Friday, November 9, 2012

Support Wounded Warriors-Book More Credible After Election!

Though the words Conservative and Capitalist are in the title, the booklet is non-political in nature.

If you find my Memo efforts  of interest and maybe even challenging , whether you agree or not with what I write and/or post, then consider this a personal appeal to support my effort to raise money for The Wounded Warrior project.  Buy my book expressing my thoughts on raising children.

Please make your  check for $10.99/copy to Paul Laflamme for a soft cover version and deduct half the cost as a donation to The Wounded Warrior Project. (Add $2.50 for postage and handling.)

If you want a pdf version you can download the cost is $5.99.  

Click on
My book has far more credence after the recent election and it also explains what this author writes.  (See 1 below.)

You were told this well over a month ago.

Are the negotiations a set up for Obama to cave or will they become a last ditch effort prior to an attack based on Obama having been seen to have walked the last mile?  You decide.  (See 2 below.)

How the Arab World views Obama's re-election. (See 2a below.)
Caroline Glick offers her thoughts!  (See 3 below.)
Obama's approach towards the fiscal cliff. (See 4 below.)
My friend Avi on the UAE.  (See 5 below.)
Prophetic food for thought! (See 6 below.)
Elections have consequences and now the firings begin.  (See 7 below.)
This from a bright conservative friend of long standing and fellow memo reader: "This is absolutely accurate.  The Obama campaign was 21st century.  The Romney campaign was 19th..

1)Why Obama Won
By Gary Aminoff
On election night, as the camera panned the audience waiting to hear Barack Obama give his victory speech, what struck me was that the audience was primarily young people and minorities.  My thought was, "These are the very people who will suffer the most under a second Obama administration.  Don't they know they are voting against their own best interest?"
And then I thought about it and came to the conclusion: "No.  They don't."  They don't because they are, by and large, uneducated.  Oh, some of them may have college degrees or even graduate degrees, but they are still substantially uneducated.  I would bet that very few of them know the difference between Keynesian economics and Austrian School economics.  I am sure that most of them have never heard of the Laffer Curve.  I would guess that most of them aren't familiar with the first principles behind the origin of our country.  I doubt that many of them know what evil lies in Socialism or Communism, or unbridled leftism.  Or are even aware that Barack Obama is a man of the left, and what that means.  They, for the most part, have no idea what the concept of individual liberty is, nor how a big, powerful central government reduces that liberty.  I also am pretty sure that they feel that Barack Obama is someone who cares about the poor, women, minorities, and the "middle class," and that Republicans don't.  I would stake my substance on the fact that they don't know what is meant by a limited government, or what the Tenth Amendment says.  I am certain that most of them don't know anything about Benghazi.  Substantially uneducated!
How is it that we have raised one or two generations of uneducated Americans?  The answer, my friend, is not blowing in the wind.  The answer lies in the curricula of our schools.
For the past several months, in my capacity in the Republican Party, I have been speaking at middle schools and high schools around Los Angeles.  It has been very enlightening.

I love engaging with children.  Most of them are very bright and ask brilliant questions.  The questions give me insights into what they are most concerned about.  It also makes clear what they are taught -- by either their parents or their teachers, or both.
To summarize -- children, for the most part, believe the following:
a) Republicans care about only the rich -- the top 1% -- and don't care about anyone else.
b) Republicans hate people of color and especially Latinos.
c) Republicans hate gays.
d) Republicans are racist.
e) It is the government that provides jobs.  (I have asked that question many times in classrooms or assemblies.  "Who is it that creates jobs in America?"  The answer is invariably, without hesitation, "the government.")
f) Corporations are bad, and profits are very bad.  Business shouldn't make profits; they should give any excess money they make to their employees.
g) Taxes are good; they provide the money for the government to take care of people.
h) Government should expand and take care of everyone in the country.
i) America, rather than being a force for good in the world, has been a force for evil.
j) Government has an unlimited source of funds.  (When I ask, "Where is the government going to get the money to do all these things you want it to do?," the answer is "taxes.")
These children will soon be voters.  How is it, in America, that we are raising children to believe that bigger government is better, that government is the engine that provides jobs, that profits are bad, that Republicans care about only the rich, that we are racist, and that we hate minorities and gays.
This is not something to be ignored.  Our country is being changed forever by children who have had this type of indoctrination.  We must figure out how to stop it.  We need to create a love of country in our children as we once did.  We need to have our children say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag every morning, as we once did.  We need to teach our children that Americahas been a force for good in the world.  We need to teach them that it is not the role of government to "take care" of people.  We need to teach civics once again, and the Constitution.
Until this problem is dealt with, and it needs to be soon, we will be raising generations of children who believe in an ever-larger government and who will permanently change America into Greece.  There will be no Republican Party or conservative candidates who will win elections as more and more of the population is indoctrinated with leftist thinking.  Goodbye to the Home of the Brave and the Land of the Free if we don't act on this issue.
Gary Aminoff is the vice chairman of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County.  He can be reached at

They agree on direct talks - but not the date
They agree on direct talks - but not the date

After winning a second White House term, US President Barack Obama aims to start direct, fast-track nuclear talks with Tehran as soon as December, even before his January swearing-in, on the assumption that Iran’s window of opportunity is very narrow – just three months. White House go-betweens with the office of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warn that Iran’s campaign for the June 14 presidential election gets going in March. After than,  it is estimated in Washington, that Khamenei, whose ill health keeps his working-day short, will be fully absorbed in a struggle to purge Iran’s political hierarchy of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his clique.
But Tehran would prefer nuclear diplomacy to be delayed for eight months until after that election. “We waited for the US election campaign to be over, so why shouldn’t the Americans wait for ours?” a senior Iranian official asked rhetorically.
For now, the supreme leader is looking for a suitable candidate for the presidency. This time, the supreme leader is not expected to make the mistake of choosing a charismatic, ambitious and competent figure like Ahmadinejad, but rather one who is satisfied with acting as a representative titular figure and play second fiddle to Khamenei whose bureau will administer the executive branch of government.
The supreme leader is believed in Washington to be weighing another alternative: having parliament abolish the post of president and transferring its powers to the new post of prime minister, who would be chosen from among the 290 Majlis lawmakers.
Speaker Ali Larijani and his brother, head of the judiciary Sadeq Larijani, have in the past year performed the spadework of sidelining Ahmadinejad’s parliamentary faction.
Ali Larijani himself is a front-runner for the job of Revolutionary Iran’s first prime minister.
The view in Washington today is that if nuclear talks do start in December and roll on into March, Khamenei will be compelled to cut the process short to escape potential accusations led by Ahmadinejad that he is handing to America concessions excessive enough to stall Iran’s nuclear aspirations.
The supreme leader can’t afford to have the Iran’s military establishment, the Revolutionary Guards and the street turn against him on this issue.

But in the last few days, Tehran appears to have taken a large step back from direct negotiations with Washington in principle. Just hours after Obama’s election victory was announced on Nov. 7, the official Iranian news agency quoted  Sadeq Larijani as condemning US sanctions as “crimes against the Iranian people.” He said relations with America “cannot be possible overnight” and the US president should not expect rapid new negotiations with Tehran. “Americans should not think they can hold our nation to ransom by coming to the negotiating table,” was the Iranian judiciary head’s parting shot for Obama.
The gap between Washington and Tehran is as wide as ever: Obama wants the talks to last no more than three months and end in an agreed settlement of the nuclear dispute, whereas the ayatollah prefers a low-key process to be dragged out past the eight month-month period while also gaining more time for Iran’s nuclear program to race forward.
This tactic would additionally help Tehran erase yet another Israeli red line, the one set by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in his UN September speech when he said that the spring or early summer of 2013 would be the critical date for Israel to act.

2a)Following Obama's Reelection, Arab World Between Skepticism And Hope For 
Change In Policy
Barack Obama's victory in the U.S. elections evoked lukewarm responses in
the Arab world. While heads of state congratulated him for his victory and
expressed hope for broad cooperation, tightening of relations, and promoting
solutions to various Middle East problems, the Arab press also expressed a
degree of disillusionment with the U.S. president.

The Gulf states, chiefly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, along with the Syrian
opposition, expressed hope that Obama's second term would see a significant
change in his foreign policy, particularly a more active and decisive
position vis-à-vis the Assad regime. The Syrian regime, for its part,
attacked U.S. policy under Obama and even warned America not to consider
military intervention in Syria now, after the elections. In Egypt, Muslim
Brotherhood (MB) officials stressed that Egypt could rely on itself and
would no longer be subordinate to the U.S. Articles in the Egyptian press
claimed that no change could be expected in the American policy, which had
always served Israel. Palestinian responses, both by Fatah and by Hamas,
likewise expressed disappointment with Obama's first term and handling of
the Palestinian cause, and called to not have high expectations for his
second term.

This document will review some of the responses to Obama's victory in the
Arab world.

Gulf States Hope For Change In Obama's Position On Syria

The Saudi and Qatari press expressed hope that, with the elections over and
the president free of campaign pressures, the U.S. would change its position
on Syria and take a more active role in supporting the Syrian opposition.
Editorials in Gulf Press: Now Obama Has No Excuse To Avoid Helping The
Syrian People

In an editorial, the Saudi daily Al-Yawm called on Obama to take a
courageous stance and save the Syrian people: "A second term in office
[means that] President Obama has a weighty political and moral obligation to
fulfill in the Middle East. His first responsibility as part of this is [to
address] the tragedy of the oppressed Syrian citizens, who, for the last two
years, have been under deadly [attack] by planes, missiles and tanks, and
have no hope except an international initiative that will save them from
hell. [And] no international initiative can work without a courageous
American decision to save the Syrians from the disgusting political
bargaining [going on] in the U.N. and to overcome the obstacles set by the
Security Council and the Russians... The Russian position, which is hostile
to the Syrian people, must be countered by a courageous American position,
in order to save the Syrians and stop [Assad's] killing machine...

"Now the American president has no excuse to be negligent in assisting the
helpless and besieged Syrian people, which are [subject to] an open war by
three of four countries and the militias [they support]... Syria is a
test-case for the Americans, who must demonstrate... their ability to defend
human rights and their commitment to the slogans and values of American

An editorial in the Saudi daily Al-Riyadh also stressed the need for a more
decisive American stance on Syria, stating that "[American] support for the
[Syrian] opposition and the Free [Syrian] Army has become crucial..." [2]
The editorial of the Qatari daily Al-Watan stated, in a similar vein:
"[Obama] must undertake a brave and comprehensive reassessment of his
country's stance on various crises, and adjust his reading of [the
situation] in various regions where deadly conflicts are underway, in order
to rescue and help peoples whose rights have been usurped and who have been
deprived of their right to freedom, dignity and social justice... Today, the
world expects to see an America that helps the oppressed... and an American
position... that is not [limited] to interests..."[3]

