.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Remember when Nancy Pelosi said:
“We have to pass it, to find out what’s in it”
A physician called into a radio show and said:
A physician called into a radio show and said:
"That's the definition of a stool sample".
That pretty well sums it up.
Posted these below minutes before we left for Israel so a bit of old news!
I am not the only one who sees Obama as Pinocchio!
Lying will catch you! (See 1 and 1a below.)
===
Just returned from a wonderful trip to Israel and will be leaving again this Thursday to go to the Orlando Office of my father's firm which is celebrating their 125th years and they wanted members of my family to come and tell the story of my father so I am going to post some things I received while away and make a comment of my own regarding Obama and Kerry's actions while we were away.
My dear friend, Charlie Bourland and his great wife Susanna, joined us and Charlie does an exceptional job of writing about our mutual travels so when he has posted it he agreed to let me send it out as my own recap of the trip. I have not seen it as yet so I might make a few added comments at the end.
===
While In Israel we had dinner with one of Lynn's cousins and his family, then breakfast with my cousin and the another breakfast with the brother of dear friends of our in Savannnah, and his wife, an art dealer.
For the rest of the time we petty much stayed with the group doing the agenda that had been worked out for us.
Suffice it to say those we met with and discussed politics remain quite disenchanted with Obama and are very suspicious of his ultimate intentions. I left no doubt where I stood and warned them Obama would leave them stranded and if they thought he would protect their backs, when push came to shove, they were naive. No sooner had I said this then Kerry affirmed my warning with his incendiary comments leaving little doubt that Israel needed to bend to accommodate future Palestinian demands or there would be the potential of another intefada and world rejection and isolation of Israel.
One of my cousin's closest friends is America's current Ambassador to Israel and was a long time confidant of Netanyahu so anything Obama and Kerry want Netanyahu to know will get to him with no nuances.
My cousin grew up with our new Ambassador when they lived in Miami Beach and he was the son of the mayor.
Now we are witnessing Obama's pulling away from Iranian Sanctions, which helped bring Iran to the bargaining table in the first place and talk of concessions allowing Iran to move forward on development of their nuclear capabilities are moving forward..
Netanyahu's response was swift and clear that it would be a tragic mistake but Netanyahu is now the 'spoiler' because he remains tough in the face of Iranian 'cooing.'
Obama will pull another Syrian stance and the Iranians know it and all the soothing words coming from this Administration are as empty as a bag of hot air.
I would not bet against Netanyahu taking military action. Israel has the capability but not for a sustained period of time. America does but will not lift a finger in my opinion..
===
Postings of articles I received while away! (See 2, 2a, 2b, 2c below.)
===
Yes, Rev. Manning is a bit overboard but what he says, in his own fashion, needs to be heard and discussed.
I might also add that what he says is as true for Palestinians as well.
Yes, Israel has not always been as forthcoming to Palestinians needs but Israel did not start the war in '48 and until they have an honest negotiating partner it is easy to blame Israel for all the omissions and commissions afflicting Palestinians but go to Israel and see Tel Aviv, see Jerusalem and experience what Israelis have done for themselves and then think about what 'doing something for the poh' gets you and think about Rev. Manning's words!
YouTube - Videos from this emailDick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
The Wages of Presidential Deception
By Victor Davis Hanson
By 1968, President Lyndon Baines Johnson was finally done in by his "credibility gap" -- the growing abyss between what he said about, and what was actually happening inside, Vietnam.
"Modified limited hangout" and "inoperative" were infamous euphemisms that Nixon administration officials used to mask lies about the Watergate scandal. After a while, few believed any of the initial Reagan administration disavowals that it was not trading "arms for hostages" in the Iran-Contra scandal.
George H.W. Bush thundered during his campaign to "read my lips: no new taxes," only to agree later to raise them. Bill Clinton's infamous assertion that "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" was followed by proof that he did just that with Monica Lewinsky.
The George W. Bush administration warned the nation about stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and never quite recovered its credibility after the WMD were not found. No one believed Bush when he told incompetent FEMA Deputy Director Michael Brown that in the midst of the Katrina mess he was doing a "heck of a job."
Yet the distortions and lack of credibility of the Obama administration have matched and now trumped those of his predecessors. The public may have long ago forgotten that Obama did not close down Guantanamo as promised, or cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, or stop the revolving door of lobbyists coming in and out of the executive branch.
The public may even have forgiven the president when the stimulus bill never lowered unemployment as promised, or when his misleading boasts about vast increases in oil and gas production came to fruition despite, not because, of his efforts.
But the distortions and broken promises have now become so frequent that many at home and abroad are finally tuning out the president. Almost nothing promised about the Affordable Care Act is proving true. Contrary to presidential assurances, Obamacare has not lowered premiums or deductibles. It will not reduce the deficit or improve business competitiveness. It really will alter existing health plans and in some cases lead to their cancellation. Signing up is certainly not as easy buying something online on Amazon.
Two considerations often turn these presidential ethical lapses into political disasters. Unfortunately, both apply to the present administration.
First, the economy must be robust to offset the deception. Voters rejected the first George Bush for deceiving them, largely because the economy tanked in 1992. Yet the public did not turn on an impeached Bill Clinton, given that the economy was quite robust in 1998. Watergate's lies came at a time of oil embargos and stagnation. In contrast, Reagan survived Iran-Contra because of the boom years.
Second, we expect presidential mendacity to be sporadic rather than serial. By 1968, even when LBJ told the truth, no one listened. In 1973, no one believed anything that the Nixon administration asserted.
Unfortunately, Barack Obama has presided over five years of continued economic sluggishness that have not diverted attention from his administration's disingenuousness. If unemployment were down to 5 percent, the gross national product growing at 4 percent and the budget nearly balanced, we might have forgotten about the Benghazi cover-up, the monitoring of AP reporters, the politicization of the IRS and its vast overpayment in income tax credits, the NSA disclosures and the Syrian mess. Or if Obama had spoken untruthfully only once, made false promises just twice, or offered empty boasts merely three times, he might have been forgiven.
If Republicans agree to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill, can they be sure that Obama won't suspend "settled law" on border enforcement as he did with the employer mandate? If Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius assures yet again that Obamacare is suffering from a mere glitch, why should we believe her?
For that matter, will a Saudi ambassador or an Israeli diplomat now trust Obama when he swears that Syria's next use of chemical weapons will cross a red line, or that another newly discovered secret Iranian nuclear facility is a game-changer?
Will German Chancellor Angela Merkel listen to Obama when he insists that the NSA did not monitor her phone? Would the American public trust administration officials if they stated on television that the next attack on a U.S. embassy was due to anger over a mere video, or that Guantanamo would be closed in 2014?
Obama understandably came into office with a sense of immunity. His personal story and nontraditional background made him an emblematic figure. An enthralled media had unfortunately redefined its role as an appendage to, rather than an auditor of, the presidency. After the unpopular Bush administration, even Obama's empty "hope and change" platitudes were considered deep.
Yet after nearly five years of scandals, untruths and hard economic times, a now-ignored Barack Obama has finally learned that even an iconic president can tell one too many untruths.
1a)
Only 42 percent approve of Obama's job performance, according the poll. That's down 5 points from early October. And 51 percent disapprove of his performance, which is tied for his all-time high disapproval.
And for the first time in the poll's history, Obama's personal approval ratings were lower than his disapproval ratings. The poll showed that 41 percent approve of him on a personal level and 45 percent disapprove.
"Personally and politically, the public's assessment is two thumbs down," Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart told NBC. Hart and Republican pollster Bill McInturff conducted the survey.
The pollsters told NBC that no single issue is responsible for the declines. Rather, a combination of the NSA spying scandal, questions over his "red line" comment on attacking Syria, the government shutdown, and problems with the Obamacare website rollout all played a roll.
In fact, the poll showed the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, also slipping in approval along with the Republican Party and Congress as a whole.
Thirty-seven percent now view the healthcare law as a good idea, with 47 percent opposing it. The previous poll showed 38 percent in favor and 43 against.
The White House and congressional Democrats had been touting the law's growing popularity as critics blasted the troubled rollout.
But in a separate question, 40 percent say they are now less confident about Obamacare after learning more about it. Only 9 percent are more confident. Exactly half said there has been no change in their thinking.
The full poll can be read here.
1a)
Only 42 percent approve of Obama's job performance, according the poll. That's down 5 points from early October. And 51 percent disapprove of his performance, which is tied for his all-time high disapproval.
And for the first time in the poll's history, Obama's personal approval ratings were lower than his disapproval ratings. The poll showed that 41 percent approve of him on a personal level and 45 percent disapprove.
"Personally and politically, the public's assessment is two thumbs down," Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart told NBC. Hart and Republican pollster Bill McInturff conducted the survey.
The pollsters told NBC that no single issue is responsible for the declines. Rather, a combination of the NSA spying scandal, questions over his "red line" comment on attacking Syria, the government shutdown, and problems with the Obamacare website rollout all played a roll.
In fact, the poll showed the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, also slipping in approval along with the Republican Party and Congress as a whole.
Thirty-seven percent now view the healthcare law as a good idea, with 47 percent opposing it. The previous poll showed 38 percent in favor and 43 against.
The White House and congressional Democrats had been touting the law's growing popularity as critics blasted the troubled rollout.
But in a separate question, 40 percent say they are now less confident about Obamacare after learning more about it. Only 9 percent are more confident. Exactly half said there has been no change in their thinking.
The full poll can be read here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)WASHINGTON NO LONGER REPRESENTS THE PEOPLE.
They live in their own “La La” land.
Congress imposes laws on us and exempts themselves.
Their only concern is re-election and fulfilling their own
agenda.
The President is now concerned about his legacy.
He and his Democratic supporters have jammed
Obamacare down our throats. Now he wants to do
the same thing with immigration reform, gun law
restrictions, higher taxes, etc.
We have just witnessed more government “theater” with
the government shutdown. The government that takes
forever to do things, erected barricades overnight with
“closed” signs at memorials, parks, etc.
The President’s plan was maximum pain for the people.
Americans’ reaction was outrage. Veterans took the
barricades and signs from the World War II Memorial,
marched five blocks and dumped them at the White
House entrance.
Let’s look at the last 30 days and the events that have
happened.
BUDGET TALKS
The President announced, “I will not negotiate.” Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid said the House bills and
other compromises were “dead on arrival.”
In contrast, the House passed a series of bills to keep
the government open. One bill the House offered would
fund the government and delay the healthcare individual
mandate for one year. Another bill would fund the
government and return Obamacare to its original form,
with no exemptions including Congress.
The Republicans were scorned in the press while the
President accused them of doing all sorts of evil things.
Ted Cruz and Mike Lee carried their campaign to stop
Obamacare to the Senate. They called attention to this
failed program and its negative impact on peoples’
healthcare. The Republican Party was slammed in the
press for being obstructionist and trying to kill it.
Obamacare has had its grand debut and look what’s
happened.
n The computer program for the exchange doesn’t
work.
n Hundreds of thousands have had their current
healthcare plans cancelled due to Obamacare.
n The program is a disaster.
The Democrats are now appealing for a one year delay
in the individual mandate.
THE SIGNATURE PROGRAM OF OBAMA’S IS
NOW A POISON PILL FOR THE DEMOCRATS.
SUMMARY
Bad legislation is bad legislation!! People have tried to
point out Obamacare’s weaknesses, only to be shouted
down by the Democrats, saying “It’s the law of the land,
both Houses passed it, the President signed it, and the
Supreme Court approved it.”
Obamacare is a major problem for the American people.
The majority of American’s like their current healthcare
plan. They are now losing it to a program that is flawed
and doesn’t work.
WASHINGTON, START LISTENING TO THE
AMERICAN VOTERS!
America is a great country, providing we stop passing
dumb laws!
2a)
Strassel: How to Beat the 'War on Women'
Why Ken Cuccinelli and Chris Christie, who share views on social issues, got very different results.
By
Kimberley A. Strassel
Nov. 7, 2013 6:31 p.m. ET
The Democrats' war-on-women theme claimed another GOP casualty this week in Virginia, even as it hit a wall in New Jersey. There's a lesson here, though it isn't what the cognoscenti claim.
The left has spent the past few years fine-tuning a method for destroying Republican candidates in states the GOP ought to win. The attack plan was rolled out successfully against Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli, slamming him with a wave of special-interest-group ads that claimed he was too "extreme" for the Old Dominion.
Democrat Terry McAuliffe and his allies told Virginia women that Mr. Cuccinelli would take away their right to an abortion, to contraception, to health clinics. The nonstop controversy over Mr. Cuccinelli's positions on social issues diverted attention from Mr. McAuliffe's ethics baggage and his own positions on social issues. Which was the idea.
It worked. Mr. Cuccinelli beat Mr. McAuliffe by three percentage points among men, with 48% of the vote. But he lost women by nine percentage points. And he was trounced among younger women—ages 30 to 44—pulling just 37% of their vote. This was a 19-point drop from what Bob McDonnell, the current GOP governor and a social conservative himself, received in 2009.
Now skip up to New Jersey, where Chris Christie stormed to re-election with a stunning 60.4% of the vote. He won 57% of women, including a striking 53% of women ages 30-44, beating his opponent—a woman—in the latter category by eight points. In New Jersey.
The media elite—the Democratic elite—were quick to offer their analysis. The New Jersey governor, they explained, proved the triumph of centrism and mainstream ideas in the Republican Party. The country is changing, and GOP salvation lies in moving away from its "hard-line" views on abortion and gay marriage, and toward the more "moderate" governance of Chris Christie.
Is that so? Mr. Christie is pro-life. He's against assisted suicide. He opposes gay marriage. He has rejected equal-pay bills. He cut funding for Planned Parenthood in his state. He then vetoed bills to restore that funding five times.
Mr. Cuccinelli's loss was not a verdict on social issues. It was a verdict on his unwillingness to address the left's attacks. The Virginia attorney general spent a career speaking forcefully on social issues, yet when the controversy hit him in this race, he wilted.
He adopted—as many Republicans have—what co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage Maggie Gallagher calls the GOP's "truce" strategy. As she describes it: "Republican candidates pledge not to run ads on topics such as abortion. When social subjects arise, GOP candidates go mute, retreat and change the subject."
Throughout the Virginia race, Mr. Cuccinelli danced around the question of abortion in debates. He ran ads to "counter" the Democratic theme but never mentioned the subject. One ad featured a black woman, "a mother and a Democrat," who insisted that the "attacks against him are false and misleading." She then switched to his jobs plan.
This silence leaves the left to entirely define social issues in a way that hurts Republicans, while giving a pass to Democratic candidates who hold extreme positions. During the campaign, Mr. McAuliffe told students at George Mason University that he would oppose any restrictions on abortion at any time. He promised to be a "brick wall" against late-term-abortion legislation.
This position, polls show, is shared by only a small percentage of Americans. A Susan B. Anthony poll in Virginia in March reported that Virginia women were significantly less keen to vote for Mr. McAuliffe when made aware of his social positions. Most were never made aware.
The left tried the McAuliffe strategy with Mr. Christie, but it never got much traction. For one, the New Jersey governor didn't duck. "I'm pro-life," he said in 2011. "I believe in exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. That's my position, take it or leave it." Most New Jerseyans did not regard Mr. Christie's characteristically blunt statement as a deal breaker. All the more so because the governor made clear that his primary focus was jobs, government reform and education.
Mr. Christie also deftly put social controversies in a broader framework where he had the upper hand. He insisted that his Planned Parenthood cuts were necessary to fix a gaping budget deficit—and he never wavered. His recent decision not to appeal a state Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage was partly a bow to political reality, yet he also described it as a nod to his voters' will.
Independents, women and even some Republicans appreciated that states-rights approach. And most conservatives opposed to gay marriage were willing to give Mr. Christie a pass, in light of his clear stance on the issue and his fight up to that point.
The Christie victory was, if anything, proof that voters want candidates with strong moral convictions—while showing commitment to a primary goal of pushing for economic and other basic reforms. Republicans who learn that lesson might finally be able to rout the war-on-women attack.
Klaven on the Culture
For the past few days I have been regretting my inability to sell two op-eds I wrote when Barack Obama was first running for president. Both failed to win the favor of the editors of the Wall Street Journal and other fine venues — I suspect because they were, essentially, novelistic insights offered as journalism. But as it turned out (since I’m really quite a good novelist!) they were both rather perspicacious and I wish I had gotten them into print.
One of them was about the peculiar way Barack Obama lies, which is not like the way other politicians lie. Our own Roger Simon has just posted a thoughtful and insightful essay on this very subject. And I, when I couldn’t sell my op-ed, put some of my observations into my Klavan on the Culture video series “Talking Crap” (see above). So the idea is now pretty well covered.
The other unpublished op-ed, however, is more to the point of the present moment. It was based on Obama’s answer to the usual campaign question: “Why do you want to be president?” His answer, which I can no longer find to quote verbatim, had to do with how inspiring it would be to black children to see him sworn in on Inauguration Day.
