official told the wire service. “It said that the president's schedule will not permit that."
Dershowitz, a Newsmax contributor, who has largely been supportive of Obama’s handling of the Iranian threat, insists that it’s a “mistake” for the president not to meet with Netanyahu, something that has not happened on any of Netanyahu’s previous trips to the U.S. since 2009.
“It suggests that the United States will permit the development of nuclear weapons and will not take military action, notwithstanding that the president has said that containment is off the table and that no military option is off the table,” Dershowitz said. “This sends a very confusing message to the Iranians and thus also to the Israelis.”
Dershowitz believes that Israel will be more likely to take “unilateral action” against Iran as a result.
“The people of Israel will say ‘look, if the president of the United States won’t even meet with the prime minister at a time like this how can Israel count on the United States to keep its promise not to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons?” he explained.
Such unilateral action could come even before the November presidential election is decided, but there are other considerations that are more likely to factor into Israel’s military planning.
“It’s really not the election that’s the factor. It’s the seasons and the timing, the winter months, when it’s appropriate to take military action from a military point of view,” observed Dershowitz. “I think the dynamics have now changed, and I think the odds on Israel taking action between now and the winter season have gone up somewhat.”
Even more troubling to Dershowitz than Obama’s apparent snub is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comments that the U.S. would not impose a so-called “red line” on Iran, referring to a specific deadline, and maintaining that there is still time for diplomacy to work after four rounds of U.N. sanctions.
“What the United States has to do is send a clear message to Iran that they will not be able to develop nuclear weapons. Why endure the difficulty of sanctions if they are not going to be able to develop nuclear weapons anyway?” said Dershowitz.
“The president has to say in no uncertain terms that no matter what happens [the Iranians] will not be permitted to develop nuclear weapons,” he added. “One hopes that they will be stopped non militarily but if it takes military action to stop them from developing nuclear weapons then that military action has to take place. The president has to make that as clear as could be.”
Dershowitz said that Obama can send such a message through Netanyahu, the United Nations or by other means. The forum is not as important as clarity.
“It’s absolutely essential that that message be sent, and that the two audiences for that message are both the mullahs in Iran and the leadership in Israel,” according to Dershowitz.
Acknowledging the president’s majority support among Jewish voters, Dershowitz said that support is likely to be eroded by a combination of recent events.AC
“A combination of the fiasco that occurred involving the platform and how it was handled and the refusal, if it’s true, to meet with Netanyahu,” he said, “and the refusal to send the clearest possible message to Iran I think will make it more difficult, not only for Jewish voters by the way, but for very many non-Jewish, pro-Israel voters.”
He did not directly say whether he felt that the Obama administration could have been reacting to Netanyahu’s comments that the U.S. had forfeited its moral right to stop Israel from taking action against Iran.
“I don’t think the United States ever has the right to stop a sovereign nation from defending its own citizens from the risk of apocalyptic nuclear attack — just as Israel would not have the right to stop the United States from taking action to protect its own citizens,” he said.
“I think it would have been better — and still would be better — if the United States were to send unequivocal messages both to Iran and to Israel saying ‘no need to take action now. The United States not only has your back, but makes a commitment that Iran will never under any circumstances be permitted to develop nuclear weapons.’”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment