The Obama Show

By Matthew Continetti

Unemployment is close to 10 percent. The government is embedded in the auto, banking, housing, and insurance sectors. The president's domestic agenda hangs in the balance. Things aren't rosy on the global front, either. Public opinion has turned against the war in Afghanistan just as a major decision on troop levels must be made. The Iranians are busily working to obtain nuclear weapons. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains as intractable as ever. It's a dangerous world at an uncertain time, and last week the president responded by going on the Late Show with David Letterman.

It's all too apparent: Faced with the choice, President Obama prefers the comforts of celebrity to the duties of leadership. In addition to Letterman, there was his appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno last March and his running commentary in the ESPN broadcast booth during baseball's All-Star game last July. You might imagine a lame-duck president making such media appearances, but not one barely nine months into his term. Obama clearly sees himself as a sort of salesman-in-chief, and considers endless speechifying and interview-giving as the best way to further his agenda. The adoring crowds, raucous applause, and obsequious press coverage that accompany his appearances are cherries on top.

So, in order to pressure Congress to act on health care and "call out" all the lying racist nihilist cynics who stand in his way, Obama delivered his major address to a joint session of Congress on September 9. He followed that up with giant Si Se Puede rallies in Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Maryland and a dizzying turn on five Sunday morning news shows. Amazingly, Obama has also found time in September to deliver a speech to the nation's schoolchildren; give major addresses on the financial crisis and climate change; and contribute remarks at Walter Cronkite's funeral. The month isn't even over yet, and the salesman-in-chief already resembles the late pitchman Billy Mays.

The public doesn't really seem to mind the president's omnipresence: Obama, as we are routinely informed, enjoys decent job approval ratings and higher personal ones. And, yes, he has every right to use the bully pulpit; presidents of both parties have done so to both useful and annoying ends. Nonetheless, there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of the White House's permanent campaign. Chief among them is that presidential appearances are a lot like the money supply: The greater the quantity, the less each individual piece is worth. The public is slowly but surely tuning Obama out--look at the declining ratings for his four nationally televised press conferences. And a president who's always yukking it up is a president susceptible to gaffes. Obama may have survived his latest PR blitz unscathed, but don't forget his tasteless Special Olympics joke on Leno and his petty swipe at Nancy Reagan last December.

What's truly unusual is that the president persists in this media strategy even though it shows no signs of succeeding. Obama's job approval may be decent, but it has fallen quickly and dramatically and now hovers slightly above 50 percent in the Gallup poll. More people continue to disapprove than approve of the president's approach to health care, with significant numbers of seniors and independents turning against him. Last week's NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that the Republicans have narrowed the Democrats' advantage in the congressional generic ballot to three points, the best number for the GOP since 2004. And Republicans are favored in November's elections in New Jersey and Virginia.

Obama isn't in this situation because the public doesn't see enough of him. He's in it because his policies have so far failed to produce economic recovery. He's in it because his big spending gives deficit hawks heartburn. The president and his courtiers could try to deal with such concerns, but instead they devote themselves to the nostalgic task of re-creating the conditions surrounding his storybook presidential campaign. That might satisfy Obama's vanity. But it leaves the rest of us ready to change the channel.

Read more >>

Obama to take on military gay ban at `right time'

President Barack Obama will focus "at the right time" on how to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving openly in the military, his national security adviser said Sunday.

"I don't think it's going to be — it's not years, but I think it will be teed up appropriately," James Jones said.

The Democratic-led Congress is considering repealing the 1993 law. Action isn't expected on the issue until early next year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., recently wrote Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked to share their views and recommendations on the contentious policy. In Sept. 24 letters, Reid also asked for a review of the cases of two U.S. officers who were discharged from the military because of their sexuality.

"At a time when we are fighting two wars, I do not believe we can afford to discharge any qualified individual who is willing to serve our country," Reid wrote.

Jones said Obama "has an awful lot on his desk. I know this is an issue that he intends to take on at the appropriate time. And he has already signaled that to the Defense Department. The Defense Department is doing the things it has to do to prepare, but at the right time, I'm sure the president will take it on."

As a candidate, Obama signaled support for repealing the law. To the disappointment of gay-rights supporters, he has yet to made a move since taking office in January. The White House has said it will not stop the military from dismissing gays and lesbians who acknowledge their sexuality.

Last year, 634 members of the military were discharged for being gay, or .045 percent of the active-duty U.S. force, according to an Aug. 14 congressional report.

The largest number of gays who were ousted under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy came in 2001, when 1,227 were discharged, or .089 of the force.

The House is considering legislation to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" and allow people who have been discharged under the policy to rejoin the military.

Jones appeared on CNN's "State of the Union."

Read more >>

What Temple? Fatah says 'only a Muslim holy site'

'U.S. partner' demands Jews, Christians be banned from praying on Mount

By Aaron Klein

Temple Mount in Jerusalem

JERUSALEM – The Temple Mount does not exist alongside the Western Wall, and neither Jews nor Christians should be allowed to pray on the Mount site, Dimitri Diliani, the spokesman for Fatah in Jerusalem, told WND in an interview.

Fatah, once named by the U.S. as a Mideast "peace partner," is the party led by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Diliani spoke hours after Fatah and PA officials were accused of inciting a riot on the Temple Mount, claiming Jews were threatening the site.