That, I wrote at the time, is not a reason to be president. It’s a reason to play the president, as an actor plays a role. In this long-ago unpublished op-ed, I used my novelistic x-ray vision to look into the then-candidate’s soul and point out that this was not a man who actually wanted to do — or was even capable of doing — the work of a chief executive. He just thought it would be an all around Good Thing if he could live out his fantasy of being in that part.
It is now apparent to any honest observer that Obama is a rank incompetent too arrogant and foolish to alter his political philosophy even after reality has proven it false. As his record at the time of his original candidacy should have warned us, he has no business in the Oval Office. He simply isn’t up for the job.
And what is extra tragicomical about Obama’s spectacular failure is that so many of the journalists who cover him are ALSO content to have him play rather than be the president — just as they themselves are content to play at heroically helping the poor and minorities even as their left-wing policies make the poor even poorer and the marginalized more marginalized still.
The reason for this is that both Obama and many of our journalists were trained in the post-modern academy where they were taught that there is no such thing as moral truth but only culturally inculcated narratives. In such a world, the moral narrative that can be drummed into the head of the populace is the truth that wins. Convincing people that a good has been achieved is the same as achieving it.
Within the narrative cloud created by these journalists, Obama remains safe in his illusions while the rest of us suffer the consequences. He believes that playing the president and being the president are much the same thing. It is as if Bruce Willis believed he could save a skyscraper full of people by jumping off the roof clutching a fire hose.
For those of us who face the world head on? We don’t need Mulder and Scully to tell us: the truth is out there. Obama has lost the gains of the Iraq war and sacrificed the lives of our soldiers in Afghanistan to no purpose. He has alienated our allies in Germany, France and, God help us, Saudi Arabia, while playing the fool for our enemies in Iran and Russia. He has ruthlessly curtailed free speech by abusing the powers of the IRS against his political opponents, spying on and persecuting journalists, and encouraging the imprisonment of a video maker to suit his political ends. He has brutally hobbled our economy with anti-business regulations written by the very legislators who brought on the recession in the first place. And now, through lies and corrupt political machinations, he has saddled us with a chaotic and overbearing health care law that, even when operational, will never be worth its weight in debt and curtailed liberties.
He has done all that — and when his second term is over, he can look forward to a life of making speeches to students and waving at crowds and giving interviews to fawning journalists who will all be charmed into historical ignorance by what they feel was his Oscar-worthy performance as President of the United States.
But in this left-wing country of the blind, even a one-eyed man can see: Obama’s political achievements, like Hillary Clinton’s political achievements, like Ben Kingsley’s role in freeing India from British rule, are all of a piece — a narrative illusion fostered on us by those who do not believe there is any truth to tell.
2c)
Subject: UPDATE -- KERRY THREATENS ISRAEL WITH THIRD INTIFADA,
AND INTERNATIONAL ISOLATION
By Leo Rennert
Secretary of State John Kerry appears to have shed the last vestige of a
U.S. honest broker role in pursuing an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord.
While conducting shuttle diplomacy with stops in Israel, the West Bank and
Jordan, Kerry unleashed a torrent of sharply critical remarks about Israel
and its government.
If current peace negotiations fall apart, Kerry warned Israelis that the
result would be a third intifada of terrorist attacks against Israel.
But that was just for starters.
In addition, Kerry said, Israel would be more internationally isolated,
there would be increased calls for boycotts and divestment from Israel, and
the advent of a Palestinian leadership committed to violence.
For good measure, Kerry also denounced Jewish settlements in the West Bank
as "illegitimate" and called for an end of the presence of "IDF soldiers
perpetually in the West Bank."
Kerry's remarks fit perfectly with the Palestinian playbook. His
anti-Israel outbursts were bound to play well in Ramallah and Amman. But in
Israel, they left a bitter impression of an Obama administration determined
to score points with Palestinians and Arab regimes at Israel's existential
expense.
In response to Kerry, Israeli officials said they won't bow to his
"intimidation tactics." They also warned that Kerry's remarks will harm the
peace process by encouraging the Palestinians not to compromise. With Kerry
on their side, why should they?
Obama's successful visit to Israel earlier this year was just torpedoed by
his secretary of state, who presumably wasn't' just speaking for himself,
but also for his boss.
