They Talk About Me Like A Dog

In an off the cuff remark made by Barack Obama during a Labor Day speech in Wisconsin, he referred to criticisms of his policies by "special interests" as talking about him like a dog.

What did he mean by this comment? Is this the infusion of race into criticism of his administration? After all in the old days, blacks were considered less than human. Is this a remark suggested by Maxine Waters?

In any Third World nation a speech where a president makes a similar comment would be the prelude to armed forces around the legislature and the judiciary. This could not happen here, but I have the strange feeling that deep in his heart Barack Obama would really like fatigues, a cigar, and the ability to implement his agenda a la Chavez.

And this agenda includes now the infusion of an additional 50 billion dollars for stimulus, and the creation of a national bank to finance the the rebuilding of our infrastructure.

Obama, who would you put in charge of this bank? Barney Frank or some of the former Chairmen of Board of Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac?

Barack Obama, it was you and the partisan left to which you belong that talked about Nixon and Reagan, and W. as if they were dogs. And they licked their wounds, no pun intended, and continued fighting for what they believed in, and in Nixon's case, he resigned. But never has any of them said that they were treated like a dog. Because they weren't. They were treated like politicians are treated in a democracy. Criticism is part of the game. Or have you forgotten how you spoke about your predecessor before and after you became president? If he would have said that he was talked about like a dog he would have been a thousand times more justified than you. But he was too much of a gentleman to utter such ridiculous words.

So my advice to you Mr. President, is to stick to prepared remarks and don't take your eyes of the teleprompter, because every time you say something unscripted you offer us material to criticize you. And then you accuse us of talking to you like a dog, which we do not. We talk about you like a failed president. And I mean this with the utmost respect.

Going Down

Tracking poll shows new low for Obama:

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

Worth Reading

A new Israeli poll shows that 46% of Israelis consider Obama pro-Palestinian, 10% pro-Israel and 34% consider him neutral.  The headline to this article should have been "44% Of Israelis Are Morons."

Read Article

Celebrating the passing of the Financial Reform Bill

The Financial Reform Bill has passed and the noose around the necks of the American taxpayer has gotten a little tighter.  I will opine more as the intricacies of the new law are revealed.  In the meantime we can can just ponder about a bill designed to prevent another financial meltdown, that does not even mention Fanny and Freddy.  The bill however contains provisions to ensure fairness and access to loans for minorities.  Yes; this will prevent another financial crisis.  By the way, I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn. 

Read Article

Charles Krauthammer has another brilliant analyss in his column today.  I am posting the whole article, since the Washington Post requires registration:


Obama's next act


By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, July 16, 2010; A19

In the political marketplace, there's now a run on Obama shares. The left is disappointed with the president. Independents are abandoning him in droves. And the right is already dancing on his political grave, salivating about November when, his own press secretary admitted Sunday, Democrats might lose the House.

I have a warning for Republicans: Don't underestimate Barack Obama.

Consider what he has already achieved. Obamacare alone makes his presidency historic. It has irrevocably changed one-sixth of the economy, put the country inexorably on the road to national health care and, as acknowledged by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus but few others, begun one of the most massive wealth redistributions in U.S. history.

Second, there is major financial reform, which passed Congress on Thursday. Economists argue whether it will prevent meltdowns and bailouts as promised. But there is no argument that it will give the government unprecedented power in the financial marketplace. Its 2,300 pages will create at least 243 new regulations that will affect not only, as many assume, the big banks but just about everyone, including, as noted in one summary (the Wall Street Journal), "storefront check cashiers, city governments, small manufacturers, home buyers and credit bureaus."

Third is the near $1 trillion stimulus, the largest spending bill in U.S. history. And that's not even counting nationalizing the student loan program, regulating carbon emissions by Environmental Protection Agency fiat, and still-fitful attempts to pass cap-and-trade through Congress.

But Obama's most far-reaching accomplishment is his structural alteration of the U.S. budget. The stimulus, the vast expansion of domestic spending, the creation of ruinous deficits as far as the eye can see are not easily reversed.

These are not mere temporary countercyclical measures. They are structural deficits because, as everyone from Obama on down admits, the real money is in entitlements, most specifically Medicare and Medicaid. But Obamacare freezes these out as a source of debt reduction. Obamacare's $500 billion in Medicare cuts and $600 billion in tax increases are siphoned away for a new entitlement -- and no longer available for deficit reduction.

The result? There just isn't enough to cut elsewhere to prevent national insolvency. That will require massive tax increases -- most likely a European-style value-added tax. Just as President Ronald Reagan cut taxes to starve the federal government and prevent massive growth in spending, Obama's wild spending -- and quarantining health-care costs from providing possible relief -- will necessitate huge tax increases.

The net effect of 18 months of Obamaism will be to undo much of Reaganism. Both presidencies were highly ideological, grandly ambitious and often underappreciated by their own side. In his early years, Reagan was bitterly attacked from his right. (Typical Washington Post headline: "For Reagan and the New Right, the Honeymoon Is Over" -- and that was six months into his presidency!) Obama is attacked from his left for insufficient zeal on gay rights, immigration reform, closing Guantanamo -- the list is long. The critics don't understand the big picture. Obama's transformational agenda is a play in two acts.

Act One is over. The stimulus, Obamacare, financial reform have exhausted his first-term mandate. It will bear no more heavy lifting. And the Democrats will pay the price for ideological overreaching by losing one or both houses, whether de facto or de jure. The rest of the first term will be spent consolidating these gains (writing the regulations, for example) and preparing for Act Two.