Al-Watan (Qatar), November 8, 2012

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat Editor: We Require A Gulf Diplomatic Campaign To Change
U.S. Policy

Tariq Alhomayed, editor of the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat,
published an article titled "Living with Obama for Another Four Years?" in
which he expressed his disappointment at Obama's reelection: "I'm still
convinced that President Obama committed several mistakes in our region
during his first term. With regards to Iran, Obama ignored the Green
Revolution, helped to place Iraq under Iranian influence, and overdid the
soft diplomacy with Tehran when it came to the Iranian nuclear file. In the
Arab world, Obama has made mistakes in his dealings with the Arab Spring
states, particularly when strengthening the influence of political Islam
there. Finally, he neglected the Syrian revolution and of course failed to
accomplish anything of note with regards to the Palestinian cause...
"The question here is: What about our region, specifically Saudi Arabia and
the Gulf states? The answer is that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf must pursue
rapid diplomatic action. Washington can't leave our region, specifically the
Gulf states, at the mercy of hostile parties, whether they are the followers
of political Islam or those claiming to be activists, who are actually
advocates of division and destabilization, serving the purposes of Islamic
groups and even Iran. This is what was proven in the crisis of the Arab
Spring, where the Arab 'activists,' as Washington saw them, were nothing but
facades for the forces that eventually benefited. Criticizing Obama will not
change anything, and waiting for the unknown will be a disaster, so what we
need now is a diplomatic uprising with the best of expertise and a clear
vision. This is so that we do not come up against any more surprises from
Washington in the future, especially since action is long overdue when it
comes to the Iranian nuclear issue."[4]

Egypt: Congratulations On Obama's Victory Alongside Calls To Disconnect From

Obama's victory received mixed responses in Egypt. President Muhammad Mursi
sent Obama a congratulatory letter expressing hope that his reelection would
realize the interests of both people, strengthen the friendship between the
two countries, and promote their common goals of justice, freedom, and
peace.[5] Among the congratulators was also Al-Azhar Sheikh Dr. Ahmad
Al-Tayeb, who sent a letter to Obama expressing hope for cooperation between
the Egyptian and American peoples that would serve the interests of both
parties, and called on the American president to act for Muslims around the
world and stop the oppression of Palestinians and the Muslims in Myanmar.[6]
The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) party also published a message of
congratulations calling on the U.S. to enact change and fulfill its expected
role in dealing with the Palestinian issue.[7]

MB Officials: Egypt Will Not Be Subordinate To The U.S.

At the same time, some MB officials notably chose to respond to Obama's
victory by stressing that Egypt would no longer be subordinate to the U.S.
'Izzat Mustafa, a member of the MB party's High Committee, said that the MB
and its party would not allow Egypt to be subordinate to the U.S., as it had
been in the past, and called on Egypt to ensure its national interest.[8] MB
party deputy head 'Issam Al-Aryan wrote on his Facebook page that Obama's
victory would not change the U.S.'s foreign policy, and called on Egypt to
rely on itself and to disconnect from American influence: "The U.S.'s
foreign policy will not change much. Accepting the will of the Arab people
is the most important change. We must rely on ourselves and our resources,
and build our country. Egypt, without direct American influence, can
influence and lead the process of building a constitutional and democratic

The message posted on 'Issam Al-Aryan's Facebook page.

Al-Ahram Editorial: Do Not Expect Change In U.S. Policy; It Will Continue To 
Defend Israel

The Egyptian press expressed skepticism regarding a possible change in
American policy, saying it would continue to serve Israel. An editorial in
the daily Al-Ahram stated: "Many think [Obama] will continue the foreign
policy of his first term, especially regarding the Arab Spring countries:
Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen, as well as Syria. He is likely to
continue... pressuring Iran to relinquish its plan to produce nuclear
weapons, even if this pressure contributes in some way or another to the
increase of Iranian influence in Syria, Iraq, Libya and other Gulf states.
It seems that Obama will [also] maintain his commitment to Israel's defense
and its security, while pressuring it to avoid attacking the Iranian nuclear

Similar statements were made by Egyptian journalist Suleiman Gouda in the
daily Al-Masri Al-Yawm. Gouda claimed that U.S. presidents cared only about
the Israel's security and about Middle East oil, and therefore it was
unrealistic to expect too much of Obama's second term: "Arabs are betting
that during his second term, Obama will achieve what he failed to achieve in
his first term, or more accurately – what no U.S. president has achieved
since the founding of Israel... [All] U.S. presidents who arrived at the
White House since the day [of Israel's establishment]... were almost one and
the same for us... They all addressed our region with [only] two goals in
mind: Israel's security, and the oil – nothing else. The strange thing is
that, although [we] know this well... every time a new American president
[is elected], we once again hope... for something that is no more than a
mirage and a waste of time..."[11]

Al-Ahram Columnist: Obama, Who Contributed To Mubarak's Ouster, Has
Considerable Influence On Egypt's Affairs

An article titled "Our President Obama," by Al-Ahram columnist Mansour Abu
Al-'Azem, took a notably different tone, stressing Obama's significance for
Egypt due to his involvement in the country's affairs, including his
contribution to Mubarak's ouster: "The election of an American president has
become an Egyptian matter... Did the American president not play a part in
ousting the regime of Hosni Mubarak when he clearly said that [Mubarak] had
to leave "not today, but yesterday"? In addition, we receive yearly American
military and material aid from Washington, and the president plays an
important part [in deciding] whether to continue it, cancel it, or reduce
it. When it comes to our relations with Israel, the U.S. and the American
president, whoever he may be, is [once again] a major and influential party
in these relations..."[12]