"Don't use the term Temple Mount," Diliani lectured WND. "It doesn't exist. I don't know where it is. I cannot see any Temple. Can you? No one can find any trace of it. The area you refer to is only a Muslim holy site."

The PA, though, has found evidence of Judaism's historic connection to the Mount – the holiest site in Judaism. The Waqf, the Islamic custodians of the Mount, conducted an unsupervised excavation on the site in 1997. At that time, the Waqf, working under the guidance of the PA, ultimately were caught by Israeli authorities disposing truckloads of Mount dirt that contained Jewish Temple artifacts. To this day, Israeli archeologists are still sifting through the large amount of dirt, in which scores of Jewish Temple relics were found.

Diliani did not deny Fatah and the PA were involved in yesterday's Temple Mount riots.

"Palestinian political factions, including Fatah, are firm on defending the political, national and religious rights of the Palestinian people," Diliani said, "and it's evident now we will continue defending the Al Aqsa Mosque as well as our rights in Jerusalem as a whole."

Diliani did not specify exactly which Jews were threatening the Temple Mount.

Yesterday, Israeli security forces released from custody Jerusalem's senior Fatah official, Khatem Abed Al-Kadr, who had been detained on suspicion of inciting riots. Al-Kadr was released on condition that he not enter the Old City of Jerusalem. He also must remain at least 250 meters from the area gates for 15 days.

Yesterday's riots featured about 150 Palestinian protesters hurling rocks and bottles at Israeli police after Israel barred men between the ages of 18 and 45 from ascending the site that day. The order came after the PA and an Al Aqsa Mosque activist group, the Islamic Movement, called on Arabs to ascend the site yesterday to defend it against "Jewish threats."

The PA's involvement with the Mount riots come after the Palestinian public has expressed disapproval with a decision by Abbas to call for the delay of a U.N. Human Rights Council vote regarding a U.N. report that accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes during the Jewish state's defensive war in Gaza in December and January.

That U.N. report, authored by South African judge Richard Goldstone, has been slammed here as anti-Israel. The report equates Israel, which worked to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza, to Hamas, a terrorist organization that utilized civilians as human shields and fired rockets at Jewish population centers from Palestinian hospitals and apartment buildings.

Israeli security officials, speaking with WND, said Abbas likely was using the Temple Mount clashes to incite against Israel and deflect Palestinian outcry, including from Hamas, stemming from his agreement to delay the U.N. vote.

Yesterday's riots followed similar violence on the Mount last Friday. Those clashes followed a three-way meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Obama and PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

During his speech to the U.N. General Assembly days before the Mount riots last week, Obama used strongly worded language to call for the creation of a "viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967."

The term "occupation" routinely is used by the Palestinians as well as some countries hostile to the Jewish state in reference to Israel's presence in the West Bank and Jerusalem. It is unusual for U.S. presidents to use the term, although Jimmy Carter once famously called Israel's presence in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem "illegal."

"Occupation that began in 1967" is a specific reference to the lands Israel retained after the Six Day War of that year, particularly the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount.

Read more >>

Michael Moore on Being Entitled

by Austin Hill

I deserved it. I didn’t get it. And those who didn’t give it to me are evil.

That’s the “Cliffs Notes” version of some remarks made to a reporter by Michael Moore last week. Moore was on the red carpet at Washington, DC’s Uptown Theatre, the night of the premiere of his new film “Capitalism: A Love Story.”

Unlike recent interviews of Moore that you might have seen at, oh, say, CNN (Thanks Larry King for breathlessly hanging on Moore’s every word), CNSNews.Com reporter Nichloas Ballasy scored a brief, low-keyed, on-camera interview wherein he actually asked Moore an intelligent question.

Noting that Moore has been financially successful in the American capitalistic economic system, Ballasy asked “...How would you justify making a movie where you paint capitalism as evil?”

“Well, capitalism did nothing for me, starting with my first film” Moore replied. “You know, I had to pretty much beg, borrow and steal. The system is not set up to help somebody from the working class make a movie like this and get the truth out there…”

Amazing how easily one guy can dismiss an idea (capitalism) that has empowered and transformed nations for more than two centuries. .

I realize these were just spontaneous, off-handed remarks that Moore was making, but if he wants us to take him seriously – and by every indication he does – then his words are fair-game for scrutiny.

So let’s start from the beginning on this one. “..Capitalism did nothing for me, starting with my first film.” This statement indicates no comprehension of the many ways in which capitalism has enabled the very existence of the film industry, and allowed Moore the possibility of a career as a film producer. Without our capitalistic economy, there’s a good chance that neither of these things - - neither the industry, nor Moore’s career in it – would have ever materialized. Certainly neither of these things would have flourished the way they have, without capitalism.

But why bother with historical facts or, for that matter, objective reality? Michael feels scorned, so, therefore, his perceived assailants are just “bad.”

Then there’s this sentence: “You know, I had to pretty much beg, borrow, and steal.” I’ll presume that Moore isn’t admitting to actual “theft,” but rather, he is saying that he had to struggle to find the funding necessary to produce his first film.

And, gosh, think about it. Michael had a struggle in his life. He encountered challenges on his way to becoming a wealthy film producer. His career was not instantly given to him. It was difficult for him to produce his first film. Shouldn’t we all feel terrible about this?

The things Michael wanted were not simply given to Michael, so, therefore, “the system” is obviously “bad.” Moore even said as much: “…The system is not set up to help somebody from the working class make a movie like this and get the truth out there…”

Fortunately, most Americans don’t expect their lives to be struggle-free, nor do they expect to always be given what they want when they want it. A majority of us are grateful for the opportunities that the economy affords us, and we make the best of those opportunities.

But again, don’t bother with objective reality. “The system” did not give Michael what Michael believes that Michael deserved, at a time when Michael believed that Michael deserved it. The system, therefore, is evil.

Moore continued his account of his perceived victimization, telling Ballasy “… in ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ if you remember, capitalism, the Disney Corporation, tried to kill that film--tried to make it so that people couldn’t see it. My book ‘Stupid White Men’--Harper Collins tried to kill that book so that people couldn’t see it. It's only because I put the light of day on it and told people what was going on did people get the chance to see these things.”

Here, Moore’s words amount to a huge non sequitur. Again, if we are to take him seriously (and by every indication he wants us to), then, where he states “capitalism, the Disney Corporation, tried to kill that film...,” we must infer that “capitalism” and “the Disney Corporation” are synonymous.

Then, with his “capitalism=Disney” formula established, Moore states that Disney’s choice to NOT do business with him on a particular film project left him, Michael Moore, victimized. Similarly, when the Harper Collins publishing group chose to NOT work with Moore on a particular book project, Moore was further victimized.

Of course, Michael Moore should be free to write, produce, say and do whatever Michael Moore chooses. But for Michael Moore, such freedoms do not apply to others. Both a publishing and a film production company made choices that Michael Moore did not approve of, so, therefore the "system" is evil.

As long as narcissistic, self-centered people like Michael Moore continue to believe that they are so incredibly entitled – entitled to a book or movie deal, entitled to the services of another professional (a Medical Doctor, perhaps?), and so forth – capitalism, and, thus, our way of life, will be at risk.

Hey Michael... "this time it’s personal..."

Read more >>

Why Obama's Boyish Utopia Endangers Us

by Kevin McCullough

President Barack Obama is still just a lost boy at his age, and he searches for a world he wished existed. His insistence upon living in his world, though attractive to the uneducated, neglected, and naive, is dangerously heaping hot coals of consequence on the heads of those who know better.

As the very first pundit in America to predict the rise and electoral success of President Barack Obama, it is with great regret that I say the following: President Barack Obama is not a strong leader. His willingness to cede most of his domestic agenda to Nancy Pelosi has cost him dearly in his first year. And his unwillingness to admit that the world is facing a crossroads of strength through force now, or humiliation and pain through attack in days to come is a demonstration of his paralysis in the most important question of our time. His rejection in Copenhagen was a sting of confirmation--not only of his global powerlessness--but of his ability to use campaigning on his personality as a legitimate tool of negotiation.

President Obama believes his good press far too often, trusts his advisors' agreement as a sign of genuine critical analysis, and believes the American people are too unenlightened to truly understand his methods. All three realities push the President further into an altered state of worldview that are having disastrous impact on the life of average Ameicans.

The new jobs report out this week shows, for yet another month in a row, that the American people are suffering under near 10% unemployment and 17% under-employment. A proven strategy to grow the economy, and thus help small business owners expand their operation, and thus begin a hiring trend would be to not just keep the tax incentives for small business from disappearing in 2010, but to add to them, and allow the free market to multiply. An expansion of a robust economy is the only answer to serious unemployment. But the President believes that if he just has the right czar, in the right position, then job losses will be controlled. In the President's utopia, employment and the number of jobs available are fixed and "saving them" is better than or, at minimum, equal to "creating them."

With the newest Rasmussen polling numbers showing again that the majority of the American people do believe in health care reform, but do not under any circumstances desire the government controlled option--or takeover--of the industry, President Obama doesn't seem to grasp the expressed will of the people who elected him. In the President's utopia it is doctors, not trial lawyers, that are being selfish and charging people for procedures they do not need just to "make a buck." In the world you and I live in, we know that doctors run the risk of a massive lawsuit every time they deliver bad news to a patient.

In Afghanistan, President Obama has waited now for more than a month to make a decision to expand our footprint there by no more than 40,000 troops. 43 more soldiers have perished while he awaits settling on a new strategy, while the military personnel he put in place to do the job are begging him for more troops. He met with General McChrystal for all of forty-five minutes on Air Force One (for only the second time since commissioning McChrystal to the theater), while Joe Biden whispers in his ear to continue things that are not presently working. In President Obama's utopia he wishes war did not exist, but he has yet to realize that in order for it to be halted, he himself may have to recognize the threat that not addressing it properly would have.

On Iran, President Obama has issued a stern assessment of their nuclear ambitions. His stern words, in President Obama's utopia, should be enough for a reasonable world leader to be worried about so as to pick up a phone and wish to work it out that afternoon. Yet even after the IAEA's meetings on Iran, even after President Obama issued another stern deadline, the administration has begun to backtrack. In President Obama's utopia, the United States is not superior to other nations and therefore we should be powerless to have any say on how they develop. In fact if we simply give up our weapons, in President Obama's utopia, he believes they will give up theirs.

On the economy, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sounds good. In a perfect world, such purity of goodness would be a place none on this planet recognize. In President Obama's utopia, the socialists and the communists DO have it right, and this is perhaps the major reason he records in his own books his great delight in hanging with them in college. But man's depravity has always been and will always be the fatal flaw in this theory.

On America's image in the world, in President Obama's utopia he is fine with the idea of "American Exceptionalism" being challenged or even turned upside down. Yet in reality no country has suffered more loss of its own, for the welfare of others in history. To Obama, an America that stands tall in contrast to others seems arrogant. To our enemies, an America that seems ashamed of herself seems weak.

President Obama is not a strong decision maker--most law professors aren't. They are too accustomed to arguing the issue from all sides possible. He is also a man who envisions a world that will never exist. It is his inability to see it thus, that tonight makes America more vulnerable, more hopeless, and without any immediate hope of changing coming anytime soon.

It is, in a word, dangerous.

Read more >>

Obamacare: Cut the Elderly and Give to AARP

by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

Among the $500 billion in Medicare cuts that will provide the bulk of the financing for Obama's health care plan is a $160 billion to $180 billion cut in the Medicare Advantage program, which offers a range of benefits not available to beneficiaries under basic Medicare.

Medicare Advantage should be Obama's favorite program. It combines all the elements he likes -- premiums are subsidized for low-income elderly, and the companies negotiate low-priced, managed care that emphasizes prevention, treatment of chronic conditions and coordination among doctors. As a result, its costs on the one hand and its premiums on the other are both much lower than with conventional insurance.

Ten million primarily low-income elderly have voluntarily enrolled in Medicare Advantage and realize savings of about $1,000 annually in enhanced benefits over and above what Medicare itself provides. These extra benefits include reductions in out-of-pocket costs and comprehensive drug coverage, vision, dental and hearing benefits, wellness programs (like gym memberships), and disease management and care coordination programs.

Medicare Advantage, which gained momentum during the Bush-43 years, essentially implements all the economies and efficiencies that Obama preaches nonstop. Doctors speak to one another, duplication is avoided, care is managed, and there is an emphasis on prevention.

The alternative to Medicare Advantage is Medicare supplement plans, popularly called Medigap coverage. But these conventional health insurance policies offer fewer benefits at higher premiums. They offer no care coordination, no chronic care management, no pay-for-performance incentives. They have no way to control costs. They just write out checks.

Because Medicare Advantage negotiates payment levels and saves money through bulk purchasing, inpatient costs run 20 percent to 25 percent lower than under Medigap insurance. More patients are handled through outpatient care. X-rays and other radiation cost 10 percent to 20 percent less, and durable medical equipment like wheelchairs, walkers and oxygen bottles run one-fifth less than with conventional insurance policies.

So why is Obama so keen to cut Medicare Advantage? Here's a clue: AARP (the American Association of Retired Persons) does not sell Medicare Advantage. But it makes a vast amount of money selling Medigap coverage. AARP has had no higher political priority than to curb the Medicare Advantage program and replace it with Medigap insurance. The profit margins on Medigap are greater, and AARP has every intention of exploiting them with Obama's help. His price? AARP backing for his program.

AARP Members Do you feel taken advantage of? Or maybe RAPED financially?

The American Seniors Association (ASA), an alternative to AARP that represents hundreds of thousands of elderly, says, "It is outrageous that Medicare Advantage, a private program with premium assistance for seniors ... has come under attack." Stuart Barton, ASA president, notes that under Medicare Advantage, private healthcare companies "compete to provide care based on a negotiated price."

Obama's deal with AARP represents special interest politics at its worst. He has already negotiated a deal with the big drug companies to get their support for his bill (and their advertising bucks to promote it) in return for guaranteeing that the cuts in their prices and profits will be small. And, by cutting Medicare Advantage, he signed up the AARP too.

Obama plans to slash the premium subsidies to low income elderly for Medicare Advantage coverage. This would drive up the premiums and drive many poor seniors into Medigap coverage. And then, most cynically, he would take the money he saves on shortchanging poor old people and use it to subsidize the policies of people in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s who are, by definition, not poor (and thus not eligible for Medicaid).

And all this from a liberal? A Democrat?

Read more >>

President Obama and the Far Left

by Bill O'Reilly

You've got to love Michael Moore. He's running around promoting his new film that says capitalism is a terrible system, a rotten to the core philosophy. But hold it. Didn't Moore have to raise money to make the movie through capitalistic vehicles? Or did his dad give him the dough?

In one of his many interviews, Moore began lecturing President Obama: "You are one of us. ... This is not the time to be the representative of the private health insurance industry. We need you to stand up. ... And we want universal health care for every single American, and we want it controlled in a single payer system..."

Wow, anything else, Mike?

I'd love to know how President Obama feels about being told what to do by the likes of Michael Moore, a man who admires the Cuban political system. I'd like to believe the president tunes out radical stuff, but there is growing evidence that he does not.

When asked about the ACORN scandal, Obama said he wasn't paying much attention to it. Hard to believe, but possible. He also said he had more important things to worry about. True, but you can walk and chew gum at the same time. The president should have condemned the corruption at ACORN, a group that fervently supports him. But the president did not.

The far left also wants out of Afghanistan, continuing to believe that al-Qaida and other terrorists can be contained by simply ignoring their presence. At first, Obama labeled Afghanistan a "war of necessity." Now, he can't decide whether to honor his commanding general's request for more troops there. Is Obama listening to the radical left on the issue?

And then there's the loopy Center for American Progress run by Obama adviser John Podesta. They want a huge value-added tax dumped on consumers in order to pay for entitlements. A VAT would pick your pocket when you buy things. That would hurt working Americans big-time.

Didn't Obama promise not to raise taxes on working people? I believe he did. But the far left doesn't seem to care about that and is pushing the president to hike taxes.

So the picture is pretty clear. The president remains under pressure from the far left to radically change the country. But all the polls say that most Americans don't want radical change. They don't believe in it, to use an Obama platitude.

President Clinton faced the same pressure in the early 1990s but manned up. He disappointed the radical left with welfare reform and a number of other moderate/right positions. He was easily re-elected in 1996.

But I'll make a prediction: Barack Obama will not be re-elected if he continues dancing on the far left side of the floor. Michael Moore and his crew speak for a very few Americans. Thank God.

Read more >>

A Few More Cartoons...

This cartoon of Hollywood Activism really shows the truth, and also REALLY makes me angry, ashamed (of our entertainment industry) and outraged that this is ACCEPTED by those on the LEFT as NORMAL. I mean, whoopie said it wasn't really RAPE-RAPE, after all, just drugging a preteen and sodomizing her is all, while she keep saying NO! Wonder how she would have felt about it being RAPE-RAPE if she were in that position?

Read more >>

Some Good Cartoons From around the web.

There are many funny but scary (because they depict the truth) cartoons on the web today. Here are a few that I liked, and wanted to share. Any comments on them?

Read more >>

The Bizarre Silence of Child Advocates on ACORN's Child Sex Trafficking Advice

by Doug Giles

 

You know what’s weird? It’s weird that child advocacy groups (secular and religious) haven’t raised more hell regarding ACORN who, on tape, in multiple locations, and on our dime, were perfectly peachy with the potential sex trafficking of little 13-year-old El Salvadoran girls. That’s what’s weird.

 

Did anyone else notice that when Giles and O’Keefe’s characters said they wanted to bring underage sex slaves from El Salvador into the United States that none of those acornites so much as blinked? None of them—as in zero, zilch, zippo—said, “Get the hell outta here! I’m calling the cops!” I know some acorners said the workers protested the pimp and prostitute’s requests but . . . uh . . . the unedited tapes slam dance that fairy tale.

 

Instead of slamming doors in Giles and O’Keefe’s faces, the wizards of ACORN, in the spirit of helping the black and brown amongst us, suggested . . .

 

- Keep ‘em (the underage prostitutes) stupid because you could lose them as hookers or they could become your competitors.

 

- Claim them as dependants on your taxes so you can milk the government teet. - Tell the little girls to keep their mouths shut or they’ll ruin your business of selling their young sex organs to adults.

 

- The San Bernardino office even offered advice to Giles and O’Keefe on how their potential Johns could beat the girls and not get busted.

 

What the heck, child protection folks?! Why the silence? I have not heard a word from you or the National Organization for Women when it would seem oh so apropos.

 

Call me loopy, but I would’ve thought somebody in your kid-defending ranks would have made the Guinness Book of World Records with the loudest angry scream ever hollered after viewing those vids. Instead, I hear crickets.

 

Question: Were you stunned into passivity by the revelation of what ACORN counseled? I can understand that because the BS these tools advocated was out of this world, inhumane, straight from the bowels of hell, and would make the most focused and hardened amongst us dazed and confused.

 

Yep, being fish slapped with that 411 could understandably make the best and the brightest go numb and silent . . . for awhile. But like witnessing any catastrophe, the initial shock should have worn off and at least one of you should have heard the internal call to duty to make a big noise to right this nasty wrong.

 

The silence is strange because from what I’ve read, the sex traffic trade can be brutal to children, y’know with the kidnapping, drugs, human containers and repeated rapes and all. It’s hardly High School Musical III or even Pretty Woman, for that matter.

 

We have heard virulent condemnation from Rush, Beck, Hannity and O’Reilly. We’ve witnessed the dissing of ACORN by the IRS, DOJ, Treasury, US Census Bureau, both the House and the Senate, Bank of America, Jay Leno and John Stewart. I even have an unconfirmed report that Satan has blocked ACORN on his Facebook page . . . but we haven’t heard diddly from you dudes.

 

Call me crazy, but this whole ACORN underage sex trafficking thingamajig is something, I would imagine, that you guys would be throwing a full-on Tasmanian fit about: namely, the government funding of un-frickin’-believable, can’t scrape it off your shoe criminal conspiracy by ACORN, a non-profit organization, to destroy kids on the most dastardly, malevolent level. I would think you all would be going Judas Priest and would be the tip of the spear in demanding a thorough probe into ACORN’s seedy “community organizing.”

Read more >>

Why should I spread the wealth?

By Patrice Lewis

Consider the following quote by Adrian Rogers (1931-2005):

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

I recently posted this quote on my blog, which prompted a (liberal) reader to write the following comment: "All the indications are that the USA doesn't really need to 'multiply' its total wealth; indeed, that it would be a bad thing for the world if it did. But rather, that what wealth it has might need to be spread more evenly among its citizens."

I found this comment to be a fascinating glimpse into the liberal mind. Apparently, the writer truly believes what he wrote: Your wealth should be spread more evenly among everyone.

What IS this obsession the left has for stealing peoples' money? Because let's face it, "spreading the wealth" is simply a euphemism for government-sanctioned theft.

It makes sense that if you give people stuff for free, it takes away their incentive to get it for themselves. If you provide someone with free money, who in their right mind is going to give that up by earning their own money? And of course the law of unintended consequences dictates that the more money you take away from someone, the less incentive they have to earn more. Why should someone work harder and make more money if the only result will be that the government takes it away?

