skip to main | skip to sidebar

Middle East and Other Musings

Friday, February 28, 2014

Blake Abraham Nelson -Did Come Out! Gestapo and Not Given To Rash Accusations! Obama The Weakling!

Blake Abraham (named after my father) Nelson was born Friday and am told, as is typical in our family, has a full head of blond reddish hair.  All well. Picture to follow.

Dagny was taken to the hospital to see her baby brother and out of the mouths of babes came this - "he did come out."

When we return from our conference Tuesday we leave for Orlando on Wednesday.

Lynn is not a happy camper but she is going to D.C with me.
===
This from our dearest friend who just returned from Israel:

"We just returned form our annual trip to Israel and last night heard Ben Shapiro speak about this absurdity  of what happened at UCLA on the news. So many frustrations we feel as we witnessed first hand an open society in Israel and the liberties that the Israeli Arabs and Palestinians enjoy while living there.  Of course no place is perfect, but talking to our waiters  at the Hotel whose names were Ibraham, Farzad, and Osama told us their lives are so much better under Israeli control then otherwise in Palestine control. Friday night walking to dear friends house for a Shabbat meal Arab Israeli and Palestinians were picnicking in the park and having a beautiful evening...no guards, no soldiers around. Our friends lost electricity during dinner and one of the children went to find someone not Jewish to help with the situation as Jews are not to turn on electricity during Shabbat. She asked one of the Arab Israelis from the park to help...he came in and helped turn on the electricity...he wouldn't take food or money as a thank you...he said he only wanted Peace among everyone...he even said...Shabbat Shalom! We were all crying and realized there are so many that have been made pawns in this situation for so many years!!!! 

WE all want Peace to come from this tiny ., unbelievable country!!! 

We all need to stand up for what is right and fight these ignorant accusations...take a trip to Israel to see for yourself what is really happening there and be proud of Israel! I wonder how many who want divestiture have visited Israel and talked to people who really know what happens there? I agree with Ben Shapiro..it is all about hating the Jews...and many are Jews who are part of this!  

Sincerely.,
M----"
===
Kim Strassel discusses Obama and his IRS gumshoes.  Shades of the Gestapo? (See 1 below,)

I know Tom Price.  He is a fine public servant, measured in his viewpoints, a perfect mild courtly gentleman and reputedly and excellent doctor.  He is not given to rash accusations. (See 1a below.)
===
Sen. Boxer gets her ears boxed in this satirical video:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixiYZ9DPk8o&feature=youtu.be



Call Me Senator - From David Zucker









Meanwhile Politico suggests Biden has also received a slap down.  (See 2 below.)
===
Rationale for why oil prices will remain high.  (See 3 below.)
===
As I noted earlier Netanyahu and Kerry will be speaking at the conference we are attending.  Kerry will tell the audience what they want to hear and if those attending believe him they have only themselves to blame for their cupidity. (See 4 below.)
===
Russia has challenged Obama vis a vis Hillary's 'reset button wet noodle' foreign policy in Ukraine.

Netanyahu  do not trust Obama.  He is a weakling!
===
Dick.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)  Strassel: All the President's IRS Agents

The targeting of groups opposed to the Democratic agenda has not ended—it's gotten worse.


Few presidents understand the power of speech better than Barack Obama, and even fewer the power of denying it to others. That's the context for understanding the White House's unprecedented co-option of the Internal Revenue Service to implement a political campaign to shut up its critics and its opponents.
Perhaps the biggest fiction of this past year was that the IRS's targeting of conservative groups has been confronted, addressed and fixed. The opposite is true. The White House has used the scandal as an excuse to expand and formalize the abuse.
About a month after the IRS inspector general released his bombshell report about IRS targeting of conservative groups last May, Acting IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel unveiled a "plan of action" for correcting the mess. One highlight was that targeted groups would be offered a new optional "expedited" process for getting 501(c)(4) status.
The deal, which received little public attention, boiled down to this: We'll do our job, the IRS said, if you give up your rights. Those taking part in the "expedited" process had to agree to limit to 40% the amount of spending and time (calculated by employee and volunteers hours) they spend on political activity. Current 501(c)(4) rules allow political spending up to 49%, and have no "time" component. The clear point of the "deal" was to use the lure of 501(c)(4) approval to significantly reduce the political activity of targeted conservative groups going forward.
Enlarge Image
Getty Images
Some groups, desperate to get their tax exemption, took the deal. Others refused to be victimized twice. One of them is the Tea Party Patriots, run by Jenny Beth Martin, who told me that she didn't feel it was right that"every other 501(c)(4) would get to live under a different standard than those of us who had been targeted, and had been waiting for a determination for years." She let the deadline for using the expedited process pass.
Not long after, the IRS was back hounding the Tea Party Patriots with new requirements. In addition to re-demanding information that Ms. Martin's group had already supplied, the IRS insisted on new details, like the groups' fundraising letters from 2012. Cleta Mitchell, an attorney representing targeted groups, tells me one of her clients suffered the same fate. The IRS called to ask if the group would take part in its expedited process. When it turned down the IRS, the government agency hit the group with new questions about its activities. This all happened last summer.
As of last week, Ms. Martin's group had been waiting three years and three months for its 501(c)(4) letter. (Before Mr. Obama was president, the average time was three weeks.) The targeting has had its intended effect: Ms. Martin notes that supporters of her group have asked to be dissociated, for fear of their own IRS audit.
Now comes the fitting end to this spectacle. Late last week Ms. Martin's name appeared among those scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee this Thursday. On Wednesday, she got a call from the supposedly apolitical IRS. Her group's application for 501(c)(4) status? Suddenly, miraculously approved.
Politics is also guiding the Justice Department's alleged investigation of IRS abuses. The Oversight Committee held a separate hearing on Wednesday, at which legal experts laid out the ludicrously partisan nature of Justice's probe—including the choice of Barbara Bosserman, an Obama donor in the liberal civil-rights division, to handle it.
Ms. Mitchell, the attorney, was due to testify before the Oversight Committee Feb. 6. On Feb. 4, she filed her written testimony, which explained that nine months after this scandal broke, neither she nor her clients had yet to receive a phone call from the FBI or Justice. Three hours after filing, she told me, a Justice representative called, wanting to check on this targeting thing.
And now we have new IRS regulations, which will formalize the crackdown on 501(c)(4) political speech. The IRS has no business here—there is a bipartisan Federal Election Commission to enforce laws about political speech. But the FEC can't be controlled by the White House, and Democrats have been unable to pass new speech restrictions through Congress.
Democrats are instead fully vested now in using the IRS to shut down criticism by outside groups of ObamaCare, overspending or (ironically) the IRS targeting. Even liberal groups are howling about the White House's use of the IRS to silence political speech, and the House on Wednesday passed a bill to delay the regulations. The White House's response? A veto threat.
At a Senate Judiciary Committee markup Thursday morning, Texas's Ted Cruz offered an amendment to prohibit IRS employees from deliberately targeting individuals or groups based on political views. It was unanimously rejected by every member of the Democratic majority.
The IRS targeting was shocking because Americans expect that agency to be free of politics. In the age of Obama, that era is over. Only when Washington recognizes the IRS for the political tool it has become can it start to fix the problem

1a)  Rep. Tom Price: IRS Scandal 'Goes Straight to Lois Lerner'
By Lisa Barron




The House leadership will continue to press the Obama administration on the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups, GOP Rep. Tom Price of Georgia says.

Speaking to host J.D. Hayworth on "America's Forum" on Newsmax TV two days after the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee ordered former IRS official Lois Lerner to reappear at a hearing next week, Price said, "Darrell Issa and Dave Camp and [those of] us on Ways and Means are working through trying to get the information. The administration hasn't even provided the information that we have subpoenaed, that we've asked for from the IRS to see where this trail leads. I don't presume that the president was involved with this, but I do know that it wasn't a rogue element in an Ohio IRS office that made these decisions."

Lerner's lawyer said Wednesday that she will testify only in exchange for an immunity agreement. When she appeared before the committee last May, Lerner asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

"We know it goes straight to Lois Lerner, which is why I presume that she took the Fifth Amendment. But we're going to continue to, whether it's through a select committee or a special committee, whether it's through the committees of jurisdiction right now that the American people finally get the explanation for why the IRS was used in such a political manner. And it was and it's egregious and it's chilling and it absolutely must stop," Price said. 

Price has represented Georgia's 6th congressional district, based in the northern suburbs of Atlanta, since 2005. He previously served as chairman of the Republican Study Committee and the Republican Policy Committee, and he is currently vice chairman of the House Budget Committee.

The five-term congressman is also a medical doctor and staunchly opposes the IRS's role in the enforcement of Obamacare. 

"Look, the American people, as you well know, understand and appreciate that the Internal Revenue Service ought not have anything to do with our healthcare, and the fact is that they are expanding their role as we speak. Sarah Hall Ingram is a gal who is employed by the IRS and was in charge of the entity within the IRS that actually targeted conservative groups for further scrutiny under the 501(c)(4) issue. She's been transferred over the last year to be the enforcer for Obamacare within the IRS. So it's all intermingled. It's all the same thing. It's a huge overreach by the administration and we're not going to let up," Price said. 

"And, remember, it's important for folks out there to appreciate that the only reason that we know about the 501(c)(4), the non-profit targeting by this administration through the IRS, is because of Republican oversight. If that hadn't happened, we, as a nation, would never know about it. Now, it takes too long, but we're going to continue to work at it."

Turning to the rollout of the healthcare law, Price warned it will not improve with time. 

"Oh, no, the worst is yet to come and this will continue to roll out and it really is sad because, at this point, real people are getting harmed and not just in the healthcare arena, but from an economic standpoint as well," he said.

"As a physician, my former colleagues are just suffering under this and, now, not being able to provide the kind of care, in many instances, for the patients that they're charged with caring for and many, many patients across this land are now seeing that the networks of the physicians that they're able to see, the hospitals where they're able to be treated aren't eligible if they're on one of these exchanges, either a state or the federal exchange."

Asked how he addresses his constituents' frustration over Obamacare, Price replied, "Well, they understand. The American people understand that they've been lied to by the president. They can't keep the kind of coverage that they like in spite of the president's promise and the American people also understand that Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate won't allow the kind of positive reforms that need to be put into place to even come to the floor of the Senate."

But that won't stop Price and his fellow Republican lawmakers from trying, he vowed. "Now, we've got to keep harping on that and we've got to keep making certain that we're providing that positive contrast, which is why I, and many of my colleagues in the House, have put forward common sense solutions to the healthcare challenges that we face. In fact, we've got over 160 pieces of Republican legislation that address healthcare, some of them soup to nuts variety, some of them very targeted, but there are positive solutions that don't require putting Washington in charge," Price said.

"We believe in patient-centered healthcare which means patients and families and doctors making medical decisions, not Washington, D.C."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)  Obama Froze Biden Out After Gay-Marriage Gaffe
By Melanie Batley

Vice President Joe Biden's role in the administration was virtually frozen after he angered President Barack Obama in 2012 by announcing his support of gay marriage while the president was still on record opposing it.

In a profile of the 71-year-old in Politico Magazine, the presumed 2016 presidential hopeful talked about how he had been given "every s*** job in the world" from the start of the Obama presidency, but detailed how relations with the president came to a virtual standstill after the gaffe-prone politician pre-empted Obama's announcement that he had "evolved" on the issue.

"When the president asked me what portfolio did I want, I said, 'Base it on what you want of me to help you govern,'" Biden said he told Obama.

"'But I want to be the last guy in the room on every major decision … You're the president, I'm not, but if it's my experience you're lookin' for, I want to be the last guy to make the case."

But everything changed in 2012, after Biden announced his approval of gay marriage before the president took a public stand, the Politico report says.

Biden's announcement forced Obama to make his own public statement about gay marriage earlier than he would have liked.

Despite attempts to apologize to Obama that he did not intend to upstage the president on the issue, the president's inner circle suspected otherwise and became increasingly hostile toward him.

Biden started to be excluded from strategic planning meetings, while his schedule of public events was curtailed and in some cases canceled. Aides went so far as to interfere with Biden's staffing decisions, blocking two of his selections for chief of staff, according to the magazine.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Biden's top possible rival for the presidential race, appeared to step into the breach. Clinton, for example, appeared alongside Obama during the president's first television interview of his second term. The Biden team was also disgruntled that the White House didn't strongly refute the rumors that Clinton would be selected to replace Biden. 

As Biden considers a bid for the presidency, Clinton's lead is the widest ever recorded for a presidential frontrunner. The latest Washington Post/ABC Poll showed Clinton leading Biden by 73 percent to 12 percent. 

Biden, however, continues to be coy about whether he has made a decision to throw his hat into the ring, but according to Politico, every one of the dozen friends interviewed by the magazine predicted he would not decide to run in 2016.

"He's driven, that's the best way to put it," Bruce Reed, Biden's former chief of staff, told Politico. "He wants to be part of it all … It's not really ambition in the traditional sense. It's a restless energy, the desire to keep going … You never know what you are going to get."

"I honestly don't know what I'm going to do," Biden told Politico. "I'll make the decision after the [2014] midterms. I've got a lot on my plate."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)  Stock Volatility Seen Rising in Coming Sessions
By Dan Weil

While last year's torrid stock-market rally transpired amid very smooth trading, many experts expect more volatility this year.

Indeed, volatility spiked in January thanks to emerging market turmoil and tumbling U.S. stock prices. The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) peaked at 21.48 Feb. 3. It has since fallen back to 14.04, but many financial market participants expect it to rise.

The index measures expectations for fluctuation in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index.

"Given the prevailing economic uncertainty, the likelihood of continued Fed tapering and a still-fragile environment in emerging markets, we expect the relatively higher levels of equity market volatility to persist,” Russ Koesterich, global chief investment strategist at Blackrock, wrote in a recent commentary obtained by MarketWatch.

"To be clear, we are not forecasting unusually high levels of volatility. Rather, we anticipate volatility will continue to rise from what have been unusually low levels." Koesterich expects the VIX to return toward its long-term average of around 20.

Other factors that could boost volatility are China's economic deceleration and the potential for more trouble in emerging markets, strategists tell MarketWatch.

Gary Thayer, chief macro strategist at Wells Fargo Advisors, sees the potential for heightened volatility in stocks too.

"Investors now appear to favor defensive sectors rather than cyclical sectors," he writes in Barron's. "This suggests that investors are cautious. Consequently, sentiment is still probably fragile, and the risk of an increase in market volatility persists."

David Bianco, chief U.S. equity strategist at Deutsche Bank, also warns that volatility will return to the stock market this year after virtually a one-way market in 2013.

"The point is, we have a normalizing economy, [we're] returning to normalized earnings growth and we've returned to normal valuations," Bianco said in a briefing to journalists, CNBC reported. 

"That's not a big deal or a reason to be bearish. But I think you should be mindful that when you've got normal earnings growth and normal valuations, you're probably going to get normal volatility, and normal volatility is higher than what we've seen in 2013." 

Bianco believes the S&P 500 may well break 2,000 this year and then come back down to 1,850. The S&P 500 rose 9.13 points, or 0.5 percent, to 1,854.29. Its previous record high close was 1,848.38, set on Jan. 15.

Others anticipate increased volatility in 2014 too. "Although history doesn't demand that we have a 10 percent correction this year, I wouldn't be surprised to see one," Norman Conley, chief investment officer at JAG Capital Management in St. Louis, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)
Why Triple-Digit Oil Prices Are Here to Stay
By Frank Curzio, editor, Small Stock Specialist

If you believe oil prices are due for a correction, you may want to read this first…

Crude oil has had an amazing start to the year. Prices are up 8% and are now trading above the $100-a-barrel mark. Analysts in the media are talking about colder weather and political unrest in the Middle East as temporary reasons for the recent push higher.

But if you take a closer look at oil's global supply and demand, you'll see these triple-digit prices are here to stay.

Let me explain…

----------Recommended Link---------
Please Enable Images to See thisWhy one master trader is finally sharing his gold technique after 26 years
A unique way to make thousands of dollars a week on gold right now – without touching stocks – no matter WHERE the price goes next…Click here to learn more.
---------------------------------

Over the past few years, we've seen a massive boom in U.S. oil production. New technologies, like horizontal drilling and fracking, have allowed the U.S. to tap into incredible oil reserves that were unreachable less than a decade ago. I have gotten a close look at these technologies over the last 18 months in the Permian Basin,Eagle Ford, and the Bakken Shale.

These technologies have allowed the U.S. to produce more than 8 million barrels of oil a day. That's the most oil America has produced in over 25 years.

But despite this massive boom, the U.S. isn't even close to producing enough oil to meet current global demand. The world consumes over 92 million barrels of oil per day. The U.S. only produces about 11.5% of global consumption.

This is a big deal.

You see, most of the world (outside the U.S.) is having a tough time finding oil. I'm not suggesting the world is running out of crude. But the cost to produce a barrel of oil outside America is surging.

For example, according to the International Monetary Fund, the breakeven point to produce a barrel of oil in Russia is $110. The breakeven point to produce oil in Iraq, Iran, Algeria, and the United Arab Emirates is $90.

In short, if oil prices fall below $90 a barrel, these countries will not make money producing oil. That could result in a massive amount of supply coming off the market. And if oil prices fall below $80 a barrel, we could see production go offline in places like the Permian Basin and the Bakken Shale – which would further weaken supply.

And contrary to popular opinion, demand for oil is increasing. Many thought the economic slowdown in developed nations and China (the second-largest oil consumer in the world) would cut demand. But the data tell a different story.

China's imports for crude oil jumped 12% in January. That amounts to 6.6 million barrels a day – a record high.

Meanwhile, most of the developed nations are growing again. The U.S. economy is growing at its fastest pace since 2011. Manufacturing in Europe and Japan has been strong over the past few months. And we're seeing record global airplane and car sales. Airbus and Boeing, the two largest airplane manufacturers in the world, said orders are at record highs. And global car sales recently topped 80 million for the first time ever.

Oil prices are moving higher not because of temporary factors like weather and political concerns, but because of rising demand and supply concerns as oil companies have difficulty finding crude oil that's economical.

Unless these trends reverse, oil is likely to average triple-digit prices over the next few years. In other words, I would think twice before betting on a huge correction in oil prices.

Good investing,

Frank Curzio
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)
What Kerry needs to explain at AIPAC
By Jennifer Rubin

The American-Israeli Political Affairs Committee has once again tripped over itself, inviting to speak Secretary of State John Kerry to speak at its annual conference. (Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, whose department has actually been diligent in enforcing sanctions, was an understandable choice.

Kerry, of course, has bludgeoned Israel on settlements, talked cavalierly about boycotts should Israel not reach a peace deal with the Palestinians and made a perfectly awful interim agreement with Iran. But, but he’s secretary of State! Exactly why the person enabling a failing approach to Iran, Syria and the Middle East more generally shouldn’t be feted. AIPAC may be trying to butter up the administration, but the spectacle of Kerry presenting himself as a great defender of the Jewish state is gag-worthy.
Secretary of State John F. Kerry (Alastair Grant/Associated Press)
Secretary of State John F. Kerry (Alastair Grant/Associated Press)

If he is to come, AIPAC executives and/or other speakers should address a number of Kerry’s disastrous decisions, making clear that he is there because he occupies an important post, not because he is doing it well. They might ask him to explain:

Is our Syria policy a failure?

Was it a mistake to set a “red line” for the use of WMDs or a mistake to rub it out?

Was it smart to invite Russia into the WMD issue, given Vladimir Putin’s international aggression and support for Assad?

Is it a genocide? (Susan Rice said on Sunday it’s just a situation where a lot of people died.)

Do Kerry and his wife regret going to Syria to wine and dine the bloody dictator and his wife?

Why would you think Assad would come to Geneva and agree to give up power?

Was the president wrong when he said the fighting is someone else’s civil war?

Was it a mistake not to support Iran’s Green Revolution?

Is Iran’s economy recovering? Is it making more commercial deals, and will the value of the sanctions relief exceed what the administration projected?

Iran says — and the language of the deal suggests — that it will get to maintain the right to enrich. Is this wrong? And if so, how can a deal this important be so misunderstood?

Why did you agree to allow Iran to proceed with ballistic-missile development and advanced centrifuge research?

Iran says it won’t dismantle anything, so isn’t the interim deal a failure?

With fewer sanctions, why would Iran be more compliant?
If there is no deal within the six-month period, will you consider the talks a failure? Would you then support sanctions?

Are settlements the central issue in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute?
If the Palestinian Authority won’t recognize Israel as the Jewish state, what is the point of further talks?

Kerry should hear a loud and defiant response from the American Jewish community. The Obama policy, to the extent that he has one, is a failure. Guest or not, Kerry should hear so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Dick at 6:33 PM No comments:

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Obama Bests McCarthy!

I know I always say this is the last before I leave town but could not resist.
===
These are the people Obama has running the war he said was absolutely the right one and not the war Bush started in Iraq:

THESE ARE THE GUYS RUNNING THE SHOW IN AFGHANISTAN ...?
http://live.wsj.com/video/afghanistan-experts-stumped-by-simple-questions/854D3A1A-DBFE-4A78-8494-4E0422568E19.html
===
Status Quo in Asia by Stratfor analysts. (See 1 below.)
===
I am reposting what David Horowitz wrote.  Horowitz has what Patrician Republicans lack - a clear message, a strategy that calls the opposition's hand  and b----. 

Apathy is the greatest gift Republicans can give to Progressive Liberals. We have no one to blame but ourselves if we allow them to continue to destroy our nation with ideas that have proven wrong headed, absurdly costly and counterproductive.

Horowitz was a radical lefty during the Hippy Dippy Years and then he came to his senses and now is a superb spokesman for what is wrong with Democrats, their failed ideas and unworkable solutions and abject failures.

David Mamet is also another reformed Liberal and no longer drinks their Kool Aid and swallows their pap. 

As for Obama, he is the most dangerous politician to be elected to national office since Senator Mc Carthy. (See 2 below.)

More evidence of his failed presidency. (See 2a below.)
===
Dr.BenCarson must be a wonderful man and no doubt that is why Obama is having him instigated by one of our gum shoe government agencies.  How pathetic. (See 3 below)
===
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------On one level, Mr. Miller said, the president’s involvement is a promising sign, “because it shows he is more risk-ready.” On another, he said, it underscores the hurdles to even a “generalized framework,” which he said raised the question, “What is it going to take to get to a comprehensive deal if the president has to do heavy lifting?”
2. Acceding to US pressure, Israel has quietly frozen West Bank building outside the main settlement blocs, reports the Times of Israel.
IAEA3. As Iranian-Western relations thawed last year, the International Atomic Energy Agency opted to treat the Islamic republic’s nuke program with kid gloves. According toReuters, the IAEA was going to prepare a “major” report with new information about suspected bomb research — then made a political decision not to. So what info is the IAEA sitting on?
One source said probably only Israel, which is believed to be the Middle East’s sole nuclear-armed state, would criticise the IAEA for not issuing a new report in the present circumstances. Iran and the world powers hope to reach a final settlement by July, when the interim accord expires, although they acknowledge this will be an uphill task.
A decision not to go ahead with the new document may raise questions about information that the United Nations agency has gathered in the last two years on what it calls the “possible military dimensions” (PMD) to Iran’s nuclear programme.
===
Some meaningful trivia about our country and its flag.  (See 3 below.)
===
What a wonderful Dr. Ben Carson must be.  I am sure that is why Obama is having him investigated by some gum shoe government agency.  (See 4 below.)
===
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)The Asian Status Quo

By Robert D. Kaplan and Matt Gertken
Arguably the greatest book on political realism in the 20th century was University of Chicago Professor Hans J. Morgenthau's Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, published in 1948. In that seminal work, Morgenthau defines the status quo as "the maintenance of the distribution of power that exists at a particular moment in history." In other words, things shall stay as they are. But it is not quite that clear. For as Morgenthau also explains, "the concept of the 'status quo' derives fromstatus quo ante bellum," which, in turn, implies a return to the distribution of power before a war. The war's aggressor shall give up his conquered territory, and everything will return to how it was.
The status quo also connotes the victors' peace: a peace that may be unfair, or even oppressive, but at the same time stands for stability. For a change in the distribution of power, while at times just in a moral sense, simply introduces a measure of instability into the geopolitical equation. And because stability has a moral value all its own, the status quo is sanctified in the international system.
Let us apply this to Asia.
Because Japan was the aggressor in World War II and was vanquished by the U.S. military, it lay prostrate after the war, so that the Pacific Basin became a virtual American naval lake. That was the status quo as it came to be seen. This situation was buttressed by the decades-long reclusiveness of the Pacific's largest and most populous nation: China. Japanese occupation and civil war left China devastated. The rise to power of Mao Zedong's communists in 1949 would keep the country preoccupied with itself for decades as it fell prey to destructive development and political schemes such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. China was not weak, as the United States would discover in the Korean and Vietnamese wars and later turn to its advantage against the Soviets. But its revolution remained unfinished. The economy did not truly start to develop until the late 1970s, after Mao died. And only in the mid-1990s did China begin its naval expansion in a demonstrable and undeniable way. Thus the United States, in its struggle with the Soviets, got used to a reclusive China and a subordinate Japan. With these two certainties underlying the Cold War's various animosities, the United States preserved calm in its lake.
But the 21st century has not been kind to this status quo, however convenient it may have been for American interests. China's naval, air, cyber and ballistic missile buildup over the past two decades has not yet challenged U.S. military supremacy in the region, but it has encroached significantly on the previously unipolar environment. Moreover, to measure China's progress against U.S. supremacy is to neglect the primary regional balance of power between China and Japan. Tokyo, over the same time period, has come to see China as reaching a sort of critical mass and has accelerated its own military preparations, both in a quantitative and a qualitative sense. Recently, Tokyo has taken to trumpeting its abandonment of quasi-pacifism in order to adjust the world's expectations to what it sees as a new reality. Japan was already a major naval power -- it ranks fourth in total naval tonnage, has more destroyers than any navy besides that of the United States, and its technology and traditions give it a special edge. But now it is moving faster to loosen restrictions on its rules of engagement and to upgrade the capabilities it needs to defend its most distant island holdings.
While Beijing sees Japan's actions as aggressive, it is primarily China that is altering the status quo. No doubt Japan was once the region's most ambitious and belligerent power, and no doubt China cannot assume good intentions, but Japan's current military normalization has little in common with its 1930s militarization, and Tokyo is for the moment mostly reacting to Beijing. China, for instance, has largely succeeded in shaping a global narrative of a legitimate dispute over islands in the East China Sea. But Japan has controlled the Senkaku islands (known as Diaoyu in Chinese) for more than 40 years, and China has only recently asserted its claims. Japan's other territorial disputes, by contrast, show a continuation of the status quo: Russia administers the southern Kuril islands but sees Japan offering dialogue while moving military forces away from that border; South Korea controls the Liancourt Rocks, but any feared Japanese appetite for overturning that status quo remains in check by the Americans. Nor were Japan's sea-lanes under any conceivable threat of interference from China until recently. Keep in mind that Japan's supply line anxieties are inherent to its geopolitical position.
Indeed, in the eyes of the Pentagon, Japan now has every reason to tailor its military capabilities in order to take precautions against China's rise. For years U.S. defense officials have argued that a stronger Japan would help ensure China's peaceful ascent. Only a few years ago, defense officials and think tank analysts in Washington were fretting that the Japanese might not muster the courage to stand up to China. The explanation for all this is clear: Almost seven decades of U.S. military presence in Japan has created, on an emotional level, a powerful Japan lobby within the American military and on the Pentagon's E-Ring. This was further buttressed during the Rumsfeld years, when the United States encouraged Japan to spend billions of dollars on defending itself against North Korean missiles and to host a U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier strike group, despite Japan's neuralgic attitude toward nuclear weapons at the time. (See "What Rumsfeld Got Right," by Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic, July 2008.) From a purely geopolitical point of view, a more assertive Japan could someday revive an old threat to the United States, since both are maritime powers. But for now, Washington sees immediate benefits in Japan's growing willingness to defend itself rather than rely so heavily on the United States.
The real danger Japan poses to the Americans is that attempting to establish a formidable defensive posture could provoke China into a dangerous escalation that, in turn, could ensnare the United States in a confrontation with the latter.
While Japan reacts to a changing of the status quo, China is aware of its own role as an agent of change. Beijing knows that it is an emerging power. It knows that emerging powers disrupt the international system. But it needs to buy time, since it isn't ready to confront directly and unapologetically the American-led status quo in the Pacific. China's lack of readiness is heightened by the precarious consolidation of political power and economic reforms that the Xi Jinping administration has undertaken out of necessity. China thus seeks a "new kind of major country relationship," a phrase Chinese and American diplomats have taken to repeating, whereby the two countries will find some way of accommodating each other to China's military emergence without causing the disruption and conflict that history books suggest is inevitable. The problem with this rhetoric is that, as the Napoleonic Wars and World War I showed, the awareness that a collapsing status quo often precedes a bellum is not the same thing as collective action on all sides to reform the old status quo. Knowing theoretically what causes wars -- though good in and of itself and a prerequisite for prudent statecraft -- is not the same as sacrificing some portion of one's own interests to try to prevent them.
The United States must try both to accommodate rising Chinese power and to fortify U.S. allies in response to it. But it acts from a position of military security that Japan -- not to mention China's smaller neighbors -- cannot assume. Regardless of whether Japan overcorrects, the status quo in the Pacific is changing. And the stability of the region can no longer be taken for granted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Can the marriage between the Tea Party and the GOP survive?
By David Horowitz

My answer is: It better. The White House is occupied by a lifelong anti-American radical who has done more to bankrupt this nation’s economy, take us down as a military power, and destroy individual liberty than anyone would have thought possible in January 2009 when he took office. And it’s worse than that. Obama is the head of a Democratic party that has moved so far to the left over the last 46 years that it has become anti–free market, anti-individualist, anti-constitutionalist, and unready to defend America’s sovereign interests at home and abroad. We cannot afford to let such a party run our government for another four or eight years. The world cannot afford it.

So how do we hold together the conservative coalition opposing this national suicide? How do we make this marriage survive? First of all, by recognizing that the basic difference between the Tea Party and the Republican party is a matter of tactics and temperament, not policy and ideology. To understand what I mean by this, one has to go back to the flashpoint that has made the possibility of a Republican schism a topic of the day: the famous alleged government shutdown by tea-party hero Ted Cruz. I probably should acknowledge here that I am a huge fan of what the Tea Party represents, though not always what it does. I believe the emergence of the Tea Party is the most important political development in conservatism in the last 25 years, and is possibly the last best hope for our country.


The government shutdown was the alleged result of Senator Cruz’s filibuster of a continuing resolution to fund the government. In fact, the House had passed a resolution to fund the government but not Obamacare. In the Senate, however, Majority Leader Harry Reid stripped the Obamacare-funding ban from the bill. Cruz conducted a one-man filibuster to express his opposition, both to Reid and to the Republicans who voted to fund Obamacare rather than join him. And so Republicans attacked each other instead of the real culprits.

You might ask yourself this question: What would have happened if the Republican party and the Tea Party and the big PACs run by Rove and Koch had funded a $30 million campaign to put the blame on Obama and Reid, where it belonged? There was no such campaign. All the parties on our side failed to take the fight to the enemy camp. The finger-pointing that followed is just another example of the circular firing squad that we on the right are so good at and that continually sets us back.

Here’s a second important point that applies to all the frictions between tea partiers and Republican regulars. The conflict among the Right about the Obama shutdown was not about policy. It was about tactics. Every Republican in Congress is opposed to Obamacare, with no exceptions. Not a single Republican legislator voted for it. Not a single Republican legislator would support it. The issue is how best to defeat the Democrats and repeal a monstrous law — how to defeat the socialist party that now controls our government and is hell-bent on bankrupting our country, crippling our military, and destroying the culture of individualism and opportunity that has made this nation what it is.

Understanding that what divides us is tactical, not fundamental, is crucial to keeping the marriage alive. A tactical difference is no grounds for divorce.

Another important point to understand is that there is a difference between politics and policy. Republicans (and I would include conservatives and tea partiers) are good at policy; they are not so good at politics, which is the way one gets to make policy. Do we repeal Obamacare by obstructing it at every turn? Or do we repeal it by lying low until we have a majority and abolishing it at a stroke? And if we lie low, do we demoralize our troops, who see us as compromisers and appeasers, and in effect give up the chance of ever winning a majority and accomplishing our goal? These are the questions that divide us. They are legitimate questions and — excuse me for blurting this out — no one knows the answers. Politics is always a gamble. No one can be sure of what will succeed, which is why we have to respect each other and keep our coalition strong, even though we disagree.

I said we were not so good at politics. Actually we’re terrible at politics. Whenever a Republican and a Democrat square off it’s like Godzilla versus Bambi. They call us racists, sexists, homophobes, and selfish pigs, and we call them . . . liberals. Who’s going to win that argument? They spend their political dollars calling us names and shredding our reputations; we spend ours explaining why the complicated solutions we propose will work and why theirs won’t. But when you are being called a racist, an enemy of women, and a greedy SOB, who do you think is listening to your ideas about the budget? Who is going to believe you when all your motives are ulterior and degenerate?

This is the problem that not only Republicans, but also tea partiers and conservatives, have failed to address. It is why the Democratic party, which supports policies that are morally repugnant and have also failed on an epic scale, still wins elections. Medicare is bankrupt and a mess; Social Security is bankrupt and a mess; the War on Poverty is a trillion-dollar catastrophe that has created worse poverty than it was designed to cure — and yet Democrats can still win elections, and can pass the biggest socialist entitlement and redistributionist scheme ever and get away with it. Until Republicans and tea partiers start to fight fire with fire, this scenario is not going to change. Twenty-five years after the most oppressive empire in human history collapsed because socialist economics don’t work, 49 percent of American youth, according to a recent Pew poll, think socialism is a good system. That’s a political failure on our part. We won the Cold War, but we didn’t drive the stake through the Communist heart. As a result, the vampire of “social justice” has risen again.

Another way of looking at the problem is that the Republican party — like conservatives generally — is guided by a business mentality, whereas the Left’s mentality is missionary. Let me explain what I mean. Democrats, progressives, so-called liberals see themselves as social redeemers. They don’t approach social problems pragmatically, looking for ways to improve this situation or that, except as a political expedient. They approach social problems with an eye to changing the world. Hillary Clinton once told the New York Times that “we have to define what it means to be human in the 21st century.” No Republican or conservative in his right mind talks like that. On the eve of his election, Barack Obama said, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” People in their right minds don’t think like that. Unless they are progressives who believe that they are “on the side of history” and the “moral arc of the universe is bent towards justice.” That particular phrase is woven into a carpet that Obama has installed in the Oval Office.

Leftists are secular missionaries whose paradise is called “social justice.” The pursuit of social justice is why the Democratic party set out to radically transform a sixth of the American economy and regulate the health care of 300 million Americans from a website without the support of a single Republican and in the face of majority opposition from the people at large.


The Democratic party has become a dangerous party. It is driven by the missionary Left, backed by the billions of George Soros and his Shadow Partyfriends, and it regards politics as war conducted by other means. That is why Democrats can say — and believe — that Republicans are conducting wars against women, minorities, and the poor, while Republicans refer to them as liberals and patiently explain to them why their policies won’t work. If explaining why their policies won’t work were politically effective, they’d be out of business. Socialism doesn’t work, central planning doesn’t work. These ideas ruined whole continents. Why haven’t Democrats learned from that? It is because they are missionaries, and their politics is a religion that provides them with a meaning for their lives. They are the prophets of a social redemption, a future in which the meaning of being human has been redefined and social justice prevails.

Because their politics is inspirational, every failure along the way is regarded as a glitch. The cause is noble, and they cannot allow it to be derailed by a failure of any of its parts. After a century of corpses and ruined continents, “socialist” should be just another name for delusional. So should “progressive.” And yet these are the fantasies that drive the Democratic party today.

By contrast, a business mentality is pragmatic and its expectations modest. It is not looking to change the world we live in but to service the actual beings who inhabit it. It sets out to meet their needs within the parameters that are set by human capabilities and desires. When a businessman is delusional, when his expectations exceed the capacities of the marketplace, the market punishes him — and punishes him without mercy.

A business approach is fundamentally positive. To succeed it must meet the expectations of others. Where possible it wants to avoid conflict and the alienation of others; it is looking to maximize customers and expand markets, and therefore to make deals. A businessman would rather buy you out or merge with you than crush you. When obstacles present themselves, it is cheaper, and in the long run more productive, to compromise and find a way around them.

This is the mentality of our Washington insiders. A way of looking at the schism between the Tea Party and the Republican party is that the Tea Party, which is an upstart, is driven more by the missionary mentality, while the Republican party is more of a business establishment with a business temperament and approach. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are dealmakers, not game-changers.

The catch is that this is probably not the best mentality to hold when the opposition is a missionary party that views politics as war and that is out for your blood. In these circumstances, an equal and opposite force — a missionary force — may be required to defeat it. The grassroots understands this, which is why and how the Tea Party was born, and why a maverick like Ted Cruz was able to defeat the strongest Republican establishment in Texas — the most important Republican state — and become its senator.
The Tea Party’s mission is not parallel to that of the political Left. It is not about creating a new race of human beings or a new social order. Its mission is closer to the realism of business. Its mission is to defend something familiar and real — a Constitution that has been shredded, a culture that has been traduced, and an economy that is heading for bankruptcy. This doesn’t mean that tea partiers should be unmindful of the dangers that missionary ideas bring with them. Good principles don’t guarantee good candidates or winning politics. Some tea-party losses in the last election hurt the conservative cause and could have been avoided if the distinctions were kept in mind.

The very fact that the Tea Party is missionary, that it is organized as a cause, makes its demands and actions seem impractical and even extreme to business-as-usual Republicans. This is inevitable. In order to change things you have to take positions that seem unrealistic and may even seem extreme. It’s the nature of change, and the Tea Party is about change. And in fact it is already changing something.
What it is changing is the Republican party. Without the Tea Party there would be no Ted Cruz, no Rand Paul, no Mike Lee. If the Tea Party were not challenging the Republican establishment and causing conflict, it would have no reason for being.


Not only do I believe that Cruz’s stand on the Senate floor did not injure the chances of a Republican victory in 2014, I believe it enhanced them. Because it lit a fire in the Republican base and showed the rank and file that there are Republicans ready to fight. This is what our voters most want to see. Both McCain and Romney lost because they failed to create the passion among Republican voters that gets them to the polls. Too many Republicans — too many conservatives — sat on their hands. And why not, since both McCain and Romney assured them that Obama was “a good man.” No he isn’t. He’s a compulsive, brazen liar and a human wrecking ball blasting the structures and foundations of a great nation.

A question you’re probably asking is how the Tea Party can succeed as a caucus within the Republican party. How great are the changes it can achieve? Can Republicans like Boehner and McConnell be changed? (That is, if they are not unseated in primaries or by votes in their caucuses.) Well, if my analysis is correct, both men have a business mentality and can appreciate the realities of power. So my answer is yes. If the grassroots mobilizes and the Tea Party gains critical mass, they can be changed. That’s what politics is about.

In fact, that is precisely the way the Democratic party was changed over the last five decades: by grassroots extremists who first attacked the party and then infiltrated it. The radicals infiltrated the party during the McGovern campaign and over the ensuing years transformed it from the party of John F. Kennedy, who had politics identical to those of Ronald Reagan, into the party of Barack Obama, whose political comrades were the anti-American racist Jeremiah Wright and the anti-American terrorist Bill Ayers.

So how do we fight fire with fire? How do we go from a party that is eager to explain to Democrats why their policies won’t work but reluctant to call them out for who they are, to a party that will go toe-to-toe and hammer-and-tongs with them and defeat their politics of personal and political destruction? Another way to put this is: How do we develop a political weapon that matches and neutralizes theirs, in particular the claim that we are waging a war against women, minorities, and the poor?

Actually, it’s not that difficult if you are willing to be aggressive, if you are willing to match their rhetoric and be called extremist for doing so. Every inner city in America of size is run by Democrats and has been for 50 to 100 years. Detroit is a good example. It is 85 percent black. Fifty years ago it was per capita the richest city in America, the industrial jewel of an industrial superpower. Fifty years ago Democrats came to power in Detroit and began implementing their plans for social justice.

Fifty years of progressive policies and Democratic rule has bankrupted Detroit, and ruined it. A third of its population is on welfare. Half its population is unemployed. Its per-capita income has plummeted so far that it is now the poorest large city in America. It has been depopulated. More than half the people who lived there are gone. Everyone has fled who can. It is a giant slum of human misery and despair. And Democrats did it. Democrats are Detroit’s slumlords and the authors of the racist policies that have reduced a once great city to its present squalid state. Democrats are cynical liars and rank hypocrites when they claim to be interested in the well-being of minorities and the poor, whose necks bear the marks of their boot heels.

Fighting fire with fire means throwing the Democrats’ atrocities — their exploitation and devastation of black and brown Americans — in their faces every time they open their mouths. It means accusing them of destroying the lives of millions of poor black and Hispanic children who are trapped in the public schools that don’t educate them — schools the Democrats run as jobs programs for adults and slush funds for their political campaigns. It means taking up the cause of the victims and indicting progressives for their crimes. The one thing it does not mean is business as usual.

— David Horowitz is the author of The Black Book of the American Left, which will encompass ten volumes when it is completed. The first volume, My Life & Times, was published November 5.

2a)  NYT/CBS Poll: Six Percent Say Obamacare is Working, Should Remain Intact
By Guy Benson

Katie wrote up one major element of the new New York Times/CBS News poll -- namely that nearly six in ten Americans are disappointed in Barack Obama's presidency -- but there are additionalpieces of data worth teasing out and underscoring as well:

(1) The president's approval rating has once again slumped to 41 percent overall, with a majority disapproving of his performance. Independents disapprove (37/53). The president is underwater by double digits on foreign policy (39/48) and on the economy (38/57).

(2) Fully 79 percent of respondents describe their attitude toward Washington, DC's politics as "dissatisfied" or "angry." Just 10 percent of the country is "very satisfied" with the Obama presidency. Hope and change is long dead.

(3) Republicans hold a three-point lead (42/39) over Democrats on the generic Congressional ballot, and that's among registered voters, as opposed to likely, voters. Likely voters tend to lean more conservative. For reference, the final NYT/CBS poll before the 2010 Republican landslide showed Democrats leading on this question by one point.

(4) The new poll poll is D+7, which is an accurate reflection of the electorate composition over the last two presidential cycles. The 2010 midterm partisan turnout breakdown, by contrast, was D+0. National Journal argues that while conservative critiques of polling samples (including from yours truly) turned out to be misplaced in 2012, our previous arguments apply more aptly in the 2014 cycle. A plurality, 38 percent, of respondents in this poll categorize themselves as independents. Among that group, they lean GOP by nine points.

(5) On Obamacare, it seems as though this pollster has stopped asking the binary support/oppose question, on which the law has consistently been upside down by 12 to 25 points in virtually all polling. They're now giving respondents three options, asking whether they support the law and want it kept intact, whether they want to see changes to the law, or whether they favor full repeal. On that question, just six (!) percent pick the first option. Half of respondents want changes, and 42 percent back full repeal. Some liberals may try to spin this into evidence of public support for the law, which couldn't be further from the truth. When offered the choice between maintaining the current law or scrapping it, repeal wins easily. A substantial majority would prefer to return to the pre-Obamacare system than continue under the new law as it exists. And super-majorities oppose theindividual mandate tax, which is the tent pole of the law. Make that popular "change," and Obamacare collapses. Among the few popular elements of Obamacare are protecting people with pre-existing conditions and allowing "children" to remain on their parents' plans through age 26 -- both of which will certainly be preserved in an eventual Republican alternative to the law.

(6) On immigration reform, 53 percent say most illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the US and apply for citizenship. 43 percent say they should either be allowed to stay without a path to citizenship, or should be removed from the country. On global warming, slightly more people say the phenomenon is naturally occurring or doesn't exist than believe it's caused by human activity. Fifty-six percent of respondents believe same-sex marriage should be legal (including 40 percent of Republicans), but two-thirds believe the decision should be left up to the states. A slim majority (51/46) favor marijuana legalization. A significant majority (38/61) support stricter limits or outright bans on abortion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)Meaning of Flag Draped   Coffin
All Americans should be given this lesson. Those who think that America is an arrogant nation should really reconsider that thought. Our founding fathers used GOD's word and teachings to establish our Great Nation and I think it's high time Americans get re-educated about this Nation's history. Pass it along and be proud of the country we live in and even more proud of those who serve to protect our 'GOD GIVEN' rights and freedoms.
I hope you take the time to read this .. To understand what the flag draped coffin really means ... Here is how to understand the flag that laid upon it and is surrendered to so many widows and widowers.

Do you know that at military funerals, the 21-gun salute stands for the sum of the numbers in the year 1776?

Have you ever noticed the honor guard pays meticulous attention to correctly folding theUnited States of America Flag 13 times? You probably thought it was to symbolize the original 13 colonies, but we learn something new every day!

The 1st fold of the flag is a symbol of life
.
The 2nd fold is a symbol of the belief in eternal life.
The 3rd fold is made in honor and remembrance of the veterans departing the ranks who gave a portion of their lives for the defense of the country to attain peace throughout the world.
The 4th fold represents the weaker nature, for as American citizens trusting in God, it is to Him we turn in times of peace as well as in time of war for His divine guidance.
The 5th fold is a tribute to the country, for in the words of Stephen Decatur, 'Our Country, in dealing with other countries, may she always be right; but it is still our country, right or wrong.'
The 6th fold is for where people's hearts lie. It is with their heart that They pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States Of America , and the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all. 
The 7th fold is a tribute to its Armed Forces, for it is through the Armed Forces that they protect their country and their flag against all her enemies, whether they be found within or without the boundaries of their republic.
The 8th fold is a tribute to the one who entered into the valley of the shadow of death, that we might see the light of day.
The 9th fold is a tribute to womanhood, and Mothers. For it has been through their faith, their love, loyalty and devotion that the character of the men and women who have made this country great has been molded. 
The 10th fold is a tribute to the father, for he, too, has given his sons and daughters for the defense of their country since they were first born.

The 11th fold represents the lower portion of the seal of King David and King Solomon and glorifies in the Hebrews eyes, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The 12th fold represents an emblem of eternity and glorifies, in the Christians eyes, God the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit.
The 13th fold, or when the flag is completely folded, the stars are uppermost reminding them of their nations motto,'In God We Trust.' 

After the flag is completely folded and tucked in, it takes on the appearance of a cocked hat, ever reminding us of the soldiers who served under General George Washington, and the Sailors and Marines who served under Captain John Paul Jones, who were followed by their comrades and shipmates in the Armed Forces of the United States, preserving for them the rights, privileges and freedoms they enjoy today. 
There are some traditions and ways of doing things that have deep meaning. In the future, you'll see flags folded and now you will know why. 
-----------------------------------------------------------
4)By Ben Carson February 26, 2014 6:55 am
Ben Carson

Most of us can remember feeling that someone had done us a great injustice. On those occasions, we want nothing more than to exact revenge. I remember being unfairly treated as a lowly ROTC cadet by one of the sergeants who resented the fact that my brother had been promoted to captain and company commander over him.
I was ambitious and worked extremely hard, resulting in my promotion in record time to the rank of colonel and city executive officer. This individual was now firmly under my command, and I could have wreaked havoc in his life. Instead, I chose to give him extra responsibilities. Responding to the challenge, he proved himself to be quite capable, earning further promotions. Because I resisted the urge to retaliate, we both won. This same principle applies in politics.
Unfortunately, in the past, we have been a reactionary country, resulting in political shifts back and forth from left to right without a lot of forward progress. After attaining power, both sides act in ways that are less than honorable, but they justify their actions by citing similar transgressions performed by the other side. This immature behavior is vividly exhibited by President Obama in his shameless use of executive orders to try to force the eventual success of Obamacare.
Administration supporters defend his strategy by pointing out that previous presidents have issued even more executive orders than Obama. It's like saying that punching someone 40 times is more harmful than shooting him four times. However, it's not the quantity of executive orders that matters, but their impact.
There are always people who attempt to pick apart an analogy, but most readers will see the point. In the current controversy, a massive politically motivated government program was forced on half of the population with their opinions completely disregarded. No legislation of this magnitude ever had been passed in the history of the United States by one party with unanimous opposition by the other party. Each executive order to sustain Obamacare is like pouring salt in a wound. Furthermore, the concept of seeking common ground is further damaged.
When the political pendulum swings again, which I predict will begin this November, it is imperative for the sake of our progeny that those in power act like "the adults in the room" and govern in a lawful and constitutional manner. This means refraining from the use of excessive government interference in choosing winners and losers. It also means an evenhanded enforcement of all of our laws rather than repeating the Obama administration's practice of selective law enforcement. Adult governance is founded upon objectivity, not ideology.
The American people have suffered through decades of power-drunk politicians, many of whom practiced deceitful manipulation. This has caused tens of millions of Americans to abandon in disgust their duty to be informed and responsible voters, which only makes the situation worse.
I have encountered a large number of elderly people who have told me that they have given up on the United States and are simply waiting to die. This is the reason that more eligible voters opted not to vote in the last presidential election than actually voted for either candidate. Many of these people are members of "the greatest generation." They fought tangible and visible forces that threatened our freedom. The forces facing us now are less tangible, but are nevertheless at least as lethal to our way of life.
Despite all the naysayers on both sides, I am convinced by the people I encounter on the speaking circuit that common sense, honesty and fairness can return to the corridors of power in America. We can govern in a manner that not only re-engages millions, but also provides liberty and justice for all.
As it was in the days of the Founding Fathers before the American Revolution, now it is necessary for ordinary Americans to engage their neighbors, friends and colleagues in serious discussions about what kind of nation they want to pass on to their children and grandchildren. It is important that everyone knows who represents them both at the state level and at the national level. The party affiliation of those representatives is not nearly as important as their voting record. Every American, regardless of their political affiliation, must distinguish those who represent the free-enterprise system based on personal responsibility and equal treatment from those who are willing to give away our personal freedom in order to enhance the size and scope of the government.
The power to reverse the deterioration of our nation is within the hands of "we the people." We must realize that our countrymen are not our enemies, and we must understand that we cannot rely on those in the media and in politics to tell us the truth. We need to go beyond them and rely on ourselves to craft a truly free America that works for all of us. This means we must become informed voters and use our votes effectively to choose the kind of leadership that represents the will of the people.
---
Ben S. Carson is professor emeritus of neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University. To find out more about Ben Carson and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit http://www.creators.com/.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Posted by Dick at 1:18 PM No comments:
Newer Posts Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)

Blog Archive

  • ►  2024 (393)
    • ►  August (10)
    • ►  July (58)
    • ►  June (59)
    • ►  May (39)
    • ►  April (56)
    • ►  March (68)
    • ►  February (49)
    • ►  January (54)
  • ►  2023 (515)
    • ►  December (58)
    • ►  November (59)
    • ►  October (77)
    • ►  September (40)
    • ►  August (50)
    • ►  July (44)
    • ►  June (37)
    • ►  May (23)
    • ►  April (38)
    • ►  March (43)
    • ►  February (25)
    • ►  January (21)
  • ►  2022 (653)
    • ►  December (66)
    • ►  November (45)
    • ►  October (43)
    • ►  September (56)
    • ►  August (53)
    • ►  July (56)
    • ►  June (66)
    • ►  May (49)
    • ►  April (61)
    • ►  March (62)
    • ►  February (45)
    • ►  January (51)
  • ►  2021 (769)
    • ►  December (52)
    • ►  November (59)
    • ►  October (60)
    • ►  September (71)
    • ►  August (72)
    • ►  July (53)
    • ►  June (44)
    • ►  May (48)
    • ►  April (75)
    • ►  March (79)
    • ►  February (82)
    • ►  January (74)
  • ►  2020 (615)
    • ►  December (62)
    • ►  November (38)
    • ►  October (41)
    • ►  September (59)
    • ►  August (61)
    • ►  July (55)
    • ►  June (64)
    • ►  May (55)
    • ►  April (51)
    • ►  March (63)
    • ►  February (38)
    • ►  January (28)
  • ►  2019 (510)
    • ►  December (31)
    • ►  November (44)
    • ►  October (44)
    • ►  September (40)
    • ►  August (31)
    • ►  July (48)
    • ►  June (42)
    • ►  May (25)
    • ►  April (47)
    • ►  March (50)
    • ►  February (53)
    • ►  January (55)
  • ►  2018 (556)
    • ►  December (43)
    • ►  November (46)
    • ►  October (62)
    • ►  September (60)
    • ►  August (43)
    • ►  July (51)
    • ►  June (49)
    • ►  May (36)
    • ►  April (38)
    • ►  March (23)
    • ►  February (55)
    • ►  January (50)
  • ►  2017 (525)
    • ►  December (49)
    • ►  November (43)
    • ►  October (46)
    • ►  September (41)
    • ►  August (46)
    • ►  July (39)
    • ►  June (56)
    • ►  May (24)
    • ►  April (41)
    • ►  March (43)
    • ►  February (49)
    • ►  January (48)
  • ►  2016 (498)
    • ►  December (35)
    • ►  November (46)
    • ►  October (49)
    • ►  September (41)
    • ►  August (36)
    • ►  July (54)
    • ►  June (35)
    • ►  May (31)
    • ►  April (43)
    • ►  March (48)
    • ►  February (38)
    • ►  January (42)
  • ►  2015 (415)
    • ►  December (40)
    • ►  November (45)
    • ►  October (28)
    • ►  September (41)
    • ►  August (37)
    • ►  July (32)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (11)
    • ►  April (40)
    • ►  March (44)
    • ►  February (47)
    • ►  January (47)
  • ▼  2014 (401)
    • ►  December (31)
    • ►  November (28)
    • ►  October (32)
    • ►  September (20)
    • ►  August (43)
    • ►  July (57)
    • ►  June (54)
    • ►  May (16)
    • ►  April (25)
    • ►  March (20)
    • ▼  February (30)
      • Blake Abraham Nelson -Did Come Out! Gestapo and No...
      • Obama Bests McCarthy!
      • Off To D.C. Then A New Grandson!
      • WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
      • Obama Will Settle For a Military Big Enough to Def...
      • Tearing America Apart A Limb at a Time! The Truth ...
      • A Mixed Bag!
      • Rethinking Gestopoing of Our News Media Organizati...
      • Obama, The Professed Christian, Violates The Ten C...
      • Liberal Lemmings Prepare For The Gestapoing FCC ...
      • Self Serving Cruz and Clinton? Palestinian Decepti...
      • Dagny Celebrates, Star Parker Rouses The Audience ...
      • Measured Response To Michelle Nunn's Unsolicited C...
      • Back From Orlando!
      • Identifying America's Problems - Seeking A Solutio...
      • Obama, Kerry Lacking Intellectual Honesty. Preside...
      • The Untouchable President!
      • Liberal Soft Racism - How Sad Indeed! Let Rich Bas...
      • Trolling For Votes As We Build Our Leisure Class a...
      • Churchill To Have The Last Laugh?
      • Bringing America Downhill! Obama Lawlessness! Happ...
      • Truisms, An Apology and Krauthammer - Stay Away Fr...
      • Just Amazing As The American Ethos of Work Gets Du...
      • Commentary Magazine, Dr. Bob , John Podhoretz Speaks!
      • Kerry's Continued Bashing of Israel Bordering on ...
      • "Not The Most Liberal President" - Questionable Bu...
      • Obama Soon To Visit Saudi Arabia For Another Ring ...
      • Enjoy The Game!
      • Coburn - I have Had It!
      • Carson For President? Not So Fast!
    • ►  January (45)
  • ►  2013 (363)
    • ►  December (25)
    • ►  November (30)
    • ►  October (35)
    • ►  September (34)
    • ►  August (14)
    • ►  July (31)
    • ►  June (36)
    • ►  May (18)
    • ►  April (22)
    • ►  March (30)
    • ►  February (50)
    • ►  January (38)
  • ►  2012 (450)
    • ►  December (23)
    • ►  November (33)
    • ►  October (55)
    • ►  September (67)
    • ►  August (43)
    • ►  July (29)
    • ►  June (16)
    • ►  May (29)
    • ►  April (35)
    • ►  March (54)
    • ►  February (33)
    • ►  January (33)
  • ►  2011 (268)
    • ►  December (25)
    • ►  November (28)
    • ►  October (20)
    • ►  September (25)
    • ►  August (21)
    • ►  July (23)
    • ►  June (27)
    • ►  May (21)
    • ►  April (19)
    • ►  March (18)
    • ►  February (21)
    • ►  January (20)
  • ►  2010 (173)
    • ►  December (15)
    • ►  November (20)
    • ►  October (19)
    • ►  September (12)
    • ►  August (11)
    • ►  July (16)
    • ►  June (5)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (20)
    • ►  March (12)
    • ►  February (16)
    • ►  January (24)
  • ►  2009 (160)
    • ►  December (15)
    • ►  November (6)
    • ►  October (10)
    • ►  September (7)
    • ►  August (11)
    • ►  July (11)
    • ►  June (13)
    • ►  May (6)
    • ►  April (10)
    • ►  March (22)
    • ►  February (26)
    • ►  January (23)
  • ►  2008 (227)
    • ►  December (19)
    • ►  November (24)
    • ►  October (17)
    • ►  September (14)
    • ►  August (15)
    • ►  July (29)
    • ►  June (16)
    • ►  May (16)
    • ►  April (23)
    • ►  March (31)
    • ►  February (19)
    • ►  January (4)
  • ►  2007 (71)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (6)
    • ►  September (6)
    • ►  August (6)
    • ►  July (5)
    • ►  June (8)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (7)
    • ►  March (11)
    • ►  February (6)
    • ►  January (7)
  • ►  2006 (13)
    • ►  December (9)
    • ►  November (4)

About Me

Dick
View my complete profile