Syrian Regime Attacks Obama; Opposition Condemns His Passivity, Expects

The Syrian regime and opposition both blamed the U.S., explicitly or
implicitly, for the crisis in Syria and expressed hope for a change in its

Following the news of Obama's victory, Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal
Al-Miqdad slammed America's policy and held it directly responsible for the
situation in the Middle East, saying: "The Syrian people hopes that, in his
second term in office, Obama will take part in seeking just solutions [for
problems] in the Middle East, because the anomalous situation we have been
witnessing over the last months and years, particularly in the Arab region,
is the result of the destructive errors of the U.S. policy in the region."
Al-Miqdad warned America not to intervene militarily in Syria, now that the
elections are over, because "such a move [would] be destructive."[13]
An editorial in the Syrian government daily Teshreen likewise attacked the
U.S. and called on its president to "stop the policy of direct military
combat against peoples... and the political and military interference in the
domestic affairs of various countries..." The editorial stated further that
"America's policy in the last decades has involved hatred and hostility by
the U.S. administrations towards the peoples of the world," and that "this
attitude can only be changed by respecting the rights of the peoples and
their sovereignty over their homelands."[14]
The Syrian opposition was likewise critical of Obama's policy, especially of
his passivity in handling the Syrian crisis, but expressed hope that his
second term in office would see a change in this respect. Syrian National
Council (SNC) Chairman 'Abd Al-Basit Sida hoped that Obama's reelection
heralded "a serious and responsible handling of the Syrian crisis, which is
reaching a dangerous point," instead of "the helplessness [heretofore] shown
by the U.S. and international community."[15]
Hussein Darwish, a Syrian journalist residing in Dubai, addressed Obama in a
sarcastic article he posted on an oppositionist Syrian website: "Mr.
President, I know, just like everyone else, that, had you wanted to put an
end to the Syrian crisis, you would have done so. But you waited for the
election results. [Now] you have four more years leading the world. How
about turning your attention to the Middle East, and taking a step that will
bring about real change, for us and for you? I am not asking you to
[undertake] a military operation against Syria, God forbid... but [only] to
take a step that will help us out of the impasse in which we are stuck
thanks to your long silence."[16]
Al-Dustour (Jordan), November 8, 2012Hamh
PA Senior Officials Congratulate Obama; PA Newspapers Remain Skeptical
PA senior officials congratulated President Obama on his reelection, and
expressed hope that he would work to advance the peace process and support
the Palestinian bid for non-member state status in the U.N. General
Assembly. PA President Mahmoud 'Abbas said he hoped for continued
cooperation toward reaching a final settlement in the Middle East and a just
and sustainable peace based on a two-state solution. He also praised Obama's
past efforts to jumpstart the peace process in spite of difficulties and
challenges.[17] PLO Executive Committee member Saeb 'Ereqat said he hoped
Obama would promote the Palestinian U.N. bid and take action to stop
Israel's settlement policy. He called on the president "to dry up the swamp
of Israeli occupation, because [doing so] is the key to democracy."[18]
On the other hand, PLO newspapers ran numerous articles warning the
Palestinians not to expect anything from Obama so as not to be let down.
Some claimed that the first test of U.S. policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians
would be the U.S. stance on the Palestinian U.N. bid.[19] Former PA MP
Hassan 'Asfour, editor of a PLO-affiliated website, wrote: "Rather than
seeing what they can get from the U.S. president, the Palestinians must
learn [from past experience] and not fear [the U.S.], so that the
Palestinian cause is not destroyed. The current leadership of the
Palestinian people has no alternative but to continue pursuing U.N.
membership and preparing adequately for the day after... Enough with the
illusions that an American president will [advance] the Palestinian cause.
[The path to] the liberation of Palestine and the freedom of its people does
not pass through the White House..."[20]
Dr. Hani Al-'Aqqad, a columnist on a Fatah-affiliated website, wrote:
"Obama's weak policy on… intervening in the conflict and promoting a just
resolution will remain lukewarm and futile, even if Obama promises otherwise
in a new official speech to the Arab world, modeled after his previous
speech [in Cairo] during his first term... From that point and until his
present victory, Obama has taken neither full nor partial responsibility for
implementing the two-state program or for establishing peace for all the
peoples of the region and the world... Since then, he has not involved
himself positively in the Middle East cause, which proves that his speech
was a thing of the moment, just a PR speech and nothing more."[21]
Hamas likewise expressed pessimism regarding Obama's second term in office.
Senior officials in the movement stressed the U.S. bias toward Israel in the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and called on Washington to alter this policy.
Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhairi called on the U.S. to reassess its
pro-Israel policy. Faiz Abu Shamala, a columnist for websites close to
Hamas, wrote cynically that 'Abbas could now launch four more years of
futile negotiations, but that the Palestinians would have to wait for the
results of the 2016 U.S. presidential elections for any hope of ending these
Tunisian Journalist: "The Middle East Is Hopeful That The U.S. Will Play A
More Active Role In Promoting Palestinian-Israeli Peace"
Rached Ghannouchi, the leader of Tunisia's leading Al-Nahda party, wrote
"Barack Hussein Obama" a letter in Arabic, in which he congratulated him on
his win and wished him "more success in his quest for democracy and peace in
the world."[23]
Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki highlighted the strong relations between
the two countries, which, he said, were further strengthened after the
revolution of freedom and dignity in Tunisia. He added that he was confident
Obama's new term would give a fresh impetus to the Tunisian-American
relations and hoist them to the level of "strategic partnership."[24]
Tunisian journalist Asma Ghribi praised the American democracy and hoped for
greater U.S. involvement in the Palestinian and Syrian issues: "As a
Tunisian, I could not help comparing the political conduct in the
long-established democracy of the U.S. with and the fragile nascent
democracy in Tunisia. Naturally, Tunisia lacks a strong electoral tradition
after decades of fake elections… in which the president would win more than
90% of the votes…
"[After Obama's reelection,] The Middle East is hopeful that the U.S. will
play a more active role in promoting the Palestinian-Israeli peace process
and halt the bloodshed in Syria."[25]
Al-Hayat (London), November 8, 2012
Al-Hayat Editor: Arab World Should Learn From American Democracy
Contrary to responses in the Arab world that focused on the political aspect
and consequences of Obama's reelection, the editor of the London-based Saudi
daily Al-Hayat, Ghassan Charbel, took a different line, calling on the Arab
world to learn from the American democracy and from the hope its government
gives to the people. He called to enact change by amending curricula in
schools: "Clearly, we are facing a long-term trial. The first challenge is
to improve the living conditions of the people, in terms of work, dignity,
equal opportunity, respect for others, and the empowerment of women. Perhaps
the first key is to consider our schools and universities, and their
curricula, which must be updated and modernized. Otherwise, we will [merely]
follow the U.S. elections every four years, and the Arab Spring will be
nothing more than a passing cloud of false hope that quickly scattered."[26]
[1] Al-Yawm (Saudi Arabia), November 8, 2012.
[2] Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), November 8, 2012.
[3] Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), November 8, 2012.
[4] English edition of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), November 8, 2012. It
should be mentioned that, in an article he published on November 6, 2012, on
the eve of the U.S. elections, Alhomayed detailed Obama's mistakes during
his first term in handling the Syrian and Iranian issues, and praised
Romney, whom he defined as a politician that could be worked with and who
has decisive positions on Syria and Iran. Alhomayed said that if Obama was
reelected, there would be need for intense Saudi-Gulf diplomatic activity to
prompt him to act on the Syrian issue. Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), November
6, 2012.
[5]Al-Wafd (Egypt), November 8, 2012.
[6], November 7, 2012.
[7], November 7, 2012.
[8]Al-Masri Al-Yawm (Egypt), November 8, 2012.
[10]Al-Ahram (Egypt), November 8, 2012.
[11]Al-Masri Al-Yawm (Egypt), November 8, 2012.
[12]Al-Ahram (Egypt), November 8, 2012.
[13] Al-Watan (Syria), November 8, 2012.
[14] Teshreen (Syria), November 8, 2012.
[15] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), November 8, 2012.
[16], November 8, 2012.
[17] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), November 8, 2012.
[18], November 7, 2012.
[19] Al-Ayyam (PA), November 8, 2012.
[20], November 8, 2012.
[21], November 7, 2012.
[22], November 7, 2012.
[23], November 7, 2012.
[24], November 8, 2012.
[25], November 7, 2012.
[26] English edition of Al-Hayat (London), November 8, 2012.

© 1998-2012, The Middle East Media Research Institute All Rights Reserved.
Materials may only be cited with proper attribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)A time for courage, and action
By Caroline B. Glick

Mitt Romney wasn't a bad candidate. He ran a fairly strong race. He made a few errors. And he made many good moves. Certainly he was adequate. And he was probably the strongest Republican candidate among the primary field of contenders. That is, he was the best man available to run against Barack Obama. And he did a pretty good job.
Obama on the other hand, was a horrible candidate. He was mean and vindictive. He was contemptuous and superficial. He ran on irrelevancies like abortion and a fictitious Republican war against women. He didn't give his supporters any reason to feel good about themselves. Instead, he used class warfare to stir them to hatred of their countrymen.
Yet Obama won. And Romney lost.
In retrospect it is possible that the race was over before it began. A strong case can be made that Obama secured his reelection in 2009 when he bailed out the US auto industry and so temporarily stanched the hemorrhage of jobs in Ohio and Michigan. And maybe, with the youth of the 1960s now the Medicare recipients of the 2010s and 20s, there are simply too many Americans dependent on government handouts to care about what happens in the future.
An equally strong case can be made that Romney lost the election before he secured the Republican nomination. He may have squandered his chances when he took a strong position against illegal immigration in one of the early Republican primary debates and so arguably made winning Florida, and perhaps Colorado a mathematical impossibility.

Many have argued that demography is destiny. And the American electorate has changed tremendously in the past decade. Government dependency among the white working class has grown. Government dependency among an aging population and a rising tide of single-parent families has grown. And the Latino share of the vote has grown. Today some are arguing that Republicans today simply cannot win the presidency, regardless of their candidate.

All of this is important because for the past four years, most Republicans, and most non-leftists throughout the world had been hoping that the Obama years would be an aberration. They had hoped and trusted that he would be a one-term president. All the policies he enacted during that term, on domestic and foreign policy alike would be reversed by his Republican successor, elected by voters who understood they had been taken in by a huckster in 2008. The US economy — the anchor of US power and the engine of the international financial system — would come roaring back.
In international affairs, the US would reverse course. It would stop supporting the rise of its enemies from the Middle East to Asia to Latin America. It would embrace its allies. The former would be weakened. The latter would be secured and strengthened. America would be safe and defended.
Alas, apparently it could not be. The American spirit has been overwhelmed by the European model of social democracy at home and appeasement and treachery abroad.
But all the dependency champions who celebrated on Tuesday night cannot stop the coming storm. The greatest advantage Obama had going into the election was not demography but the fact that the full consequences of his statist economic policies and his pro-jihadist foreign policy have not yet been felt.
Nationalized healthcare will only be fully implemented in 2014. Americans will only begin watching old men and women die because the federal government denied them lifesaving, but expensive treatments a year from now. They will only lose their doctors due to dwindling Medicare reimbursements in a year.
College students who got out the vote for Obama will only find themselves doomed to low-paying jobs and a life of indebtedness as they fail year in and year out to pay off their college loans, in a year or two. And by the time they realize what it means to be saddled with a national debt of $16 trillion, they will be locked into a government-controlled economy that requires them to keep their silence or lose their livelihoods.
Then there are the consequences of Obama's foreign policies. The attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi exposed the failure of his strategy of appeasing jihadists and had the potential to sink his presidency by turning suburban voters against him in places like Pennsylvania. But lucky for him, the Benghazi debacle was small enough for the media to hide from the electorate.
Sure a US ambassador and three others were murdered. But four is not a very large number. And it was over in a day.
It will be harder for Obama to contain the damage of his foreign policy when Iran gets nuclear weapons and begins molesting US shipping in the Persian Gulf as gas prices rise to $10 a gallon. It will be harder for Obama to hide the effect of his foreign policy when American tourists in Egypt are massacred or held hostage and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood government demands the release of the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in exchange for intervention.
It will be harder for Obama to hide the dangers of his foreign policy when the Taliban return to power in Afghanistan and Al Qaida rebuilds its training camps. It will be harder for Obama to blame his failure on hapless American filmmakers when Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is controlled by a Taliban-aligned government that seeks a nuclear war with India. It will be harder for Obama to protect America with a gutted, demoralized military, demobilized under his command.
Rather than contend with these calamities, Obama and his statist, pro-Islamist supporters and advisors will blame their critics. Just as they blamed — and jailed — an American filmmaker for Ambassador Stevens' murder, so they will blame overworked doctors, struggling hospital administrators, "partisan" lawmakers and "Islamophobic, neoconservative warmongers," for the domestic decline and international mayhem Obama's policies will necessarily cause.
With the critical election lost, Republicans have a very hard and thankless task before them. They have to do the hard work of opposing his policies with dwindling resources. They have the job of energizing, inspiring and expanding a base that is demoralized. They have the job of explaining to wavering citizens why the Republican alternative puts America on the right track.
Conservatives need to prepare the ground for their return to power. They need to make the arguments for ending the welfare state. They need to make the arguments for destroying the ascendant — politically savvy — forces of jihad at home and abroad. They need to argue against defense cuts even as the Obama-appointed Joint Chiefs of Staff abandon strategic reason for personal promotions.
And they need to write the books, produce the movies, found the television stations, and prepare the school curricula that will enable a future resurrection of the American dream.
As most people know, Israel, as the forward base of freedom in the Muslim world, is the first target of the Obama-supported, ascendant forces of jihad. As a consequence, Israel will be the first to feel the repercussions of Obama's policies of appeasement and empowerment of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Certainly, this is a horrible situation. But just as demographics have changed America, so they are changing Israel. Rising anti-Semitism and economic decline in Europe have dramatically increased immigration rates to Israel and those rates will only grow as the situation on the continent worsens. In contrast to the rest of the West, Israelis have become more religious, readier to embrace the free market and more eager to compete in talent and productivity. While Americans have joined Europe in dwindling fertility rates, Israelis have matched the fertility levels of their Arab neighbors.
Israel's demographic and economic power have been largely ignored and undervalued. But the time has come to use them for all they are worth. As America enters its age of dependency and decline, Israel must end its age of dependency on America and begin to depend on itself. That does not mean that Israel won't cooperate with America. But as America's foreign policy becomes indistinguishable from Europe's, Israel will increasingly need to take its fate in its own hands.
We need to expand the size of the IDF ground forces. We need to expand the size of the Navy. We should reinstate the Lavi jetfighter project. We need to expand our independent offensive missile programs, developing a serious cruise missile arsenal. And we need to promote a new generation of generals that is not psychologically dependent on their American counterparts.
As for the Palestinians, and the international, leftist anti-Israel cottage industry that supports and feeds off of them, the time has come to take our demographic advantage for a spin. As we decrease our psychological dependence on America, we need to increase our trust in ourselves. We need to staunchly defend and assert our rights to our land. And we must exercise our right to defeat those who deny our rights and seek our national destruction.
In other words, we need to begin applying Israeli law in Judea and Samaria.
True, talk is cheap. We can expect — indeed we were warned to expect — for Obama to turn on Israel immediately after the election. Obama can be expected to dispatch his political advisors to Israel to run the Left's electoral campaign with the goal of defeating Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and paving the way for the return to power of the socialist, appeasement crazed Israeli Left. We can expect the State Department, (under the guidance of New Israel Fund alumni) to renew its attacks against Israel's religious institutions and the Jews of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. We can expect the US to abandon us at the UN. We can expect the US military to undermine any Israeli strike against Iran.
No one said any of this will be easy. But difficult is not the same as impossible. Within a year, the consequences of Obama's failed domestic and foreign policies will make him weaker rather than stronger than he was in his first term. He will be hard pressed to pressure Israel when the US loses its leadership role in the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Middle East. And Israel's independence of action will consequently grow.
Our side suffered a massive loss on Tuesday.
But as long as we keep our minds and hearts focused on the fundamental goodness and truth that guide our path, we will not be defeated. We will endure, persevere and in due course, we will be vindicated.
Note to my readers: I am currently writing a book in which I describe the strategic course Israel and the US should take in relation to the Palestinians. To complete my work in a timely fashion, I am taking a leave of absence from my column until next spring. 
4)-Election behind him, Obama to talk "fiscal cliff

Newly re-elected President Obama will use a White House appearance to set the tone for upcoming talks with congressional Republicans on avoiding the so-called fiscal cliff.
Republicans continue to draw a line in the sand against higher tax rates for upper-income earners as they seek to topple the conventional wisdom that Mr. Obama has the upper hand in upcoming negotiations on averting the potentially economy-crippling set of tax increases and automatic spending cuts due to hit in January.
Mr. Obama faces a tough, core decision: Does he pick a fight and risk a prolonged impasse with Republicans, or does he rush to compromise and risk alienating Democrats still celebrating his victory?
Many of his Democratic allies hope Mr. Obama will take a hard line when he addresses the matter Friday. Republicans warn that a fight could poison efforts for a rapprochement in a bitterly divided Capitol and threaten his second-term agenda.
Mr. Obama has been silent since his victory speech early Wednesday morning, but Capitol Hill Republicans have filled the vacuum with vows to stand resolutely against any effort by the president to fulfill a campaign promise to raise the top two income tax rates to Clinton-era levels.
"Raising tax rates is unacceptable," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, declared Thursday on ABC. "Frankly, it couldn't even pass the House. I'm not sure it could pass the Senate."
A lot is at stake. A new Congressional Budget Office report on Thursday predicted that the economy would fall into recession if there is a protracted impasse in Washington and the government falls off the fiscal cliff for the entire year. Though most Capitol-watchers think that a long deadlock is unlikely, the analysts say such a scenario would cause a spike in the jobless rate to 9.1 percent by next fall.
Some analysts believe that the fiscal cliff is more like a fiscal slope, and that the economy could weather a short-term expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts and that the government could manage a wave of automatic spending cuts for a few weeks. But at a minimum, going over the fiscal cliff would mean delays in filing taxes and obtaining refunds and would rattle financial markets as the economy struggles to recover.
The CBO analysis says the cliff -- a combination of automatic tax increases and spending cuts -- would cut the deficit by $503 billion through next September, but that the fiscal austerity would cause the economy to shrink by 0.5 percent next year and cost millions of jobs.
The new study estimates that the nation's gross domestic product would grow by 2.2 percent next year if all Bush-era tax rates were extended and would expand by almost 3 percent if Mr. Obama's 2 percentage point payroll tax cut and current jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed were extended as well.
All sides say that they want a deal and that now that the election is over everyone can show more flexibility than in the heat of the campaign.
Mr. Obama isn't expected to offer specifics immediately. His long-held position -- repeatedly rejected by Republicans -- is that tax rates on family income over $250,000 should jump back up to Clinton-era levels.
Republicans say they're willing to consider new tax revenue, but only through drafting a new tax code that lowers rates and eliminates some deductions and wasteful tax breaks. And they're insisting on cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps, known as entitlement programs in Washington-speak.
The current assumption is that any agreement would be a multistep process that would begin this year with a down payment on the deficit and on action to stave off more than the tax increases and $109 billion in across-the-board cuts to the Pentagon budget and a variety of domestic programs next year.
The initial round is likely to set binding targets on revenue levels and spending cuts, but the details would probably be enacted next year.
While some of that heavy work would be left for next year, a raft of tough decisions would have to be made in the next six weeks. They could include the overall amount of deficit savings and achieving agreement on how much would come from revenue increases and how much would be cut from costly health care programs, the Pentagon and the day-to-day operating budgets of domestic Cabinet agencies.
Democrats are sure to press for a guarantee that tax reform doesn't end up hurting middle-income taxpayers at the expense of upper-bracket earners. Republicans want to press for corporate tax reform and a guarantee that the top rate paid by individuals and small businesses goes down along the way.
5)Blacklist the United Arab Emirates
by Avi Jorisch
US News & World Report

The security of many countries is being endangered by the United Arab Emirates, a confederation of seven small states located in the Arabian Peninsula. Usually considered a Western ally, this false friend also serves as a regional financial hub for mob figures, arms dealers, drug traffickers, jihadis and rogue regimes. The White House and the Financial Action Task Force—set up by the G7 to combat money laundering and terrorism financing (ML/TF) —have so far failed to take action to stop this emerging threat.
The UAE possesses an advanced, regulated, but lightly enforced financial services sector. It is a cash-based society and a heavy trader of precious metals, especially gold and diamonds. This, combined with the widespread use of hawala, an informal banking system often abused by rogue actors, makes the Emirates a cesspool of illicit activity. The country is also home to several banks blacklisted by the United States and UN for aiding terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Rogue actors exploit these traits to move their money around the world, virtually without obstacles.
While gold and diamond smuggling has been somewhat curbed in certain regions of the world, it is still rampant in the Emirates. Dubai, the emirate that was the world's fifth-largest diamond center in 2007, maintains a reputation as a diamond and gold smuggling center. Its trade zones and tax-free status make it a convenient center for diamond dealers to launder profits and avoid taxes in their home markets.
The UAE's waterways are also abused. Dubai's port has been aptly dubbed "Smugglers Creek" because of its multitude of rarely inspected dhows—wooden boats used to transport goods—which ply the Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean and eastern Africa.
The UAE continues to host Iranian financial institutions complicit in supporting terrorism and spreading nuclear weapons. Iranian banks blacklisted by the UN andU.S., including SepahMelli and Saderat, havebranches in the UAE, which use apparently legitimate trade with the Emirates to circumvent sanctions and controls on currency and the export of capital. It is worth nothing that several hundred thousand Iranians reside in Dubai, and that, as of 2008, more than 10,000 Iranian-run businesses operated there.
In its final report, the 9/11 Commission identified the UAE as an important node in financing the September 11th attacks. Before the attacks, al-Qaeda had moved money around the world using the UAE-based al-Barakat hawala network. Moreover, a UAE money changer transferred funds to hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi. Two of Osama bin Laden's sisters also reportedly used the UAE to smuggle cash to him in Afghanistan, while one of his financial chiefs, Shaykh Said, lived in Dubai and wired money to three of the terrorists before the attack.
Before his arrest in 2008, notorious arms dealer Victor Bout also operated out of the UAE, delivering cargos ranging from surface-to air missiles to fresh-cut flowers to clients like the Taliban, Muammar al-Qaddafi, Hizbollah, and various UN humanitarian missions.
While the Emirates has taken steps to enhance its efforts to counter ML/TF, its ability—and desire—is still limited. The UAE recently signed agreements with 40 countries to facilitate cooperation and information sharing, and the Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA) released lengthy guidance on how firms can become fully compliant with the UN's Iran sanctions. But the country as a whole still provides the Islamic Republic with a critical gateway to hard currency, goods and services, and free use of many of its shipping ports.
What can be done? To start, the UAE should increase the resources devoted to ML/TF investigations. The Emirates' Anti-Money-Laundering Suspicious Cases Unit must improve its financial-information-sharing capability to conform to international standards. Furthermore, the law enforcement community is notorious for simply looking the other way. Policymakers should make it a priority to address this issue.
One international organization that can play a helpful role is the Financial Action Task Force. The FATF's official policy is to blacklist countries that pose a significant risk to the international financial system. Historically, once a country or jurisdiction has been blacklisted, financial institutions and good corporate citizens have been reluctant to do business with, or in, these locations. Blacklisted countries that refuse remedial action have at times lost significant international investment as a result. Blacklisting the UAE could very well force it to change its policies and procedures and implement more robust controls.
The White House and Treasury Department have warned foreign jurisdictions, banks and companies that if they help money launders and terrorism financiers that they could lose access to U.S. markets. Washington could consider using a special provision of the Patriot Act—Section 311—to designate the UAE a "Primary Money-Laundering Concern." At a minimum, the Treasury should issue a financial advisory underscoring its role in providing illicit actors access to the international financial market.
Money laundering and terrorism financing transcend borders. Those involved in them constantly adapt their techniques, while law enforcement and intelligence agencies struggle to keep pace. In this equation, the Emirates for too long has been part of the problem, not the solution.
6)This is attributed to Tytler and Prentis…

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

·         From bondage to spiritual faith;
·         From spiritual faith to great courage;
·         From courage to liberty;
·         From liberty to abundance;
·         From abundance to selfishness;
·         From selfishness to complacency;
·         From complacency to apathy;
·         From apathy to dependence;
·         From dependence back into bondage.
7)-- The Mass Firings Begin
Stella Paul

Obama was "fired up" and so were the voters, and so now, the mass firings begin. Here's a collection of today's headlines.  Please say a prayer for the families who will be suffering. Had Romney won, many of these companies would now be hiring.

Teco Coal officials announce layoffs

Momentive Inc plans temporary layoffs for 150

Wilkes-Barre officials to announce mandatory layoffs

600 layoffs at Groupon

More layoffs announced at Aniston Weapons Incinerator

Murray Energy confirms 150 layoffs at 3 subsidiaries

130 laid off in Minnesota dairy plant closure

Stanford brake plant to lay off 75

Turbocare, Oce to lay off more than 220 workers

ATI plans to lay off 172 workers in North Richland Hills

SpaceX claims its first victims as Rocketdyne lays off 100

Providence Journal lays off 23 full-time employees

CVPH lays off 17

New Energy lays off 40 employees

102 Utah miners laid off because of 'war on coal', company says

US Cellular drops Chicago, cuts 640 jobs

Career Education to cut 900 jobs, close 23 campuses

Vestas to cut 3,000 more jobs

First Energy to cut 400 jobs by 2016

Mine owner blames Obama for layoffs (54 fired last night)

Canceled program costs 115 jobs at Ohio air base

AMD trims Austin workforce - 400 jobs slashed

100 workers lose jobs as Caterpillar closes plant in Minnesota

Exide to lay off 150 workers

TE Connectivity to close Guilford plant, lay off 620

More Layoffs for Major Wind Company (3,000 jobs cut)

Cigna to lay off 1,300 workers worldwide

Ameridose to lay off hundreds of workers

No comments: