About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

WHAT DOES DHS STAND FOR?

 
   After Janet Napolitano's recent galactically stupid testimony before congress, there
are varying versions as to what the DHS acronym stands for. One is that it, like the
department it signifies, means absolutely nothing, since nothing is what it is doing to
secure the nation's borders. A more appropriate version I heard yesterday was "Dumb
Homeland Secretary."
   Only a sleazy partisan politician would appoint to head a federal agency a person
who was born with one foot stuffed in her mouth up to the kneecap. Hearing her
pronouncements that "the border is as secure as it ever was" (which is saying nothing
since it has never really been secured), and that the Border Patrol is better qualified to
secure the borders than the National Guard (she opposes sending troops to Arizona),
one might understandably ask what planet she lives on. Offering her former governorship
there as a credential, she added "I think I know that border as well as anyone."
   Is there something deranging about the water in Washington, D.C.? To argue that a
foreign border riddled with drug running, human trafficking and a human wave of illegals
crossing daily is in any way "secure," is sheer lunacy. I wonder when the secretary was
last in Pinal County, or how she would feel about driving around there alone at night?
It is virtually impossible to reach any conclusion other than that she is too dense to make
the most elemementary connection between cause and effect, or else that she is purposely
dissembling to protect the Obama administration's clear open borders policy. Take your
choice. Either way it's a travesty that such a person persists in a cabinet level appointment,
or that she landed it in the first place.
   Unlike some other things I could mention, incompetence trickles uphill. If the drivel she
is feeding congress is the official line of the Obama administration, then they had best
write off the border states in the next election. And if the seeming detachment from
reality, working at cross purposes with state governments and turning a deaf ear to
national sentiment is the strategy in which they plan to persist, then they are in trouble
not only in November, but in 2012 as well. Napolitano's incompetence, density and out-
rageous statements paint Barack Obama in a bad light, not the other way around. If he
wants to salvage what little is left of his own image of competence, he should consider
replacing her immediately with someone who, if just as inept, will have the good sense
to keep his/her mouth shut thereby concealing the fact from the whole world.
   A new, and extremely sane consensus is emerging among those of moderation in the
Senate, where they have agreed to table action on amnesty until the borders are first
secured. Duh, what a concept! A large group of bipartisan legislators has sent a letter
to Obama requesting that he send the Guard to the border, armed and authorized to
defend themselves against any attack. Congress is cleverly putting election year distance
between members and the notion that they favor open borders, as Obama does, and
they are placing a formidable buffer between themselves and the rising demand from
Latino advocacy groups that they act promptly on "immigration reform."
   Napolitano has to go the way of most incompetents. The National Guard, along with
their guns, needs to go to the Arizona border. Eric Holder needs to go the remotest
spot in Washington's Rock Creek Park, utter his best primal scream and then leave
Arizona alone. And the ACLU needs to go to . . . well, I can't say that here. I'm sure
you can fill in the blanks. Only when people with common sense start applying real
solutions to obvious problems will issues like this one be resolved. Either we are a
nation of laws or we aren't. If we are, then those laws need to be enforced by whatever
means necessary. Either the president is bound to enforce those laws, or he's not. If
he's not, then why do we need him? It's not about race, gender or class. It's about protecting the rights of all Americans -- including those who are Latinos.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

 
   Conservatives have long argued that the left-leaning media employs a double standard
when reporting news. Recent events prove that case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Recent columns and editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post, not to
speak of both news reports and opinion segments on CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC
have accused the Tea Party rallies of violence and fomenting violence. They have
persisted in the claim even when alleged incident after incident is proven bogus by
eyewitnesses.
   In Phoenix this weekend there was ample footage of protestors breaking laws,
disobeying police, throwing rocks, damaging property and trespassing in protest of
Arizona's new, tough immigration law. In short, they were rioting. But not a single
one of the aforementioned media outlets accused them of the violence that was
self-evident, or worried that they might breed even more targeted violence. So why
are a bunch of peaceful multi-racial dissidents waving American flags so inherently
dangerous, while a bunch of Latino hooligans actually committing crimes and waving
Mexican flags are not?
   It is because news reporting in those venues no longer has anything to do with
what actually happens. It has to do with how the biased pseudo-journalists in those
questionable outlets want their readers or viewers to see the issue at stake. Tea
Partiers are thugs because the NYT and CNN don't like their politics. Latino
activists can do no wrong (even when they're filmed doing wrong) because of the
race bigotry of identity politics.
   And who was the first to try to capitalize on the double standard coverage? It
was a president who came out immediately with an impassioned plea for blacks
an Latinos to support him and his party in the November elections. If there were
those among us who wondered if he cared about the rest of us (who may not be
black or Latino), now we know for sure. Barack Obama is a minority president
for minorities. Silly us. We thought he was president for all Americans.
   But double-standard thinking and pontificating comes at the price of credibility.
Those of us who have actually attended Tea Party rallies know that they are,
without exception, non-violent (and it's driving the left wing nuts). There is no
rock throwing, no pushing or insulting or disobeying law enforcement. There
is no defacing of buildings, public or private, and no one is waving the flag of
a foreign country, only that of ours. The alleged spitting and racial slur
accusations crumbled like a house of cards in the light of day, and aside from
a still paranoid Bill Clinton no one really thinks the Tea Party crowd is out to
blow anything up (except the Democrats at the ballot box). The point is that
when you continue to shriek at the top of your lungs that which turns out to
be false, objective-minded people no longer pay attention to you.
   And when you repeatedly give real lawbreakers, real anti-patriots and gangs
of unruly hoodlums a free pass, no one's very likely to buy your paper or flip
on your station when they want to know how something really went down. Your
ratings will be buoyed only by the close-minded to want the garbage your
peddling to be true. It's not an accident that we independents are running from
Obama and the Democrats as from the bubonic plague. We have figured out that
not only do they lie, their sweetheart media outlets lie for them.
   How many in the Phoenix rampage do you suppose were actually legal American
citizens? How much do you think they were hyped up and urged on by left-wing
organizers? How valid do you think their concerns about the new Arizona law
really are, and how much do you think it is just more hysterical race-baiting? You'll
never get the answer on MSNBC, CBS or CNN. And you'll never find out in the
Treason Times, or the Pravda Post. News reporting that employs a politically
based double standard that holds all white ideas to be racist, all male ideas to be
sexist and all straight ideas to be homophobic is not news reporting. It's just leftist
propaganda!  We've had more than enough of that.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHO IS (IR)RESPONSIBLE?

 
   Yesterday Barack Obama excoriated Arizona for enacting a tough new law making
it a state crime to be in the country illegally. He said it was "misguided" and implied
that it was irresponsible. He's partially right. The issue does hinge on responsibility.
   Obama's position is that it is irresponsible for the state to take immigration issues
into its own hands, thereby imperiling the civil rights of immigrants who are legal
residents. Governor Jan Brewer laid the blame squarely on Washington (Bush/Obama/
congress) for failing to protect the borders or enacting a sane, enforceable policy on
immigration. So just who is responsible, and irresponsible?
   The ones bearing the costs and peril of illegal immigration are the citizens of the
state of Arizona. Contrary to Steve Lemon's yellow journalistic piece on CNN, polls
show that the tough new law is supported by 70% of Arizonans. Why? Because
they don't know what else to do. If the feds won't protect their border with Mexico,
then they see no alternative but to crack down on their own. They are, in point of
fact, assuming responsibility to protect themselves. They are not blind to the law's
potential for abuse, and Governor Brewer has ordered the design of a special course
to train enforcement officers in the avoidance of racial profiling.
   Washington, on the other hand, is doing nothing helpful. Obama's response, instead
of sending troops to the border to enforce current immigration laws, was to issue a
blanket condemnation of the new law without having read it, and promise that the
Justice Department would be looking into its legality. He agreed that Washington has
a responsibility to act, but his answer is issuance of a blanket amnesty that would
only make Arizona's situation worse, would be vastly unpopular with the electorate
and would break the nation fiscally. Protection of America's border is indiputably the
responsibility of government. The constitution says that actions not specifically
permitted to the federal government are reserved to the states. It doesn't say what the
states' redress is when the federal government stubbornly refuses to do its duty. In
this case, absent further legislation on the matter, the clear duty of the government
is to protect American citizens by enforcing current immigration laws, something
neither G.W. Bush nor Obama have had the courage to do.
   Howls of protest are already issuing from Latino and civil rights advocates, as well
as from Mexico City's inpotent government, the latter warning that the new law may
worsen cross-border relations. Now there's gall for you: a neighbor nation threatening
a border state for enforcing its own laws. Legal challenges to the law are certain to
be mounted, and the illegal alien sympathizer Obama is sending up smoke signals
that he wants a fight in congress over amnesty.
   When some Republicans talked about repealing Obamacare, he smirked that they
should "come on," step up to tell newly insured Americans they were going to lose
their coverage. "That's a fight I look forward to," he bragged. Now the shoe is on the
other foot, as so often happens in the fortunes of politics. The amnesty fight is one
Republicans look forward to. Amnesty is VASTLY unpopular among voters -- more
so than Obamacare ever was. Now, bearing the onus of having voted for a healthcare
reform bill Americans didn't want and fearing consequent loss of their jobs, there is
no way that most Democrats are going to step up and walk the plank for amnesty.
And with a very few exceptions Republicans oppose amnesty in the form that has
been floated by Democrats, i.e., a clear path to citizenship for illegals WITHOUT
ironclad closure of the border.
   The best case for impeachment against Bush was not that he lied about Iraq's
WMD capacity and took us to war under false pretenses (if he did). It was his failure
to evenly enforce the law of the land on immigration. The same may be true of Obama.
If someone wants to push the point, a president declining to defend the borders against
armed and dangerous foreign intruders (drug cartels and human traffickers) is, without
a doubt, derelict in his sworn duty.
   Democrats' subscribe to the concept that if someone doesn't like a law, just get rid
of it. Some people like to smoke pot, so let's make it legal. Some people want to thumb
their noses at requirements for legal entry into the country, so let's drop them. Their
performance makes the notion that America is a "nation of laws" into a sick joke. We
are apparently a nation of laws only until some loudmouthed, disobedient group gets
tired of obeying them and makes a stink about it.
   So, what's going to happen? (1) Activists and/or Obama's Justice Department will
find some court to hold Arizona's law unconstitutional. (2) Amnesty will not pass
because even congressional Democrats have conceded they don't have the support for
it. (3) Arizona and other border states will continue to simmer in the sea of violence
and red ink caused by illegal immigration until the cauldron boils over into a shooting
civil war that DOES cause Washington to send in the army. Who's responsible? It is
this bad joke of a president. Come on, Mr. President, step up and do your duty, for
once!
 
 
Tags: immigration  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

COMMON SENSE ON AMNESTY

 
     Granted that common sense is not a highly prized commodity in Washington
D.C. But it's catching on like wildfire in middle America, its flames fanned by the
delirious excesses of liberal policies and runaway spending. It's coming back into
vogue to believe that one shouldn't spend more money than he has, nor should
the government. But the ultimate incredible boondoggle is lurking just beyond the
horizon. It is called amnesty for illegal aliens.
   Now it's a shame that 12-20 million people have to live in the shadows because
they chose to enter the country illegally. It's a shame that they have to work scut
jobs for unscrupulous employers who illegally hire them and immorally exploit
them. It's too bad that they are victimized by drug dealers, human traffickers and
other vermin, and have to endure long separations from their families south of the
border. There are two schools of thought about that. One says that their plight is
caused by unjust immigration laws, and that the U.S. should have open borders to
receive the "tired, the hungry, the wretched refuse." The other says that while the
situation is deplorable, those who illegally entered this country have invited their
exploitation and brought the problem on themselves.
   Choosing between these diametrically opposed points of view is quite beside the
point, and it is ludicrous that elected officials in Washington are squabbling over
them. The real issue here is a fiscal one, and whatever solution is finally hatched
must be driven by that understanding.
   Consider the following. Popular estimates hold that there are between twelve and
twenty million aliens living in the country illegally. Some suggest the number may be
much higher, but let's go with twelve million. Under most amnesty plans being
proposed, the families of those granted amnesty would also be allowed to immigrate.
Conservatively, that would be another forty million, for a grand total of fifty-two
million newly legalized American citizens.
   The implications are daunting. When, in 1986, a limited amnesty was granted, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service began to track those who took of advantage
of it, only to find that ten years later they earned an average of $9,000 annually and
had a 7th grade education. That was just 2.7 million people, and the INS reports that
the cost to American taxpayers for taking care of them was approximately seventy-
eight billion dollars, and there was no Obamacare to factor in.
   But even without the healthcare subsidies, just sticking with the established figures,
the cost to the American taxpayer over the first ten years after a new amnesty would
be nearly two-and-one-half trillion dollars. Then throw in healthcare for fifty-two million
and see what you come up with.
   The point is this: even in good times we could not afford to do this. In a lingering
deep recession, facing the task of supporting a massive new entitlement and fighting
two wars, granting amnesty to these illegals now is the fastest way possible to
finally and irretrievably bankrupt the country. Now I'm sure that the Obama math-
magicians will try to find a way to re-game the Congressional Budget Office to
prove otherwise. But even considering this is insanity.
   What must be done, painful and costly as it may seem is (1) existing immigration
laws must be enforced and those illegals who are discovered must go home
and seek to re-enter the country by legal means. (2) The U.S. Army must be sent to
our southern borders to stop the daily flow of illegal aliens, some of whom are criminals
in their own country, their drugs and their families from compounding an already
untenable situation by crossing them. (3) The "amnesty" should be temporarily
granted to businesses employing illegals, and those able to make the case that
those employees are crucial to their success and could not be replaced by some
of the 9.7% of unemployed people who are already citizens should be forgiven of
their violation and extended temporary permits for those workers who can then
become legal citizens.
   There are those, I'm sure, who will call me a racist for this piece. But the only
reason it is a racial issue is because groups like La Raza (the race) continue to
make it one, suggesting that Mexican refugees have some mystical right, not
canonized in law, to trespass on American soil because they need jobs. All the
heat and race-baiting only serves to obscure the naked ugly truth. America can't
afford a blanket amnesty even if she wanted one. And the majority of us don't!
Tags: immigration  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE CAMEL'S NOSE SYNDROME

 
   Few have not heard the story about the desert trader who bedded down in his
tent  to ride out a sandstorm, only to be cajoled by his camel regarding the unequal
accommodations. Feeling badly for the beast, the trader invited him to put his nose
just under the flap of the tent and out of the howling maelstrom. Presently, the
camel slid his entire head and forequarter inside, followed shortly by his hump and
then his hindquarters, leaving almost no room for the anguished trader.
   This was a political parable, and its implication is clear. Be careful what (or whom)
you allow to get a foothold, or before long they'll own the whole enchilada. Creeping
socialism a la Barack Obama is precisely such a "camel," and it has its slobbering
snout under the flap of almost every "tent" in America.
   Many objected to TARP, but feared the fallout from failing to approve it. Then came
Porkulus. GM became Chrysler, Chrysler became Bank of America and Bank of
America became AIG. The syndrome begins from legitimate concern, but then
quickly overreaches to the point of stifling, absolute control.
   Take the present dilemma over financial reform. Few doubt, in the wake of the
costly Wall Street meltdown, that additional regulation is needed. So taking that
premise, the Obama cronies have proposed a system of almost absolute government
control, along with a structure sure to guarantee unending government bailouts of
the financial sector, something Americans have firmly stated that they do not want.
Take the little they' concede, establish a beach head, and then grab a whole lot
more. That's how it works.
   America cannot be wholly converted to a socialist republic in a day, or even in
one presidential term. People here still have some say in their own destiny. So Obama
will take what he can get now. But he'll soon be back for more, until he has fulfilled
his promise to "fundamentally transform" America from a free market nation with
individual freedoms to an entitlement ridden, government dominated oligarchy with
the socialist elite at the top of the pyramid.
   November is not soon enough to stop this train. Republicans must stand up now
and resist cap-and-tax energy policy, amnesty for illegal aliens (whom the Democrats
will quickly recruit as voters), implementation of Obamacare, bloated budgets.
financial reform that would allow an infnity of government bailouts of institutions
deemed too big to fail and the armada of ultra-liberal jurists nominated by the chosen
one to the courts. The time to kepp this camel out it now, not 2012. The question is
will the GOP have the chops to say "No More?"
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

AMERICA'S REAL SHAME

 
   Barack Obama has made his world tour apologizing for America's sins and promisng
to do better. But like so many buffoons who "protesteth too much," he has turned a
cynical blind eye to the real bones in the nation's closet.
   What is going on along our southernmost borders--in California, New Mexico, Arizona
and Colorado--is so shameful as to defy verbal description. Thousands of illegal immigrants
stream across the border between Mexico and the U.S. daily, bringing with them their
dreams of full employment and a better life, but also their guns, their drugs, their human
chattel and a  Pandora's Box of social problems for these border states to solve.
   All the while the federal government, whose constitutional responsibility is to protect these
borders and enforce existing immigration laws, whistles a happy tune, turns a blind
eye and plays politics around the euphemism "immigration reform." If it's possible, the
response of this administration (and the last) to what has become a crisis situation, is even
more impotent than its promises to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes. George W. Bush
had a "southern blind spot" and fiddled while Mexican criminals stockpiled bigger and
better matches. Now, Barack Obama has pulled out an even bigger fiddle while the border
burns with violence and even more illegal entries.
   Made desperate by the abdication of federal resposibility, states are starting to take
matters into their own hands. On the Arizona governor's desk at this writing is tough new
legislation making it a state crime for illegal aliens to be in the state and empowering
local law enforcement having "probable cause" to believe any detainee may be such a
person to demand proof to the contrary. While many contest the constitutionality of the
law (because it smacks of racial profiling), fully 70% of Arizonans support it.
   Saddest of all is the fact that Barack Obama could stop this madness if he really wanted
to. But two diametrically opposed solutions are being advocated, each with potentially
severe political consequences for him. Latino advocates are demanding that he shelve
other legislative priorities and immediately tackle "immigration reform" (which is liberal
code for granting blanket amnesty to those who are in the country illegally). The problem
with that solution is that an overwhelming majority of Americans--even bigger than the
one that opposed his healthcare reform--reject that out-of-hand. They are smitten with
odd notion that America is still a nation of laws, that the law is not trumped by these
illegals' economic motivation, and that under the constitution it is the government's
responsibility to enforce them. The downside for Obama is that an elected official from
his own party (predictably hispanic) has threatened to urge hispanics to stay home
during the next election if he doesn't act on their behalf now. The threat, by the way,
rings incredibly hollow, since there is no way they would think they're going to get a
bettr deal from the Republicans.
   Another alternative, favored by a majority of Americans, is to close the borders, by
military force if necessary, crack down (with fines and even jail time) on employers
who knowingly hire illegal aliens and arrest and deport all criminal aliens. This is
precisely what Arizona is setting out to do on its own. In a slightly more moderate vein,
some congressional Republicans suggest they may be open to some limited form of
amnesty when, and only when, the borders have been sealed and provisions put in
place to prevent continuing illegal entry. The downside of this is that there are between
twelve and thirty million illegals already here. They and their sympathizers are already
rioting in the streets in protest. And closing the borders (which we should have done
instead of invading Iraq) will be VERY expensive and will roil relations with the Mexican
government.
   So what will Obama do? Nothing for as long as he can, which may not be too long.
He will undoubtedly attempt to further politicize the issue by trying to ram through a
general amnesty before addressing border security in order to play Latino voters off
against Republicans who represent the majority sentiment on the matter.
   What should he do? He should dispatch large numbers of national guardsman to the
border states locked and loaded, and not confined to cleaning out Port-A-Potties for
the beleaguered Border Patrol, but ordered to attack and, if neccessary kill anyone
who attacks them. The Mexican drug cartels, now armed with grenades, automatic
rifles and heavy machine guns are a foreign invader and a clear and present danger to
America's national security. When are this president and his national security advisor
going to get off their dead ends and do their jobs? The message from the border states
is clear: we cannot stand another three years of this, and if you won't do anything,
then WE will!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SPEAKING FOR THE HEARTLAND

 
   Wonder what's driving Tea Party anger? Sure, it's the reckless spending, breathtaking
deficits and runaway taxation. But it's more than that. It's the "look-down-your-nose"
attitude taken by northeastern and coastal liberals toward the white middle class who
are routinely called "racists," "extremists," "nut jobs" and worse by those educated in
the east, liberal by persuasion and ensconced in the halls of political or journalistic power
by profession.
   Listen up, liberals. We know what you think of us. Now hear what we think about you,
and why. Actually, we don't much care what you think, because you've already shown
that you don't care what we think by slamming through legislation rejected repeatedly by
a majority of Americans and opposed 50-39% at this writing. We don't believe you have
the common sense God gave a goose! Who else endorses ceaselessly spending money
a country doesn't have and passing the tab on to the next generation? Maybe that's a product
of those wonderful eastern universities that are so busy telling you what to think they never
taught you HOW to think.
   But I'm sure, in all your eloquent sophistication, that you've learned the power of persuasion.
Or, maybe not! Who told you that calling people "neanderthals" (Frank Rich, NYT) or
"cro-magnons" (Courtland Milloy, Washington Post) was the way to win hearts and minds?
Maybe shaming people by calling them "racists" and "wing nuts" worked at your school. But
it would have gotten me a punch in the mouth at mine. Is this the great diplomacy you hope
to unleash on Iran and Al Qaeda, or do you reserve it solely for reviling fellow Americans?
And if none of those sophisticated gimmicks works, pull out sexually oriented slurs like
"teabagger" and throw them at everyone who dares disagree with you. It shows a lot of
class. (You'll note I didn't specify WHICH class).
   As for us poor hicks who attended midwestern schools, worked in factories, offices and
laboratories inventing and making and selling things (i.e., making America great), we're
a little tired of your pedantic prattling, cultivated corruption and bait-and-switch politics.
It has occurred to us that what you want to change and what you hope for are not at all
what the rest of us had in mind. We don't see you as particularly smart, wise, chic or
capable. And it seems that the only time you get your hands dirty are when you're
shoveling wads of OUR money to your own cronies. Clearly, we're not very attractive
to you. But puh-lease, lose the idea that we envy you.
   You want to talk to us? Then talk TO us, not DOWN at us. You want to have real
dialogue? Then ditch the odd notion that we have much to learn from you while you have
nothing to learn from us. You want to ratchet down the anger? Then quit calling us vile names
because we disagree with many of your ideas and policies. You want cooperation? Then
quit talking bipartisanship and start practicing it. Or don't, it's up to you. But IF you don't,
remember that when push comes to shove there are more of us than there are of you. And
the ballot box can be a great leveler. Think about it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SOUR GRAPES, SAME OLD WINOS

 
   What are the Democrats really up to? In a recent flurry of aggressive media activity they
have sent their president out to mock the Tea Partiers, trotted out an ex-president to warn
that Tea Party anger could lead to anti-government violence parallel to the McVeigh-OKC
bombing and continued to foment rumors about racism, right wing extremists and militias.
What gives?
   Barack Obama's honeymoon is over. The majority of Americans have recognized him for
what he is: a far-left socialist ideologue who will stoop to whatever means necessary to enact
his liberal agenda on an unwilling electorate, and  do so before they have a chance to vote
him out. Recognizing that the Tea Party movement presents a clear and present danger to
that agenda, Democrats have consciously devised a cynical strategy to blunt the wave of
criticism currently directed at Washington politicians, a large majority of whom are Democrats.
   Since it is stupid to acknowledge that their real enemies are the American people (as in
the healthcare railroad), the Democrats are desperately in need of an "enemy," some entity
they can accuse, demonize and ridicule. The logic of this is to cast themselves as well-
meaning victims of ignorant critics who may even be plotting violent and illegal acts against
them. It was no accident that FBI Director Robert Mueller and DHS Secretary Janet
Napolitano, within three, days of each other, and former President Bill Clinton all connected
the possibility of violence with "right-wing" groups. The Democrats have named their enemy, the Tea Party, when in reality the enemy is the majority of Americans who overwhelmingly distrust
government and resent profligate spending and over-taxation.
   A second prong of their strategy is to stifle dissent. They do this by casting doubt on the
legitimacy of expressing anger toward government. Clinton worried on national TV that the
words of anger associated with the Tea Party could lead "fringe elements" to actually commit
acts of violence against the government. The argument seems to run: expressing anger risks
incitement to violence, so the Tea Party needs to shut up. Nice try, Bill, but no cigar! Oh, I
forgot, the man has a lewd history with cigars. But to put matters in perspective, let's remember
that acts of poltically inspird violence have an equally lurid history on the left as on the right.
Bill Ayers, a current darling of Democrats and a personal friend of this president, gloats
openly about bombing government facilities during the Viet Nam era war protests and laments
that he "didn't do more." His acts were actually more numerous than those of McVeigh, although
McVeigh's was more effective because he was more competent. However you read it,
understand that the Tea Party isn't going to shut up because public outrage is the key to regime
change in Washington. So stuff a sock in it, Bill!
   One final piece of the plan is to deny fear. Democrat Bob Beckel appearing on Fox News
attempted to minmize the likely fall-out at the ballot box by rationalizing that "the independents
who voted for Obama" will simply stay home in the Fall. In other words, "We're not afraid
of the Tea Party because it has no political clout with the voters." One cannot help but wonder
what Bob had been smoking before the interview, but whistling through the graveyard is one
way to deny the truth that you're scared as all get out.
   While the race-baiting, fear-mongering and overt attepts to stifle dissent, a First Amendment
right, are likely to continue, the Democratic strategy is one born of desperation and the fear
that America has turned against them. Guess what? WE HAVE!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

BE AFRAID! BE VERY AFRAID!

 
   Jeff Goldblum's famous line from "The Fly" puts in perspective what those on the left
should be and are feeling today. Having largely failed in their relentless media campaign
to paint the tax protest movement as "racist" and "fringe," they have now mustered arms
of the government to denigrate dissenters and make other Americans afraid of them. It's
not going to work either, but it's an interesting ploy and shows clearly how far they're
willing to go to consolidate their waning power.
   FBI Director Robert Mueller came out yesterday with a statement to the effect that
"domestic terrorists" pose as much a "lone wolf" threat as Al Qaeda to America today.
Clarifications of his comment from Bureau spokespersons confirmed that he was referring
to "right wing extremists" like Timothy McVeigh who bombed the Murragh building in
Oklahoma City, and gave as an example a midwestern "Christian" militia group calling
themselves Hutaree who allegedly planned to target police officers.
   By the strangest coincidence, Democrats then trotted out geriatric zipper flipper Bill Clinton
to warn that the anger of the tax protestors could spawn acts of terror and violence. Where
were these "concerned" officials at the height of the anti-war protests during the Bush era?
It seems there is grave concern when conservatives express anger, but none when leftists
go on riotous rampages, burn flags and copies of the constitution, try to intimidate voters,
infiltrate peaceful gatherings and take the law into their own hands. It is this patent double
standard that creates the likelihood the current warnings will fall on deaf ears. What is sobering is
that the government of Barack Obama is putting tax protestors on notice. "We know who
are, we know where you are, and we're watching."
   So two games are being played. On the surface is a plausible warning about possible acts
of terror. But beneath is the innuendo that anger is illegitimate and violence inevitably
follows. It is reprehensible and dishonest to the core, but that should come as no surprise.
   For the record, Mr. Obama, Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi: we DO intend to do violence to
the Democratic Party and the rabid dogs on the left. But we're going to do it at the ballot box,
in accord with the constitution, legally. You'll be just as dead, politically speaking. You won't
be able to enact anymore Draconian taxes, and the ones you've already foisted on America
will be repealed. There will be no more entitlements, and when we finish with the giveaway
society you've fostered you won't even recognize it. And you won't be able to spend another
dime! Get used to it! Life as you know it is coming to an end!
   As for Obama, perhaps he should have a heart-to-heart with Jimmy Carter, whom he is
about to emulate as a one-term president. Maybe they can pick peanuts and connive Israel's
demise together. And as for Clinton, who is much better at seducing interns than as a pasty-
faced pitchman for left-wing hogwash, maybe he should hold some town hall meetings and
face some angry taxpayers for real instead of prattling about imaginary dangers from on
high. Is the view pretty good from the cheap seats, Bill?
   What these cowering wimps don't seem to get is that the Tea Party crowd is better educated
than the average American, and richer too. These folks don't have to resort to violence in
order to win the day. All they have to do is think, talk, organize and spend. That's how you
influence elections. At the end of the day the Democrats and the faux Republicans like Floridas
Charley Crist will come crashing down to ignominious defeat, their policies discredited, their
agenda in ruins. And those who orchestrated their demise will enjoy a far deeper satisfaction
than can be obtained over the smoking barrel of a gun or at the ruins of a bombed-out
building. It will be the satisfaction of living in and rebuilding a nation that is once again free,
and realizing that it was liberated not by force of arms, but by faithfulness to its honored
consitution. Be afraid, leftists and Democrats. Be very afraid!
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

TIME TO TAKE IT PERSONALLY

 
   Barack Obama brushes off all criticism like water off a duck's back. Refusing to take
it personally, he blames the Tea Party on government haters, resistance to healthcare
reform on insurance companies and ignorance, nuke policy skepticism on Sarah Palin's
naivete and cap-and-trade opposition on those who don't care about the environment.
Certain that HE couldn't possibly be to blame, he refuses to take the tsunami of critcism
personally. He should!
   Most people agree that reforms are necessary in the American healthcare system. It's
HIS healthcare plan they hate. Nobody has said government isn't necessary. It's HIS
all-swallowing, many-tentacled, ever-infinging monolithic government that has spurred
the anger. Palin makes an easy target because of her relative inexperience in international
affairs, but plenty of knowledgable veterans of foreign service see Obama's recent nuclear
policy decision weakening America's position in the world. Almost everyone wants to
protect the environment. It's HIS unbalanced socialism they don't want.
   Obama has done everything in his power to make this administration all about him. He
has used the personal pronoun so many times in his speeches that the poor thing is in
tatters. Yet when it comes to accepting responsibility for the anger of the electorate, the
man's ego will simply not allow him to admit that it's HIS out-of-the-mainstream un-American
policies that are being rejected. It is likely that he will contiue in such denial until 2012
when he will be ousted from power. Then it will be the national mood, the ineffectiveness
of the party, the tactics of his opponents, and so on. It will never be HIS fault -- not in
his own eyes.
   Responsibility is not a general concept, but a specific one. When everyone is perceived
to be responsible, then no one, in fact, is. The President of the United States is responsible
for upholding its constitution, and to the will of the American people. Many say he routinely
twists the constitution to mean whatever he wants it to mean at the moment, suggesting
that the constitution serves his will instead of vice versa. And he has undeniably thumbed
his nose at voters since taking office -- on Guantanamo Bay, on treatment of terror suspects,
on healthcare, on bailouts and government takeovers. Respected polling organizations
regularly reflect public disgust with the nation's march toward European socialism at his
behest. When enough people tell you you;re drunk, it's time to lie down. Barack Obama
is "drunk," drunk with his own power and perceived omniscience. Americans are sick of
it.
   The problem was created by Obama's Svengali manipulation of words. In the darkness
at the end of the Bush second term, when the nation was weary of war, torture and death,
he held out hope and change. But he did so without mentioning the price tag -- acceptance
of his dictatorial and all-encompassing socialism. Narcissists never see their own fallibility,
nor do they anticipate their catastrophic loss of face when the truth is laid bare. Barack
Obama's moment is coming. He'll get a hint of it in November 2010. And the final blow
will descend in November 2012. By then, he'll be the only one who is suprised.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OBAMYTHOLOGY ANYONE?

 
   Like any character who considers himself the center of the universe and can't make even
the briefest of speeches without using the personal pronoun at least 27 times, Barack Obama
is a man around whom a great many stories and legends have sprung up. Periodically, the
most outlandish of these require de-bunking so that the nation's historical narrative does not
end up reading like a darker version of Gulliver's travels. Thus, we demythologize.
   Myth #1: Barack Obama is a Muslim. Now this is a fiction propagated by some who dislike
the chosen one, who know little or nothing about Islam and who can't seem to discern the
difference between a practicing Muslim and a Muslim sympathizer. Good Muslims pray
five time daily. Obama doesn't. He gets his prayers sent to his BlackBerry by a staff member.
I suppose he thinks God would be offended by his teleprompter. Good Muslims give a
substantial and regular percentage of their income to the poor and needy. Not Obama.
Public records show that he gives less than 2% of his income to worthy causes. The
distinctions go on and on, leading to the conclusion that if Obama is  a Muslim, he is a
very poor one indeed. He can't help it that his father was a Muslim, or that he bears a
Muslim name. He didn't get a choice in any of that. Continuing to argue that he is a Muslim
in the face of all the evidence simply makes one look silly. So put a sock in it! Now if you
want to argue that he is a Muslim sympathizer, then that's another matter.
   Myth #2: Obama is not a natural born American citizen. He could lay this one to rest
himself if he would just order the state of Hawaii to release a photocopy of his original
vaulted birth certificate. Instead, he has dispatched an army of lawyers to be sure that never
happens. Why? Who knows? You don't! And unless you have the magic key to that vault
or the messiah suddenly decides to indulge the skeptics, you never will. In any case, whatever
it was that he presented to the election commission seemed to satisfy their requirement, so
it's moot, over, done, finished. Let it go! Birthers are entitled to their opinion, but it's an
opinion formed in a vacuum of information, a myth.
   Myth #3: Obama will bring America and the world together. If you look around you will
see that quite the reverse is happening. He and the village idiot he appointed secretary of
state have managed to insult three allies (Britain, Israel and Canada) in a single month,
renege on a promise to others (Poland and the Czech Republic)) and hector the president of Afghanistan into threatening to resign and join the Taliban. Pretty impressive stuff, eh? And instead of bridging the racial divide at home, he has broadened it by dropping charges against already convicted New Black Panther voter intimidators, first enlisting the help of and then ignoring the criminal behavior of ACORN and dispatching his horde of leftist minions to denounce all who
oppose his tax-and-spend policies as racists. He has jammed through shady legislation
that the electorate did not favor (healthcare reform), persisted in a policy toward terrorists
that even members of his own party resent (close Gitmo, try terrorists in civilian court,
read detained terrorists Miranda rights, etc.) and bowed and scraped before virtually
every America-hating dictator in the world. A true uniter. Not!
   Myth #4: Being sworn in on Abe Lincoln's bible guaranteed Obama's honesty in office.
Ha! He makes George W. Bush, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton look like little league
fibbers. It would take paragraphs to list the mind-boggling catalogue of bald-faced whoppers
he's peddled since campaigning for and being elected president. But let's boil it down to what
one blogger called his "defining lie." That is the argument that the healthcare reform bill is
actually "middle of the road," will contain costs, benefit everyone and not drive up the
deficit. Stand in front of a mirror, look yourself directly in the eye and repeat that without
biting your tongue or bursting into hysterical laughter if you can.
   Myth #5: Barack Obama is the smartest president we've ever had. How smart is it to continually spend money you don't have, slap your allies and cater to your enemies, publish policies that
tell potential enemies you'll never use your most powerful weapons against them and press for
legislation the people who elected you say they don't want? There is a difference between
political cunning used to manipulate, and wisdom born of understanding and moderation. Obama
has a wealth of the former and none of the latter. Yet the NY Times keeps saying he's smart.
I guess we know what that makes them.
   These are popular myths as compared with the outright lies fabricated by Democrats about
their leader. Most of those have been or soon will be discredited by the facts. Meanwhile,
we can all take comfort in the maxim that we should believe none of what we hear, and
only some of what we see.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

RACISM IS DEAD

 
   About five decades ago a theologian announced with great flourish that "God Is Dead," in
his book of the same garish title. Analysis of his argument suggested that the over-use of
God to justify seemingly contradictory and ungodlike rhetoric and behavior had rendered
God's name and existence meaningless and therefore irrelevant in society. While God seems
to have survived, the terms "racist" and "racism" are defintely dead, and liberal politicans
and the media have killed them.
   Dispatched by unspecific over-use to categorize the views of anyone with the temeriity to
disagree or protest, the words are simply no longer descriptive of anything real or relevant.
This is not to say that racist attitudes have perished, for they are still alive and well. But the
words once effective in describing them have lost credibility to many in America today.
   Take, for example, the descriptors chosen by NY Times writers Paul Krugman, Maureen
Dowd, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert, and by Eugene Robinson and Courtland Milloy of the
Washington Post. Characterizing all opponents of Barack Obama's policies, and his health-
care reform in particular as Cro-Magnons (Milloy), Neanderthals (Herbert), bigots, haters.
nutbags, extremists and racists (all of the others), they take particular pleasure in bashing Tea Partiers and tax protestors. The credibility-straining argument seems to be that since Obama
is black and since many of the poor are persons of color, opposition to Obama and healthcare
reform equals discrimination against them.
   Then come congressional Democrats, a prime example of which is Steve Cohen (R-TN)
who argued on a radio talk show that Tea Partiers are no more than racists without robes
and hoods, a clear comparison to the Ku Klux Klan. Both Democrats and the media have
shouted to all that would listen that Representative John Lewis (D-GA) was repeatedly
labeled with the N-word by Tea Party protesters, and that one even spat on Emanuel Cleaver
(D-MO). But incredibly, in that swirling throng replete with recorders, reporters and camera
phones not one single piece of real evidence has come forth to validate the claims which the
protesters have adamantly denied. And Cleaver himself has admiited that the man who
confronted him did not willfully spit on him but got so close that some of his saliva sprayed
the congressman as he talked. But facts never got in the way of Krugman, Dowd, Herbert,
Rich, Robinson or Milloy spinning a good yarn, expecially if it served to discredit a conservative.
   Chronic lying, however, has its own price. When the words one uses no longer signify any
proveable objective reality, both the message and the messengers simply become irrelevant.
"Racist" has simply become liberal code for "I hate what you stand for," and the shame it is
intended to bring just isn't sticking anymore. Instead, more and more people are beginning
to see the real haters and bigots for who they are, and that doesn't bode well for the mainstream
media, or for the Democrats who are so desperate to hold onto the power that seems daily
slipping through their fingers that they only hope they have left is race-baiting.
   Homosexuals ruined a perfectly good word for happy ("gay"), and now liberals are doing
the same thing with "racist." It's too bad, because there certainly are people who don't like
Obama because he's black, and who do discriminate against others because of the color of
their skin. We're just going to have to put our wits to finding another word for them -- one
that can only be used to describe objective behaviors and that will carry just as onerous a
connotation. Then we'll see how long it takes for someone to render it meaningless by
over-the-top inappropriate use.
   But all of that said (and this may come as a rude news flash to the liberal media), Barack
Obama does not get a free pass on rotten ideas just because he's black. His version of
healthcare reform, government takeovers of private business, cap-and-trade energy and
union card check would be reprehensibly stupid even were they proposed by the first
green or purple president. Lunatic spending isn't sane just because it's proposed by a
black man, nor are they necessarily racially discriminatory who stand up and label it for
what it is. Calling the Tea Parties "racist" only makes the liberal media look dumb. They
can't refute the case against government profligacy, so they just call names instead. But
like the Ice Man, November cometh.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DEADLY INVASION