The next burst of ideological energy -- massive regulation of the energy economy, federalizing higher education and "comprehensive" immigration reform (i.e., amnesty) -- will require a second mandate, meaning reelection in 2012.

That's why there's so much tension between Obama and congressional Democrats. For Obama, 2010 matters little. If Democrats lose control of one or both houses, Obama will probably have an easier time in 2012, just as Bill Clinton used Newt Gingrich and the Republicans as the foil for his 1996 reelection campaign.

Obama is down, but it's very early in the play. Like Reagan, he came here to do things. And he's done much in his first 500 days. What he has left to do he knows must await his next 500 days -- those that come after reelection.

The real prize is 2012. Obama sees far, farther than even his own partisans. Republicans underestimate him at their peril.

Charles Krauthammer: Brilliant as Ever

The selective modesty of Barack Obama

By Charles Krauthammer
The Washington Post
Friday, July 9, 2010; A19


Remember NASA? It once represented to the world the apogee of American scientific and technological achievement. Here is President Obama's vision of NASA's mission, as explained by administrator Charles Bolden:

"One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering."

Apart from the psychobabble -- farcically turning a space-faring enterprise into a self-esteem enhancer -- what's the sentiment behind this charge? Sure America has put a man on the moon, led the information revolution, won more Nobel Prizes than any other nation by far -- but, on the other hand, a thousand years ago al-Khwarizmi gave us algebra.

Bolden seems quite intent on driving home this message of achievement equivalence -- lauding, for example, Russia's contribution to the space station. Russia? In the 1990s, the Russian space program fell apart, leaving the United States to pick up the slack and the tab for the missing Russian contributions to get the space station built.

For good measure, Bolden added that the United States cannot get to Mars without international assistance. Beside the fact that this is not true, contrast this with the elan and self-confidence of President John Kennedy's 1961 pledge that America would land on the moon within the decade.

There was no finer expression of belief in American exceptionalism than Kennedy's. Obama has a different take. As he said last year in France, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Which of course means: If we're all exceptional, no one is.

Take human rights. After Obama's April meeting with the president of Kazakhstan, Mike McFaul of the National Security Council reported that Obama actually explained to the leader of that thuggish kleptocracy that we, too, are working on perfecting our own democracy.

Nor is this the only example of an implied moral equivalence that diminishes and devalues America. Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner reported that in discussions with China about human rights, the U.S. side brought up Arizona's immigration law -- "early and often." As if there is the remotest connection between that and the persecution of dissidents, jailing of opponents and suppression of religion routinely practiced by the Chinese dictatorship.

Nothing new here. In his major addresses, Obama's modesty about his own country has been repeatedly on display as, in one venue after another, he has gratuitously confessed America's alleged failing -- from disrespecting foreigners to having lost its way morally after 9/11.

It's fine to recognize the achievements of others and be non-chauvinistic about one's country. But Obama's modesty is curiously selective. When it comes to himself, modesty is in short supply.

It began with the almost comical self-inflation of his presidential campaign, from the still inexplicable mass rally in Berlin in front of a Prussian victory column to the Greek columns framing him at the Democratic convention. And it carried into his presidency, from his posture of philosopher-king adjudicating between America's sins and the world's to his speeches marked by a spectacularly promiscuous use of the word "I."

Notice, too, how Obama habitually refers to Cabinet members and other high government officials as "my" -- "my secretary of homeland security," "my national security team," "my ambassador." The more normal -- and respectful -- usage is to say "the," as in "the secretary of state." These are, after all, public officials sworn to serve the nation and the Constitution -- not just the man who appointed them.

It's a stylistic detail, but quite revealing of Obama's exalted view of himself. Not surprising, perhaps, in a man whose major achievement before acceding to the presidency was writing two biographies -- both about himself.

Obama is not the first president with a large streak of narcissism. But the others had equally expansive feelings about their country. Obama's modesty about America would be more understandable if he treated himself with the same reserve. What is odd is to have a president so convinced of his own magnificence -- yet not of his own country's.

It's World War II, not the Great Patriotic War

Ooops, he did it again.

In a press conference with Russian President Medvedev, Obama was attempting to convey a positive message oncerning the meeting between the two leaders. In reality, Russia got the technology it wanted, and the United States got some patronizing smiles and the promise of cooperation with an embargo of Iran that would not hurt the citizens of that nation. Basically, a promise of a poodle with no teeth. Just a little annoying barking against Iran. That should scare them into giving up the nuclear bomb!

As usual, Obama couldn’t control himself and had to mention the poor relations that existed between the two nations when he became president, as if the deterioration of relations was somehow related to President Bush, conveniently forgetting the invasion of Georgia by the thugocracy in Moscow. Obama then proceeded to mention the improvement of relations that resulted from his administration diplomatic breakthroughs. Just to show that he didn’t agree with Medvedev on everything, he reminded us that there were actually disagreements over Georgia. Obama then continued as if a disagreement over Georgia was a disagreement over whether to eat hamburgers or borscht and blinis for lunch.

Obama gave us a note of optimism and the hope that we could return to the “good old days” of the alliance between the United States and the Soviet Union during the “Great Patriotic War.”

The Great Patriotic War? Is Obama insane, or is it that he just cannot avoid using the terminology of his leftist upbringing? The Great Patriotic War was a term developed by Stalin after the USSR was betrayed and invaded by its German allies. The rest of the world calls it World War II. Only Russia continues referring to it by Stalin’s term.

Is Obama so insecure as to feel the need to ingratiate himself with every dictator around the Globe?

Given the fact that Obama is destroying NASA and will use Russian rockets to place American satellites, perhaps we should begin calling astronauts cosmonauts.

What do you say, tovarich?

Mort Zuckerman: World Sees Obama as Incompetent and Amateur

Mort Zuckerman has just published a scathing indictment of the Obama administration and the way they conduct foreign policy.  His conclusion, as is the conclusion of many observers is that the world views Obama as incompetent and amateur.  Zuckerman writes:

The reviews of Obama’s performance have been disappointing. He has seemed uncomfortable in the role of leading other nations, and often seems to suggest there is nothing special about America’s role in the world. The global community was puzzled over the pictures of Obama bowing to some of the world’s leaders and surprised by his gratuitous criticisms of and apologies for America’s foreign policy under the previous administration of George W. Bush. One Middle East authority, Fouad Ajami, pointed out that Obama seems unaware that it is bad form and even a great moral lapse to speak ill of one’s own tribe while in the lands of others.

Even in Britain, for decades our closest ally, the talk in the press—supported by polls—is about the end of the “special relationship” with America. French President Nicolas Sarkozy openly criticized Obama for months, including a direct attack on his policies at the United Nations. Sarkozy cited the need to recognize the real world, not the virtual world, a clear reference to Obama’s speech on nuclear weapons. When the French president is seen as tougher than the American president, you have to know that something is awry. Vladimir Putin of Russia has publicly scorned a number of Obama’s visions. Relations with the Chinese leadership got off to a bad start with the president’s poorly-organized visit to China, where his hosts treated him disdainfully and prevented him from speaking to a national television audience of the Chinese people. The Chinese behavior was unprecedented when compared to visits by other U.S. presidents.

Obama’s policy on Afghanistan—supporting a surge in troops, but setting a date next year when they will begin to withdraw—not only gave a mixed signal, but provided an incentive for the Taliban just to wait us out. The withdrawal part of the policy was meant to satisfy a domestic constituency, but succeeded in upsetting all of our allies in the region. Further anxiety was provoked by Obama’s severe public criticism of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his coterie of family and friends for their lackluster leadership, followed by a reversal of sorts regarding the same leaders.

Obama clearly wishes to do good and means well. But he is one of those people who believe that the world was born with the word and exists by means of persuasion, such that there is no person or country that you cannot, by means of logical and moral argument, bring around to your side. He speaks as a teacher, as someone imparting values and generalities appropriate for a Sunday morning sermon, not as a tough-minded leader. He urges that things “must be done” and “should be done” and that “it is time” to do them. As the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Les Gelb, put it, there is “the impression that Obama might confuse speeches with policy.” Another journalist put it differently when he described Obama as an “NPR [National Public Radio] president who gives wonderful speeches.” In other words, he talks the talk but doesn’t know how to walk the walk. The Obama presidency has so far been characterized by a well-intentioned but excessive belief in the power of rhetoric with too little appreciation of reality and loyalty.

Zuckerman concludes:

The end result is that a critical mass of influential people in world affairs who once held high hopes for the president have begun to wonder whether they misjudged the man. They are no longer dazzled by his rock star personality and there is a sense that there is something amateurish and even incompetent about how Obama is managing U.S. power. … America right now appears to be unreliable to traditional friends, compliant to rivals, and weak to enemies.

Click here to read the complete article in U.S. News and World Report

Must read this weekend...

My hero Mark Steyn has a brilliant analysis of the Obama presidency and the impact of two leaks.  The leak in the Gulf and the leak in public support for a president who fooled more than half of the electorate into believing that he was a genius of almost messianic capabilities.

Read Mark Steyn's article.

On similar vein to the above topic, Peggy Noonan explains Barack Obama is in the process of becoming a Jimmy Carter.

Read Peggy Noonan's article.

To complement Steyn and Noonan, we have Charles Krauthammer explaining Obama's visionary approach and his believe that the government can do everything, including the development of unknown sources of energy.  The same government that cannot "plug the hole."

Read Charles Krauthammer's article.

Michael Goodwwin in the New York Post

Anti-Israel sharks sniff O's weakness

In the aftermath of the Gaza flotilla fiasco, the air is thick with nonsense. Chief among the instant myths is that Israel has created a dilemma for President Obama.

Actually, it's the other way around.

The president's appeasement policies helped to create the incident. Israel took the bait, but the trap was set in Washington.

Weakness always begets aggression, and, like clockwork, Obama's repeated signals that he is weakening America's commitment to Israel are emboldening the Jewish state's enemies. From Syria to Iran to Lebanon, from Hezbollah to Hamas and the PLO, the wolves smell blood and are trying to gauge whether they can get close enough for the kill.

And whether the United States will stop them. That they even dare hope we won't reflects the danger of Obama's demented decisions.

The huge flotilla is the latest example of the open-season mania, with the result that Israel is under international siege -- for defending itself. And, not incidentally, for defending an embargo on Gaza that Washington supports.

Obama says he wants the facts of the incident, but let's hope he also wants the truth, even if it is inconvenient to his worldview.

The first fact is that the flotilla was not really a humanitarian effort. The compassion claim was a fig leaf for the political aim of busting the 3-year-old maritime blockade, as organizers admitted last week.

They knew they would not be allowed to dock in Gaza, but still rejected Israel's offer to unload the goods in Israeli ports and, after inspection, truck them overland. At least a few of the passengers were armed.

"We're trying to break the blockade of the Gaza Strip and tell the world that Israel has no right to starve 1.5 million Palestinians," Greta Berlin, the head of an organization called Free Gaza Movement, said in typical exaggeration to a British newspaper.

Her group's boats were turned away before, but they vowed not to be stopped this time. "The previous boats were making a statement -- these boats will be making a real impact," Berlin said four days before the launch.

Israel, of course, is not exempt from criticism for what was clearly a bungled effort. Incredibly, given what they knew beforehand about the intent of the activists, its military leaders sent in only a handful of lightly armed commandos who were easy targets as they slid down ropes from helicopters.

Yet it's also fair to ask where Obama was while the problem was building. Even if he was too busy with the oil disaster in the Gulf, where was the secretary of state? It was long clear the flotilla had the potential to cause a regional ruckus, but Washington watched it unfold like a spectator.

That's strange in and of itself, because the US and Europe supported the blockade to force Hamas from power in Gaza, or force it to recognize Israel and renounce violence. They might have stopped the dangerous flotilla simply by making it clear they would support Israel's right to interdict it.

The most troubling fact of shifting allegiances is Turkey's role as sponsor of the convoy. Not so long ago, Israel and Turkey were allies, even conducting joint military exercises.

But Turkey, a member of NATO, has been moving away from Israel and the West and toward the Islamic bloc. Witness its recent, destructive foray into the Iranian nuclear game.

Instead of siding with Europe and America, ostensibly its allies, Turkey joined with Brazil to give cover for the Iranian program. Its prime minister even blasted the US, saying, "While they still have nuclear weapons, where do they get the credibility to ask other countries not to have them?"

These are the facts, and the truth. For the obvious stakes, they shouldn't present a dilemma for Obama.

He should do what any American president would -- protect our friend and ally from the predators who want to devour it.

Depends on what the meaning of a "Job Offer" is.

The crisis that has developed into "Sestakgate", has forced us once again, to listen to a barrage of excuses that boil down to variations of “everybody does it,” and “it is no big deal.” Dozens of times I heard pundits and reporters paraphrase Claude Reims in Casablanca, ” I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!” when describing the insignificance of offering Rep. Sestak a job to protect Senator Specter.

Well, I agree. Offering someone a job in exchange for political favors is not the worst crime that politicians in Washington are committing. Who would have thought of enacting laws that criminalize political favors and bribery in the first place? How will the United States manage to become a banana republic if we forbid politicians from offering or receiving favors or bribes? How is a politician to repay his intern or secretary for oral sex? How do we get a candidate to withdraw from a race without bribing him or her?

Therefore, the time has arrived to sit down and eliminate all those laws that when violated, will make us ponder why were they enacted in first place. But let the democrats and mainstream media not be hypocrites by clamoring for impeachment or resignations when a Republican commits the violation, and claim that it is no big deal when the violator is Obama.

And yes, Obama has broken the law. Do politicians think that we are so stupid as to believe that a report issued on a Friday afternoon, on the eve of Memorial Day Weekend when everybody is getting ready for the first days of summer is believable?

We find out that former president Clinton was used as a conduit to offer Sestak, a congressman and possible senator, a menial job in exchange for his withdrawal for a race. What was the response to Sestak’s question: “who authorized you to make this offer?” After all, former presidents can’t appoint to presidential commissions. If this was truly the job offered.

Clinton had lunch with Obama prior to the announcement being made. Could this have been to coordinate a response?

Sestak’s brother was called too. Why?

Let us change the scenario. Imagine a president McCain or Palin using former president George W. Bush to offer a job to Rubio in exchange for his withdrawal from the race against Charlie Crist. Can you see the commentators on MSNBC, or CNN or the New York Times dismissing this as no big deal?

The next time you are stopped by a trooper doing 65 in a 55 mph zone, try and get out of getting a ticket by saying “everybody is driving above the speed limit.” Good Luck!

Mark Steyn: Obama's lazy tribute to Daniel Pearl

The more I read Mark Steyn, the more I am in awe of the clarity of thought with which he presents his ideas.  In this article Steyn analyzes the speech given by Obama while signing the Daniel Pearl Freedom Press Act, and the intellectual laziness or neglect with which Obama chose his words of "tribute" to Daniel Pearl's memory.  Actually, I think that Obama is incapable of saying anything critical that might be misconstrued as critical of Islam.  At this point I wonder if this is the result of his new strategy of dealing with Islam, or is it the direct result of his sympathies.  If I had to bet, I would say that it is the latter.

Click here to read the article in The Orange County Register.  I am also placing the article in this entry, so that if the readers are too lazy to click, they can read it in the this blog.

Mark Steyn: Obama's lazy tribute to Daniel Pearl

Barack Obama's remarkable powers of oratory are well known: In support of Chicago's Olympic bid, he flew into Copenhagen to give a heartwarming speech about himself, and they gave the games to Rio. He flew into Boston to support Martha Coakley's bid for the U.S. Senate, and Massachusetts voters gave Ted Kennedy's seat to a Republican. In the first year of his presidency, he gave a gazillion speeches on health care "reform" and drove support for his proposals to basement level, leaving Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to ram it down the throats of the American people through sheer parliamentary muscle.

Like a lot of guys who've been told they're brilliant one time too often, President Obama gets a little lazy, and doesn't always choose his words with care. And so it was that he came to say a few words about Daniel Pearl, upon signing the "Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act." Pearl was decapitated on video by jihadist Muslims in Karachi on Feb. 1, 2002. That's how I'd put it. This is what the president of the United States said:

"Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world's imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is."

Now Obama's off the prompter, when his silver-tongued rhetoric invariably turns to sludge. But he's talking about a dead man here, a guy murdered in public for all the world to see. Furthermore, the deceased's family is standing all around him. And, even for a busy president, it's the work of moments to come up with a sentence that would be respectful, moving and true. Indeed, for Obama, it's the work of seconds, because he has a taxpayer-funded staff sitting around all day with nothing to do but provide him with that sentence.

Instead, he delivered the one above, which in its clumsiness and insipidness is most revealing. First of all, note the passivity: "The loss of Daniel Pearl." He wasn't "lost." He was kidnapped and beheaded. He was murdered on a snuff video. He was specifically targeted, seized as a trophy, a high-value scalp. And the circumstances of his "loss" merit some vigor in the prose. Yet Obama can muster none.

Even if Americans don't get the message, the rest of the world does. This week's pictures of the leaders of Brazil and Turkey clasping hands with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are also monuments to American passivity.

But what did the "loss" of Daniel Pearl mean? Well, says the president, it was "one of those moments that captured the world's imagination." Really? Evidently it never captured Obama's imagination because, if it had, he could never have uttered anything so fatuous. He seems literally unable to imagine Pearl's fate, and so, cruising on autopilot, he reaches for the all-purpose bromides of therapeutic sedation: "one of those moments" – you know, like Princess Di's wedding, Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, whatever – "that captured the world's imagination."

Notice how reflexively Obama lapses into sentimental one-worldism: Despite our many zip codes, we are one people, with a single imagination. In fact, the murder of Daniel Pearl teaches just the opposite – that we are many worlds, and worlds within worlds. Some of them don't even need an "imagination." Across the planet, the video of an American getting his head sawed off did brisk business in the bazaars and madrassahs and Internet downloads. Excited young men e-mailed it to friends, from cell phone to cell phone, from Karachi to Jakarta to Khartoum to London to Toronto to Falls Church, Virginia. In the old days, you needed an "imagination" to conjure the juicy bits of a distant victory over the Great Satan. But in an age of high-tech barbarism the sight of Pearl's severed head is a mere click away.

And the rest of "the world"? Most gave a shrug of indifference. And far too many found the reality of Pearl's death too uncomfortable, and chose to take refuge in the same kind of delusional pap as Obama. The president is only the latest Western liberal to try to hammer Daniel Pearl's box into a round hole. Before him, it was Michael Winterbottom in his film "A Mighty Heart": As Pearl's longtime colleague Asra Nomani wrote, "Danny himself had been cut from his own story." Or as Paramount's promotional department put it, "Nominate the most inspiring ordinary hero. Win a trip to the Bahamas!" Where you're highly unlikely to be kidnapped and beheaded! (Although, in the event that you are, please check the liability-waiver box at the foot of the entry form.)

The latest appropriation that his "loss" "reminded us of how valuable a free press is." It was nothing to do with "freedom of the press." By the standards of the Muslim world, Pakistan has a free-ish and very lively press. The problem is that some 80 percent of its people wish to live under the most extreme form of Sharia, and many of its youth are exported around the world in advance of that aim. The man convicted of Pearl's murder was Omar Sheikh, a British subject, a London School of Economics student, and, like many jihadists from Osama to the Pantybomber, a monument to the peculiar burdens of a non-deprived childhood in the Muslim world. The man who actually did the deed was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confessed in March 2007: "I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi." But Obama's not the kind to take "guilty" for an answer, so he's arranging a hugely expensive trial for KSM amid the bright lights of Broadway.

Listen to his killer's words: "The American Jew Daniel Pearl." We hit the jackpot! And then we cut his head off. Before the body was found, The Independent's Robert Fisk offered a familiar argument to Pearl's kidnappers: Killing him would be "a major blunder... the best way of ensuring that the suffering" – of Kashmiris, Afghans, Palestinians – "goes unrecorded." Other journalists peddled a similar line: if you release Danny, he'll be able to tell your story, get your message out, "bridge the misconceptions." But the story did get out; the severed head is the message; the only misconception is that that's a misconception.

Daniel Pearl was the prototype for a new kind of terror. In his wake came other victims from Kenneth Bigley, whose last words were that "Tony Blair has not done enough for me," to Fabrizzio Quattrocchi, who yanked off his hood, yelled "I will show you how an Italian dies!" and ruined the movie for his jihadist videographers. By that time, both men understood what it meant to be in a windowless room with a camera and a man holding a scimitar. But Daniel Pearl was the first, and in his calm, coherent final words understood why he was there:

"My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish American from Encino, California, USA ..."

He didn't have a prompter. But he spoke the truth. That's all President Obama owed him – to do the same.

I mentioned last week the attorney general's peculiar insistence that "radical Islam" was nothing to do with the Times Square bomber, the Pantybomber, the Fort Hood killer. Just a lot of moments "capturing the world's imagination." For now, the jihadists seem to have ceased cutting our heads off. Listening to Obama and Eric Holder, perhaps they've figured out there's nothing much up there anyway.

On the Economy

In discussions with liberals here in New York, whenever I mention Obama’s deficit and taxes, the standard retort is that Obama has lowered taxes, and that I probably paid $400 less than during President Bush’s administration. Obama actually wants me to thank him for this “reduction”.

Leaving aside the falsehood of this statement, I like to mention to my liberal friends that we have been hit by the most corrosive and regressive tax in existence since the invention of money: Inflation. This tax, and a tax it is, since it is the result of government policies and printing money, is a super whammy. First it affects low-income families more than rich ones, it is not tax deductible and it is self-perpetuating. Studies have demonstrated that when inflation reaches 10%, consumers tend to panic and spend their money before it depreciates further. This rush to spend by purchasing goods, leads to higher prices, which leads to inflation, which leads to people panicking, which leads to higher…

Historically, when my wife and I spent above $100, it would take us four trips from the car to the apartment carrying our bags. The last time I went shopping we spent $135 and it took us two trips to carry our bags upstairs; and the bags were not any larger. Soups were between 2 and 3 dollars a can. Oranges were on sale, 2 for a dollar, cans that used to be filled with a pound of merchandise, now had 11 oz., boxes 9 inches long contained tissues 8 inches long, my favorite rye bread was $3.39, but the texture was like angel cake, full of air.

Well, the suspicion that Obama's policies will bring inflation is well justified. Associated Press reports that “wholesale prices rose more than expected last month as food prices surged by the most in 26 years. But excluding food and energy, prices were nearly flat.”

Of course, AP couldn't resist spinning for Obama.  I love the last sentence in the above paragraph. Besides the patient’s cancer having metastasized to the lungs, liver and pancreas, the rest of his vital signs are okay.

Read the Associated Press report

**********

Las night I was watching a History Channel program on the technology of gambling and casinos. When the program ended I watched the news and a report on the finance reform bill promulgated by Obama and the democrats in conjunction with some republicans that know that you cannot go wrong when bashing banks and Wall Street. I was struck by the similarity between this bill and the problem that casinos have with cheaters. As casinos implement ways to prevent cheating, cheaters are busy designing new ways of cheating. Similarly, lawyers on Wall Street are already studying the loopholes that will allow banks and investment houses evade the regulations imposed by this bill.

By the way, if this bill is so terrific, why does it not apply to AIG, Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac?

You want to bring discipline to Wall Street? Let them fail.

Finally, when my mother didn’t let me play in the living room, I played in the bedroom. But play I did. Implement regulations that will hurt Wall Street, and in a few years we will buy derivatives and mortgage packages from financial centers in Dubai, Hong Kong, Singapore, and a hundred places around the world where the speculating will be much more risky than in Wall Street.

Speculation will go on, but Americans will be the losers..

In the news...

The Washington Post reports that Obama concluded a questions-and-answers session with workers in North Carolina with a seventeen minutes response to a question about over-taxation.  This reminded me of my worst professors in college.  The less they new and the more wrong they were, the longer their answers.

Read Article

Since the beginning of the year, three mentally ill persons who worked for Euro Disney have committed suicide. Instead of blaming it on the mental state of the workers, the head of their union blamed it on working conditions at the resort. "It's all about profit, profit, profit" said Mr. Mboe, the union president. 

Hey genious, how do you thing that they can pay your members?

I guess a 50% raise in salary, and a 20 hours week could contribute to eliminating depression and suicidal tendencies.

Read Article

Chavez has asked Putin for nuclear and space technology. The petty dictator, who cannot deliver electricity to his people, wants to go Hi Tech.

But we shouldn’t worry about nuclear weapons. Obama will not allow nuclear proliferation in South America. If needed, he will do to Venezuela what he is doing to Iran.

Read Article

Thanks for nothing, Hussein Obama

East Jerusalem

The posture of Obama’s administration with respect to East Jerusalem has encouraged the Arabs to take a different attitude toward negotiations with Israel.

Yesterday, Amr Moussa, chief of the Arab League stated that there will be no peace while Jerusalem is occupied.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a guest at the summit, said in his speech that the Israeli “violation” of peace in Jerusalem and Muslim holy sites was unacceptable.

Erdogan said that the Israeli position defining the whole of Jerusalem as its united capital was “madness.” Israeli construction in East Jerusalem was completely unjustified, he said.

These reactions are the direct result of the arm twisting and humiliation of Biby Netaniyahu by Obama. For seventeen years, since Oslo, negociations took place with the agreement that the status of Jerusalem would be negociated and not established as a precondition. 200,000 Jews live in East Jerusalem, and this sector of Jerusalem should be allowed to grow and develop just like any other city. Now, however, the Arabs have nothing to gain by negociating when they realize that Obama will do their bidding.

The world is watching this American administration, and I have very little doubt that many allies of the United States are looking longingly at the past “cowboy” administration.

From Iran to North Korea, from Russia to China, from Brazil to Venezuela, one can see the impact that a weak American administration is having on world affairs. Obama is kowtowing to dictators around the world, and these dictators are acting accordinly.

To quote Colonel Ralph Peters, we are playing checkers, while our enemies are playing chess. Guess who has better strategies.

Obama Humiliates Netanyahu

Obama, who during the last elections received tremendous support form the Jewish community, repaid his supporters by humiliating Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a way unprecedented in US-Israeli relations. 

Meanwhile the Obama administration has announced a lessening of the Iranian embargo.  I guess the former member of Reverend Wright's church didnt want to humiliate Ahmadinejad. 

The Jewish community in America will retaliate against Obama in the next presidential election by giving him only 76 percent of the vote.

In another development, Obama is about to sign an arms deal with Russia that is only beneficial to Putin. I guess this was done as a way of thanking the fromer KGB man for the way he is working to prevent Iran from developig a nuclear weapon and the way the Russians treated Hilary during her last visit to Russia.

There is no confirmation from the White House abut the rumors that they have just ordered 1000 pairs of kid gloves to give to American diplomats dealing with North Korea.

Israel Expands its Capital; Not Building Settlements

As the media and blogosphere report about Israeli disrespect and lack of consideration towards vice-president Biden during his visit to the Middle East, by announcing the construction of 1600 residential units in East Jerusalem, let us remember a couple of American commitments made to Israel by the former administration and the Congress of the United States, that Obama seems to be ignoring or willfully disregarding.

The current administration is ignoring the fact that prior administrations have stated that borders are to be negotiated.

Letter from US President George W. Bush to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon upon Israel’s withdrawal and uprooting of 8000 settles from Gaza:

His Excellency Ariel Sharon
Prime Minister of Israel.

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

...... The United States appreciates the risks such an undertaking (i.e. the disengagement from Gaza) represents. I therefore want to reassure you on several points.

First, the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan. Under the roadmap, Palestinians must undertake an immediate cessation of armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere, and all official Palestinian institutions must end incitement against Israel.

The Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. Palestinians must undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that includes a
strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister.

Second, there will be no security for Israelis or Palestinians until they and all states, in the region and beyond, join together to fight terrorism and dismantle terrorist organizations. The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel's security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel's capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.

Third, Israel will retain its right to defend itself against terrorism, including to take actions against terrorist organizations. The United States will lead efforts, working together with Jordan, Egypt, and others in the international community, to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat that would have to be addressed by any other means.

The United States understands that after Israel withdraws from Gaza and/or parts of the West Bank, and pending agreements on other arrangements, existing arrangements regarding control of airspace, territorial waters, and land passages of the West Bank and Gaza will continue. The United States is strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state.... "

In addition, on April 24, 1990 the U.S. Congress passed the following resolution concerning Jerusalem:

"House Resolution Expressing Support for Jerusalem as Israel's Capital.

Whereas the State of Israel has declared Jerusalem to be its capital; Whereas from 1948 to 1967 Jerusalem was a divided city and Israeli citizens of all faiths were not permitted access to holy sites in the area controlled by Jordan;

Whereas since 1967 Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel and persons of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city; Whereas the President and the Secretary of State have demonstrated their strong desire to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and have worked diligently toward that end;

Whereas ambiguous statements by the Government of the United States concerning the right of Jews to live in all parts of Jerusalem raise concerns in Israel that Jerusalem might one day be redivided and access to
religious sites in Jerusalem denied to Israeli citizens; and the search for a lasting peace in the region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress

(1) acknowledges that Jerusalem is and should remain the capital of the State of Israel;

(2) strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic religious group are protected; and

(3) calls upon all parties involved in the search for peace to maintain their strong efforts to bring about negotiations between Israel and Palestinian representatives."

Finally, if Netanihau showed any disrespect towards Biden, he was doing nothing more thatn repay the Obama administration for the treatment he received when visiting Washington.

Israel should not have to justify construction on what should be forever a unified Jerusalem under Israel's control.

Tell me who your friends are, and I'll tell you who you are.

The Obama-ACORN axis:

The mindset of a liberal

In an interview with Katie Couric, President Obama had this to say about Obamacare:

Couric: But did some of these special deals, Mr. President--

Obama: They didn't help.


Couric: --sort of get it passed at all costs, turn your stomach, too?


Obama: They did not help. They frustrate me. But, you know, this is a democracy. Look, I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, you know, academically approved approach to health care. And didn't have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it. And just go ahead and have that passed. But that's not how it works in our democracy. Unfortunately what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people. Many of whom have their constituents' best interests at heart.

This last paragraph gives an insight into the mindset of liberals. Obama would have liked nothing more than shoving down our throats an "academically approved approach to healthcare." Alas, democracy prevented him. Unfortunately, Congress had to do a lot a negotiations and even keep the interest of constituents in mind.

When will Americans learn that they are too ignorant to be involved in the legislative process and that all they need is an enlightened despot?

***********************************************************************************

In the meantime, as popularity numbers decrease, so changes the tone of Obama.  For example, the demonization of Wall Street has been toned down.  In an interview with Bloomberg Obama said  said that he does not begrudge the bonuses paid to executives of companies that received TARP money:

Asked about the $17 million bonus given to Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co., and the $9 million bonuses going to Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO, the president said, “I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen. I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.”

“I do think that the compensation packages that we’ve seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance,” the president said — a rather serene response relative to some of his previous language on the matter.

The seeming shift in tone comes at a time that Wall Street executives have been relaying to the White House that the president needs to be more encouraging of their efforts if he expects them to be part of the solution in terms of job growth. Several business executives have told the administration that attacking businesses so vociferously doesn’t exactly help create a positive business climate.

***********************************************************************************

Monopolies in Education

Raving and Rambling

President Sarkozy has asked French “competition authorities,” whatever this may mean, to look into the possibility of imposing a tax on Google’s advertising revenue.

As the Financial Times reports:

Mr Sarkozy commented after the publication of an independent report for the French culture ministry that proposed a tax on Google, Yahoo, Facebook and other sites, to help fund initiatives for writers, musicians and publishers to make money from the web.

The report recommended issuing music cards to young people with €25 ($36) in credit provided by the government as a way of encouraging legal downloading of cultural works.

This has been the French modus operandi for a long time. If the French public stands in line to see Avatar, while some pedantic avant garde French film fails to draw a crowd, it is the fault of American cultural imperialism. If the public flocks to Disney World, if young people line up to eat le hamburger at le MacDonalds, French culture is threatened. And now it’s the Internet that is in the cross hairs of the French cultural elite.

To a certain extent I should gloat at the persecution of the hypocrites at Google. After all they support any left wing liberal agenda, except when it applies to them. But I know the result of the imposition of such a tax will be carefully studied by our politicians in Washington, always on the prowl for new revenue. Ultimately these taxes will come out of our pockets. As they always do.

Memo to Sarkozy: If you cannot sell French mouse traps without subsidies, build a better one.
**********
In the meantime, in New York State truckloads of unused swine flu vaccines are being returned
because demand never materialized. What happened to the end of the human race that was supposed to occur if enough vaccine was not manufactured? Politicians called press conferences to insist about the existence of tremendous demand for these vaccines, although among my relatives and friends I know of no one that intended to get vaccinated. The only person I know that was affected by the swine flu survived with no more inconvenience than a regular flu and was back at work after four days of rest.

So let's add Swine Flu to the list that includes Y2K, global cooling, global warming, breast implants, contaminated apples, farm raised salmon, tooth fillings that contained mercury, sun exposure, AIDS among heterosexuals, acid rain, cellphones, and I don't remember how many more scares generated by politicians in search of votes or scientists in search of a grant.

I guess planet earth and the human race are a lot more resilient than proponents of the nanny state want us to believe.
**********
Dear President Obama:

We know; everything wrong in the universe, including the shortage of Unobtainium is the fault of President Bush. Now, deal with it, you big cry baby. Happy First Anniversary as POTUS! The only gift your policies have given us is trillion dollar deficits and 10% unemployment.
**********
In the meantime Senator McCain has become tough and his radio ad in Arizona states that "President Obama is leading an extreme left-wing crusade to bankrupt America." Where was that aggressiveness during the presidential campaign? He found that his reelection might be in trouble and suddenly he discovered that Obama is a lefty. What a phony. Run as the gentleman you pretended to be two years ago. We can use a new senator in Arizona. If it's a democrat we won't know the difference.
**********
In New Jersey a Chinese doctoral student has been arrested for trespassing to kiss his girlfriend goodbye at Newark Airport, triggering a six hours lock down of the airport. He faces a $500 fine. Senator Lautenberg wants the penalty to be much tougher. Sure, Senator, lets send him to Gitmo. By the way senator, where were you when the nincompoop guard that allowed the trespassing was "reassigned"? You wouldn't dare to demand that the guy be fired. He is a union member. I hope I have not offended you using the term nincompoop. We all know that that term applies to you.
**********
Human sacrifices are on the rise in Uganda. I guess the next step is to make them members of the UN Human Rights Commission.
**********
It's freezing and raining in Florida. Can you guess that I am in a bad mood?

Sunday Readings

Is Barack Obama aware of Muslims awash in petrodollars?

Read Article

I am sorry to have to notify you that I have just been diagnosed as mentally ill. My only consolation is that I am one of about half the population. To test yourself please answer check the correct statement:

a: I support the policies of President Obama

b: I disagree with president Obama

If your answer is B, you too are mentally ill.

In the old Soviet Union dissent was also called a mental illness. Welcome to America 2009.

Read Article

Sick and getting sicker. Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee have voted to grant ACORN a role in setting regulations for financial institutions.

Read Article

Why I am a Conservative and not a Republican. Go Hoffman, Go!

Read Article

He Nevers Misses an Opportunity to Bash America.

In his speech to the NAACP, Obama is quoted as stating that discrimination in America is at a low but he then proceeded to cite examples where discrimination still exists and "The first thing we need to do is make real the world of the NAACP charter" by eradicating "prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination among citizens of the United States."

As reported in newspapers, Obama mentioned:

Among the groups of Americans Obama cited as still feeling the sting of
prejudice and "the pain of discrimination" were "African American women paid
less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and a different
gender," as well as "Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country" and
"Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion simply because they kneel down to pray
to their god."

This guy never misses an opportunity to bash the country that has made him the most powerful black man in history.

Where did he get these canards? Who is the black woman who is is getting paid less for the same work as colleagues of different color? If he knows of one, why doesn't he send the Justice Department. Obama, don't you know that in the United States it is illegal to discriminate based on race?

Who is the American citizen of Latino (whatever this means) ancestry who is made unwelcome to his country? I have the strange feeling that Obama considers that Latino illegal aliens are in "Their Country." Sorry my radical president, if Latinos are illegally here, then they should be made to feel unwelcome to what is NOT their country.

Finally, who discriminates against Muslims for the way they pray to their God? Those who are viewed with suspicion, are so viewed because of terrorism and jihad. Their kneeling on a carpet is not what makes them suspicious in the eyes of Americans.

Obama, we have elected a president who is 50% Muslim or perhaps more. So get off our backs with your constant bashing of America.