President O'Bama and his recent comments on the War Against Israel

Over the next few days, I hope to share with you some of my thoughts and comments regarding President O'Bama's policy speech last Thursday (May 19 2011) and some of the media/political frakus that has followed.  This is the first of a series of comments.

Well! Wadda ya know! The news media LIED.

Sunday morning, May 22 2011, President O’Bama addressed the AIPAC policy conference. It contained statements that were insincere and untrue, but one thing he made certain: He did not use the words “1967 borders” in his Thursday 5/19/11 policy speech. He used the words “1967 LINES” [emphasis mine] in his speech last Thursday.

I haven’t read an exact transcript of last Thursday’s speech, but I’ve listened to President O’Bama’s speech this morning to AIPAC and believe he stated his words exactly as he made them on Thursday.

OK. That’s the good news. The bad news is that President O’Bama continues to call for a Palestinian State with “contiguous borders”. I think we know what that means. This condition was unilaterally INSERTED by the Bush Administration and was never agreed to by the Israelis. Certainly, arrangements for travel between Gaza and the West Bank were discussed during the Clinton Administration, but a Palestinian State with “contiguous borders” was never an ingredient in public U.S. Policy until the Bush Administration. I believe this element has stalled peace talks more than any other American policy.

Lastly, the statement in President O’Bama’s AIPAC speech that he will prevent Israel from being “singled out at the U.N. or any other international forum” is a bold-faced LIE. Time and time again, this President has singled Israel out as the soul source of failure in peace talks. The constant harangue that “Israel must act boldly to advance a lasting peace” is the routine line. The numerous territorial and political concessions  by Israel, have been met with no reciprocation, end-of-violence, end of incitement, or even continuing negotiations.  The obvious conclusion that these calls on Israel to "act boldly to advance a lasting peace"  are demands for one-sided concessions. 

And frankly, I’ve grown tired of people who are not Israeli citizens routinely saying that “Israel should….”, or worse, “Israel must….”. 

As an American, I believe my President needs to stop making policy statements that he knows (darn well) the news media will deliberately interpret as demands on Israel, one-sided or otherwise. The news media clearly mis-reported his speech. 

Public opinion drives public policy. News reporting shapes public opinion. If the President stops making these kinds of policy statements, few will question his claim of support for Israel.

SUNDOWN!

 Passover is OVER. Time for BEER!

NEW TSA COMMERCIAL TO AIR NATIONWIDE

Watch it HERE

What the LIB Media Won't Tell You About Elizabeth Taylor

Legendary actress Elizabeth Taylor died yesterday, March 23, 2011.  In the 24 hours of eulogies that went non-stop through the day, there was one constant throughout Taylor's life that was never mentioned: Elizabeth Taylor was an ardent Zionist.

Elizabeth Taylor was a fickle woman for sure.  She fell in and out of love with men; 8 husbands.  She fell off and on the wagon.  She gained, dropped and gained back weight.  Yet the one constant throughout her life was her support of Israel and (I believe) a sincere commitment to Reform Judaism and love of Gd.

The LIB media won't tell you this.  It's an embarrassment to the Saudi petro-dollar stockholders and advertisers. 

I just thought you should know.

Sincerely,

There is NO Santa Claus (aka TINSC)

P.S.  Don't hold your breath waiting for conservative news media (i.e. FOX News) to tell you this either.   Same stockholders; same advertisers.

Japan Quake/Tsunami; Iran Nukes

If you're like me, you've probably been following the rescue effort being mounted in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan recently.  I encourage you to donate money to the rescue effort.  The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee has established a Japan/Pacific Disaster Relief fund.  I encourage you to make a donation immediately.

I pray to Gd in heaven, the Japanese people are not further harmed by the damage done to their nuclear power plants.  So far, so good!  The containment buildings haven't been breached.  Though several Japanese nuclear plant workers have made heroic sacrifices for the public good, the likelihood of a Chernobyl scenario still looks remote in the short term.  Cleaning up the mess might take years and cost a lot of money, but so far the public appears safe.  While it can't be comfortable living in evacuation, at least those living near the effected reactors enjoy the supreme gift of life and will ultimately recover.  

Unfortunately, this is not the purpose of my column.  Moreover, I have very mixed feelings about leveraging a current event tragedy like this to make a political statement on an unrelated matter.   Japan needs our help, but something else needs to be said.

You see, in the wake of the Japan quake and tsunami, there has been a lot of discussion among all nations about the safety of their civilian nuclear power plants.  Some nations that were considering building new plants are thinking twice.  Americans are wondering if "it could happen here" and what we're doing to make certain our commercial nuclear power plants can withstand natural disasters.  Suddenly, everybody seems concerned about nuclear safety EXCEPT IRAN and that's the point of this post.

For years Iran has given mixed signals about their nuclear "program".  Frankly, I think the Iranian nuclear program is a weapons program and they do little to disguise it.  Nonetheless, there are many people in denial about this.

Now we have virtually all industrialized nations worried about the safety of their nuclear power plants.  For some strange reason, no such public discussion seems to emanate from Iran.  If Iran's nuclear research program were really for "peaceful purposes', I would think they'd be talking about increasing safety and foregoing the construction of new plants. Don't hold your breath, folks!

Iran's nuclear program is for making weapons to attack America.  If you don't believe me, you'll know soon enough.  When all the industrialized nations of the world re-examine their civilian nuclear power production facilities, I fully expect Iran to forge ahead in their nuclear research as if nothing at all has happened in Japan.  When that happens, there will be no longer any doubt as to the purpose of Iran's nuclear research program.  If my prediction is correct, all question as to the intent of Iran's nuclear research program should be evident for all to see.

So keep those Japan/Pacific donations coming in folks!  Just remember!  This won't slow down the Iranian nuclear weapons program.  For Iran, the nuclear jihad must go on.

Sincerely,

There is NO Santa Claus (aka TINSC)

What the LIB media won't tell you about Egypt

While the LIB news media blares out that "the voice of the people" in Egypt have sent some kind of message to Hosni Mubarak, there's something they haven't told you.  Cairo has 2 million homeless people. 

If a few hundred Egyptians want to protest against the Mubarak government because of poverty, there's over a million men "on call" to join.  These are not influential people, but when joined in a mass protest against poverty, the news media can give the protest any message they want.  That's what the LIB media won't tell you.  They're too caught up in their sense of self-importance to give a protest of that magnitude any other message.

So what does this mean?

In time, the protest gathering will die down.  Homeless people gotta eat too.  Life will go back to normal and hopefully the 82 year old Mubarak will get serious about finding a successor who will enjoy support of the military (i.e. someone other than his son).

We're being told that the Muslim Brotherhood is destined to take over Egypt; they're the "largest opposition group" etc.  I don't think that's true.  Most Egyptians are nationalists and while they may support Sharia law, they are still nationalists.  The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) is a pan-Islamist organization that is imperialist in nature.  When Egypt tried its hand at hegemony under Nasser, they got burned so bad that Egyptians learned (eventually) to take care of Egypt first.  As such, while the Ikhwan might have a 20% popularity in Egypt, there are likely significant numbers of Egyptians who do not share their pan-Islamic view.  This certainly includes the numerous Coptic Christians but extends well into Egypt's Muslim society as well.  

A Unique View of the Egypt "Crisis" from Israel

Having been in Israel the past week, we've all been following the Egyptian protests in the news.  While I can easily watch CNN, FOX, Sky News etc, it's far more interesting to watch the Israeli news and commentary. 

Israel is one of those countries where people rarely agree on anything.  Yet there are two things Israelis agree on this week:

 1.  They don't know where these protests are going to lead.

 2.  Whatever Israelis offer in the way of advice to Egyptians will be resented and ignored.

The mood about is one of curiosity.  Nobody seems to be too worried.  Israeli tourists, businessmen and families of diplomats bailed out of Egypt the same night we arrived here (Jan 30, 2011).  There's nobody left to worry about. 

So don't listen to those talking heads on the so-called "News Networks".  They're all rather self absorbed and don't know what they're talking about.  All they know is that it's easier to milk an old story than to find a new one.

Regards,

TINSC

Why are you protesting against Israel?

I think this video is pretty cute.  Moreover, it points out the grotesque hypocrisy employed against Israel.

If I were reincarnated, I'd want to come back in another life as Jewzilla

o/o/ Jihad Bells! o/o/

ADL: Helen Thomas is a vulgar anti-Semite.

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

Helen Thomas has clearly, unequivocally revealed herself as a vulgar anti-Semite. Her suggestion that Zionists control government, finance and Hollywood is nothing less than classic, garden-variety anti-Semitism. This is a sad final chapter to an otherwise illustrious career. Unlike her previous, spontaneous remarks into a camera, these words were carefully thought out and conscious. It shows a prejudice that is deep-seated and obsessive.

The ADL's Press Release can be found here.

I love Hannukah

Hanukkah marks the last time the Jews won a war and nobody griped about it being "an injustice".

Thank you Prime Minister Harper. A mighty fine speech!

"Harnessing disparate anti-Semitic, anti-American and anti-Western ideologies, it targets the Jewish people by targeting the Jewish homeland, Israel, as the source of injustice and conflict in the world, and uses, perversely, the language of human rights to do so.

We must be relentless in exposing this new anti-Semitism for what it is...when Israel, the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack - Is consistently and conspicuously singled out for condemnation, I believe we are morally obligated to take a stand. Demonization, double standards, delegitimization, the 3 D's, it is a responsibility to stand up to them.

I know, by the way, because I have the bruises to show for it, that whether it is at the United Nations, or any other international forum, the easiest thing to do is simply to just get along and go along with this anti-Israeli rhetoric, to pretend it is just about being even-handed, and to excuse oneself with the label of "honest broker."

There are, after all, a lot more votes - a lot more - in being anti-Israeli than in taking a stand. But, as long as I am prime minister, whether it is at the UN or the Francophonie or anywhere else, Canada will take that stand...Not just because it is the right thing to do, but because history shows us, and the ideology of the anti-Israeli mob tells us all too well, that those who threaten the existence of the Jewish people are a threat to all of us."

-- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper

Taxation without representation

Today is election day; a day that reminds us that our republic was founded on the slogan of: "Taxation without representation is tyranny". Indeed, no matter how you view Republicans, Democrats and their respective philosophies on taxation and spending, we get to vote them in and out of office every so often.

This year, we have the phenomenon of the "Tea Party"; a party of conservative "pure constitutionalists" who can probably speak for themselves better than I can with regard to what they stand for. For the most part, with no exceptions that I am aware of, the "Tea Party" candidates are all Republicans theoretically from the more conservative wing of the party.

Therein lies the problem with the "Tea Party" for in the end, these are the same Republicans who voted in George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush to the White House without protest. It puzzles me. After all, the "Tea Party" appears to be named after the "Boston Tea Party" which was for all practical purposes, a militia attack against an English ship carrying Tea which bore a tax that the colonists objected to. "Taxation without representation is tyranny", that's what the Boston Tea Party was about, but today, things are much different.

Today, the prime example of taxation without representation is the illegal and tyrannical manipulation of world petroleum prices by the Saudi-led OPEC cartel. The amount of wealth being siphoned off the industrialized countries is staggering. The OPEC cartel serves as the greatest threat to America's freedom and independence since the World War II. The horrific impact that this oppressive tax has on developing countries is devastating literally in terms of malnutrition and disease that these countries cannot control due to their petroleum bill. Yet for all the cruel tyranny the OPEC cartel inflicts upon us all, nowhere during the political debate have I seen this "Tea Party" address OPEC's oppressive taxation without representation. Given the fact that all the "Tea Party" candidates are Republican, it leaves me to wonder whether they're any different than the same old politicians we already have.

It might feel good to vote Tea Party candidates in office today and I don't discourage you from doing so if that is your wish. I'll merely point out to you that two years from now, you're likely to be thinking "We've been here and done that before. Why did we think it would be different this time?"

I can't wait til tomorrow (Election Day 2010)

All my deceased ancestors in Chicago miraculously come to life for the day.

Bill O'Reilly, FOX News and the Ground Zero Mosque Problem

It's too bad Americans can't articulate their instincts. When Bill O'Reilly tried to defend his opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque on "The View" he said 70% of Americans oppose the Ground Zero Mosque. He got kicked and scratched by a bunch of girls until he apologized. (See debbieschlussel.com for more information.) Then some other FOX news clod, Brian Kilmeade says that "all Muslims are terrorists" and then apologizes (as he should). What people typically don't know is that 7% of FOX News is owned by Prince Al-Waleed, a Saudi gazillionaire who proves yet again that we get the best news money can buy. Is it any wonder that O'Reilly and Kilmeade back down under pressure and fail to explain themselves in a truly convincing manner.

So if you're reading this blog and this column, you know that I'm the "real deal". There's no 10-second sound bites to limit what I say. I don't post 3-5 columns a day blathering like an idiot (See http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com for a fine example.) demonizing Muslims. That's not me! I don't hold any illusions, but I count some Muslims as long-term personal and professional friends. I don't believe they're looking for new and creative ways to hurt my fellow American citizens. But I digress.

Here's the problem folks. Whether you're talking about FOX news' talking heads or just the average daily American, few people can articulate why Americans are so wary of this Ground Zero Mosque and all this talk about "Moderate Muslims". Let me assure you, FOX News ain't helping. So let me take a stab at this with the realization that this is a BLOG and I can always change my mind later if someone makes a really compelling argument to the contrary.

You see, in spite of a whole list of stuff Americans are upset about, the opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque boils down to something Americans know but can't articulate any better than Bill O'Reilly did on "The View". That "something" is the reaction of the Muslim world to the 9/11/01 attacks. That reaction can be summarized in three theses, all of which are insulting to Americans. Yet Muslims offer 2/3 of them freely without the faintest idea of how insulting they are. One of these theses is pretty obvious and results in people like Bill O'Reilly (and so many in the mainstream news media) retreating into the "They were radical Muslims" mode. If that were the only problem, few would oppose the Ground Zero Mosque.

So let me offer the three theses that make up the sum of opinion in the Muslim world (Naturally, there are a exceptions, but I'll touch on that later). They are:

1. High fives Osama bin Laden! The Jihad must continue.

2. The 9/11 attacks were terrible. There is no excuse for Muslims doing this. However, if the United States didn't have such a huge laundry list of transgressions against Muslims, the attacks never would have happened. I'm afraid the Jihad will continue.

3. The 9/11 attacks were terrible. No Muslim would do such a thing. Therefore, the attacks were actually carried out by the United States and/or their Zionist allies to justify waging war against us. Muslims must resist. Jihad is how we resist.

Thesis number one probably doesn't need much explanation. We know that lots of Muslims overseas feel that way about the United States. We saw news footage of Muslims celebrating the 9/11 attacks that were hastily removed by news bureaus in order to appease their Saudi/OPEC patrons. Still, the word got out and Americans weren't all that surprised.

Thesis number 2 is the darling of "moderate Muslims" as well as the extreme left. Basically, it's another version of "The beatings will continue until morale improves". Thesis number 2 tells us that America need only concede to Muslims on their list of grievances and we'll never have to worry about 9/11-type attacks again. Unfortunately, this doesn't explain the massive bombing attacks against Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Algeria etc; all Muslim nations.

But hey! The leftwingers embrace thesis 2. It must be true! After all, most terrorist attacks in Muslim countries are usually tucked away in the back pages of the newspapers and treated as unimportant.

The 3rd thesis boggles the mind of the average American. Some Americans are at least a little bit aware of thesis 3 and it's popularity in Muslim countries. We also know that there are all kinds of "9/11 truthers" running around pushing this thesis here in America. Some of these "truthers" are extreme leftwingers; others are from other parts of the political spectrum including (but certainly not limited to) the extreme right. That being said, most Americans are not fully aware at how popular thesis 3 is in Muslim countries. The "truthers" may seem whacky by American standards, but most Americans are unaware that thesis 3 is quite popular in Muslim countries.

So you might be saying to yourself: "Hey! I know Muslims that don't hold these three theses. They know who attacked us on 9/11 and don't believe for a millisecond that attacks like this would stop if America were to suddenly satisfy every grievance that exists in the Muslim world." I would hastily acknowledge a similar observation. There's only one problem: those whose views fall outside the three theses, are too few and far-between to form a critical mass of opposition to the rest. Americans can't articulate it, but we know this instinctively and THAT is why there is opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque.

FOX News, (and other mainstream news media outlets) cannot tell us WHY Americans oppose the Ground Zero Mosque. Nor can they articulate the fact that there's no critical mass of Muslims opposed to these three theses. Even if they could, they wouldn't dare. Their OPEC patrons would intervene and they know it.

That is FOX News' "Ground Zero Mosque Problem" and they are hardly alone in the mainstream news media. It need not be YOUR problem.

Two Rules for Two Peoples (Ground Zero Mosque - Part II)

Last Monday (8/30/10) I watched NBC Nightly News as they interviewed our President. The subject of the Ground Zero Mosque came up and our President did a fine job of defending the right of ANY faith to build a house of worship there. The President said that no American would dream of prohibiting the building of a church or synagogue there, so let's extend the same rights to Muslims.

If only he had left out the word "synagogue"! In that one word, our President reminded me that it was just a few short months ago (March 2010), his administration had the gall to tell me that Jews can't build homes in Jerusalem because we're Jewish. Apparently, American values of freedom and tolerance do not extend to Jews living in the Jewish State on our ancestral land.

One has to wonder the mindset of a President and a country that elects him, when there's "Two Rules for Two Peoples". I hope I do not need to elaborate further on the hypocrisy at work here.

The Ground Zero Mosque

For all that is being said, I don't support the Cordoba House. I think Muslims have a right to build it. They have a right to build it right there at Ground Zero where they can insult the United States. The problem is this: they could NOT build it there or anywhere if they didn't have MONEY gained from the illegal manipulation of petroleum prices by Saudi Arabia and OPEC.

The strategic path to victory in the war against Islamic terrorism is the elimination of petroleum as the prime mover of our transportation system. As long as that doesn't change, Muslims will continue to receive enormous amounts of cash to do with as they wish. They'll buy our politicians; newspaper editors, college professors, judges, supreme court justices, bureaucrats, city councils, zoning boards, corporate executives etc. They'll build skyscrapers wherever they want. At the going rate, they'll have enough money to buy majority shares in the Fortune 500 in a few years.

The Cordoba House plan is merely a symptom of the disease. At best it can be delayed. As long as the wealth of the Western World continues to flow into the hands of Saudi Wahabbists, Muslims will buy whatever money will buy.

There are solutions to this problem in our hands today. They are discussed elsewhere in this blog. Unfortunately, those who are in the pocket of Saudi Arabia have mounted a furious public relations effort to oppose these solutions.

Why Jews vote predominantly for Democrats

A lot of people wonder why American Jews vote predominantly for Democrats particularly in Presidential elections.  For example, Barack O’Bama recorded 77% of the Jewish vote in 2008 in spite of considerable concern regarding his pastor, Jeremiah Wright  and his association with other people known for their hostility toward Jews.  Even now, with President O’Bama’s popularity dropping, 47% of Jewish Americans recently polled said they would vote to re-elect him if a Presidential election was held today.

Some people shake their head in amazement.  They wonder how this can be given some of the foreign relations problems, particularly with regard to U.S.-Israel relations, that have occurred during President O’Bama’s first 18 months in office.  I won’t list those problems here, but I think most of my readers are familiar with at least a few of those issues.

There are a lot of theories about why American Jews vote for Democrats and lean toward liberal views.  I’ve heard a lot of them and I understand these theories.  I also dismiss them.  I have my own theory that I’d like to share with you.

The vast majority of Jewish-Americans are descendants of a wave of immigration from Eastern Europe that occurred between 1890 and 1927.  Most of these Jews lived in the “Pale of Settlement” of Eastern Europe.  This region was ruled directly or indirectly by the Czar of Russia for most of this period.

It would be an understatement to say that the Russian Czars were anti-Semitic.  Moreover, the last Russian Czar, Nicholas II was fully willing to use anti-Semitism to divert public discontent away from his critics and toward a common scapegoat.  Nicholas II was the last Czar to rule Russia and was overthrown in 1917 by a coalition of Socialists, Social Democrats, and of course Communists. 

Thus, during the period of Jewish immigration, the primary opposition to the hated and anti-Semitic Czar were leftists and those who at the very least, sympathized with the leftists’ opposition to the Czar.  When the new Americans came ashore and looked around, the party that best resembled the opposition to the Czar was the Democratic Party.  Thus came a natural relationship between Jewish-Americans and the Democratic Party; one that has transcended several generations. In other words, Jews vote predominantly Democratic because the Democratic Party best resembles the traditional opponents of the Czarist regime from which our ancestors fled.

This theory might not be so evident to you, but it became evident to me in the 1990’s when I formulated it.  During that period, there was a second, smaller  wave of Jewish immigration to the United States from the former U.S.S.R.  Anti-Semitism  in the Soviet Union didn’t die with Czar Nicholas II.  It remained a manifest policy of state.  The Soviet Union's open assistance to  those wishing to destroy the Jewish State are a matter of fact.  While Soviet Jews assimilated under the force of the Communist regime, they still faced considerable discrimination regardless of their efforts to be good citizens.

The primary opposition to the Communist regime in the U.S.S.R. were those who supported free market economics in conjunction with personal political freedom.  To these opponents of the Communism, personal political freedom could not come about in the U.S.S.R. without economic freedom.

When the U.S.S.R. dissolved, its Jewish population left in droves.  Most went to Israel where there were relatives and government programs in place to absorb them.  Others came to the United States where there were also relatives and a significant mixture of private and public programs in place to help them start their lives anew.

These new Jewish-Americans identify with those who opposed the anti-Semitic Communist regime in the U.S.S.R.  As they looked around the American political landscape, they found that it was the Republican Party that best resembled the opposition to the old country’s repressive regime.  To nobody’s surprise, these new Jewish-Americans are attracted to the political party that best resembles the opposition to the repressive Communist regime.  That is why these new Jewish-Americans from the former Soviet Union predominantly vote Republican.  I do not find that surprising.

In summary, my thesis is that Jewish-Americans tend to support the Democratic Party because it best represents the opposition to the government from which our ancestors fled.  This thesis is re-enforced by the phenomenon that Jewish-Americans who have fled the former Soviet Union tend to support the Republican Party because it too, best represents the opposition to the government from which they fled.

What do you think?

With the right to do evil...

With the right to do evil and no recourse from the law (or Gd), people do it gleefully.

- Ahoylibs

This is one of the most profound things a friend of mine has said to me in a long time. 

CNN fires Middle Eastern editor

The firing of Octavia Nasr, CNN’s Senior Editor for Middle East Affairs, came and went with little fanfare.  That shouldn’t surprise any of us because the rest of the news media probably doesn’t want to cover this story on account of their own vulnerabilities.

You see, Octavia Nasr was fired shortly after she posted a comment on Twitter eulogizing a Hezbollah leader, who recently died.  The eulogy is all over the internet, I need not repeat it here.  You can find other fine stories on the subject from my friends at Tundra Tabloids and Debbieschlussel.com. 

For those of you uninformed, Hezbollah is on the U.S. State department’s list of terrorist groups.  If the U.S. State Department isn’t credible enough for you (I would understand that.) consider some of the awful attacks Hezbollah is known for:

1.  April 1983, U.S. Embassy bombing (by the Islamic Jihad faction).

2.  October 1983, U.S. Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon

3.  June 1985, torture and murder of Col. William F. Buckley in Lebanon

4.  June 1985 hijacking of TWA 847 and the torture/murder of U.S. Navy Seal Robert Stethem.

5.  March 1992, bombing of the Israel embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina killing 29  people.

6.  July 1994, bombing of the Jewish Cultural Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina killing 85 people.

The list goes on and on.  It includes the unrestricted firing of thousands of rockets into Israeli civilian areas over a period of several decades culminating in the 2006 South Lebanon War.  The list I have provided is rather short and hardly describes the depth of Hezbollah’s rampage of murder. 

It goes without saying that Hezbollah holds a manifest anti-Semitic policy.  As such, you might think that Octavia Nasr’s open support for Hezbollah embarrassed CNN due to its Jewish audience.  Why I’ll bet you thought that Nasr was fired because she rattled Jewish sensitivities.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  If that were true, Nasr would have been gone long ago.

The pressure group she angered was the Saudi Petrochemical Lobby.  That’s because Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy.  Hezbollah is a Shiite Arab terrorist group and quite unique among Arab terrorist organizations.  The enmity between Shiite and Sunni Arabs is well known and the House of Saud does not take kindly to those who support Iranian (Persian) terrorist proxies in the Arab world.  Hezbollah is a serious threat to Sunni Arab regimes throughout the Persian Gulf.  Nasr was allowed to use CNN to demonize the Jewish State for years without repercussions.  Once she rattled the Saudis a little, she was given the boot so fast; she didn’t know what hit her. 

That is another reason Octavia Nasr’s firing isn’t making many headlines.  "The Jews" aren’t responsible for it and therefore, it isn’t news.

We are PEACE ACTIVISTS

Yah... right!  How many times have I heard some version of THIS:

We are European peace activists.   We are peace activists because we say we are.  If you disagree, we will brand you a "racist" and have you arrested for hate speech, so beware!

Why Evangelical Christians Support Israel

I have had the great pleasure of working with Christian Zionists and have found the REAL reason Christians support Israel on a religious basis. I shall now plaigerize the book STANDING WITH ISRAEL - WHY CHRISTIANS SUPPORT THE JEWISH STATE by David Brog.

In Genesis 12:3, God promises Abraham that, "I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you." The "you" employed here is a plural, referring to Abraham and his descendants, that is Israel. To a dispensationalist, therefore, Genesis 12:3 practically commands philo-Semitism and Zionism. Genesis 12:3 is Christian Zionism in a nutshell.

This then, is the REAL reason why many American Christian evangelicals support Israel. They believe it is a Gd-given commandment.  I just thought you should know.

Israel Strikes "Mother Lode" of Natural Gas

If there's one thing anti-Semites hate, it's empowered Jews. That is why they hate Israel so much. If there's one thing they hate more than Israel, it's an Israel empowered with overwhelming financial wealth.

Well folks! It looks like worldwide anti-Semitism is about to experience their worst nightmare because Israel has discovered it's second pool of natural gas in two years. This one is the "mother lode" and will likely turn Israel into a natural gas exporting country.


Leviathan gas find spurts optimism (Jerusalem Post)

“The Leviathan exploration has the potential of being twice the size of Tamar, which was the largest gas discovery globally in 2009,” Richard Gussow, a research analyst at Deutsche Bank, said Thursday.

In addition, Noble Energy confirmed Thursday that the Tamar project remains on schedule for sanction in 2010 and first gas production sales in 2012. Noble Energy on Wednesday increased its expectations for gross recoverable gas resources at Tamar by 33% to 8.4 trillion cubic feet as a result of updated reservoir studies.

“This year we have undertaken significant capital projects to help maintain a high Mari-B deliverability through 2012, and we are working hard to enable Tamar first gas sales late in that same year,” Davidson said.

Noble Energy’s discoveries could provide about 35 years of Israel’s natural-gas needs at projected 2012 demand rates. The capital investment for Tamar is estimated at $2.8 billion.

“With the Tamar project expected to supply Israel with its natural-gas needs for the next three decades, a discovery at Leviathan, should there be one, would be earmarked for export,” Gussow said.

Therefore, Israel is now energy independent and soon will be poised to be a net energy exporter. I have long pointed out that over the years that Israel, with 1/4 the population of Saudi Arabia has a GDP of approximately half of Saudi Arabia. Moreover, Israel achieved this economic strength with no petrochemical wealth. Now, combined with petrochemical wealth (Reports say there may be petroleum underneath the Leviathan gas field.) Israel's economy could become the the single largest in the region.

The Basic Concern About Barack O'Bama

On public forums and blogs, I keep hearing the same hysterical rant from Conservatives; many of them my friends. It's all rather meaningless name-calling and resembles much of the nonsense I heard from Liberals about President Bush.

When we see the current O'Bama Administration embracing Hugo Chavez, Conservative commentators froth at the mouth. The Administration says it was just being polite to another foreign leader. When we see Administration policy that supports "affordable health care", Conservatives holler "SOCIALISM". The Administration replies that they are pursuing policy widely supported during the 2008 election. When the President appoints people like Van Jones, well... Conservatives go ballistic, but they can't articulate why others should be concerned.

Yet there's one basic concern about President O'Bama that my Conservative friends fail to articulate time and time again; hard as they try. That basic concern is this: During his formative years as a young adult, Barack O'Bama kept close company with people who hold America in VERY low esteem.

Therein lies the basic concern many in "middle America" have with our President. Too bad Conservatives can't articulate it and explain it effectively to the American public.

I support Israel

I don't support EVERY Israeli policy, but by and large, they do a fine job of maintaining and running a productive and modern democracy. They are also quite friendly toward the US; something that can't be said of most of the nations in the region. Their technological contributions to the world economy far exceed what can normally be expected of their small population.

I know people hate Israel because it's a Jewish State. Yet Israel's national sins pale in comparison with much of the evil in the world. Moreover, Israel is the only nation who's national sins (real, imagined and mostly invented) carry a routine recommendation of remediation by permanent national destruction. That is a very unique remedy and it is largely due to anti-Semitism. After all, in a world that is void of anti-Semitism, the War Against Israel could not exist.

Israel: a unique nation

Let's face it folks!  Israel is the only nation where the recommended remedy to its national sins (real, imagined and mostly invented) is permanent national destruction.

I've been saying that for many years, but thought I'd mention it now for the record.

C ya,

TINSC

About the Breakup of Al and Tipper Gore

I voted for Al Gore.  I voted for Clinton twice.  Unfortunately, I was never liberal ENOUGH because I don't hate Israel.

In his day, Al Gore was a heck of a good public servant.  When he lost the 2000 election, he lost his marbles.  He went insane.  I knew it because I loved him. 

Perhaps it was best that he lost that election.  In September 2001, when he showed up to President Bush's address to the joint session of Congress, he was bearded and had obviously gained a lot of weight. 

George Bush delivered his address, basking in the glory of support from a nation rallying around our President.  Al Gore was irrelevant and he knew it.  It ate at him. It tore at his self-identity.

In the following years, Al Gore sought relevancy in the American policy-making field by pushing his "global warming" fear.  It led to an Academy Award and a Nobel Peace Prize.  It was not enough!  It was not enough to sooth his loss of sanity.  Indeed, his loss of sanity had led to the herculean effort to bring the irrational fear of "global warming" to the forefront of national and international policy making. 

Having won all the accolades and adoring attention of throngs of followers, it is only natural that all this made his insanity worse.  I saw the signs; others did not.  But now, ten years later, we are finally seeing the signs that the bulletproof "Gorebot" is a man of flesh and blood; susceptible to all the things that fame, fortune and international attention provide.  Who knows!  Perhaps we'll find that he's another "Tiger Woods".  Or maybe it's just that his insanity became too much for Tipper to bear.  Eventually, we'll find out the details.

In the mean time, I'm not gloating over this.  I just think it's important to say that I saw Al Gore crumble badly after the election of 2000.  I'm not entirely surprised this happened, but I wish it hadn't. 

Mark Twain Wisdom For Today's World

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed."


--Mark Twain

Building a house in Jerusalem

Why is it that I can't build a house in Jerusalem?  I'm Jewish!  Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish People.

Nobody questioned whether a black man could move into the White House, the capital of the United States.  Certainly not Jewish-Americans, 77% of whom voted for Barack O'Bama to be our President.

So why does this administration have such a problem with Jews building homes in Jerusalem and moving to the eternal capital of the Jewish People?  Archaeological evidence shows that Jews founded Jerusalem 3000 years ago.  Our liturgy mentions Jerusalem early and often as the capital of our people.  It's only natural for Jews to live in Jerusalem.

I don't get it!  Certainly in the history of mankind, far more cruel acts against humanity have been perpetrated than the mere building of houses.  And let's face it!  If someone said that blacks couldn't build homes in a neighborhood where they wanted, we'd hear a never-ending complaint of "racism" consistent with the American movement against segregation.  That would be the morally correct position; one I would strongly support.

But for some reason, when Jews build homes in Jerusalem, it's a big federal case.  Anti-Semitic Arabs get upset and our State Department thinks that this means that the Jews are causing a problem.  This is an embrace of anti-Semitism by our State Department.  I have a problem with that.

Even if someone were to say that Arabs have a sovereign right to forbid Jews to build houses in their country, it would be no less anti-Semitic.  Why does the United States government embrace this attitude?

It is wrong; morally wrong.   I would like the government of the United States to change it's policy to reflect our own American values that says people can build houses where they want to.   

If the United States State Department felt insulted by Israel building homes in Jerusalem, let me make it clear that I feel no less insulted by the United State State Department when they tell me that I can't build a house in Jerusalem because I'm Jewish.

The Silver Bullet to our Petroleum Crisis

I was reading a column by David Harris of the AJC the other day.  While I praise the AJC for making energy a high priority, I find them too embracing of liberal orthodoxy.  Like so many people, they've been distracted by all the talk of "greenhouse gases".  So when David Harris made the comment: "There is no silver bullet", I had to disagree.  There IS a "silver bullet".  It is the Open Fuels Standard Act of 2009.

Dr. Robert Zubrin has laid this policy out in a book called "Energy Victory".  I highly recommend you read it.  However, if you can't read it, please take the time to watch these 4 videos of his Energy Victory presentation. 

These videos can be found at the following address:

http://vimeo.com/tag:zubrin

Here's part 1 of 4


Dr. Robert Zubrin Energy Victory 1 of 4 from EcoBabble on Vimeo.

About the Armenian Massacres

A lot has been written and said about the Congressional motion to recognize the Armenian Massacres of 1915 as a genocide.  With Turkey growing ever more Islamo-Fascist by the day, there is a temptation by otherwise pro-Israel activists to jump on the left's bandwagon and bring insult to Turkey.    Apparently, some pro-Israel activists have long forgotten how many times Yasir Arafat hurled the genocide label at Israel for their treatment of Palestinian Arabs.

While the scale of murder suggests a genocide, the Armenian Massacres do not fully qualify as such. It should be noted that those who force the "G-word" on Turkey historically have been partisan leftists seeking to demonize a U.S. Ally. As such, the barbaric behavior of other Islamic nations throughout history and today are routinely ignored by these partisan leftists. It should also be noted that the Arab citizens of the Ottoman Empire participated fully in the massacre of Armenians yet escape the criticism reserved for a Cold-War ally of the United States.

Sound familiar? It should.

The same people hollering "genocide" against Turkey are those who routinely holler "apartheid" and "genocide" describing Israel's treatment of Palestinian Arabs. When you have to stand in the same boat with these people in order to hurl the "genocide" label on Turkey, ya gotta wonder just how accurate the accusation really is. 

In fact, it is because the Armenian Massacres were NOT a genocide that the exact death toll is disputed. That is because unlike the Nazis who CAREFULLY PLANNED the inhalation of Jews, the Ottomans had no statistical tracking in order to measure progress. Thus, it doesn't matter what number you pick: a) the conservative Turkish number of 600,000; b) The Armenian/leftist number of 2 million; or c) the generally accepted number of "about a million", the mere fact that nobody can get an accurate accounting of the massacre is because the Ottomans did not set up an accounting system that would have been expected from a central and strategic plan of annihilation, i.e. a genocide.

There are some other excellent resources on this subject from anti-Terrorism specialists and historians. I recommend:

http://www.meforum.org/748/revisiting-the-armenian-genocide

http://www.meforum.org/991/armenian-massacres-new-records-undercut-old-blame  

http://www.meforum.org/2114/ottoman-archives-reshape-armenian-debate

The general reason by which these horrific massacres fail to qualify as a genocide is because historians have failed to find evidence that there was a master plan developed by the Ottoman Empire leaders to totally annihilate ethnic Armenians.   The charge of genocide against the Ottoman Empire is based on the scale of the massacres, NOT the true definition of the term.

But most important, remember this! If you're going to heave the genocide label at Turkey, don't be surprise if the person standing next to you is heaving the apartheid label at Israel. The use of these words have a common tactic and if you want to be careless with them, don't be surprised if that comes back to you like a boomerang. 

Will someone explain this to me?

Let's assume that the Israelis actually were responsible for the assassination of the HAMAS terrorist gun-runner Mahmound Mahbouh in Dubai.

Why is it such a moral negative for Israel to assassinate an armed enemy of the state in a country that is at war with Israel?

Senator Barack Obama - AIPAC Policy Conference June 4, 2008

"Before I begin I also want to mention that I know some have been receiving provocative emails that have been circulated throughout the Jewish communities across the country and a few of you may have gotten them. They’re filled with tall-tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for President and all I want to say is let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama because he sounds pretty scary."

Is it "religious fundamentalism" in general?

The following comment is based on Robert Spencer's "13 Myths  About Jihad".

Islam came around 600 years after the birth of Jesus. It was the Muslims who conquered the holy land in an imperial conquest.

The common myth of course is that the world's problem is "religious fundamentalism" in general, not Islamic jihad in particular.

The fact is that Islamists commit violent acts in the name of Islam THE WORLD OVER. Fundamentalists from no other religious tradition have organized into violent groups worldwide. That is because violence and violent imperialism is "fundamental" to the teachings of Islam in a way and to an extent that is not true of ANY other religion.

"Moderate Muslims"

I think this thesis was originally offered on Tundra Tabloids.

I know this isn't the original verbiage, but the thesis is basically the same.

The Islamic religion in its purest (political) form is totalitarian in nature and therefore anti-democratic. We speak about the meaning of the word "moderate" in relation to Islam and find it as something no longer holding any meaning. The reason for this is simple: many so-called "moderates" have been praised in the west, only later being found to have been supporting jihad (whether by peaceful or violent means) against non-Muslims from the very beginning.

The Muslims we look to with hope are the "modernists", who truly believe in liberal democracy such that Islam should be a matter of personal faith, not politics. And above all, our modernist Muslim allies fully realize that Sharia has no place as a system of government in a modern industrial, democratic nation.

Those who refuse to condemn (restrict) sharia (Islamic law) as being incompatible with modern day society, are the Muslims we take issue with. It is these Muslims who present a clear and present danger to our American republic.

Rio gets the 2016 Summer Olympics

Did anybody bother to tell the IOC that it's WINTER in Rio that time of year?

DUH!!!!

President O'Bama Negotiates Secretly With the Pharmaceutical Lobby

My friend KGS59 of the Tundra Tabloids has posted an interesting article. It concerns recent news that President O'Bama has negotiated pharmaceutical prices in private with a leading representative of the industry (otherwise known as a lobbyist).

This is an excellent presentation. It clarifies something important.

I never had a problem with the President negotiating drug prices. I didn't mind the fact that the negotiation was held privately.

Most GOP/partisan blogs are just complaining that the President negotiated drug prices. This was something most people thought needed to be done. Moreover, it was seen as a major shortcoming in the GOP Medicare prescription plan.

There is also major GOP/partisan griping about who President O'Bama negotiated with, a leading lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry. I wonder who they expected the President to negotiate with. Who did the GOP negotiate with when they formulated their plan? Are GOP partisans trying to tell us the Bush Administration and their congressional allies never negotiated public policy with lobbyists? Who's President O'Bama supposed to negotiate with?

So here's where I draw the line. I have ALWAYS said that the negotiation results need to be scrutinized. The real question that has to be asked is this: Did the American people get the best deal possible?

This presentation actually does something to answer that key question and it seems like we certainly did NOT get the best deal possible. The 2% savings bandied about in the presentation was against total sales. That's actually a more significant amount than the presentation says. The 2% savings against total sales might not seem like much, but it's a much larger percentage of gross profit margin.

Here's the rub! Most financial analysts specializing in the pharmaceutical business believe the industry could have comfortably doubled the price concessions made to President O'Bama. In other words, President O'Bama left a LOT of money on the table; money that the American public will have to pay. Moreover, the legitimate partisan question can be raised: was there a tangible political reward to President O'Bama and the Democrats for failing to push for more drug price concessions?

That's the issue I would like to see argued! I was glad that the Tundra Tabloid presentation cast some light on the issue of whether or not we got a good deal, but if we're really serious about this issue, there's more to shed light on. Merely quoting a dubious source like Air America only makes a partisan GOP point. (I fully realize why Air America was chosen as a source given their overt support for the O'Bama candidacy in campaign '08.) 

Oh! One more thing. There's another thesis offered in the Tundra Tabloids column. It states that the O'Bama Administration is conducting business as usual. Not only was that obvious long before he got elected, but it is also obvious along the entire front of issues facing the country. If you voted for President O'Bama and you believed he'd conduct the business of government differently than before, then you are someone who is easily fooled.

The American system of government has its flaws, but it's still a pretty good system. The people who manage it make the difference. President O'Bama couldn't really do business any different than before because it's very difficult to do so. The only question lies in his sincerity to represent the American public consensus fairly in matters of public policy.

The evidence of his first 7 months in office suggests that he's torn between two entities and neither of these are the general American public consensus. Either he's pressing the agenda of:

1. The extreme left of the Democratic party.

2. Corporate interests 

Hey! I saw the guy in action while he was in Illinois. Barack O'Bama was a fine advocate of nuclear power when he was a Senator. Most of Chicago, Illinois' electricity comes from nuclear power. That support didn't come without a lot of help from industry lobbyists with friends in the Cook County Democratic Party (CCDP) That's just a short example. 

In the grand attempt to make medical care part of the American public infrastructure (a mistake, in my view), negotiations between the government and corporations are absolutely necessary. However, like all other forms of infrastructure, these negotiations and their results must hold up to public scrutiny.  

We are seeing our first signs of failure in the O'Bama Administration's dealings in THIS story. It's really one of the first stories we can sink our teeth into since he became President. I think this story deserves more public scrutiny.

Cronkite Remembers

I bought the 1996 VHS edition of "Cronkite Remembers" several years ago. Unfortunately, when I tried to play it a couple weeks ago when Walter Cronkite died, the tape broke. I was really angry about that and issued a few choice swear words in frustration.

I went on the internet and used Amazon.com to locate the tape. It was not to be found. Rather, there is a 3 DVD set by the same name. I figured it was probably a very similar production and bought it.

Mrs. TINSC and I have just spent the past 3 days watching this 7-1/2 hour series. It's worth every cent of the $20 or so we paid.

What can I say about Walter Cronkite? I dunno. The first thing that comes to my mind is: WHAT A LIFE!

Walter Cronkite was an eye witness to so much American history that this 7-1/2 hour series couldn't possibly cover it all.

He flew 8 combat missions over Europe during World War II as a war correspondent. He saw that war up close and personal. He covered the Nuremberg trials and later; even covered the Eichmann trial in Israel. He lived in Moscow immediately after the war and witnessed Stalinism in a most personal way. He flew a combat air mission over Vietnam. He attended BOTH the Democratic and Republican national conventions of 1928 (not as a reporter).

To hear the 20th century history of America from Walter Cronkite is a treat no matter what your politics are.

There are people who berate Walter Cronkite because he was a liberal. He was a liberal. There are those who berate Walter Cronkite for causing America to lose the Vietnam War. America didn't lose the Vietnam War; the RVN lost it. If the South Vietnamese couldn't stand up and fight against the Communists, then there was never a war to be won.

I'd also add that I heard some absolute falsehoods stated in that documentary. For example, Walter Cronkite states that America spent the 1930's preparing for World War II. Few concur with that view. Most historians rightly believe that America was quite unprepared for war on September 1, 1939 and hardly more prepared on December 7, 1941 when the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor.

But these are things he said in passing; so briefly you'd hardly even notice it. By and large, this DVD set is like listening to Grandpa tell old stories; except these stories shaped our world. There is no question that Walter Cronkite was in the thick of so much of it.

Walter Cronkite took from the Nuremberg Trials an opinion that we need a "World Court" and a "World Government" to diffuse conflict. That he was holding onto such beliefs well into the late 1990's is a mystery to me. Let me just say that I certainly don't agree with him on THAT one.

I need to check to see what the copyright date is on the DVD set. I think there were some things left out of the DVD set that were in that original 1996 VHS edition. For example, I could SWEAR Walter Cronkite talks about his daughter Kathy going to Woodstock on the original 1996 edition. I'm going to find a VHS tape repair service someday and have that restored so I can tell you whether my memory serves me correct.

I also remember that the 1996 edition covered the assassination attempt on President Reagan. This was certainly absent from the DVD set although as I'm sure you can imagine, there was plenty of time devoted to the assassination of President Kennedy.

Yet while Walter Cronkite can be fairly criticized for being liberal, even having liberal bias in his news reporting, nobody can say he was naive about the totalitarian aspects of Communism. This is where his worst critics and I part ways. Walter Cronkite was opposed to Communism and fully recognized it as a means to impose totalitarian rule. Moreover, he fully recognized the imperialist nature of the Soviet Union and the anti-American sentiment that American Communists held. Walter Cronkite was no fool and he was no tool.

He called the news the way he saw the news; sometimes regretting afterward. He did his best to get it right and if he reported the news through his liberal preferences, well... that's the way it was. Compared to the clods anchoring network news today, Walter did his job reasonably well.

Republicans and Democrats

The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is that one group tries to push the country over the cliff. The other group tries to pull the country over the cliff.

The two sides argue about which is better but the end result is the same.

Have you ever noticed?

Have you ever noticed that individuals and factions generally partial to greater state control of economic life, have found the evidence for global warming to be quite compelling?

Just thought I'd ask again since a cap-and-trade bill is winding its way through Congress right now.

U.S. Government moves to dismiss AIPAC case

Of course the U.S. Government was eventually going to drop these scurilous charges.

You'll note that the charges were covered in depth by the news media when they were made. That is because the news media goes into high gear when there's Jews to hate.

But now, with the charges dropped (because they were baseless to begin with) the end of the story is not being covered.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody sees or hears it, did it happen?

The charges against Rosen and Weissman were covered extensively complete with accusations of nefarious intent. The final conclusion of the prosecutors that they do not have a case, has not garnished much news media attention. Not like I'm surprised.

***** UPDATE *****

I had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Alex Safian of CAMERA tonight on this subject. Alex noted the storm of coverage when the story first broke and agreed that statistically, the coverage of the exoneration received far less media coverage. Alex made note that this is common in news media coverage and not inimical to coverage of Israel and/or Jews.

That being said, Alex professionally documents anti-Israel bias in the news media. My claim that initial coverage of the "AIPAC spy story" exhibited anti-Israel bias has merit. Some examples of the anti-Israel bias surrounding the original story (2004) are documented on CAMERA's web site.

When pigs fly...

... they'll say "swine flew".

Full disclosure: That's my brother's joke.

Some Good News

While Mahmoud Ahmadinijad got slobbering coverage by the LIB media, it looks like the Durban II conference has not turned out to be a frothing-at-the-mouth frenzy of anti-Semitism that characterized Durban I. It looks like the diplomatic efforts of the countries that did not participate sent a valuable message.

From the Jerusalem Post:

But although Durban II was preceded by a two day anti-Israel conference by non-governmental groups and a number of small anti-Israel rallies were held - including one that compared Israel's actions in Gaza with those of the Warsaw ghetto - the atmosphere around the conference did not replicate Durban I.

Link to the whole article

Thank you

The There is NO Santa Claus blog would like to thank the leaders of the following countries for boycotting the Durban II conference:

1. Germany
2. Italy
3. Poland
4. Holland
5. United States of America
6. Canada
7. Australia
8. New Zealand
9. Sweden
10.Israel.

SUNDOWN!

Passover is OVER. Time for BEER!

About Global Warming

Let's get something straight!

The problem isn't global warming. The problem is people who say government can fix problems of global magnitude by taking more of your money and controlling the way you live.

President O'Bama's dog

I think it's very nice President O'Bama got his children a dog. One has to wonder what took him so long. That he conditioned getting a dog on his victory in a Presidential election makes me wonder how much of a present it was to his children. OTOH, he's not going to be home too much so the dog is a fine idea.
And besides, Muslims don't like dogs. Muslim households rarely keep dogs. So all you hysterical O'Bama-bashers need to find something else to kvetch about. Our President isn't a Muslim, yet.
But what of the LIB media? Why the hype? President Bush had a dog. Did anyone know its name? President Clinton had a dog. Did anyone know its name? Where was all the media hype then? There hasn't been this much hype for the President's dog since Lyndon Johnson lifted his beagle up by the ears 45 years ago.
And apparently, there doesn't seem to be any of the usual hypersensitivity to "racism" given that the President has named his dog "Bo". If George Bush had brought a black dog into the White House and named it "Bo", I think we would never have heard the end of it. But alas! This is a new era of "hope and change".
The dog is cute and the most important thing is that the children are happy and do not experience an allergic reaction to Bo. After all, Bo shares a breeding blood line with Sen. Ted Kennedy's dogs.
Does this make the O'Bamas and Kennedys "family"? :+)

Gov. Granholm, your silence today is deafening

The Big Three "bailout" is turning out to be anything BUT a rescue plan. Moreover, there's one rule for New York bankers and another rule for Michigan auto workers.

I'd like to think Gov. Granholm would speak out on this disparity. Don't you?

AIG - A media feeding frenzy

OK folks! The AIG bonus scandal is quickly turning into another one of those media feeding frenzies. Let's back up, take a deep breath and look at it.

We (da taxpayers) recently loaned AIG $30 Billion. Or did we just give it to them in exchange for an equity position in the company? It would be nice if the media actually informed us of the details of the "bailout". Wouldn't it?

Don't hold your breath. For now, I'll call this a loan.

Had we not loaned AIG $30 Billion, they would have gone bankrupt and pulled down other banks in a domino effect. I understand that. The plan is necessary to stabilize the banking system.

Had AIG gone bankrupt, I doubt they could have paid these bonuses. Therein lies the problem. The beneficiaries of this lavish compensation are being directly paid by taxpayers for running a company whose financial performance does not warrant lavish compensation. That's putting it mildly.

The big friggin' outrage is that something like $150 million has been paid out to AIG execs as retention bonuses. OK kiddies! Let's do the math! $150(EE6) divided by $30(EE9) times 100% equals 0.5%. In other words, less than 1% of this money has been paid out in bonuses.

Back in the wild and wooley days of the Casino business in Los Vegas, this was called "skimming". The government stopped it. Strange that the government didn't stop this! I understand your anger.

That does not mean we had to let the entire world banking system melt down. This problem doesn't mean it was wrong to rescue the banking system. It just means that the government once again, let a hundred executives of a large corporation get rich at taxpayer expense for no good reason.

Unheard of! Eh?

Today, I've heard news reports of Congressmen shouting from the highest mountaintops that this is an outrage. What is an outrage is that Congress didn't do any due dilligence to prevent this.

And what of the O'Bama Administration. This is an Administration that told us just a few weeks ago that banking bailout money would have "strings attached"; executive compensation would be limited to real-world levels for those banks accepting federal assistance. Either the O'Bama Administration was NOT sincere, or they failed to follow through with their own promise. No wonder the President is madder than a hornet.

I just wish our elected leaders had the HUMILITY to express a sense of embarassment over this issue. I think the money paid out to these executives can probably be recovered. If not, the government can certainly make these executives sorry they ever kept it.

Yet the media feeding frenzy on this story is focusing on public anger and the anger of our elected leaders. I can certainly understand the public anger. As far as our elected leaders are concerned, they should be EMBARASSED.

Oh! And one more thing before I sign off. I sure hope that our elected leaders in Washington D.C. take better care of how that "stimulus" money is spent better than they took care of the AIG rescue money. The stimulus package is law, but the money hasn't been spent yet. There's still time to prevent further embarassment to our elected leaders.

Do you think they'll use this time wisely?

Celebrating the O'Bama Inauguration

I celebrated the O'Bama inauguration tonight. Having voted for Clinton twice, Gore and Kerry and never being liberal ENOUGH, the cover of Ann Coulter's latest book, GUILTY caught my eye in the local West Michigan grocery store. In honor of the O'Bama inaguration, I bought the book.

"Liberals always have to be the victims, particularly when they are oppressing others. Modern victims aren't victims because of what they have suffered; they are victims of convenience for the Left.... Playing the game of He Who Is Offended First Wins, the keyt o any political argument is to pretend to be insulted and register operatic anger. Liberals are the masters of finger-wagging indignation. They will wail about some perceived slight to a sacred feeling of theirs, frightening people who have never before witnessed the liberal's capacity to invoke synthetic outrage. Distracted by the crocodile tears of the liberal, Americans don't notice that these fake victims are attacking, advancing and creating genuine victims."

Gotta love it.

It's (not) Israel's Fault

It's Israel's Fault

An excellent essay by By Rabbi David Fass.

I encourage you to read it. My thanks to PRIMER and primerprez for posting this excellent essay.

What a shame!

What a shame! I wish the IDF had killed this creep!

>There are other pictures that haunt me. The Israeli army issued a video of the bombing of the Hamas-run government compound, which it posted on YouTube. In it, I also can see my home being destroyed, and I watch it obsessively.<

In other words, ole Ibrahim Barzak lived in the heart of Hamas' neighborhood in easy walking distance from their government compound. He is a member of the club. He knows the secret handshake. And since Hamas PURGED Fatah some time ago, the only explanation for Barzak being alive is that he's part and parcel of the HAMAS propaganda machine.

>Al Dera, a beautiful hotel on the Mediterranean shore, was a place where young men and women smoked water pipes and flirted, and where families went for dinner on Thursdays.

Those days are gone now.<

Ah! The good old days!

But wait! According to Barzak, there were NO "good old days", only occupation, blockade and misery. I'll bet you can find reams of his articles claiming such.

>Samir, who is 9, told me his family has no water at home and he wanted to bring enough for a bath because he and his brother smell.

That's a problem for most people in Gaza right now.<

How many of you really think this is a problem that has just recently manifested itself?

>There were few cars on the roads, and most of those were media cars, ambulances and vehicles packed with civilians. Some looked like they were fleeing, with mattresses tied to the roofs, but who knows where they can go.

Israeli helicopters flew overhead. I heard blasts in the distance. The roads were ripped apart by explosives. <

There are 22 Arab League states stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean. If these states aren't welcoming Arabs from Gaza, it certainly isn't Israel's fault. But hey! Why mention that when the primary agenda of a HAMAS apparatchik is to demonize the Jews?

As an AP employee, I'll bet the IDF has Ibrahim Barzak's cell phone number. I'll bet they called him and told him to get the heck out of the way before they bombed the HAMAS government complex that is in easy walking distance of his home. If he had the courage to report that, the HAMAS might not like the fact that he was talking to "the Jews".

Khaled Abu Tomeh of the JERUSALEM POST has reported on what happens to Gazans who are suspected of collaborating with Israel. According to Tomeh's report:

>Meanwhile, sources close to Hamas revealed over the weekend that the movement had "executed" more than 35 Palestinians who were suspected of collaborating with Israel and were being held in various Hamas security installations.<

While Ibrahim Barzak plays the LIB media pity game, he knows darn well that HAMAS continues to insist that they will NOT stop attacking Israel; they will NOT end the war. Barzak knows that HAMAS is bragging about sacrificing their lives and the lives of Gaza's citizens in the holy war against the Jews. HAMAS doesn't care who they murder. Too bad Ibrahim Barzak is unwilling to report it.

HAMAS propagandists like Ibrahim Barzak deserve to be treated like a combatant.

Gaza

It is long forgotten that Israel evacuated Gaza in 2005 under diplomatic pressure from the United States.

If the United States doesn't back Israel's defense from artillery attacks emanating from Gaza, we can forget about Israel ever again making territorial concessions to the Arabs on America' s behalf. Keep that in mind when you're scratching your head wondering why the United States and others are backing Israel in the current war.

I AM A PALESTINIAN!

Once upon a time, Israel and the US had a policy of not talking to terrorists. Now they're talking to Al-Jazeera.

Who are the Palestinians? There has never, in the history of humankind, been an Arab nation of "Palestine".

Palestine is a region. The modern State of Israel is part of that region. JEWS ARE PALESTINIANS TOO!

Yet for some reason, everybody has bought into the "no Jews allowed" definition of "Palestinian"; even the Likud.

It's time we spoke up and ended this sham that "Palestine" is an exclusive Arab land where Jews have no national rights.

The left (including the Israeli left) has long held fast to the belief that the War Against Israel is a competition between two national liberation movements. This is a LIE.

The War Against Israel is between one national liberation movement (Zionist) against a totalitarian, imperialist Islamo-Fascist movement which seeks to conquer all lands once ruled by Muslims and then onward to rule the world.

Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish People. The Jews established a nation in Palestine called Israel. The Arabs established a nation in Palestine called Jordan.

Therefore:

I AM A PALESTINIAN! I AM A JEW! I AM A ZIONIST!

It is time to end the "no Jews allowed" aspect of defining a "Palestinian".

I am sick and tired of people talking of the "Palestinians" expecting everyone to understand that they're talking EXCLUSIVELY about Arabs.

IJCTDE

I think it is time to let you all know, I am the undisputed leader of IJCTDE. IJCTDE stands for the "International Jewish Conspiracy That Doesn't Exist".

You may kiss my ring now. :+)

About that Gaza evacuation in 2005

Is there anyone left who thinks the Bush Administration's pressuring Israel to leave Gaza in 2005 has been a diplomatic success?

About Rod Marinelli and the 0-16 Lionis

I liked what Rod Marinelli said in his Monday News conference. Coach Marinelli had just led the Lions to an 0-16 record, the worst in NFL history. Yet he fought of the label of the "worst" team. Football coaches aren't the best politicians in the world. They aren't always articulate or eloquent. Sometimes we need someone like Cyrano to speak the words that need to be spoken.

I came across these words once offered by Theodore Roosevelt that made me think of Rod Marinelli. I thought it was very fitting.

> It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.<

What a great commentary! I think that's what Rod Marinelli was trying to tell us last Monday... and I admire him. I don't think we've heard the end of Coach Marinelli.

Palestinian rocket kills 2 Gaza girls. Nobody cares

GAZA (Reuters) – A rocket apparently fired by Palestinians on Friday struck a house in the Gaza Strip, killing two Palestinian sisters aged five and 13, Palestinian medics said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081226/wl_nm/us_palestinians_israel_rocket

As you can see from the link, Reuters ran a very brief story about this. Naturally, the story got little play in the mainstream media. How typical!

Please keep this incident in mind over the next weeks. If Israel sends its armed forces into Gaza to end the indiscriminate shelling of its civilian centers, you're likely to hear every imaginable "human interest story" of "Palestinian suffering" described in elaborate detail.

This story stands out as typical of what we see when Arabs kill Arabs.

Grain isn't a limited resource

Grain isn't a limited resource. We can grow tons more. Right now, the government pays farmers NOT to plant crops. But wait! There's more!
Most corn grown in America is feed grain for cattle. In the ethanol distilling process, only the starch is used. All the protein fiber and oil is left over for use as cattle feed.
But wait! There's more! There's no need to limit ethanol production to corn. There are other sources of ethanol including sugar cane (Brazil is running their cars on sugar-cane based ethanol) and other sugar-bearing crops. Plus, there's cellulosic ethanol, the next coming technology.
But wait! There's more! There's no need to limit our automotive fuels to ethanol. We can run our cars on METHANOL which can be made from darn near anything including coal, waste wood, waste paper, and even garbage.
Diesel powered vehicles can be run from dimethyl ether, another alcohol derivative.
In the third world where economies are agrarian in nature, growing plants for automotive fuel holds the potential for economic growth that these countries so desperately need. Why let the poor countries get raped by OPEC when we can have THEM make our automotive fuels.
Yet if you read my post, you'll note that we don't have to do anything to MAKE ethanol. We merely have to make our vehicles CAPABLE of running on alcohol fuels. By doing that, we can place a cap on the price of petroleum that will limit OPEC's ability to control prices.
We can't lose if we have motor vehicles capable of running on biofuels. The possibilities are endless. We can even derive bio-fuels from algae fed from CO2 emissions from power plants that we are currently throwing away. Even the tree-huggers will like that one!

Flex Fuel Vehicle Mandate is a MUST

With petroleum and gasoline prices falling, there is still plenty of room for ethanol in America's future for transportation fuels. Naturally, ethanol is losing its competitive edge as the price of petroleum falls with the world economy slipping into a major recession.

But all is not lost. You see, NOW is the time to bring about a federal mandate for flex fuel vehicles.

We don't need to make any more ethanol (especially corn-based ethanol) than we are not to finally put a cap on the price of petroleum. A mandate that all cars sold in America be flex fueled (Any mix of gasoline, ethanol and/or methanol) would forever place a ceiling on how much OPEC can charge for petroleum.

Right now, the equivalent price of a gallon of gasoline in the form of ethanol is about $2.25/gallon. That was VERY competitive with last Summer's gasoline prices that exceeded $4.00/gallon. However today, this is not competitive with gasoline selling for well under $2.00/gallon.

However, if every car sold in America could run on any combination of gasoline, ethanol and/or methanol, the prices of these alternative fuels made-in-America will forever be a cap on the price of gasoline and petroleum.

That is why it is imperative that the United States pass a flex fuel vehicle mandate as soon as possible.

Where have I heard this before?

Hillary Clinton has now left a vacancy in the U.S. Senate as she fills her appointment to be Secretary of State.  The Governor of New York must now select a replacement and Caroline Kennedy has offered to fill the vacancy.

Remember when George Bush ran for President?  Remember the commentary?

• Rich kid short-listed for effortless political success. 
• Political family stretching back several generations. 
• Daddy was President. etc etc.

Why were these slights missing from national news media and commentary coverage of Caroline Kennedy's effort to be appointed U.S. Senator from New York?

Algea Power

Algae holds a lot of potential as a biofuel. As petroleum prices tumble making ethanol less competitive for the present, algae holds a double potential because it can be used to reduce carbon emissions from conventional power plants. While I'm not a fan of the proponents of global warming, there is no good reason to throw away perfectly good CO2 when it can be used to make transportation fuels.



Isaac Berzin has a prototype system in place at MIT's power plant. He's not alone.

http://www.israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp?enZone=Profiles&enDisplay=view&enPage=BlankPage&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Articles^l2141

Here's anothe researcher:



Algae hold the potential to far out-produce corn as a source of biofuel.

Why Now?

Why did the Feds arrest Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich NOW?

Gov. B was going to fall. It was just a matter of time. Everybody knew it!

The question is the TIMING. Why now?

Well... it seems that the very NEXT scheduled interview for the vacated U.S. Senate seat was none other than Jessie Jackson Jr. Jr. has kept his nose clean in Chicago politics for 12 years as a Congressman; an admirable record, I might add.

With the Feds wiretapping Gov. B's solicitations for money in exchange for the appointment, Jessie Jr. would have become dirtied up in the affair.

Who knows! Maybe Jessie might even break and offer to pay up with the tape recorder on.

With a new boss coming to Washington D.C. any Chicago-based FBI agent knows he must prevent this; especially if he/she thinks Jessie Jr. is the new President's favorite to fill his old job. That is why the FBI acted yesterday.

This is my personal speculation based on what I currently know about the story. Other facts may come to light demonstrating that this speculation is unwarranted.

***** UPDATE *****

According to My Way News, AP reports that Rep. Jessie Jackson Jr. interviewed for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Barack O'Bama on Monday, December 8, 2008. The FBI filed their affidavit on Sunday December 7, 2008, a day before the interview.

An examination of the FBI's affidavit does not indicate a warrant to bug Gov. Blagojevich's Governor's office. Therefore , because the FBI struck early Tuesday morning (December 9, 2008) to arrest Blagojevich, it is unlikely that they picked up any recorded conversations indicating a payoff was discussed between the two. Whatever was talked about was not likely recorded by law enforcement. Testimony in Blagojevich's trial may reveal heresay evidence embarassing to Rep. Jackson, but it is unlikely it would convict him.

The FBI affidavit seems to protect Jr. Moreover, even though the FBI arrested Blagojevich after he interviewed Jr. for the job, the speed in which they moved and the timing is still highly suspect. They may have moved to prevent Jr. from further discussing the U.S. Senate appointment over those Blagojevich phone lines which the FBI had tapped or offices which they had bugged.

A copy of the affidavit showing the date it was filed can be found here:

http://urbanstar.com/blagojevich.pdf

The AP story on Rep. Jackson's denial of wrongdoing is located here:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081211/D9506OK80.html

The question remains as to whether Jessie Jackson Jr. had any conversations with Gov. B about the appointment that was recorded by FBI wiretaps and/or bugs. If so, the FBI hasn't indicated that yet. Jessie Jackson Jr. claims he's not the target of any investigation or charged with any misconduct. The Federal prosecutors office refused to confirm or deny that statement. Perhaps they are leaving the door open for evidence that may come to light later either through wiretap transcripts or testimony in Rod Blagojevich's trial.

DIE SANTA! DIE! DIE! DIE!