"Not The Most Liberal President" - Questionable But Certainly The Most Inept!

I could not enlarge so get a magnifying mirror.
===

Will Christie dodge the bullets the Democrats have been aiming at him?  (See 1 below.)
===
Just a bump in the road:

THE BATTLING BOYS OF BENGHAZI

We're the battling boys of Benghazi

No fame, no glory, no paparazzi.

Just a fiery death in a blazing hell

Defending our country we loved so well.

It wasn't our job, but we answered the call,

fought to the Consulate and scaled the wall.

We pulled twenty Countrymen from the jaws of fate

Led them to safety, and stood at the gate.

Just the two of us, and foes by the score,

But we stood fast to bar the door.

Three calls for reinforcement, but all were denied,

So we fought, and we fought, and we fought 'til we died.

We gave our all for our Uncle Sam,

But Barack Obama didn't give a damn.

Just two dead seals who carried the load?

No thanks to us.........we were just "Bumps In The Road".

===
Obama to O'Reilley: "I am not the most liberal President."  That is questionable but for sure  the most inept! (See 2 below.)
===
Sowell:  The Republications are the Dalmations! (See 3 below.)
===
Is Germany ready to fill the Obama vacuum? (See 4 below.)
===
Another take on the Two Americas.  (See 5 below.)
===
Kerry and The Palestinians.  (See  6 below.)
===

Dick

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1)Top Dem Investigator: Um, We Have No Evidence Implicating Christie So Far

By Guy Benson

As Americans kicked off their Super Bowl weekends on Friday afternoon, theNew York Times dropped a story that at first appeared to be game, set and match for Chris Christie. The Twitterverse was set ablaze by the apparent "revelation" that a former top Port Authority executive and Christie appointee had "flipped," offering proof that the governor had lied about his knowledge of the lane closure scheme. Except...that wasn't quite true. TheTimes quietly revised their story without noting any corrections, telling one media analyst that they'd made"dozens" of alterations to the story, and would likely make dozens more. When the shouting stopped, here's what remained: A tortured, heavily-parsed statement from David Wildstein's lawyer stating that "evidence exists" linking Christie "to knowledge" that the bridge lanes had been shut down while they were still closed. Let's start with what that accusation doesn't say. It doesn't say that Wildstein possesses any proof, just that it exists somewhere in the universe, according to him. It also doesn't allege that Christie had any knowledge whatsoever of the political nature of the incident -- from its conception to its planning to its execution -- which is the actual scandal here. Those Christie officials who were responsible for the scandalous behavior have been sacked by the governor. No, the "bombshell" from Wildstein's attorney suggests that this mysterious, so-far unseen evidence proves that Christie merely had contemporaneous knowledge that the lanes were closed for some reason.

That detail may seem insignificant, but on the issue of credibility, it's not. Christie has been very clear all along, stating that he first learned of the lanes being shut down after it was reported in the media, and that the first reports were published after the lanes had already re-opened. He's given that version of events in press conferences and statements dating back to December. Again, the only reason this minutiae matters is because Christie and his office have been so consistent about it. If the evidence to which Wildstein's lawyer alludes exists and can definitively demonstrate that Christie knew about the closures sooner, then Christie's honesty will take an irreparable hit. Which brings us to the following exchange on NBC yesterday. In response to a subpoena, Wildstein has submitted 900 pages of documentation to the New Jersey legislature's investigative committee, led by the state's (rabidly anti-Christie) former Democratic chairman. John Wisniewski appeared on Meet the Press, where host David Gregory asked if Wildstein's submissions to investigators confirm his claims implicating Christie:

 GREGORY: “So now you have David Wildstein, as we have been talking about this morning, saying the ‘evidence exists’ that Christie is not telling the whole truth. What do we actually have here?” 

WISNIEWSKI: “Well, that’s the question. We don’t know what the evidence is. He submitted over 900 pages of documents in response to the Committee’s subpoena. Apparently what he’s talking about must be something other than what he submitted …”

GREGORY: “Let me stop you there. 900 pages. Nothing implicates Christie, is that right?”

WISNIEWSKI: “Nothing that says the Governor knew contemporaneously, which is the allegation he’s making now.”

GREGORY: “So, if he had this, why didn’t he give it to you?”

WISNIEWSKI: “Well, that’s a great question. We don’t have that answer.”

Why yes, that is a great question. Gregory followed up, challenging Wildstein's credibility:

 GREGORY: “So doesn’t that undermine his credibility, as the investigator?”

WISNIEWSKI: “It really raises questions about – I mean it’s curious …”

GREGORY: “This guy wants immunity, he wants his legal bills being paid and he’s raising a charge that you really should have known if he turned over 900 pages of information.”

In that bolded section, Gregory outlines two of the reasons why Wildstein may be flailing. (1) He wants immunity from prosecution and (2) is angling to get taxpayers to pick up his legal tab. He's tossing chum in the water, hoping someone will bite. He's also likely peeved that Christie essentially forced him out of a job and criticized him in his statements of the press. The Democratic Mayor of Fort Lee has also called Wildstein's honesty into question. It's one thing for a desperate man and his attorney to lob grenades. It's another for the so-called "paper of record" to uncritically regurgitate those claims -- and to oversell and misstate the documents they received. The Times manufactured a frantic news cycle in which Christie initially appeared to be cooked by publishing a sloppy story with an unduly salacious lede and headline. Here's one of their editors conceding on CNNthat, yeah, maybe they should have been a little "clearer:"

In politics, perception can become reality awfully quickly. The media breathlessly reported the Hoboken Mayor's allegations several weeks ago, but few outlets have followed-up on the emerging evidence that appears to exonerate Christie. If their goal is to cover the controversies in New Jersey fairly, the national media is doing, for the most part, a truly terrible job. If their goal is to feed a narrative that fosters an appearance of guilt, they're right on target. By the way, guess who seems quiteeager to pronounce Christie's career dead and buried based on that very same narrative? Surprise:

 Podesta also said allegations that Governor Chris Christie knew about lane closures on the George Washington Bridge may be "a killer" to the New Jersey Republican's presidential ambitions. "I don't think there's any coming back."

That would be former -- ahem -- Clinton aide and current Obama adviser John Podesta, who led the left-wing Center for American Progress. Funny, that. I'll leave you with a disclaimer I've been issuing for weeks: If Christie's accounts on these matters is contradicted by actual evidence that may yet come to light, he's finished. And you won't find almost anyone willing to defend him, including yours truly. So far, however, such evidence has been strangely elusive -- even as state and national Democrats and the media are turning over every rock to find it. On that score, Christie's aides are facing a Monday deadline to comply with investigators' subpoenas. Quick uodate: I discussed these developments on Fox News this afternoon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Obama to O'Reilly: I'm Not Most Liberal President in History
By Greg Richter

Barack Obama says he is not the most liberal president in U.S. history, prompting Fox News' Bill O'Reilly to ask who would be to the left of him.

Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor" on Monday was recorded after a 10-minute live interview aired on the Fox broadcast network during the Super Bowl pregame show on Sunday.


"Are you the most liberal president in U.S. history?" O'Reilly asked Obama.

"Probably not," Obama answered. "When you look at some of my policies, in a lot of ways Richard Nixon was more liberal than I was." 

Obama noted that the Republican Nixon started the Environmental Protection Agency.

O'Reilly said he expected Obama to say Franklin Roosevelt, to which Obama noted that FDR and Lyndon Johnson were authors of the New Deal and the Great Society, respectively.

But Obama said he doesn’t see it as a question of liberal versus conservative as much as looking at what the country needs "right now."

"I think that you are much more friendly to a nanny state than I am," O'Reilly told the president. "I am much more of a self-reliance guy; you're more of a big-government-will-solve-your -problems guy."

Obama said that assessment was wrong. Things that were once considered sensible, such as Social Security and Medicare, are now labeled liberal, he said.

"But you're paying for that," O'Reilly said. "It's the freebies that are the problem."

"We have not massively expanded the welfare state," Obama said. Programs such as student loans are an investment in the future, he said, and do not represent a "nanny state."

The headline from Sunday's live interview was about Obama blaming Fox News for his problems. O'Reilly asked him more about that in the interview that aired Monday.

"I can't speak for Fox News, but I'm the table-setter here at 8 o'clock. Do you think I'm unfair to you?" O'Reilly asked.

"Absolutely. Of course you are, Bill. But I like you anyway," Obama answered.

"Give me how I'm unfair. Come on. You can't make that accusation without telling me," O'Reilly countered.

Obama noted that in the first interview, O'Reilly asked about Benghazi, Obamacare and the IRS scandal – all conservative issues not covered as much by the mainstream media. 

"But these are unanswered questions," O'Reilly argued.

"But they're defined by you guys in a certain way," Obama said, adding, "Look, this is OK. If you want to be president of the United States, then you know that you're going to be subject to criticism."

O'Reilly pressed for how he had been unfair. 

"Criticism is criticism," O'Reilly said. "It's my job to give you a hard time."

Obama said that regardless of whether it was fair, Fox News has become very successful criticizing him.

"Here's what you guys are going to have to figure out: what are you going to do when I'm gone?" Obama said. "I've been a big money-maker for you."

O'Reilly said he had given Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush just as much grief as he has given Obama.

"I gave President Bush a real hard time," he said.

On other issues, O'Reilly asked why the president and first lady Michelle Obama had not addressed the issue of black poverty and a 72 percent rate of out-of-wedlock births. 

"We address it explicitly all the time," the president said, saying he had done so in "at least 10 speeches." 

"Whether it's getting publicity or not is a whole different question," he said.

O'Reilly asked whether Obama plans to allow the Keystone XL oil pipeline to run through the United States from Canada now that the State Department has said it won't have a major environmental impact. 

Obama said government agencies and the public now have time to comment, and Secretary of State John Kerry will then give him a recommendation. 

The two agreed on the issue of helping wounded military veterans and their families. O'Reilly noted that every time he has asked Obama's help in fundraisers, he has always come through.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)  Republicans to the Rescue?

By Thomas Sowell 

Some supporters of President Obama may be worried about how he and the Democrats are going to fare politically, as the problems of ObamaCare continue to escalate, and it looks like the Republicans have a chance to win a majority in the Senate.

But Democrats may not need to worry so much. Republicans may once again come to the rescue of the Democrats, by discrediting themselves and snatching defeat from the very jaws of victory.

The latest bright idea among Republicans inside the Beltway is a new version of amnesty that is virtually certain to lose votes among the Republican base and is unlikely to gain many votes among the Hispanics that the Republican leadership is courting.

One of the enduring political mysteries is how the Republicans can be so successful in winning governorships and control of state legislatures, while failing to make much headway in Washington. Maybe there are just too many clever GOP consultants inside the Beltway.

When it comes to national elections, just what principles do the Republicans stand for? It is hard to think of any, other than their hoping to win elections by converting themselves into Democrats lite. But voters who want what the Democrats offer can vote for the real thing, rather than Johnny-come-lately imitations.

Listening to discussions of immigration laws and proposals to reform them is like listening to something out of "Alice in Wonderland."

Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed in terms of how to help people who break them. One of the big problems that those who are pushing "comprehensive immigration reform" want solved is how to help people who came here illegally and are now "living in the shadows" as a result.

What about embezzlers or burglars who are "living in the shadows" in fear that someone will discover their crimes? Why not "reform" the laws against embezzlement or burglary, so that such people can also come out of the shadows?

Almost everyone seems to think that we need to solve the problem of the children of illegal immigrants, because these children are here "through no fault of their own." Do people who say that have any idea how many millions of children are living in dire poverty in India, Africa or other places "through no fault of their own," and would be better off living in the United States?

Do all children have some inherent right to live in America if they have done nothing wrong? If not, then why should the children of illegal immigrants have such a right?

More fundamentally, why do the American people not have a right to the protection that immigration laws provide people in other countries around the world -- including Mexico, where illegal immigrants from other countries get no such special treatment as Mexico and its American supporters are demanding for illegal immigrants in the United States?

The very phrase "comprehensive" immigration reform is part of the bad faith that has surrounded immigration issues for decades. What "comprehensive" reform means is that border control and amnesty should be voted on together in Congress.

Why? Because that would be politically convenient for members of Congress, who like to be on both sides of issues, so as to minimize the backlash from the voting public. But what "comprehensive" immigration reform has always meant in practice is amnesty up front and a promise to control the border later -- promises that have never been kept.

The new Republican proposal is to have some border control criteria whose fulfillment will automatically serve as a "trigger" to let the legalizing of illegal immigrants proceed. But why set up some automatic triggering device to signal that the borders are secure, when the Obama administration is virtually guaranteed to game the system, so that amnesty can proceed?

What in the world is wrong with Congress taking up border security first, as a separate issue, and later taking responsibility in a Congressional vote on whether the border has become secure? Congress at least should come out of the shadows.

The Republican plan for granting legalization up front, while withholding citizenship, is too clever by half. It is like saying that you can slide halfway down a slippery slope.

Republicans may yet rescue the Democrats, while demoralizing their own supporters and utterly failing the country.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4)  A More Assertive German Foreign Policy

By George Friedman and Marc Lanthemann

The Ukrainian crisis is important in itself, but the behavior it has elicited from Germany is perhaps more important. Berlin directly challenged Ukraine's elected president for refusing to tighten relations with the European Union and for mistreating Ukrainians who protested his decision. In challenging President Viktor Yanukovich, Berlin also challenged Russia, a reflection of Germany's recent brazen foreign policy.

Since the end of World War II, Germany has pursued a relatively tame foreign policy. But over the past week, Berlin appeared to have acknowledged the need for a fairly dramatic change. German leaders, including the chancellor, the president, the foreign minister and the defense minister, have called for a new framework that contravenes the restraint Germany has practiced for so long. They want Germany to assume a greater international role by becoming more involved outside its borders politically and militarily.

For Berlin, the announcement of this high-level strategic shift comes amid a maelstrom of geopolitical currents. As the de facto leader of the European Union, Germany has to contend with and correct the slow failure of the European project. It has to adjust to the U.S. policy of global disengagement, and it must manage a complex, necessary and dangerous relationship with Russia. A meek foreign policy is not well suited to confront the situation in which Germany now finds itself. If Germany doesn't act, then who will? And if someone else does, will it be in Germany's interest? The latter is perhaps the more intriguing question.

Setting Boundaries

Such a reconfiguration shows that Germany has its own national interests that may differ from those of its alliance partners. For most countries, this would seem self-evident. But for Germany, it is a radical position, given its experience in World War II. It has refrained from asserting a strong foreign policy and from promoting its national interest lest it revive fears of German aggression and German nationalism. The Germans may have decided that this position is no longer tenable -- and that promoting their national interests does not carry the risk it once did.

The timing of the announcement, as Ukraine's strategic position between Russia and Europe continues to make headlines, was not coincidental. While the timing benefited Germany, it would be a mistake to ascribe too much importance to Ukraine itself, particularly from the German perspective. That is not to say Ukraine should be discounted entirely. As a borderland between the European Peninsula and Russia, its future potentially matters to Germany -- if not now then perhaps in the future, when unexpected regional realities might show themselves.

Ukraine is an indispensable borderland for Russia, but it has little value for any modern power that has no designs against Russia. It is one of the gateways into the heart of Russia. A hostile power occupying Ukraine would threaten Russian national security. But the reverse is not true: Ukraine is not a primary route from Russia into Europe (World War II is a notable exception) because the Carpathian Mountains discourage invasion. So unless the Germans are planning a new war with Russia -- and they aren't -- Ukraine matters little to Europe or the Germans.

The same is true in the economic realm. Ukraine is important to Russia, particularly for transporting energy to Europe. But outside of energy transport, Ukraine is not that important to Europe. Indeed, for all that has been said about Ukraine's relationship to the European Union, it has never been clear why the bloc has made it such a contentious issue. The European Union is tottering under the weight of Southern Europe's enormously high unemployment rate, Eastern Europe's uncertainty about the value of being part of Europe's banking system and currency union, and a growing policy rift between France and Germany. The chances that the Europeans would add Ukraine to an organization that already boasts Greece, Cyprus and other crippled economies are so slim that considerations to the contrary would be irrational. The fact that Ukraine is not getting into the bloc makes German policy even harder to fathom.

Of course, some European countries have more of an interest in Ukraine than others, particularly those formerly in the Soviet sphere of influence. For Poland and the Baltic states, Russia remains the major geopolitical foe in a way that Western Europe cannot fully comprehend. These relatively small and new members cannot compel the EU heavyweights to commit to a plan of action that would go too far in provoking Russia, but they can still push their peers to take a more measured action.

During the Orange Revolution, U.S.-led Western powers openly funded opposition groups in the former Soviet states, threatening Russia's strategic interests to the point that it had to eventually invade Georgia to show the consequences of Western meddling. Over the past month, Germany has been behaving similarly, albeit to a smaller degree: opening partisan ties and giving relatively low-cost financial and rhetorical support to opposition groups that can irritate Russia without actually causing an immediate break with Moscow.

For the past decade, Germany could not afford to alienate Russia, which Berlin thought could be the answers to some of Germany's problems. It could reliably supply relatively cheap energy, it was a potential source of low-cost labor, and it was a potential destination market for German exporters looking for alternatives to stagnating EU markets.

Diplomatically, Moscow could have become a close ally and strategic partner as erstwhile allies appeared to be growing increasingly hostile to Germany. Relations with the United States were tense ever since Berlin refused to participate in the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, and Chancellor Angela Merkel's support for EU-wide austerity measures strained Germany's ties with Southern Europe and France.

But the reality was otherwise. There is a fit between Germany and Russia, but it is at best an imperfect one. Russia never industrialized or modernized as Germany and many others had hoped as it reaped the profits of high commodity prices. Under President Vladimir Putin, Moscow became increasingly autocratic and went on the political and economic offensive in Central and Eastern Europe.

This conflicts with Germany's strategic goals. Berlin's core imperative is to preserve its economic power, which is highly dependent on exports. The European economic crisis has caused consumption to falter in the European Union, leading Berlin to search for export markets further afield. While it has had some success in China and the United States for certain industries, it has not been able to shed its overwhelming dependence on European markets as a general destination for its goods. Thus, Germany's only possible course of action is preserving and eventually reinvigorating the free trade zone in Europe.

Russia's resurgence in Central Europe has concerned EU members in that region. On the surface, the Germans were prepared to live with that resurgence even though it appeared to threaten to unravel the bloc. Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are indispensable components of the German industrial supply chain and a source of relatively cheap skilled labor. That they should remain in the German sphere of influence is a non-negotiable position for Berlin.

These issues are not new, but until now Germany had been constrained in how it could establish firm boundaries with Moscow. Berlin believed its dependence on Russian energy was a vulnerability that Russia could exploit if it chose to. In addition, it was concerned about Russia's ability to wrest Central Europe from EU control. In a worst-case scenario, Germany would end up with a fragmented Europe, a distant United States and a hostile Russia.

The fact that Germany actively supported opposition groups in Ukraine, particularly in the absence of a pressing strategic imperative to do so, is a sign that something has changed in Berlin's calculus toward Russia. It seems as though the German government has determined that Russia is facing major challenges at home; that its position in Europe is weaker than it appears; that the risk of energy cutoffs are minimal; and that there are no long-term economic benefits to an economic relationship with Russia that goes beyond energy trade. That last point cannot be overstated. Russia is poised to remain the most important supplier of energy to Europe, and while the dependency runs both ways -- Europe is Russia's largest customer -- Germany will make sure the flow of energy continues unimpeded.

With the United States increasingly depending on a balance of power approach to its foreign policy, relying more heavily on regional actors to manage threats, the long-term U.S. security guarantees that had been the hallmark of European defense since 1945 can no longer be counted on in Berlin. As NATO continues to fray and the challenges posed by an increasingly volatile Russia loom, Germany seems to be taking the first step back into establishing a new national and regional security framework.

A New Element

Germany's talk of a new, more assertive foreign policy that relies more heavily on its military is, however, not solely linked to concerns over Russia or the United States. Germany has accepted that its only option is to rally Europe but as the past six years have shown, it has had limited success on the economic front. The European Union is an economic entity, but economics has turned from being the binding element to being a centripetal force. Either something new must be introduced into the European experiment, or it might come undone.

Berlin believes that holding the European Union together requires adding another dimension that it heretofore has withheld in its dealing with the bloc: military-political relations. Standing up to a weakening Russia will appeal to Central European nations, and taking a more active role overseas would endear Berlin to Paris. Germany's allusions that it would expand its international military operations, particularly in Africa, is a clear nod to France, which has consistently expressed its desire for a deeper military and political partnership with Germany.

Notably, the drive to bring Germany closer to France in the short term could create tensions between them in the long term. Last week's summit between British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Francois Hollande was a reminder that France and the United Kingdom may have extremely different views regarding the European Union but still see each other as a military partner and, more important, as a counterweight to Germany.

Of course, Germany is in no position to take military action. It is in a position to posit the possibility in some vague way, thereby generating political forces that can temporarily hold things together. Berlin needs to buy time, particularly in Central Europe, where Hungary has embarked on an independent course and is being watched carefully by others. With the United States unwilling to become involved, Germany either becomes the counterweight or lives with the consequences.

At first, Germany's actions seemed confusing and uncharacteristic. But they become more sensible when you consider that that Berlin is looking for other tools to hold the European Union together as it re-evaluates Russia. So far, Germany's announcement has been met positively, mainly outside Germany, but the tension that a stronger and more assertive Berlin exerts on the European continent and the global stage are sure to come to the fore again. For now, however, Merkel has no choice.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5)Two Americas

The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.
The America that works, and the America that doesn't.
The America that contributes, and the America that doesn't.
It's not the haves and the haven'ts, it's the dos and the don'ts.

Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don't. That's the divide in America.

It's not about income inequality, it's about civic irresponsibility.

It's about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office.

It's about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country. It's not invective, it's truth, and it's about time someone said it.

The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when president Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting "income inequality." He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that's not just.

That is the rationale of thievery.  The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat.

That is the philosophy that produced Detroit. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America.

It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.

The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victimhood and anger instead of ability and hope.

The president's premise - that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful - seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices.

By and large, income variation in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibly have far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure. Success and failure frequently manifest themselves in personal and family income.
You choose to drop out of high school and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.

You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course, you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course.

My doctor makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an inequality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant.

He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine.

Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.
It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom.

The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail.  There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure.

The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his a... and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime's worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.

Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring equality of effort.

The simple Law of the Harvest - as ye sow, so shall ye reap - is sometimes applied as, "The harder you work, the more you get."  Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society.

Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity.

He and his party speak of two Americas and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other.

America is not divided by the differences in outcomes, it is divided by the differences in efforts.  It is a false philosophy to say one man's success comes about unavoidably as the result of
another man's victimization.

What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He has fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit.  That's what socialists offer.

Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow.

Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln's maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6)

"Soft Bigotry," Secretary Kerry, and the PLO  by Elliott Abrams Secretary of State Kerry continues to press forward in his negotiations with Israelis and Palestinians, seeking some sort of “framework” document that would be an acceptable basis for future negotiations. We’ve been here before: the “Roadmap” of 2003 was supposed to provide such a basis and was accepted–with reservations–by both sides. My guess is that Kerry will succeed, if success is defined as keeping both sides at the table. But what if success is defined as moving the Palestinians closer to having a decent,democratic political structure that can lay the foundation for eventual statehood?What has Kerry, and what has the Obama administration, demanded of the Israelis to move forward? At various times a freeze of all construction has been demanded, and for ten months prime minister Netanyahu complied. For this effort, which had a significant cost in Israel’s domestic politics, Israel and Netanyahu received no benefit. More recently, Israel has been pressured to release dozens of  convicted murderers from its prisons, at an even greater political cost. That cost was then increased several fold when the murderers were received by PLO chairman (and PA president) Abbas as honored citizens. And what has been demanded of the Palestinians? What will be demanded as partof the Kerry proposals? In my view, the answer is nothing–nothing at all. In a recent trip to the region I found universal agreement that in the last year  corruption in the PA has increased greatly. The United States has not reacted in  any way, thus delivering the message to Abbas that we do not care. The reception  given to the murderers is just one piece of the overall picture of glorifying  terrorism and terrorists, which continues apace. This is what is called “incitement” in the diplomatic lingo, and like its predecessors (including the Bush administration) the Obama administration complains occasionally but does  nothing about it. And it is worth noting that Abbas was elected president in  January 2005, and is in that sense in the tenth year of his four year term. There  are no serious plans for elections, and once again  the United States does not seem to care. So that’s the picture: in return for coming to the negotiating table, and now for  staying at the table, we overlook everything else the PA/PLO does. We overlook  the illegitimacy of the government, the glorification of terror, and the spreading  corruption. The clear U.S. message is that nothing really counts but sitting down  with Kerry and the Israelis. I have no doubt that whatever document Kerry  produces will say something about “incitement” and perhaps even something  about better “governance,” a code word for reducing corruption.  And I have no  doubt that six months later nothing will have changed. The Palestinians are not  stupid and they can distinguish easily between real pressure and mere words. President Bush once noted the “soft bigotry of low expectations” in our domestic  context, and the term is useful here. For it is bigotry to believe that more cannot  realistically be expected from the Palestinians. And it is very damaging to any hope for a decent, democratic, independent state some day. Neither the political culture nor the institutions of democracy can be built this way. That was the great error of the Clinton administration, which dealt with Yasser Arafat as if he would one day be the George Washington of Palestine instead of the corrupt terrorist he was. The error is being repeated now, as we ask Abbas for one thing only–to sit at the table–and overlook all else. The irony here is that Abbas got his job as prime minister, in 2003, when the  United States and the EU forced Arafat to create the post and fill it (and also put in Salam Fayyad as finance minister) because we came to believe that defining the borders of Palestine was not the prime goal. Instead, defining what would be within those borders was more important: was it to be a corrupt terrorist state, or one that was building toward a decent government under the rule of law? Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, Santayana famously said. Here we go again, drawing maps of border compromises when inside Gaza and the West Bank, Palestinians are further from developing the institutions they need than they were when Barack Obama came to office.