---
He has an excuse!
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
we all age
.jpg)
---
I would doubt China would allow matters to get out of hand but you never know when you are dealing with a nut case.
Obama faces an escalation of war in Syria and a spilling into Lebanon. Resurgence in Afghanistan as we prepare to leave, Iran presses forward and then there is N Korea. That should keep Obama busy as he tours the nation telling us the government must restrict gun ownership, allow government to control our health services and increase our taxes while limiting our ability to become energy independent.
Let's face it, all these problems are the direct result of GW's Texas drawl and Israel building houses.
And is it not about time for Obama to take another golfing vacation?.(See 1 below.)
---
Following Europe makes sense if you want to be like Europe.
Europe is mostly irrelevant and Obama is making America pretty much the same way.:
| WHAT'S NEW ON PJTV | |
|
In addition to shrinking GDP, high unemployment rates are slamming Europe. Are there lessons from the Eurozone’s fiscal crisis that the United States must heed? What reforms should our government enact to reduce the debt and welcome an economic renaissance? Lt. Col. Allen B. West talks with Terry Jones of Investor’s Business Daily and John Phillips about the current global debt crisis. Find out what it will take to turn things around for the next generation."
----
Leave the word marriage alone and go find another name for relationships between those of the same sex.
Re-defining words carries unintended consequences and is a slippery slope business. (See 2 below.)
---
And if we can change the meaning of marriage why not change the meaning of the word no -preconditions? (See 3 below.)
---
Athens is a magnificent college town in Georgia. "The list of homes on the Azalea tour:
---
You did not earn that and Obama's government likes to disincentivize so it can spread the wealth and distribute your sweat to others. (See 4 below.)
---
Irish teachers seem to have it in for Israelis. (See 5 below.)
---
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)US Preparing for Possible Further NKorea Actions
The top U.S. military officer said Sunday the Pentagon had bolstered its missile defenses and taken other steps because he "can't take the chance" that North Korea won't soon engage in some military action.
Heightened tensions with North Korea led the United States to postpone congressional testimony by the chief U.S. commander in South Korea and delay an intercontinental ballistic missile test from a West Coast base.
North Korea, after weeks of war threats and other efforts to punish South Korea and the U.S. for joint military drills, has told other nations that it will be unable to guarantee diplomats' safety in the North's capital beginning Wednesday.
U.S. Gen Martin Dempsey, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman who just wrapped up a visit to Afghanistan, was asked in an Associated Press interview whether he foresees North Korea taking military action soon.
"No, but I can't take the chance that it won't," he said, explaining why the Pentagon has strengthened missile defenses and made other decisions to combat the potential threat.
Dempsey said the U.S. has been preparing for further provocations or action, "considering the risk that they may choose to do something" on one of two nationally important anniversaries in April — the birth of North Korean founder Kim Il Sung and the creation of the North Korean army.
U.S. Gen. James Thurman, the commander of the 28,000 American troops in South Korea, will stay in Seoul as "a prudent measure" rather than travel to Washington to appear this coming week before congressional committees, Army Col. Amy Hannah said in an email Sunday to the AP.
Thurman has asked the Senate Armed Services Committee, the House Armed Services Committee, and the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense to excuse his absence until he can testify at a later date.
Dempsey said he had consulted with Thurman about the rising tensions on the Korean peninsula.
Dempsey said both Thurman and South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Gen. Jung Seung-jo, decided it would be best for them to remain in Seoul rather than come to Washington. The Korean general had planned to meet with Dempsey, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, in mid-April for regular talks.
Dempsey said that instead of meeting in person with Thurman and Jung in Washington, they will consult together by video-teleconference.
The Pentagon has postponed an intercontinental ballistic missile test that was set for the coming week at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, a senior defense official told the AP on Saturday.
The official said U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel decided to put off the long-planned Minuteman 3 test until April because of concerns the launch could be misinterpreted and exacerbate the Korean crisis. Hagel made the decision Friday, the official said.
North Korea's military said this past week that it was authorized to attack the U.S. using "smaller, lighter and diversified" nuclear weapons. North Korea also conducted a nuclear test in February and in December launched a long-range rocket that could potentially hit the continental U.S.
The U.S. has moved two of the Navy's missile-defense ships closer to the Korean peninsula, and a land-based system is being deployed to the Pacific territory of Guam later this month. The Pentagon last month announced longer-term plans to strengthen its U.S.-based missile defenses.
The defense official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the Minuteman 3 test delay and requested anonymity, said U.S. policy continues to support the building and testing of its nuclear deterrent capabilities. The official said the launch was not put off because of any technical problems.
Dempsey said he was not familiar with details of the Minuteman decision because he was traveling in Afghanistan.
But, he said, "it would be consistent with our intent here, which is to do what we have to do to posture ourselves to deter (North Korea), and to assure our allies. So things that can be delayed should be delayed."
A South Korean national security official said Sunday that North Korea may be setting the stage for a missile test or another provocative act.
Citing North Korea's suggestion that diplomats leave the country, South Korean President Park Geun-hye's national security director said the North may be planning a missile launch or another provocation around Wednesday, according to presidential spokeswoman Kim Haing.
In Washington, an adviser to President Barack Obama said "we wouldn't be surprised if they did a test. They've done that in the past."
Aide Dan Pfeiffer told ABC's "This Week" that "the key here is for the North Koreans to stop their actions, start meeting their international obligations, and put themselves in a position where they can achieve what is their stated goal, which is economic development, which will only happen if they rejoin the international community."
He told "Fox News Sunday" that "the onus is on the North Koreans to do the right thing here," adding that "they are the source of the problem and the only way to solve this is for them to take a step back."
If they don't, there will be consequences, Pfeiffer said.
"They will be able to further isolate themselves in the world, they will continue to further hurt themselves. The North Korean people are starving because of actions like the ones North Koreans are taking right now."
U.S. Sen. John McCain said the North's young leader, Kim Jong Un, is playing a game of brinksmanship.
"In the past we have seen this repetitious confrontation, negotiation, incentives to North Korea to better behave, hopes that they will abandon their nuclear quest — which they never will, otherwise, they'd be totally irrelevant," McCain told CBS' "Face the Nation."
"And so we've seen the cycle over and over and over again, for last 20 or 30 years. They confront. There's crisis. Then we offer them incentives — food, money. While meanwhile the most repressive and oppressive regime on earth continues to function," he added.
McCain said China "does hold the key to this problem. China can cut off their economy if they want to."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Definition Of Marriage; What Can We Learn From Islam?
Before America embarks on changing the concept of marriage, I hope they will at least agree on examining cultures that do not define marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman. In their eagerness to achieve their goals, the pro gay marriage enthusiasts are marching towards what they perceive as progress and modernity while ignoring lessons from other cultures, history, basic human nature and the horrific and negative unintended consequences of redefining "marriage".
Islam's definition of marriage is one man and up to four women where loyalty in the marriage is required only from the woman towards the man, but not necessarily from the man towards the woman. In the Egyptian Muslim marriage contract, the groom is asked to give name and address of wife number one, two and three, if any. It is as easy for a Muslim man to legally have a second, third or fourth wife as it was for him to have his first. It is true that the majority of Muslim men choose to have one wife, but the mere existence of a law that does not restrict men to one wife has had devastating consequences on the healthy functioning of the family unit, balance of power in the marriage, women's rights and self esteem, children security, gender segregation in the society as a whole and how a man and woman relate to one another.
If we are to have a fair resolution to the heated discussion about re-defining marriage we need to keep the discussion respectful and honest without resorting to name-calling or hate speech. It is wrong and reckless to call those who want to preserve the word "marriage" to one-man/one-woman unions, as anti- gay or haters. It is a fact, that legally, biologically, culturally and in many other ways, the union between a man and a woman is very different from one between two men or two women and there is nothing we can do to change that. By insisting on giving the two different forms of union the same name "marriage" we are denying the major difference that the one-man/one-woman marriage is self sufficient and does not need assistance of a third party to produce children. That is legally and biologically very different. The union is different, period. Consequently, since it is not the same, we should not give it the same name, but we can give gay couples all the legal benefits and respect they deserve without hurting traditional marriage.
I lived the first 30 years of my life in a gender-segregated society that allowed polygamy where the concept of marriage was not restricted to one-man and one-woman. One of the consequences of polygamous Islamic society was a gender-segregated society where women dealt with women and men with men and not much communication nor interaction between the sexes except for procreation.
The modern day feminist movement of the sixties has sold women untruths that resulted in a crack in men/women relationships in America and a generation or two of unmarried American women with PhDs but who never married nor had any children. Men felt unneeded and were shamed by sexual harassment of women resulting in the decline and deterioration of the 'dating' institution in America.
I have nothing but love and respect for good people, straight or gay. But that does not mean that I will allow myself to be fooled into thinking there will be no unintended consequences if we use the word 'marriage' for gay couples. The far left in America is promoting gay relationships as no different in any way from straight relationships and that is untrue and will only bring about a gender-segregated society that will hurt women more than men. Whether we like it or not, women will always end up with the babies and with segregating men and women further through gay marriage, we are pushing men further into becoming mere sperm donors. Men's role in raising and supporting children will be further hampered with gay marriage, unless gay marriage societies develop laws forcing sperm donors to support children they biologically fathered under penalty of jail. Another fact we cannot ignore, common sense tells us that a female sexual partner of a woman cannot be expected to legally support the child of her lover? What a mess we are getting ourselves into by insisting on using the term "marriage" for gay couples?
By calling gay unions 'marriage', the gender divide and male alienation in the family and child rearing will grow even deeper. To who's benefit is it if we see Western society segregated by sex? Are we on our way towards a two-female family household neighborhoods or two-male family household neighborhoods? Will there be any taboos developing to prevent the sexes from communicating or mixing? Think this is crazy imagination from a woman who lived and suffered in a gender-segregated society? The American left should be careful what they wish for... we might get more than what we bargained for.
Nonie Darwish Author "The Devil We Don't Know" and President of Former Muslims United.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jonathan Tobin
A gaggle of presumably well-meaningmachers are at it yet again
In the aftermath of President Obama's ringing affirmation of Zionism and Jewish rights during his visit to Israel last month, many of his liberal Jewish supporters are justifiably feeling vindicated. But after years of backing Obama and sniping at Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, some of them are having a little trouble fully understanding the administration's moves. While the president also called on Israeli students to pressure their government to make peace, he also reversed course on one of the key elements of his Middle East policy during his first term. When speaking with Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas, Obama pointedly said that settlements were not the obstacle to peace and that no preconditions should be expected of the Israelis in order to entice the PA back to the negotiating table.
These comments, which received far less play than the president's Jerusalem speech about peace, represented a significant policy shift. After four years of demanding Israel freeze settlements as well as make other concessions prior to talks, Obama put himself on the same page as Netanyahu when it came to the question of Israel being asked to ante up and virtually guarantee that it would abandon its bargaining chips prior to negotiations.
Yet somehow many of the president's backers haven't quite assimilated this message
That was made clear in a letter to Netanyahu organized by the Israel Policy Forum that rounded up many of the usual liberal suspects who have periodically urged Obama to save Israel from itself. While respectful and, for a change, not containing any specific criticisms of Netanyahu's government and even throwing him a bouquet for his phone call with Turkey's leader (which they foolishly accept as a "rapprochement" even after the Turks have already reneged on their promises to normalize relations), the group of 100 prominent American Jews did call on Jerusalem to make "concrete confidence building steps designed to demonstrate Israel's commitment to a 'two-states for two peoples' solution." In other words, in spite of the signals from Obama that the ball is in the Palestinians' court as far as resuming talks, the IPF's signees are still reflexively attempting to put the onus on Netanyahu.
It bears remembering that, as even the president pointed out in his peace speech, Israel has already demonstrated its willingness to make what the letter called "painful territorial sacrifices for the sake of peace." As the IPF and its backers know all too well the reason why political parties that focused their platforms on the peace process were marginalized in the January election is that the overwhelming majority of Israeli voters understand what happened after Oslo and the withdrawal from Gaza and have no interest in repeating these experiments in the West Bank, let alone Jerusalem.
All of which should cause one to wonder why such a gaggle of presumably well-meaning American Jews are still acting as if the absence of peace is the result of Israeli decisions. Like Obama's speech, their preaching about confidence building was addressed to the wrong leader.
Should the Palestinians ever decide to accept a peace settlement that would, as President Obama rightly insisted, recognize Israel as a Jewish state and definitively end the conflict, they would find that most Israelis would be willing to make great sacrifices to achieve such an end.
But with Hamas-run Gaza—the independent Palestinian state in all but name—continuing to be a base for rocket attacks on southern Israel and with the supposed moderates of the Fatah-run PA continuing to spew hate for Jews on their official media while avoiding peace talks for years, expecting confidence building measures from Netanyahu to make a difference requires a certain tunnel vision that is impervious to reality. Urging Israel, as this letter seems to do, to release more terrorists with blood on their hands from prison, make concessions on settlements or Jerusalem — the sort of measures that are usually considered appropriate to building Palestinian "confidence" — prior to even sitting down will only encourage more intransigence from Abbas, not peace moves.
With Secretary of State John Kerry in the region on yet another diplomatic fool's errand, advice from Americans about how Israel should be demonstrating its peaceful intentions is the sort of absurdity that we have come to expect from IPF and its ilk. With even President Obama demonstrating that after four years in office he's starting to catch on to the facts of life about the Middle East, would it be too much to ask that some of his Jewish supporters do the same?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)OBAMA BUDGET TO CAP RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS AT $3 MILLION
The budget President Barack Obama will submit on April 10 will contain a proposal that would prohibit individuals from accumulating more than $3 million in Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and tax-preferred retirement accounts.
According to a White House statement, the Obama administration believes the current rules allow some wealthy individuals "to accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving."
"The budget would limit an individual’s total balance across tax-preferred accounts to an amount sufficient to finance an annuity of not more than $205,000 per year in retirement, or about $3 million in 2013," the statement said. "This proposal would raise $9 billion over 10 years."
Brian Graff, executive director and chief executive officer of the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries, told Bloomberg News his group intends to "vigorously oppose" the proposal.
“It is a plan killer," Graff said. “As business owners reach the cap, they will lose their incentive to maintain a plan, and either shut down the plan or greatly reduce benefits. This would leave workers with a greatly diminished plan or without any plan at all.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Elliott Abrams
The Teachers Union of Ireland voted last week to commence a full boycott of Israel.
At its Annual Congress on Thursday 4th April 2013, the Teachers’ Union of Ireland (TUI) became the first academic union in Europe to endorse the Palestinian call for an academic boycott of Israel. The motion, which refers to Israel as an “apartheid state”, calls for “all members to cease all cultural and academic collaboration with Israel, including the exchange of scientists, students and academic personalities, as well as all cooperation in research programmes” was passed by a unanimous vote during today’s morning session.
Now, in the exchange of “scientists, students, and academic personalities” between Ireland and Israel it is perhaps not so difficult to guess who benefits. Israel is a world leader is science and high-tech, and any exchange must be entirely one-sided. So what the teachers have done is to cut themselves off from knowledge and advancement. Far worse, of course, they have deliberately tried to cut their students off.
The head of the Teachers Union, Jim Roche, added this comment:
Mr. Roche pointed to the desperate situation of Palestinian education under occupation saying that: “Palestinians are struggling for the right to education under extremely difficult conditions. They are eager for it, as shown by the large numbers of students in third level education inside and outside the occupied Palestinian territories. Education has always been a target of the Israeli occupation….”
A few facts. When Israel took over the West Bank in 1967 literacy was about 88 percent; now it is about 93 percent, according to the CIA Factbook. In Jordan, just across the river and with a large Palestinian population, it is almost exactly the same– which suggests that Israeli “targeting” of education isn’t working too well, or more likely that Mr. Roche is simply motivated by ignorance and hatred of Israel. It is also the case that according to UNICEF, the youth literacy rate in Jordan is 99 percent and in Gaza and the West Bank it is exactly the same, 99 percent. This is despite the fact that per capita income in Jordan is twice as high as it is in the West Bank and Gaza, suggesting again that Israeli “targeting” of education is a nonsensical accusation.
One could pile statistic upon statistic, but that would be a vain effort when it comes to minds like those of the members of the Teachers Union of Ireland, who voted unanimously on the boycott; not one soul had the wit or independence of mind to object or to question. One can only pity the poor Irish student who might think for himself or for herself, might wish to spend a term in Israel at a place like the Technion, and might not share in the biases of the teachers. The message from teachers to students is pretty clearly “shut up.” And meanwhile, of course, no mention (much less boycott) by the Irish teachers of China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba or anyplace else where students are “struggling for the right to education under extremely difficult conditions” that include repressive governments, no academic freedom, political tests for admission to higher education–and in the Saudi case greatly restricted opportunities for girls. What a lesson to their students: ignorance, bias, bigotry, narrow-mindedness, and anti-Semitism wrapped in self-righteousness.
No comments:
Post a Comment