 
   When an illegal immigrant gunned down an Arizona rancher, the true situation faced
by border residents and the appalling inaction of an ideologically motivated president
were set in stark relief. The United States Constitution holds that it is the duty of
government to protect American citizens from foreign invaders. But Barack Obama
is so focused on usurping powers NOT afforded him by the Constitution that he cannot
seem to manage effectively those that are.
   Could it be that he does not see the armed slaughter going on at the nation's southern
border? If so, he's the only one who doesn't. Or does he seriously believe the corrupt and
ineffectual Mexican government, military and law enforcement apparatus will somehow
"solve" the problem? If so, he's the only one who does. Or is it, perhaps, that "immigration
reform" -- the granting of amnesty to illegal aliens, the majority of whom are hispanic --
would not be well served by involving U.S, forces in armed conflict with them as they
flood into the country in defiance of existing laws?
   It's not that he hasn't been asked for help. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has explicitly
and repeatedly requested federal assistance, as have the legislative delegations from
Arizona and other border states. Still Obama fiddles while border towns burn under the
gunfire of drug cartels, human traffickers and other foreigners who have decided that
THEIR economic needs trump OUR laws.
   Public opinion polls show that Obama, once well-liked by Americans, is seeing his
popularity ebb away week by week. There are those radicals who have even whispered
about impeachment over the underhanded tactics used to ram through his political
agenda, knowing all the while that although despicable, they do not rise to the level
of "high crimes and misdemeanors." But failure to respond appropriately to an armed
invasion is another matter, and arguably an impeachable crime because it disregards
a clear constitutional directive to the executive branch.
   Now Robert Krentz, a longtime well-respected Arizona rancher is dead, gunned
down by an illegal alien just like so many that he had kept from dying in the desert.
Someone has to answer for that. It won't be Mexico, because they routinely blather
and blither about bringing suspects to justice, but never do. And it is not the job of
states to protect U.S. borders, but that of the federal government. That is not even
an argument. So while Americans are threatened and killed, while U.S, borders are
routinely and daily violated by armed drug dealers, human traffickers and other
foreign intruders, what is the commander-in-chief doing with his time? He is crossing
the nation defending the hostile government takeover of American healthcare, trying
to convince skeptical Americans that they really want what they have clearly already 
said they don't want. You want to talk about tragically misplaced priorities?
   For the record, this poor excuse for a president needs to send armed American troops
to the southern borders of this country with orders to shoot and kill anyone committing
a hostile act, detain and incarcerate those engaging in criminal activity and repel, by
force if necessary, those entering U.S. territory illegally. It is doubtful that he has either
the courage or the will to do this. And as usual in his case, his liberal politics will trump
what's right for the nation. An impeachable offense? You be the judge.
   But this much is undeniable. America has been invaded by armed intruders in clear
violation of the law, and Americans have been killed. It is time to bring responsibility
home to roost on the doorstep of this president who leaves no stone unturned in trying to
avoid it. If it isn't the job of Barack Obama to stop this systematic infringement of
American sovereignty, then whose is it?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SMOKE AND MIRRORS

 
   A new leftist offensive against the right is in full swing, buoyed by the Democrats
underhanded passage of healthcare reform. The tactics of choice are misdirection,
misinformation, exaggeration and slander, a nasty version of the old "smoke and
mirrors" deception almost as egregious as that which Obama used to sell his socialist
legislation.
   Seizing on the verbal and phsycial actions of a few extremists, lefty journalists
like Paul Krugman (NY Times) and Eugene Robinson (Washington Post) have
joined DNC Chairman Tim Kane, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a host of equally nasty
House Democrats in accusing (a) Republicans of provoking violence or the threats
thereof against them, and (b) extremists affiliated with the Tea Party movement of
carrying them out. Even Juan Williams, a Dem sympathizer appearing on Fox
suggested that the "energy" for the threats "is coming from the right" (meaning
Republicans, conservatives and the Tea Party.
   But note this well: there is not one single shred of proof that such allegations are
true. That, however, does not stop desperate Democrats or liberal media garbagemongers
from repeating them as though they were gospel. And the purpose is all too clear. They
wish to (a) distract disgruntled voters from their recent disregard for public opinion in
passing their ruinous health bill, and (b) to paint all those who disagree with them as
dangerous, unstable, irrational extremists. We've seen the tactic before. It hasn't worked
very well in the past because Americans aren't as dumb as Democrats seem to think, and
it won't work this time either.
   Lay to rest the lefty gossip that the "Hutaree Nine," the so-called "Christian" militia
extremists recently arrested had anything at all to do with the Tea Parties. There is no
evidence of that. Most of the nine belonged to one family with a troubled history. They
didn't comprise much of a militia, although they certainly possessed the weaponry to do
some damage, and if their actions and attitudes are any criteron they are by no stretch
of the imagination Christians. They serve no purpose except to provide the Dems and
lefties an illusion to fearmonger and impugn the motives of those who had nothing at all
to do with them.
   And if one wishes to compare apples with apples, leftist rhetoric has condoned and
promoted far more violence than conservatives have. There were the black shock jocks
who relished raping Condaleeza Rice and Laura Bush (on the air), the Washington
Post commentator who talked about punching Republicans' teeth down their throat,
the liberal radio host who suggested hanging Rush Limbaugh by "Republican
entrails," Chris Matthews who wished for a Co2 pellet to be stuffed into Limbaugh's
mouth so he exploded like a blimp, the liberal blogger who suggested putting a
bullet through George W. Bush's head, and the list of obscene and foul wrongdoing
by the left -- by Democrats -- goes on and on without end.
   And perhaps the best proof of the pudding is in the eating. Of all the alleged threats
against the Democrats, not a single arrest has been made, not a single charge filed.
Quite possibly that is because some of the charges were exaggerated, or perhaps
fabricated altogether. Meanwhile, an arrest has been made of the Philadelphia man
who threatened to kill Republican Representative Eric Cantor, his wife and children.
Now whose hate threats are real?
   But giving the selective truth tellers (Democrats and liberal media) the benefit of
the doubt, let's say that some of the threats are real. To evaluate them fairly, one must
look at two realities. One, although it makes a great media tactic (misdirection,
distraction, smoke and mirrors) and granting that there are undoubtedly unstable morons
on both the extreme right and the extreme left, it is absurd to indict an entire class,
whether liberal or conservative, on the basis of the actions of those few. Again, most
Americans are smart enough to know that. Second, there is no doubt that there is a
whole lot of anger out there about the dishonesty, bribery, extortion and underhanded
manipulation used by Democrats to pass healthcare reform, and that anger is, indeed,
on the right. It's silly to think one can simply treat people that way and then dodge the
anger they feel because of that. Accusing them of taking any action other than protests
and a vow to "target" offending legislators with their votes in November is as stupid
as it is slanderous.
   Obama and the left don't want to own what they've done. "You'll like healthcare
reform by November" they say glibly to those whose wishes they spat on. "Dangerous
radicals and extremists," they call those who continue to protest, and "fomenters of
violence" they call Republicans who encourage resistance. But it's all smoke and
mirrors, no facts, no proof, very little truth, just bluster and demagoguery. Actually,
when one considers that the sources are swine like Krugman, Robinson, Pelosi, Matthews 
and Obama's Chicago mafia, they may actually be compliments.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ISRAEL: OBAMA'S ACHILLES HEEL

 
   In late 19th century Germany the term "Judenhass" (literally Jew hatred) came into
vogue, later to be recast in the English speaking world as "antisemitism." The term
has been mistaken by some to signify prejudice toward all semitic peoples, but its
colloquial usage, according to dictionaries, refers specifically to prejudice and malice
directed toward Jews.
   Ever since Barak Obama's presidential campaign began, questions have swirled around
his intentions toward Israel, the Jewish homeland. Since his election he has laid all
such speculation to rest, aligning himself with the Palestinians and Arabs while consistently
criticizing Israel and implcitly blaming them for continued strife in the Middle East. The
culmination of this one-sided but double-tongued policy culminated this week and last
in his (and his Secretary of State's) denunciation of Israeli policy followed by his
humiliation of the Israeli prime minister during a visit designed to iron out differences.
While bowing and scraping to the Saudi King Abdullah, Obama has continued to
relentlessly court Arab governments that do not wish America well and shovel the
Israelis and their concerns under the rug.
   Is Barak Obama an antisemite? Maybe not, but if as the left and some in the media
argue, opposition to Obama is based on his blackness, then it is no more far-fetched to
suggest that his clear animosity and discrimination toward Israel in based on its
"Jewishness." What's "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," etc.
   A better explanation is probably that Obama's crowning ambition is to be acknowledged
as the savior of the world, the One who can solve all problems. Of course his Middle
East "solution" is like his healthcare reform "bipartisanship," consisting solely of others
shutting up and doing what he wants. Democrats did that on healthcare, to the disgust
of an American majority, but Israel won't roll over and The Messiah is furious about it.
   The most recent "rock of offense" on which the ship of diplomacy has foundered,
according to Obama and Hillary Clinton, is the Israelis' stubborn persistence in the
astounding notion that they can build housing in their own sovereign territory. The
problem is that the Palestinians have laid claim to East Jerusalem, where many Arabs
live, as the would-be capital of their as yet imaginary homeland. And the problem
with the demand is that Israel says, as they have since 1947, that Jerusalem is not on
the table as a bargaining chip, period. Their settlement construction there has been
going on for years. It's not new. But it reinforces their position on the issue as non-negotiable,
and every chip thus taken off the table reduces Obama's leverage as a broker. Strange
how the fame and success of the Chosen One are  not priorities for the Israelis.
   Two things come across clearly. One is that the Israelis have made one peace offer
after another to the Palestinians only to be rejected and then attacked, either jointly
by Arab governments or through Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad terrorism. And
the Palestinians have continued to demand the two things Israel will never give,
partition of Jerusalem and the right of full return wherein Arab families displaced
when the Jewish homeland was created by the international community can move
back into Israeli territory with the full rights of citizenship, thus becoming the majority.
Obama has already proven that he can fool enough of the people some of the time over
here. But if he thinks he can get even one of those concessions out of the Israelis
then he's smoking too much funny weed.
   A second reality is the political one here at home. A huge plurality of Americans --
much bigger than the one that resisted healthcare reform -- supports the Israelis in
their ongoing conflict with the Arab world. Most of them were flatly disgusted by
Obama's bowing, pandering prattle towards the Arabs. Now that he has translated
his clear pro-Palestinian anti-Israeli bias into concrete foreign policy, risking in so
doing the relationship with the only real ally America has in the Middle East, he has
opened himself to great political liability and vulnerability. The pro-Israeli lobby
is incredibly powerful. Majorities in both houses of congress come down on the
Israeli side of the equation, and more than 80% of Americans, according to most
polls, feel the same way. Add to this fiasco Obama's dismal and complete failure
in either engaging Iran or stopping its drive toward nuclear weapons and suddenly
there is a second front upon which he can be successfully attacked and discredited.
   Barak Obama's ego will hang him. The rope is now paying out to its end, and the
noise you hear next may be the jerk at the bottom. Blame it on the jerk at the top.
This misbegotten and ill-advised foreign policy will not accomplish anything good,
and ultimately it will not fly with the American people. He opposes the will of the
people on Israel, healthcare, cap-and-trade, union card check, government expansion,
bail outs and takeovers. How much more does it take?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive