About Me

Name: Patrick Henry
Location: Vancouver, WA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

LET THE GOOD TIMES ROLL

Posted by Patrick Henry on Sunday, February 22, 2009 3:00:04 PM
 
 
   They're dancing in the streets on Chicago's south side and in New Orleans. Welfare is back -- on steroids. One enormous Porkulus and abra kadabra -- the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 is completely undone, and the already broke states are expected by the Democrats and the administration to pick up the tab.
   Oh yeah, it's on a few of the 1400 pages YOU didn't read in the so-called stimulus bill. When TANF - Temporary Assistance to Needy Families -- was originated, welfare recipients were put on a five-year clock. They had that long t get a job and get off welfare, and states were given federal incentives to REDUCE their welfare rolls. Under Porkulus, the whole process is turned upside down, and the stimulus "incentive" for the states depends on INCREASING their welfare rolls.
   But there is a zinger in the bill, and it's a dandy. While the stimulus money is temporary, in order to get it the states must liberalize their welfare policies and make those changes PERMANENT. Obama intends his "spread the wealth around" policy to be the gift that keeps on giving. Only he expects the states to find a way to keep the money flowing to the hardcore unemployed who have no intention of seeking work. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal says that Obama and the Dems are asking him to "spend a dollar to get a dime." While Dems are attacking him and other southern governors for threatening to refuse parts of Porkulus, they should be hailed in their states as heroes for not saddling their governments with long-term commitments that will threaten to bankrupt their states down the road. Of course the hardcore welfare bums will howl because they don't care. They just want their checks!
   In 2006, I talked with one of the non-working poor in Houston, Texas, who had begun receiving TANF checks. He had been into drugs and petty crime, and wouldn't stay in rehab or keep a job even after we helped him get it. When I reminded him that he couldn't live on TANF forever, and that the five-year clock was ticking, he just looked at me with a smirk and said, "No way, man. There's no way the man will really go through with cutting us off in five years." His reasoning was that in the cycle of things, Democrats would eventually regain power, and when they did, they would restore welfare as usual. That young man, by the way, was born in the projects on Chicago's south side. And I couldn't help but realize, as I gagged my way through the text of Porkulus, what a visionary prophet he turned out to be.
   There is no nice way to put it. The Chosen One and his Democrat shills are determined to make those of us who work hard and make a living support those who won't. So while the hardcore sits around on their lazy backsides watching their government funded color TVs and making illegitimate babies, the rest of us will have to work deeper and deeper into each year just to meet the tax burden necessary to support their indolence. 
   Responsibility in America has just taken an enormous step backward. The nimrod politicians in congress don't really represent us. Porkulus, with its "green" golf carts, railways to nowhere and welfare handouts has made that abundantly clear. Maybe it's time to remind them, and the Obama Fuhrer, what happens in America when taxation without representation becomes policy.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SURPRISED?

Posted by Patrick Henry on Saturday, February 21, 2009 9:20:17 AM
 
 
   American voters are odd birds. They vote for a guy with no experience because they're mad at a guy who can't run again. They cling to the promises they want to hear, and then carp when the guy they put in office does the very things he promised to do. Go figure.
   Yesterday, I watched three couples being interviewed. They now owed more on their houses than the houses were worth, were middle income families, had struggled to keep their mortgages current and were expressing outrage that their neighbors, whose circumstances were similar except that they had not paid their mortgages, were now in line to get government help, while they were on the outside looking in. In each case, both husband and wife had voted for Barack Obama.
   A Democrat who is a friend of mine was complaining the other day that his piece of the stimulus was going to amount to about $13 dollars a week, and people who paid no taxes at all were also getting "rebates," a euphemism for "welfare check" since one can't be "rebated" what they never paid.. Another, a big-time former Clinton backer, was griping that in one sweeping move Obama had rolled back the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 and that America was back to supporting illegitimacy and indolence once again.
   Another friend, a Catholic who voted for Obama, was wringing her hands over Obama's decision to reinstate federal funding for organizations that perform abortions overseas, noted the papal and American bishops' condemnation of Obama's stand on abortion and seemed alarmed that the Democratic congress might strip away existing prohibitions against domestic abortion. Buyer's remorse?
   Where were all these whiners when the Messiah was promising to "spread the wealth around," "help out" those who needed it, practice some "redistribution" and proudly sign the "Freedom of Choice Act?" How could they be so dumb as not to understand that the "wealth" he planned to "spread around." was theirs, that the "help" he promised the needy was welfare all over again, or that the "it's above my pay gade" cop-out was code for the fact that the man is an all-out, no holds barred abortionist? Somebody must have been sprinkling dumb powder in the drinking water!
   Are we so ill-educated that we can't grasp the notion that a trillion dollar stimulus package, by the time it trickles down to all the millions of us, doesn't amount to hill of beans, but that where it does make an inter-generational impact is at the governmental level where the runaway borrowing necessary to support it mortgages the entire nation's future? Are we so naive that we thought the "stimulus package" hyped to save us from impending crisis, didn't include payoffs for the unions, the environmentalists, the healthcare socialists, ACORN and the others who helped sweep Obama into power? Were we so foolish that we blindly believed Obama's stern pronouncement, later branded as absolutely false by at least two fact-checking organizations, that "there are no earmarks in this bill?" Maybe I.Q.s have dropped sharply in the last several years, or maybe it's just that a war weary nation teetering on the verge of economic collapse is like the thirsty pilgrims in the desert lining up to drink the sands.
   Barack Obama has opportunistically seized upon the economic crisis to enact the first stage of his socialist agenda at taxpayer expense, and you haven't seen anything yet. In addition, he's doing what Democrats always do by weakening the national defense. He's already waffling on his much ballyhooed commitment to the war in Afghanistan, slashed the Defense Department's budget by 10%, ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay WITHOUT a plan in place to deal with the murderous detainees there, and dropped charges agains the U.S.S. Cole bomber? So, acting like a true politician, he keeps the promises he made, except now they're on steroids, while breaking the promises to Americans (a strong national defense) that his party has always made and NEVER kept.
   If you are surprised by any of this, you've probably been smoking dope. Oh yeah, I forgot, some of Obama's people are making noises about legalizing that, too.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A NATION OF COWARDS?

Posted by Patrick Henry on Thursday, February 19, 2009 5:57:38 PM
 
 
   Newly confirmed U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has stirred a hornet's nest of public comment by his recent controversial assertion that America is "a nation of cowards" for not talking more about issues of race. His one-dimensional grasp of the issue is somewhat staggering in light of the powerful post to which he has been appointed.
   Holder's problem is that he has confused frustration with cowardice. Conversations about race with liberals or persons of color usually begin with "pre-conditions." When someone asks you if you have stopped beating your wife, a positive answer is an admission of past spousal abuse and a negative one suggests its continuance. Most conversations about race are conditioned by the axiom that whites have always systematically abused blacks and continue to do so, that contemporary whites are fully accountable for what their ignorant or malicious ancestors did, and that whites today must defer to blacks because they are the source of all the shortcomings of today's black community. Now most people are not going to willingly enter into a converstaion in which they are expected to say, up front, "Yes, I acknowledge that because I am white I am also racist scum, and that I owe you because George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were slavers." That's just not going to happen because healthy people avoid games the object of which is simply to point fingers, attach labels and score points.
`   If you listen to the drumbeat of black rhetoric, to the likes of Maxine Watters in congress, or the poster in the ACORN offices that says, "You Owe Us," you'll see the point. If those are the types of assumptions that underlie every opportunity for interracial dialogue, then there is hardly any point in having it, and most people simply won't. It will always just be the proverbial elephant in the corner because no one knows how to get their arms around it. Here are a few suggestions about how to move a meaningful conversation forward.
   Focus needs to be on the present. Where are we really, statistically and factually. As long as we dwell on how we feel and not on facts, there will be no meeting of the minds because there is nothing whites are likely to concede that will exorcise the bitterness of blacks who feel they've gotten a raw deal. Until we know to a certainty what the actual present facts are, we can't fix the problem.
   Renunciation of the past has a place. Some states have made public apologies for their racist or slave histories. The Confederacy and the Ku Klux Klan are racist blights on American history. One was vanquished, and the other prosecuted and punished into near non-existence. The Jews, whose persecution dwarfs the treatment of American blacks, have built memorials and museums to the Holocaust, and made their motto "Never Again." All Americans, black and white, should do the same. Lifting it up and acknowledging the evil of it gives  objectivity to past failures and points a way forward to a world in which such travesties are simply not permitted.
   Discussions require rules, and so does a fruitful racial dialogue. Namecalling invoking terms like "racist," "bigot" and "Uncle Tom" ALWAYS moves the discussion backward, not forward. If the point to racial discussions is simply to force whites to admit that they are the principal source of bigotry in America and that they owe blacks (financial) reparations for what happened to their forbears, then there is absolutely no incentive for whites to engage. Liberals have preyed extensively on white middle class shame and guilt, forcing the race card into every political campaign and legislative debate, and forcing every white candidate to start their race one down. Such manipulation only consolidates resentment and keeps the illusion of rampant discrimination in the media and the public eye at all times. But its utility is nearly at an end, and the backlash is coming. You can't simply insult and patronize a whole class of people, many of whom are guilty of nothing more than having been born white Americans, and expect them to stand for it indefinitely. It's time to find a new dog, because this one won't hunt much longer.
   Goal setting needs to come front and center. What will be the targets and benchmarks by which we'll measure the road to a useable future together in America? If the goals are to make one class of people feel good, or another comfortable then we are doomed to fail as a society because feelings can't be legislated. You could give any generic black youngster a free education, a nest egg to start professional life and a promise that in any promotional contest he would automatically go to the top of the list. But if he will not let go of the past, if he harbors racial hatred and resentment in his heart and believes that white people will always owe him then two things are inevitably true about him? (1) He has a rude awakening coming when he finds out that not all have signed on to that program, and (2) while he may prosper economically, he'll still be an emotional dwarf because of the malevolence inside him. Conversely, if you force a white youngster to defer to his black peers, tax him to benefit persons of color and deprive him of truly equal opportunities and expect him to have good and benevolent feelings about it, you are simply deluded. If the notion is to make white people today feel what black people have felt then (a) it will fail miserably, and (b) whites will always push back.
   So goals need to be clearly enunciated, meaningful and achieveable, and they require buy-in from both parties to the dialogue. More than facts, it's attitudes that keep us from talking race. We can legislate behavior (e.g., the Civil Rights Laws, Affirmative Action, etc.), but we cannot legislate attitudes (feelings). Healing at that level must be far more grassroots, bottom-up. So we need to be looking seriously at what facilitates that. The "have you stopped beating your wife" approach will NEVER produce anything but resentment, rejection, loathing and more frustration.
   AG Holder is right in his assertion that Americans don't talk about race. But he is embarrassingly wrong in attributing it to cowardice. It's frustration at an accusatory and adversarial climate and the employment of terminally dumb intimidation tactics that will only produce more of the same. Whatever happened to the biblical mandate? "Come now, and let us reason together." 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHY OBAMA OPPOSES THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

Posted by Patrick Henry on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 9:38:55 PM
 
 
   To the great surprise of many conservatives, two major news outlets reported today that President Barack Obama opposes reinstitution of the "Fairness Doctrine." That, after Obama cronies David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs left the door wide open for it during weekend interviews. But perhaps it should not come as the surprise it seems at first blush.
   If Obama's approval rating was in the 30% range and he seemed vulnerable to direct attack, he might feel differently. While some Democrats who ARE vulnerable may feel the need of cover, Obama doesn't.
   No president wants to get spanked by the Supreme Court early in his first term. Should the FCC arbitrarily reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, or congress pass a bill approving it, media outlets and conservative organizations would be filing lawsuits alleging its unconstitutionality before the ink was dry on the order or legislation. Given the doctrine's shaky history in the legal system and the current balance of the Supreme Court, re-imposition of the doctrine would likely be an exercise in futility in which the Democrats (and Obama if he supported them) would end up with the whole henhouse of egg on their face. Obama's winning everywhere else, so why ride a loser?
   Obama claims to be a constitutional scholar. Without making a judgment on that, even having read and considered the constitution he will know that government's role is to defend and protect free speech, not to stifle, control or ration it. He wants to choose his fights, and supporting an idea so blatantly unconstitutional would only weaken his claim to know and support the constitution itself.
   Robert Ruder, formerly of the JFK administration, has admitted publicly that at the time the Fairness Doctrine was principally used to stifle dissent. Obama, who seems to slavishly follow Saul Alinsky's playbook, knows that rule #12 for radicals is that if you push a negative too hard, it becomes a positive. Attack somebody outlandishly enough, and you'll generate public sympathy for the underdoog. The last thing Obama and the Left need right now is to make Rush Limbaugh into a martyr, which is what reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would effectively do.
   Enforcement of the doctrine would be harder than controlling illegal immigration. It has been rumored that Henry Waxman (D-CA) wants to expand the doctrine to cover the internet. If that is done it will also have to include television, and if all public trusts and publicly funded or licensed entities are included it will have to include colleges and universities, bastions of liberal bile. Can you imagine MSNBC forcing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews to have the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Mike Gallagher on their shows with equal time. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and this sword will certainly cut both ways with conservatives besieging liberal outlets for equal time.
   There is an alternative. Leftist organizations like MoveOn.org could spawn a radio show of their own, or even a whole station, filling the airwaves with pinko horse hockey. Not to worry, however. It is unlikely to happen because radio and television are businesses. They run what sponsors will pay for and what listeners will tune in to hear. The sad failing of liberal propaganda is that not enough people want to hear it to keep it alive for even a week. It won't survive because it is crap-a-rama, and listeners will tune out by the millions. So as much as Senator Debbie "Conflivt of Interest" Stabenow, Senator "Terrible" Tom Harkin and Representative "Hinky" Hinchey babble about holding hearings and reinstating the F.D., it is all sound and fury signifying nothing. It might pass the House, but would die a slow, ugly death in the Senate, and if Obama orders the FCC to bring it back, the ensuing court battle will leave the Democratic party and its popular president as bloodied and battered losers. You have to hand it to the president on this one: his mama didn't raise any political dummies.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

FAILURE TO LEARN

Posted by Patrick Henry on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 1:38:39 PM
 
   It has been sagely observed that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Apparently Barack Obama and his army of Harvard nitwits are unaware of that maxim. The result is that all of us in America will be forced to re-live the shabbiest chapter in our history with them.
   In 1996, when Bill Clinton was president, congress passed a massive welfare reform act that stopped government subsidies to women who continually bore illegitimate babies and forced welfare recipients to actively seek work. The indisputable result was more people off welfare rolls and onto payrolls, and a downward trend in illegitmacy, proving the principle that you get more of what you reward, and less of what you don't reward.
   By promoting and now signing the Porkulus spending travesty, Obama has essentially rolled back the entire welfare reform act and put serial illegitimate mothers and hardcore unemployed in line to get "tax credits" -- i.e., welfare checks -- even when they have paid no taxes. His plan to combat illegitimacy is apparently to make government funded abortion abundantly available so that we can just kill babies before they're born, and save everyone the trouble (and cost) of caring for them. This, apparently, is one of his ideas for "spreading the wealth around."
   When trying to forecast the result of this lunacy, one need only look at the plight of the major American companies that have been run in the ground. Where were their "leaders" (CEOs and CFO's) trained? An interesting study published on Fox News suggests that the two leading "failure factories," by far, are Columbia University and Harvard Law School. Along with the traditional business savvy, their graduates also seem to have mastered the art of falsifying balance sheets, misleading investors and stakeholders, borrowing their firms into bankruptcy and generally turning profit making enterprises into financial disasters capable only of providing them with "Golden Parachutes," while burning to the ground. Do you think it is a coincidence that Harvard and Columbia are two of the most notorious bastions of liberal politics in all of academia? If so, I know a guy named Madoff who has such a deal for you.
   This all becomes further interesting when we see those closest to Obama's financial machinations and realize where they come from. Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and Obama himself are directly connected to those same liberal schools that spawned the economic wastrels who burned down Wall Street with an insatiable grab for profit, spent their companies under the table with their private jets, luxury junkets and exhorbitant bonuses, and helped exacerbate the economic crisis caused by the real estate collapse. The latter, by the way, also occurred because liberal Democrats threatened lenders with penalties if they did not provide mortgages to those who could in no way afford them -- what are being euphemistically called today, "toxic assets."
   Now we are asked to swallow the Democrats' malarkey that this trillion dollar troglydyte of an economic stimulus bill,  loudly touted by these same Harvard-educated mealy-mouths, will save America's bacon (pork allusion absolutely intended). Recent polls show that only 38% of Americans think Porkulus will have a positive impact, while 29% believe it will have a negative impact and 33% believe it will have no impact at all. So why is Obama's personal popularity rating so high? Because the real and sad truth will not be evident for months. More government debt will drive interest rates up, slowing the economy and making major purchases difficult. More welfare will increase illegitimacy and re-create a cadre of hardcore unemployed who have no incentive to seek and hold work. And the lie that the cost of Porkulus is 787 billion (in reality, over time, it exceeds 3 trillion) will doom our children and grandchildren to a mountain of unrepayable debt. The ascendancy of Barack Obama to the presidency has emboldened the most liberal wing of the Democratic party to create the most irresponsible fiscal legislation in America's history. They should be ashamed. And we WILL be sorry!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

GOP GARAFALOED

Posted by Patrick Henry on Monday, February 16, 2009 4:37:08 PM
 
 
   Breaking news: Hollywood actress Janine Garafalo says there is something wrong with anyone who chooses to be a conservative Republican, that such people are hateful, spiteful, vindictive and bigoted. That's quite a load, even from the nearsighted nerd queen of television's nether regions.
   What apparently gave rise to the most recent rant was California voters' decision to define marriage only as a relationship between a man and a woman, and the mere mention of Sarah Palin's name. But two things are certain: (1) It is most unlikely that bit-part Garofalo will ever win an Oscar, and (2) those who think there's something wrong with everyone who disagrees with them need serious medication.
   But hers is a typical tactic of the American left. Isolate, target and attack. This, by the way, is also a tactic of serial killers (no kidding). Painting all those who reject the homosexual lifestyle and gay marriage as hatemongers (and maybe a few of them are) is the tactic du jour of those who wish to bypass rational discourse in favor of inflammtory rhetoric and hate speech. Who's to say that California voters are more hateful than Ms. Garafalo?.
   But for anyone who wants to get past the namecalling and finger-pointing and understand one another, there are some rather strong and rational reasons behind the conservative point of view. Conservatives have a problem of conscience about killing unborn babies, a reservation clearly not shared by Ms. Garafalo or our new president. Conservatives also look askance at trillion dollar spending binges that mortgage our nation's future. And we don't much cotton to the self-serving attempt of the gay community to legitimize their lifestyle by re-defining marriage. (Note: it's not conservatives who are trying to change anything. It's gay activists). It is our right as free Americans to hold these positions and there is not a shred of objective evidence proving that it is hateful, unless Ms. Garafalo intends to take the positon that everyone with the temerity to disagree with her and her leftist pals is, de facto, hateful. If that's her argument, as it seems to be, a good psychiatrist can prescribe any number of helpful medications.
   But to put the deranged babblings of this wench in perspective, one only needs to look at the recent turn her "career" has taken. Her current claim to fame is that she acts in a (minor) supporting role in the popular televison drama 24. This series slants decidedly to the right, sees prisoner torture as occasionally necessary, and decries those who put politics ahead of country. So it begs the question as to whether the addled Ms. Garafalo has, like many of her other left-wing cronies, put profit ahead of principle to act in a show with whose premises she vehemently disagreees. There is a word for people who sell themselves for money, and it isn't very nice. But, if the shoe fits . . .
   But here's some breaking news for Janine. There are a whole lot of us out here who disagree with you, with your President Obama and with the sheep in congress. We don't hate them -- or you for that matter. But we think you're wrong -- even foolishly so. We don't believe your vision for America leads anywhere but down a dead end socialist alley. And while we can still write, speak and vote, we're going to be pretty much in your face. So live with it  or take a long walk off a short pier. And if you choose the latter, let me know. There are some others I'd like you to invite along!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

GOVERNMENT TURKEY OF THE MONTH - FEBRUARY

Posted by Patrick Henry on Saturday, February 14, 2009 1:27:56 PM
 
 
      A feature new to this post is the "Government Turkey of the Month," designed to name the names of the sleazy polticians and their special individual contribution to the ruination of our once great nation. Each month we will name the winners, along with the runners-up. You may feel free to post-in nominations, so long as they appear before the 25th of each month.
   February's third runner-up is Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter, who sold out his principles, his party and America to enable passage of the Porkulus spending extravaganza. Benedict Arnold is a patriot by comparison.
   Second runner-up is Democratic Wisconsin Representative David Obey, who made sure that a huge item ticketed for national parks got into the stimulus pork barrel. The problem? it was an item his son Craig lobbied for. Shameful nepotistic corruption would be the nicest thing one could say about it.
   First runner-up is New York Senator Chuck Schumer, whose comment that "Americans don't care about these little porky amendments" angered millions, and was proven wrong by every national poll. The man has his head stuck so far into some darkened orifice that he seems to have no idea WHAT the American people think. What the devil is he doing in the U.S. Senate?
   But for the uncoveted Turkey of the Month Award, we have a dead heat. Or should that be deadbeat? Co-winners for February are Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Behind closed doors they stripped out the provision in Porkulus that would have prevented illegal aliens from getting stimulus jobs, while making absolutely certain that their Mickey Mouse to Sin City speed rail system was completely funded. In case no one else noticed, Disneyland is in California (Pelosi's dictrict) and Las Vegas is in Nevada. Then, after promising a 48 hour period in which legislators and the public could review the finished bill, they rushed up the votes in a single day thereby guaranteeing that legislators voted on a bill they hadn't even read. Reid and Pelosi are beyond contemptible, and their tactics are straight out the the Chosen One's Chicago playbook. Ditto for the stupid sheep we call legislators who voted for a pork-laden bill they hadn't even read. So, Nan and Harry, enjoy your Golden Turkey. I somehow doubt that it will be your last!
   Coming soon to this post is another new feature called the Pinocchio Award, for the biggest political whopper of each month. February is still young, but at this writing Barack Obama's nose seems to be growing the fastest. Cheers!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE BIG SELL-OUT

Posted by Patrick Henry on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:28:15 PM
 
 
   Well, it's all but official. "Benedict" Specter, "Lucretia" Snowe and "Delilah" Collins have sold out their principles, their party and America to join the Democrats in one of the most stunning rebellions against reason we are likely to see in our time. The three so-called Republican senators were heavily courted by the Anointed One, and the slick talking devil pulled the wool right over their eyes. just like he did with the nation's electorate. Now Americans will be left with the mess they've made.
   With the country already a trillion dollars in the red, they are now committing us to borrow three-quarters of a trillion more (not counting the billions in wasted TARP money). Their actions guarantee America's continuance as a multi-trillion dollar debtor for years to come, and that our grandchildren will reap the bitter fruit of their folly. I pray that when the Chinese come to  seize our collateral assets, they start with Pennsylvania, Maine and D.C. Perhaps we should replace Mount Rushmore with likenesses of these three Obama stooges.
   Another little noticed legacy of their betrayal, is the creation of a national health board that will use "research" to determine which conditions should be treated and by which prodedures. So, I guess when I'm an old diabetic and the jackass Washington bureaucrats decide it isn't "cost-effective" for Medicare to share the cost of my insulin because it doesn't "cure" diabetes, I'll just have to go somewhere and quietly die. But the troika of traitors won't care, because they got their stimulus bill that very likely won't stimulate anything except the Democratic wet dream of a government so big that it runs and owns everything and everybody.
   And for the creme de la creme, the three turncoats made sure we got a bill that does NOT mandate that companies using stimulus money must use E-Verify to guarantee that they are not giving jobs meant for out-of-work Americans to illegal aliens. That virtually guarantees that about 300,000 construction jobs, funded with your money and mine (since we'll ultimately have to pay the bill) will go to illegals. Thanks for nothing, morons.
   The remedy for this mess is not more government spending. It is getting the irresponsible Democratic majority out of office (along with the terrible triumvirate), and declining to elect Mr. Big Ears to a second term. I'm sure he'll have done enough damage in his first one to last us all a lifetime -- and then some.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHY OBAMA CANNOT CHANGE WASHINGTON

Posted by Patrick Henry on Monday, February 09, 2009 12:53:05 PM
 
 
    President Barack Obama was elected on a platform of change. Arguing that "Washington
is broken," he promised a government of transparency, rejection of pork-barreling and a
curb on the powerful lobbies. The campaign began around a drumbeat of "change we can
believe in," and ended on the note of "change we need."
 
   Observers have already begun to note the distinctions between the noble promises and
the "realities on the ground." Promises to eschew "Washington insiders" have evaporated
into a flood of cabinet nominees who are nothing but. "I will end this war," has now turned into perhaps in 23 months, with the only troop withdrawals being those authorized by Obama's unpopular predecessor. "Spendulus," or "Porkulus," depending on which commentator's jargon you prefer, is the mother of all big government spending boondoggles that even Obama's vice president admits has at least a 30% chance of failing to help the struggling economy. The nominee vetting process is in a shambles, with one nominee after another belatedly confessing failures to pay taxes due. The close of Guantanamo has been announced, with no firm plan as to where to put the detainees there, and evidence mounting that previous occupants now at liberty have already resumed killing Americans. And now the government wants to borrow more money -- over eight billion dollars -- than the country has borrowed in total between the Civil War and the the Carter administration. None of this is even remotely "change we can believe in," let alone "change we need." Barack Obama cannot change Washington, and there are good reasons why.
   First, it is impossible to change a pervasive culture of falsehood by simply telling bigger and bolder lies. This is as much an indictment of politics as usual as it is of Obama. Americans seem to meekly accept the fact that their politicians routinely lie to them, and it further seems that the more brazen the falsehoods, the larger the winner's electoral plurality. During the campaign, Obama promised with a straight face that he would (a) reduce taxes, (b) increase targeted government spending, and (c) balance the budget. Historians, economists and most rational people know that doing all three simultaneously is a fiscal impossibility. Developments since Obama's election have made that reality even clearer. Obama promised the impossible, something he had to know that he could not deliver. As long as whoppers like this one comprise the information voters believe, politicians will continue to outdo one another at telling bald-faced lies. And Washington will never change.
   Washington will never change as long as those who made it what it is keep being recycled into positions of power. Obama's list of cabinet nominees looks like a who's who of Bill Clinton's leftovers, with a smattering of environmental and energy extremists thrown in for good measure. They are mostly just politicians, not people who have ever actually earned a living in the discrete areas of commerce, energy, agriculture and the like. What they share in common is a leftist agenda and a seeming reluctance to pay their taxes on time. Washington will never be changed by the same people who contributed to what it has become.
   And Obama can't change Washington because of partisan politics. The sad fact is that people on both sides of the aisle have become radicalized in their philosophies and agendas. They like to fight, attack and, when in power, ram things down the other party's throat. Bipartisanship is a myth, and Obama's succesful stimulus courtship of three moderate Republican senators doesn't change that fact. Washington isn't about cooperation, it's about power. And until someone finds a formula to expose that for what it is, Washington will never change.
   Barack Obama has no real motivation to change Washington. His party has the majority across the board, and they will give him anything he wants. At the end of the day Obama is still a flaming liberal with socialist ambitions, and it is to that ideology and structure that he wants to change the country. So long as Washington, as is, helps him along that road, he'll make no move toward real change.
   So, you suckers who voted for him hoping for real change got hosed. And there are more whoppers yet to come. If the "Pinochhio Principle" applied, by summer Air Force One won't be big anough to accomodate Obama's nose.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

BELTWAY BETRAYAL

Posted by Patrick Henry on Thursday, February 05, 2009 9:19:51 PM
 
 
   Equating his recent electoral plurality with a mandate for big government that would
 
have  made his Democratic predecessors blush, Barack Obama has already begun a
 
headlong retreat from many of his high-sounding campaign promises. At this rate
 
he'll make George W. Bush look like "Honest Abe" Lincoln, or George Washington
 
who could not "tell a lie."
 
   No more Washington insiders he promised, just months before nominating a cabinet
 
chock full of them. No more pet spending projects, he said. Yet in a speech earlier
 
today he said, "Of course we're going to have pet projects." Transparency, accountability
 
and integrity, he trumpeted. But that was before his plum nominees turned out to be
 
tax cheats or under grand jury investigation. "We'll create jobs," he said. And yet his
 
pork-riddled "stimulus pacakage" devotes billions to pet projects that create no jobs at
 
all. How many new jobs will the honey bee insurance provision create, or the $88 billion
 
for state Medicaid, or building new ATV trails, or funding the conversion of analog TVs
 
to digital? And how can anyone justify the provision that will create 388 new jobs at the
 
State Department at a cost of $1.38 million per job.
 
   Obama seems to have confused his personal popularity with the profligacy of his
 
party, believing that the electoral endorsement of one signals blanket consent for the
 
other. But while his own popularity remains high, recent polls show that a majority
 
of Americans oppose the gigantic stimulus being proposed, and many oppose any
 
stimulus at all. A politician can win an election -- even do so by a convincing margin --
 
but that does not imply that either he or his party have a right to spend the nation into
 
bankruptcy in wanton disregard of the more adult concerns of citizens.
 
   He can even tell lies -- and early performance suggests that Obama has concocted
 
some whoppers. But in the end it will be difficult for him to escape the truth that
 
very little has changed in Washington, the so-called stimulus package will create
 
few jobs, the country will never be able to afford universal healthcare, and he and
 
his spendthrift party will have mortgaged the futures not only of our children, but also
 
our grandchildren. He talked a good game, for sure. But he's not delivering the
 
goods. Who would ever have thought that a legacy of unpaid taxes would QUALIFY
 
one for a cabinet position? Give America a break, Mr. Presodent.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

REIGN OF THE ARTFUL DODGERS

Posted by Patrick Henry on Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:30:20 AM
 
 
   Amateur hour has officially begun in our nation's capital as inexperienced President
 
Barack Obama and his coterie of artful (tax) dodgers begin their term in disarray and
 
confusion. It was former Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean who first used the term
 
"culture of corruption" in a political context. Little did he know that it would soon
 
pose an apt description of his own party, or that with the Democrats' ascendancy to
 
power it would be accompanied by a "culture of incompetence."
 
   It has quickly become evident why Democrats like to raise taxes. A number of their
 
leaders simply don't pay what they owe. This week alone has seen the withdrawal of
 
two Obama nominees -- Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer -- who joined
 
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel
 
as "challenged" when it comes to the matter of ponying up to the IRS in full and on
 
time. So America now finds itself in the unenviable position of having Rangel who,
 
as chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee has a great deal to
 
do with setting tax rates, AND Geithner, who is in charge of collecting them, BOTH
 
caught not paying their own taxes. Apparently the new policy being conveyed is, "Do
 
as I say, not as I do." And it is shameful!
 
   Combine these mea culpa meatheads with indicted Democratic congressman
 
William Jefferson (who you just KNOW didn't pay taxes on the $80,000 in
 
dirty money found in his freezer), exposed liar and cheat John Edwards, impeached
 
and removed Governor Rod Blagojevich, withdrawn nominee Bill Richardson who
 
is under grand jury investigation, and you have a pretty good start on a Dem-heavy
 
rogues gallery less than thirty days into Obama's term. Howard Dean, where are you
 
when the shoe fits?
 
   Then there is the small issue of competence. Who was responsible for vetting all
 
these flawed nominees? (Breaking news flash: Obama says, "I screwed up"). What
 
in the world is the problem here? The problem is that instead of bringing genuine
 
change to Washington, the Messiah has simply handed America a warmed-over
 
version of the Clinton administration. This is just more dirty politics with a
 
decidedly sleazy Democratic stripe.
 
   And the problem will persist as long as presidents insist on appointing polticians
 
to powerful positions instead of those who really understand the issues involved in
 
an apolitical way. Consider: CIA nominee Leon Panetta is a career politician with
 
no direct experience in the intelligence field. Daschle was a highly partisan politican
 
with no direct knowledge or training in health science. Secretary of State Hillary
 
Clinton's claim to diplomatic fame is that she traveled the world as first lady and
 
orchestrated "hit squads" to protect her philandering husband from his jilted lovers
 
and the "vast right wing conspiracy." Agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack never drove
 
a tractor or harvested a crop in his life. The list is endless. These people all know
 
Democratic politics, but there is little evidence that they know anything about the
 
fields in which they are supposed to bring about "change we can believe in."
 
   So let's announce the closing of Gitmo befiore we have in place a policy of where
 
to put the murederous lot detained there. And let's trumpet the end of "don't ask, don't
 
tell" because everyone knows that the rights of gays to publicly trumpet their sexual
 
preference trumps the esprit de corps of our military. Let's also not miss the first
 
chance to restore funding to groups providing overseas abortions, because anxious
 
Americans are undoubtedly demanding to have their tax dollars spent that way. IT
 
IS AMATEUR HOUR IN WASHINGTON!
 
   A sage writer has nicknamed the pending Obama stimulus bill "Porkulas," and
 
rightly so. With porcine promises of billions for new ATV trails, sod for the
 
National Mall, coupons to convert to digital TV, an unspecified crusade against
 
sexually transmitted diseases and electric cars for governments employees,
 
Porkulus guarantees the creation of new "green" jobs. NOT! The only thing
 
"green" in Washington is Barack Obama and his comedic troupe of political
 
nimrods who seem to be plumbing the riddle of how many Harvard eggheads
 
(Geithner, Summers, Obama) it really takes to screw up a government.
 
   But at least we can quit worrying about Iran's nuclear threat, because our new
 
president assures us he's going to talk to the mentally stable and objective president
 
of Iran. I feel better already. And if talking nice doesn't work, he can always send in
 
his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to blast Ahmadinejad with a blistering tirade of
 
profanity, thus making optimum use of yet another skill set the Democratic team
 
brings to governance. Don't worry, be happy.
Tags: politcs  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

AFTER THE PARTY'S OVER

Posted by Patrick Henry on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:40:54 PM
 
 
   It's done! Barack Hussein Obama has been sworn in as the 44th president of the
 
United States of America. He has reveled in his $150M self-congratulatory party
 
and mingled with his celebrity pals. But this morning reality sets in.
 
   The country faces the worst recession in 50 years and is engaged in two wars. It's
 
time to go to work. We will all have to sacrifice, the president tells us. Times ahead
 
will be hard, he promises. And most amazing of all is the host of conservative
 
commentary urging us to get behind this president and assuring us that there is much
 
good that can come out of the landslide Democratic electoral victories. On inauguration
 
day, the media sycophants must have repeated Obama's name 100,000 times. Barack
 
Obama, Barack Obama, Barack Obama, droned on every major network channel as
 
though it were some kind of magic incantation that would wipe away the dangers
 
and pitfalls facing us all.
 
   Most striking of all, was Obama's own repeated claim that "we are one." That
 
sounds really good, and coupled with the few bones he threw conservatives among
 
his cabinet appointments almost leads one to believe that he WILL, in fact, govern
 
from the center. Don't get too excited about the prospect, though.
 
   He has alreay announced the closing of Guantanamo Bay (without saying what
 
will become of the murderous scum jailed there). He and his congressional cronies
 
have already promised to repeal portions of the Patriot Act. He has promised to do
 
away with "don't ask, don't tell" thereby allowing open gays to serve in the military
 
(against the advice of most senior officers). He has promised to suspend the prohibition
 
against the use of federal funds for abortion, endorse the card check bill that will allow
 
unions to strongarm their way into businesses without a secret ballot, pass a sweeping
 
amnesty for illegal aliens and dole out hundreds of billions of dollars in "stimulus"
 
funding.  PRECIOUS FEW OF THESE ITEMS WOULD PASS A NATIONAL 
 
REFERENDUM, suggesting that he will use his status as "the anointed one" to
 
enact laws contrary to the wishes of a majority of the people.
 
   Worse, he has appointed Carol Browner, recently a commissioner in the
 
Interbational Socialist Party as his climate/energy advisor. You may remember
 
her. She left after Bill Clinton's presidency under a cloud for destroying e-mails
 
that she had expressly been prohibited from deleting by a court order. Browner
 
is an open champion of Marxist ideology and her favortie hobby horse is decoupling.
 
Decoupling is what happens when the government guarantees the electric company's
 
profits without regard to how much electricity they sell. Therefore they produce
 
less and the rate payer/taxpayer foots the bill, paying more for less energy. Get ready
 
for it, because it IS coming.
 
   According to a recent poll, a majority of Americans no ,longer believe that climate
 
change is primarily linked to human actvitiy, but rather is a product of planetary
 
factors such as the oceans. In fact, many scientists have noted that for the past nine
 
years the earth has actually been cooling. Yet every speech Obama gives and every
 
policy he formulates seems to be based on a premise that American do not believe
 
or support. So tell me, in view of all these contradictions, how are we one?
 
   The media has already made their choice to be sheep, a choice that will become
 
more and more bitter as the realities begin to separate from the myth. But the rest
 
of us have a choice. We don't have to be sheep! And we had best begin now reminding
 
Obama and his gang, as well as our elected legislative representatives, that in America
 
the only long-term governance is "by the consent of the governed."  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

U.N. VERSUS ISRAEL: WHERE THE TRUTH LIES

Posted by Patrick Henry on Friday, January 16, 2009 6:20:18 AM
 
 
   United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has launched yet another tirade at
 
the state of Israel because the Israeli Defense Force shelled a U.N. compound in Gaza.
 
U.N. representative John Ging, on the ground in Gaza, calls Israeli claims that soldiers
 
were fired on from the compund "ridiculous" and "typical misinformation." The
 
Israelis are investigating.
 
   But if this incident plays out like comparable ones during the offensive, two things
 
will become apparent. One, the United Nations, like much of the rest of the world,
 
is grossly biased against Israel. And two, various arms of the world body actively
 
support terrorists wherever they find them.
 
   There was a great outcry from the U.N. over shells that struck near one of their
 
"schools" in Gaza. Once again, the Israelis claimed to be taking mortar fire from
 
the vicinity, while the U.N. denied it. Then it leaked out that Hamas militants
 
and members of Islamic Jihad, both organizations known to have launched attacks
 
against Israel, were on the U.N. payroll at the school. Does the U.N. wish the world
 
to believe that extremists working at the school are incapable of mounting armed
 
resistance against the Israelis? How gullible do they think people are?
 
   Moon's language betrays the U.N. bias. He "wishes," quietly, that Hamas would
 
stop raining rockets on Israel. But he "demands," loudly and officiously that Israel
 
cease all attacks against Gaza and return within its own borders. The illogic seems
 
to be that since Israel is winning, the whole thing must be their fault. This is just the
 
latest in a chain of U.N. condemnations of and innuendoes against the Jewish state.
 
Who can blame Israel for simply ignoring the world body for the public joke that
 
it is?
 
   Now, U.S. tax dollars are paid into the United Nations for "humanitarian efforts"
 
including the Gaza compound in question, and the terrorist-employing school. If
 
these missions are being used to advance the terrorist mission of Hamas, then while
 
the U.S. is supporting Israel diplomatically and financially, U.S. money is also being
 
diverted to support terror in Gaza, and who knows where else?
 
   This same U.N. is the group that illegally diverted vast funding to North Korea that
 
may have been used to help develop its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and
 
continues to resist objective investigation of its activities and the rooting out of
 
corruption. Time after time, the United Nations has proven impotent, clumsy and
 
corrupt, and now is directly funneling support to at least one terror organization.
 
When is enough enough?
 
   Undaunted by it all, President-Elect Barack Obama has pledged to commit billions
 
to the tainted international body to help fight poverty, with almost no hope that the
 
money will actually reach the world's poor, no ability to audit the use of the funds
 
and, on performance, the possibility that aid will be rendered to those actively
 
working against the interests and policies of the United States. Yet another step
 
toward world government? It's time to stop the nonsense and derail the gravy
 
train. No accountability, no transparency, no more money. Will we never learn?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HARD LESSONS FROM GAZA - PART III

Posted by Patrick Henry on Sunday, January 11, 2009 10:07:53 PM
 
 
   Some hard lessons have been learned, or -re-learned amid the carnage in Gaza.
 
Questions persist about how such learnings can contribute to a useable future, and
 
what role the war weary, economically damaged United States of America should
 
play.
 
   Beginning with the most obvious, despite anti-Israeli and American leftist
 
sentiment, the government of Barack Obama must fully support Israel. (A) Israel
 
is our only real ally in the Middle East, and if we turn our backs on them not only
 
do we lose that alliance, we call into question the seriousness of our commitments
 
to allies worldwide. (B) Courting the Jewish electoral vote, Obama directly promised
 
to support and defend Israel. Betrayal of that promise would likely pit him directly
 
against the powerful Jewish congressional lobby, instigate open rebellion among
 
moderates and conservatives in congress, be immensely unpopular among the U.S.
 
mainstream and likely topple his government, beginning with the mid-term elections.
 
He simply can't do it.
 
   So what does that mean? Sometimes strong words by powerful leaders can fore-
 
stall the foolhardy actions of the less responsible. Obama should immediately make
 
a public promise that the current dispute must be resolved betaeen Israel and the
 
Palestinians, and that the only legitimate government in Palestine is that of Mahmoud
 
Abbas and Fatah. All agreements, negotiations and settlements must be based on that
 
premise. Obama should further guarantee that any proveable intervention by a third
 
party government, whether it be Syria or Iran will meet with swift and massive
 
confrontation with the U.S. military. Promising it means he might have to, at some
 
point, deliver on the promise. But if Iran and Syria attack Israel he'll have to do it
 
anyway, so why not use the threat to pre-empt their intervention?
 
   As painful as the non-combatant suffering in Gaza is, Israel should be allowed to
 
either finish off Hamas or force an international intervention with teeth that will
 
cripple their present and future prospects of successfully attacking Israel. Already
 
Hamas is running short on ammunition and showing signs of command and control
 
breakdown because of the deaths of their senior leaders. Sources inside Gaza are
 
also beginning to report a Palestinian backlash against Hamas for bringing this
 
cataclysm down on them. The writing is on the wall. Israel is winning and Hamas
 
is losing in everything but the court of world opinion. Leave them alone and let
 
them finish it.
 
   But the Israeli-Palestinian contest is nothing more than a shadow game for the
 
real confrontation -- the one between Iran and the West. There will never be a
 
permanent solution in Palestine until Iran is de-fanged and contained. The clock is
 
ticking and sanctions are doing more to hurt the Iranian people than they are to coerce
 
the Iranian government. What the clock is ticking toward is Iran's acquisition of a
 
primitive nuclear weapon that can be attached to one of their long range missiles. Once
 
that happens, they will be negotiating from a much different position. Allowing Iran
 
to have nukes is like offering John Hinckley an AK-47 and a front row seat at the
 
inauguration. Iran  is led by a hate-mongering megalomaniac who has publicly
 
denied the holocaust and called for the eradication of Israel, and a religious madman
 
who would have few qualms about pushing the button. The U.S. may have the
 
unenviable choice between attacking Iran's nuclear facilities or watching Iran and
 
Israel actually ignite a nuclear war. That COULD be the beginning of Armageddon.
 
   Rejecting pre-emptive war out-of-hand means that we will have to re-learn the
 
lessons of Pearl Harbor and 9/11. As long as we pretend that Iran, without whose
 
support Hamas, Syria and Hezbollah would be toothless, is not the real problem,
 
and that we can talk them out of their quest for a WMD we expose not only
 
ourselves but the entire Middle East to a series of proxy wars, to a dozen Gazas
 
and eventually to nuclear blacmail.
 
   Iran should be harshly warned now, and unless it ceases stoking terror and seeking
 
nukes should be struck a massive military blow without regard to either proportionality
 
or post-attack rebuilding assistance. With their air force and anti-aircraft defenses
 
suitably degraded, it would thereafter be difficult for Iran to support terror training
 
camps because such camps could easily be detected by satellite and destroyed from
 
the air or by commando raids. It is a question of whether we confront the devil we
 
know now, or run the risk of fighting seven better-armed devils later on their own
 
terms. Iran IS the problem. Take them out of the equation and peace will eventually
 
find a way. Leave them in play, and forget it!
 
   Barack Obama and the Democratic party have an historic opportunity to undo the
 
perception that they are namby-pamby, military-hating weak sisters who are incapable
 
of maintaining a vigorous intelligence apparatus and a robust military. By doing some
 
serious saber rattling now, they may avoid the need to draw and parry later. But if
 
military intervention is required, there is no more historic a mission than securing
 
a meaningful peace in the Middle East to change  America's perception of them,
 
write their names among history's heros and purchase their party's ascendancy for
 
years to come. They must refuse to become self-absorbed in the current
 
economic malaise and keep their eyes on the bigger picture. Obama himself said
 
that a president has to be able to do more than one thing at a time. The dictum is
 
also true of nations warranting the title "superpower." Now is the time for him
 
to practice what he has preached. Will he have the fortitude to do it? Will he be a

JFK or a Jimmy Carter? And will the Democratically controlled congress permit

him to do what must be done? If not, and the war widens, his presidency may quickly

acquire the Carteresque pallor of a one-term wonder.
 
   
 
   
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HARD LESSONS FROM GAZA - PART II

Posted by Patrick Henry on Sunday, January 11, 2009 11:56:36 AM
 
 
   War rages and casualties soar in the Gaza conflict between Hamas and Israel. Where
 
will it end and what has the world learned from it? Please note: the observations that
 
follow are extraordinarily frank. If you have a weak stomach, a penchant for political
 
correctness or a leftist bent, the full text may prove hazardous to your mental and
 
emotional health.
 
   (1) The hypocrisy of the "international community" knows no bounds. (International
 
community" appears in quotes because it is a myth. There is no international community,
 
only a callous gaggle of nation-states pre-occupied with their own self-interest that
 
occasionally support one another on specific issues when those interests can be served).
 
In 1948, when Israel became a state, the "international community" basically washed
 
its hands and said "you're on your own." Outside of America (and sometimes inside)
 
the Jews weren't well liked. International "outrage" over the holocaust was really
 
more like embarassment, because it exposed the apathy, impotence and amorality
 
of the "international community." Carving out a piece of Palestine for Israel and
 
giving Jews an international mandate to form a state was a salve for  the internaional
 
conscience, a catharsis that would allow them to move on as though the holocaust
 
had never happened. In both the simmering war against Arab terrorism and the
 
several "hot" wars Israel has fought, the so-called international community has
 
been harsher, by far, in its condemnation of Israel than any of the other parties. Part
 
of that can be explained by the politics of oil -- i.e., the world needs the Arabs' oil
 
so why anger them by siding with Israel? But a big part of it is that the world still
 
doesn't like Jews. They cost too much. they expect too much and they need to find
 
a way to live with their Arab neighbors. Like it or not, that's what the majority of
 
the (non-U.S.) world thinks, and it's how they act. It's evident in the international
 
media coverage of Gaza, and in the various "peace proposals," most of which are
 
heavy on demands for Israel to cease attacking Gaza, but much lighter on demands
 
that Hamas stop shelling Israel and arming to the teeth. Rank hypocrisy is the
 
"international community's" modus operandi, and it is nowhere more evident than
 
at the "United" Nations.
 
   (2) The conflict between Israel and Hamas is not about politics or land. It is about
 
irreconcilable hatred. Hamas, like Hezbollah, desires and actively seeks the destruction
 
of Israel, just like Iran and Syria, their two principal state sponsors. A state may be
 
susceptible to negotiation, international pressure and compromise. However, it is
 
impossible to negotiate with hatred because the one thing that is certain is that the
 
haters will NEVER keep any promises they make. That is what makes it impossible
 
for international intermediaries to negotiate a peace. Hatred never accepts or honors
 
a peace, and its objects are well aware of it. The only way to deal with hatred is to
 
either insulate oneself against its venom, or exterminate it. Israel has tried the former
 
without much success. It should surprise no one that they have now resorted to the
 
latter.
 
   (3) Recognizing terrorists as legitimate political parties is suicidal folly. One of the
 
most successful strategies of Hamas and Hezbollah has been to couch themselves as
 
political parties with "military wings." Utilizing the age-old antipathy of the Arab
 
masses toward Israel and the none-too-subtle influence of their patrons, Iran and
 
Syria, they have successfully insinuated themselves into the political landscape of Palestine
 
and Lebanon by winning some elections. Promising to end corruption, with which those
 
governments have been rife, and to confront Israel, they have laid claim to political
 
legitimacy in those states. (Incidentally, if one votes for Hamas, and Hamas then
 
goads Israek into a war that Hamas cannot win militarily,  are the voters not,
 
in large measure contibutors to their own demise)? It is impossible to negotiate with
 
hatred. According Hamas and Hezbollah political legitimacy because they exploited
 
hatred to win elections is international folly that has, in signifcant measure, led up to
 
the catastrophe in Gaza and will eventually do so in Lebanon without foreign intervention,
 
It is telling that Hamas has rejected the French-Egyptian peace initiative precisely
 
because international monitors would put an end to their incessant shelling of Israel and
 
make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to re-arm. They WANT license to kill
 
Israelis and will only accept such terms once their military defeat becomes inevitable.
 
Then, at the first opportunity, they will violate them.
 
   (4) Hamas and Hezbollah are only stalking horses for Iran and Syria. This is not
 
meant to undersell their deadliness or significance. It is just a stark reminder of what
 
the whole world knows but is mostly afraid to say publicly. Iran and Syria have formed
 
an unholy alliance aimed at exterminating Israel and extending their hegemony over the 
 
Middle East. Thus, Iran and Syria are fighting a proxy war against Israel through Hamas
 
and Hezbollah. Focusing on Hamas (and, again, legitmizing their claim to power) is
 
a cardinal error of international diplomatic strategy. International hypocrisy was never
 
more evident than when the Arab League condemned Israel's action in Gaza. Moderate
 
Arab states are far more concerned about Iran and its ambitions than they are about
 
Israel. But their hypocritical bleating continues because Israel is the target they love
 
to hate.
 
   (5) Wars (all of them) incur civilian casualties. Germany learned that at Dresden, as
 
did Japan at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. So why is Gaza different? War is a broadsword,
 
not a scalpel, and its weapons are regrettably imprecise. World politicians, including
 
many on the American left, are presently engaging in hand-wringing and fingerpointing
 
because more than 400 (supposed) civilians have died in Gaza. Yet in no wars fought
 
by western nations, including WW I, WW II, Korea, Viet Nam, Desert Storm and Iraq
 
have civilian casualties been completely avoided. American collateral damage has been
 
justified because the aforementioned wars were wars of defense, either of the U.S. or
 
its allies. While civilian casualties have always been a matter for regret, only fools
 
have believed that such wars are possible with zero collateral damage. So why is
 
Israel being held, internationally, to a different standard. It is undeniable that Israel
 
has been attacked -- brutally and over a long period of time. The Israelis' stated
 
objectives are (a) to stop the rocket attacks and (b) to cut off the endless supply of
 
such weapons to their attackers. These are logical, reasonable and legitimate goals.
 
Hamas, like most modern terror groups, routinely hides its soldiers and materiel
 
among civilians, firing on Israeli troops from schools, hospitals, mosques and
 
private homes. What is Israel supposed to do? Fold its tents and go home because
 
Hamas terrorists refuse to play by the internationally acknowledged "rules of war"
 
that prohibit such behavior? Nations of the world should not be stupid enough to
 
believe that will happen, no matter how much derision and verbal abuse they and the
 
media heap on Israel, nor how many U.N. resolutions the incompetent Ban Ki-Moon
 
presents. What would the U.S. do if Mexico started lobbing mortars into Texas and
 
California, or the U.K. if missiles started falling in Wales from Northern Ireland,
 
or France if Belgian hit squads started kidnapping its soldiers? If you're intellectually
 
honest, you know exactly what they would do. Applying a double standard to Israel in
 
Gaza is both doltish and hypocritical, and believing that modern warfare can be engaged
 
in without collateral damage -- including civilian casualties -- is plain dumb!
 
   (6) Israel has made some foolish miscalculations. Allowing their citizens to build
 
settlements in the conquered territories of the West Bank and Gaza, far from making
 
Israel more secure, only further fanned the flames of Arab hatred, Palestinian resentment
 
and world condemnation. Intransigence on that issue at the negotiating table has damaged
 
Israel in the court of public opinion, and raised questions about the purity of their own
 
motives. Further, the previous Israeli occupation of Gaza was poorly handled, and like
 
most sanctions, the blockades and border closings have done more to deprive Palestinian
 
citizens of life's necessities than they have to emasculate Hamas. Governments, too, are
 
clumsy and imperfect instruments, and it would be naive to hold that Israel's own
 
miscalculations have not exacerbated the situation as it stands today.
 
   (7) Unabated conflict in Gaza invites a wider war. Rockets have already been fired
 
into Israel from Lebanon, as well as bullets from Syria at Israeli engineers working in
 
the Golan Heights. Iran and Syria will welcome any pretext to actively enter the war on
 
the side of Hamas. If the conflict is prolonged, expect the moderate Arab states to
 
begin modest material support to Hamas, as well.
 
   These are some of the more obvious hard lessons from Gaza. What is less obvious
 
is what to do about it, whether it is, indeed, a first step toward Armageddon and what
 
role The United States of America, tarnished and wounded as it is, should play in
 
establishing and enforcing a final resolution. In the final post on this topic, available
 
tomorrow, those questions will be explored. Reader contributions to the discussion
 
continue to be welcome.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678910Next »