C'mon, folks, this isn't rocket science.

I'm assuming the writer of this comment truly sympathizes with the poor and genuinely wants to alleviate their distress. I'll assume he feels that wage-earners are being selfish for wanting to keep all their money and not spread it around to those in need.

Trouble is, this sympathy for the plight of the poor works on the assumption that wealth is a limited resource – a single pie, if you will – that is shared by everyone. This is a common but erroneous fallacy.

Wealth is not a single pie in which the poor get smaller and smaller slices whenever the rich get richer. Rather, wealth is a whole bakery of pies in which you can get another pie whenever you work hard and make money enough to buy one. The poor can usually get into that bakery too, through thrift and hard work and sensible decisions (this is known as pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps).

What about circumstances when there isn't any pie available? In other words, under what circumstances is wealth restricted? Why, it's quite simple: Wealth is restricted whenever government decides to "share the wealth" among everyone, or keep wealth for itself. If you look at most poor societies, they are usually poor due to a tyrannical government that limits resources. Where tyranny exists, misery and want remain.

It's easy to look at countries such as Zimbabwe or Somalia and see how a corrupt government limits the pie. But tyrannical governments don't just exist in Third World countries. Our own government offers selective tyranny that keeps people poor by offering welfare (which fosters inescapable dependency), implementing excessive rules and regulations (which limits creativity and free-market enterprise) and by increasing taxes (which reduces incentives and profits). In short, the finger of blame for much of the world's poverty can be pointed squarely at government, either directly or indirectly.

From a personal standpoint, I know for a fact that my husband and I work extremely hard for the money we make. We're not wealthy; in fact, we frequently hover near the poverty line. It's natural, then, that we resent the forcible removal of our money in the form of higher taxes, which is then given to unknown recipients. We prefer to spread our wealth under our terms.

But this isn't good enough for liberals, who want to spread our wealth under their terms. They take a dim view of peoples' desire to keep or distribute their own money as they see fit. Liberals don't feel people are charitable enough, and therefore prefer to use government-sanctioned tyranny to do their dirty work for them. By "dirty work," I mean forcible removal of your money for government-approved distribution.

Walter Williams wrote, "Many Americans want money they don't personally own to be used for what they see as good causes. … If they privately took someone's earnings to give to a farmer, college student or senior citizen, they would be hunted down as thieves and carted off to jail. However, they get Congress to do the identical thing, through its taxing power, and they are seen as compassionate and caring. In other words, people love government because government, while having neither moral nor constitutional authority, has the legal and physical might to take the property of one American and give it to another. … The unanticipated problem with this agenda is that as Congress uses its might to take what belongs to one American to give to another, what President Obama calls 'spreading the wealth around,' more and more Americans will want to participate in the looting. It will ultimately produce something none of us wants: absolute control over our lives."

Look, we're facing some scary economic times in our country. I would far rather spread my own wealth to the elderly lady down the street who needs help, than have the government spread it to ACORN or Planned Parenthood. Wouldn't you?

As for those who are truly wealthy, we should look to their circumstances as something to emulate.

Not plunder.

Read more >>

Feds sued to keep out of state's gun affairs

Complaint filed seeking affirmation of Montana Firearms Freedom Act

By Bob Unruh

In the second major front in the war over gun rights that has developed in just days, a lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder seeking a court order that the federal government stay out of the way of Montana's management of its own firearms.

Montana statehouse

The action was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont., to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which took effect today.

WND previously reported on the precedent-setting move taken over the course of recent months when the 2009 Montana Legislature approved the bill and the plan was signed into law by Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer.

The law provides guns and ammo made, sold and used in Montana would not require any federal forms; silencers made and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered; and there would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required.

The idea is spreading quickly. Tennessee already has a similar law, and similar plans have been introduced in many other states.

An organization called the Firearms Freedom Act has created a map of such activity nationwide:

Map of gun law activity assembled by FirearmsFreedomAct.org

The move comes at a time the nation has a president who has placed anti-gun activists in several influential positions, including an attorney general who supported a complete handgun ban in the District of Columbia before the U.S. Supreme Court threw it out.

Montana's plan is called "An Act exempting from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in Montana."

The law cites the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time it was admitted to statehood in 1889.

"The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889," the law states.

The lead attorney for the plaintiffs' litigation team is Quentin Rhodes of the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, PC. The team includes other attorneys working in Montana, New York, Florida, Arizona and Washington.

"We're happy to join this lawsuit," said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the SAF, "because we believe this issue should be decided by the courts.

"We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state," added MSSA President Gary Marbut. "The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts."

David Codrea, a Gun Rights Examiner writer, noted the federal government already has started attacking the move.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, he wrote, previously had written to Federal Firearms Licensees, warning that they could be prosecuted for following the state laws in Montana and Tennessee

"What if an FFL was not acting in his capacity as a federal licensee to manufacture for personal use, or to transfer firearms strictly within a state? Or what if a person so engaged was not a federal licensee at all?" Codrea asked.

Then he answered: "ATF's determined intent to hold all accountable under federal law has not wavered. In a letter to MSSA president Gary Marbut, Richard Chase, Special Agent in Charge, Denver Field Division, states: 'The manufacture of firearms or ammunition for sale to others within Montana requires licensure by ATF.'"

In a statement the SAF said, "The primary purpose of the MFFA is to set up a legal challenge to federal power under the commerce clause."

The lawsuit seeks a "declaratory judgment" and is "brought for the purpose of determining a question of actual controversy between the parties."

"Passage of the MFFA was an express exercise by the State of Montana of powers reserved to the states and to the people under the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution," the lawsuit said.

"The MFFA is also authorized under the conditions of the compact with the United States that Montana entered upon admission to the union. The United States Congress therefore has no authority, under the limited powers granted to it by the United States Constitution, to preempt the MFFA."

The arguments continued, "Under the 10th Amendment, all regulatory authority of all such activities within Montana's political borders is left in the sole discretion of Montana. Federal law therefore does not preempt the MFFA and cannot be invoked to regulate or prosecute Montana citizens acting in compliance with the MFFA, so long as they do so solely within the political borders of Montana."

WND also reported this week on a second front in the battle over guns when the Supreme Court agreed to hear a landmark Second Amendment case challenging Chicago's ban on handguns and onerous registration procedures on other firearms.

The Illinois State Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit against the city of Chicago claiming the city enforces a handgun ban identical to the one struck down by the Supreme Court in the case District of Columbia v. Heller and that the ban violates residents' Second Amendment rights.

In Heller, the court rejected a lower court position that claimed the Second Amendment applied only to state "militia," such as the National Guard. However, the 5-4 ruling referenced the federal jurisdiction of Washington, D.C., and not states and localities.

This case, McDonald v. Chicago, challenges a 7th Circuit court ruling that said the Second Amendment applies only to federal regulation of an individual's right to guns and not in cases of restrictions by states and municipalities like Chicago and Oak Park, Ill.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Furthermore, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, or the Privileges or Immunities Clause, states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The plaintiffs argue that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment is "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment and applies to both states and localities.

Read more >>

Iran's Ahmadinejad - a self-hating Jew?

Photo of president holding up identity card shows family changed name from Hebrew

By Drew Zahn

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealing his identity papers (Photo: London Telegraph)

Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has exasperated the world with incensed condemnations of Israel and his insistence that the Holocaust is a hoax, but could there be another reason behind his seeming hatred for the Jews?

According to a London Telegraph report, his ferocity may be overcompensation … for his own Jewish roots.

Examining a photo of the Iranian president holding aloft his identity card during the nation's 2008 elections, the newspaper discovered Ahmadinejad's original family name – prior to their conversion to Islam – was Sabourjian, a Jewish name meaning "cloth weaver."

Ahmadinejad has not denied that his name was changed when his family moved to Tehran in the 1950s, but he has also never confirmed what that original name was.

A note on his identification papers, when magnified from the photo, however, suggests the man from Aradan, Iran, carried a common Jewish name from the region of his birth. "Sabourjian," the Telegraph reports, is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran's Ministry of the Interior.

"This aspect of Mr. Ahmadinejad's background explains a lot about him," commented Ali Nourizadeh of the Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies. "Every family that converts into a different religion takes a new identity by condemning their old faith."

Nouizadeh told the Telegraph, "By making anti-Israeli statements, he is trying to shed any suspicions about his Jewish connections. He feels vulnerable in a radical Shia society."

Ahmadinejad, the fourth of seven children to a man who worked as an ironworker, grocer, barber and blacksmith, moved with his family to Tehran was he was a small child. Reportedly, the family moved to seek better economic fortunes, but also took on the new, Islamic name.

A 2007 Congressional Research Service report lists the Iranian president's original family name as "Saborjhian," linking the name to the Farsi "sabor," meaning "thread painter."

Some biographers, including Joel C. Rosenberg, list Ahmadinejad's original family name as "Sabaghian," meaning "dye-master" in Persian.

But the Telegraph reports the name on his papers is "Sabourjian" and cites a London-based expert on Iranian Jewry, who says the "jian" ending is specifically Jewish.

"He has changed his name for religious reasons, or at least his parents had," said the newspaper's source. "Sabourjian is well known Jewish name in Iran."

If Ahmadinejad is of Jewish ancestry, he has done much to distance himself from his heritage.

In a 2006 speech aired on the Iranian News Channel, Ahmadinejad listed alleged crimes by Israel against Palestinians while the crowd chanted, "Death to Israel! Death to Israel!"

Ahmadinejad responded, speaking of the Jewish people, "They have no boundaries, limits or taboos when it comes to killing human beings. Who are they? Where did they come from? Are they human beings? 'They are like cattle, nay, more misguided.' A bunch of bloodthirsty barbarians. Next to them, all the criminals of the world seem righteous."

That same year, he said, "[Israel] will be gone, definitely. You [Western powers] should know that any government that stands by the Zionist regime from now on will not see any result but the hatred of the people."

At a U.N. meeting last month, the Iranian president denounced Israel for "genocide, barbarism and racism."

"Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium," responded Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the same U.N. summit. "A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies the murder of six million Jews while promising to wipe out the State of Israel, the State of the Jews. What a disgrace. What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations."

The Telegraph reports it contacted the Israeli embassy in London for comment on Ahmadinejad's birth name but was told it would not speak on the Iranian president's background.

"It's not something we'd talk about," said Ron Gidor, a spokesman.

 

Read more >>

Across Europe, the embattled left loses its clout

By WILLIAM J. KOLE

VIENNA — Pity Europe's Socialists. It's getting lonely on the left.

Just when you might think capitalism's global crisis would breathe new life into the left, it's looking increasingly divided and tired. German Chancellor Angela Merkel's re-election a week ago is highlighting a conservative surge in her country and Europe's other powerhouse economies — Britain, France and Italy — where the center-right is either firmly in power or about to get there.

What happened?

Much of the answer lies in the nature of modern European politics, where even the most ardent conservatives can still embrace social welfare policies that would seem leftist to Americans. And in recent years, European center-right parties have mastered a certain political alchemy in co-opting some of the left's best ideas.

The result is that what would be hot-button issues in the U.S. — abortion, gun control, gay rights or state-guaranteed health care — have long ceased to rile voters in Europe.

Conservatives "have taken a page right out of Bill Clinton's playbook, and that's triangulation," said Heather Conley, a Europe scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Clinton brought the U.S. Democrats toward more laissez-faire economic policies, as did Britain's Tony Blair when his Labour Party ousted the Tories in 1997. Now European conservatives have done it in reverse — "taken the socialist agenda and claimed it as their own," Conley said.

The left's slide began well before the global recession discredited the right's faith in free markets and light regulation. The surprise, to some, is that Europeans seem to have more faith in conservatives to solve the crisis.

"In times of insecurity, the right has credibility," said Enrico de Bernart, a 43-year-old man window-shopping near the Pantheon in Rome. "People trust the right or center-right even if you don't like their objectives."

The Financial Times of London had another explanation: The left was in power for a decade in Britain and Germany, and it was then, voters believe, that the seeds of the financial meltdown were planted.

"Instead of being trusted to provide answers to the recession, they are seen as part of the problem," it said.

The right has also profited by pounding hard on immigration and crime — popular in times of economic uncertainty — while sending out reassuring messages about preserving Europe's generous welfare systems.

Analysts insist the social safety net isn't in jeopardy. "The lesson that Europe has taken a year after the collapse of Lehman Bros. is that the safety net cushioned the most extreme effects of the recession," Conley said.

"Our social system is not under threat at all," added Ghislaine Robinson, a French national who is spokeswoman for the Party of European Socialists, the left-leaning bloc in the European Parliament.

The left can take some comfort from having been re-elected in Portugal last month, and it's expected to win Sunday's election in Greece. Socialists are also in power in Spain, a major European economy.

But conservatives have deposed the left in Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland. And in smaller countries where the center-left clings to power — Austria, Hungary, the Netherlands and Norway — its hold seems shaky at best.

Its most dramatic humiliation was its trouncing in Germany.

The Social Democrats were swept from government after 11 years — falling victim to Merkel's studied pragmatism and a campaign that made vague promises of modest tax relief while taking care not to do anything that might scare voters.

Merkel "succeeded perfectly in shrouding in fog what she wants," said Stefan Reinecke, a commentator for the left-leaning Tageszeitung daily.

The left, by contrast, had never really recovered from the labor reforms and welfare state cuts that ex-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder pushed through in 2003 in his own experiment with triangulation. Like Blair, Schroeder had advocated a "Third Way" approach, only to be accused of dismantling the German welfare state.

Many Germans seem to think the conservatives, "because of their alleged or actual economic competence," are more capable of fixing the economy, said Gero Neugebauer, a professor of political science at Berlin's Free University.

Elsewhere, left-leaning politicians are caught in nasty party infighting and are up against populist conservatives.

In France, the once-powerful Socialist Party is in crisis for lack of a personality to rally around.

The party had its heyday under the 14-year presidency of Francois Mitterrand. But since losing to Nicolas Sarkozy in 2007 presidential elections, the Socialists have been unable agree on a program or a cohesive solution to the financial crisis.

Sarkozy has further undermined support for the Socialists by leaning left himself, talking of a more "moral" capitalism and leading a global push for tighter international regulations and limits on bankers' bonuses.

"Socialism isn't dead — that is an exaggerated idea," said Ives Clemenceau, a 74-year-old Parisian retiree who worked in the hotel business and voted for Sarkozy. "But the party is flat now. They don't have a plan."

Italy's left also is badly fractured and fairly feeble in its opposition to conservative Premier Silvio Berlusconi.

Critics question the left's ability to deal with the problems posed by modern society, such as rising immigration, urban insecurity and a changing labor market — issues Berlusconi has managed to tap into and stay on top in the polls despite sex and corruption scandals.

"The left governed three years ago and didn't do anything. We saw no results of what they promised Italians," said Costantino Alfredo, 46, an office clerk in Rome. "The right and the left are the same in Italy."

The center-left can't seem to catch a break in Britain, either.

The ruling Labour Party — foundering under unpopular Prime Minister Gordon Brown, suffered another indignity last week when Britain's biggest-selling tabloid, The Sun, announced it was switching support to the opposition Conservatives after backing Labour for more than a decade.

"This government has lost its way," the newspaper declared.

Most predict Labour will be voted out next year. David Cameron, the Conservative leader campaigning to become Britain's next prime minister, said voters "see a regenerated, refreshed Conservative Party ready to serve."

Labour, whose governments have been in the thick of the Iraq and Afghan wars, portrays the Tories as having no experience on the world stage — "a bunch of schoolboys," in the taunting words of Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

"I think the right wing has stolen quite a few ideas from the left and is pretending to sell them better than we do," said Robinson, of the Party of European Socialists.

"People are sick and tired of little battles between parties," she said. "What they care about is how they are going to pay their bills and feed their families. That's what matters to them."

Read more >>