All posts by Chuck Norton

I write about politics, education, economics, morality and philosophy.

Palin Bashers in the GOP Should Think Twice

By Rhetorical Gladiator

There is nothing wrong with expressing concerns about a candidate. We should ask tough questions and expect good answers.

It does not take long to notice that those in the GOP who “Palin bash” go out of the way to avoid discussing her record. They have been caught up in the elite media narrative and have not done their homework. To be frank, Republicans should not be so foolish to Palin bash for the sake of bashing as it can have serious consequences.

The first problems is obvious. If Republicans buy into baseless and mindless elite media spin they might as well just ask NBC to pick the nominee for them.

Related to that problem is that the elite media went all out to try and destroy a GOP nominee. They took every allegation from her political opponents and reported them as if they were facts and in most cases would not offer retractions when such stories were proved wrong. They accused her of faking a pregnancy, accused her of being a book banner, accused her of trying to deny sexual assault victims rape kits, accused her of ravaging programs to help teen mothers, and even accused her of being an accomplice to the murderous shooting by Jarred Loughner and continued that narrative even after it came out that he was a dedicated Bush hater who had gone schizophrenic. The aforementioned is just a sampling of the lies the elite media has willingly propagated. The idea of Republicans standing by and doing nothing about this doesn’t sit well with me.

You can be sure if a shooting incident happens closer to election time, the commercials and “rhetoric” from the nominee will be blamed for it by the Democrats and their friends in the elite media.

You can also be sure, it will not matter who the GOP nominee is, be it if Mitt Romney or Michelle Bachmann, the elite media will accuse him/her of some kind of sexual misconduct. The New York Times baselessly accused Senator McCain of having an affair with a 40 year old lobbyist the day after he secured the primary.

Recently I had a conversation with some Palin bashers and in every case not a one of them was familiar with her actual governing record.

Palin Bashing Republican #1:

No, we don’t like her because she doesn’t have the leadership qualities to be president.

You might enjoy how I handled this “objection”:

I Agree, everything Sarah has touched has been a disaster. Here are some examples:

She cut the state budget by 9.8% while maintaining state services. Heck, name me one GOP governor who didn’t accomplish the same and cut the budget by at least 13%.

She cut the governors personal expenses by 80% over the previous Republican governor, who cares if she had three young kids to cart around.

She implemented a plan to begin weaning the state off federal “earmarks” and cut the number of earmark requests three years in a row. No one cares about that, after all earmarks are only less than 1% of the federal budget.

Cut Alaska’s Medicaid backlog by 83%. There are no long wait lists or backlogs in Massachusetts… oh wait…

Sarah was terrible for the Alaska GOP machine. When she rooted out the corruption of bought off Republicans in state government and sent many bad actors packing lots of party people were even fined. That is no way to lead a machine /nods.

She was able to pass sweeping ethics reforms and reform a state contract bidding process that was rigged and controlled by cronies? Doesn’t Sarah understand that when WE own the machine those are OUR cronies? Sheesh!

Sarah is SO behind the times. She had the NERVE to develop a competitive process to construct a gas pipeline [which languished for decades and is the largest state financed infrastructure project in US History]. Doesn’t she understand that “green jobs” are in?

And everyone knows that nothing got done when she:

Chaired the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
Chaired the National Governor’s Association (NGA) Natural Resources Committee.
Chaired the Alaska Conservation Commission.
Presided over the Alaska Conference of Mayors.

Of course her record as mayor is equally pale.

According to Wasilla City documents that are posted on their web server. The propagandists who are obviously her cronies rigged the paperwork to indicate that Sarah oversaw the economic growth of Wasilla by a factor of four as a leader in city government from 1992 to 2003. They have the nerve to claim that while Wasilla’s population increased by 80%, city services were grown at a level to meet the challenge while property and business taxes rates were dropped. They even claimed Wasilla’s tax revenue still increased by nearly 250%. How laughable. Everyone knows that when you lower the tax rate you get less revenue….

Rigged paperwork, crony government, constant under performance. That’s Sarah Palin!

As you would expect, this completely shut the GOP Palin basher #1 down. She had no response.

GOP Palin Basher #2:

Chuck- I think if Sarah Palin had stayed on as governor instead of becoming more of a “celebrity” she would have retained the support of conservative women. This is where I think she went wrong. And I don’t think that women hate her because of her looks (jealousy), most conservative women I know believe in being/staying attractive. You are right , she has an excellent record- just wish she stayed on that path.

Again I went back to the facts:

[Editor’s Note – A legal loophole in Alaska Law allows anyone to file a lawsuit or phony “ethics complaint”, each requires an investigation and a ruling – the Governor must pay their own legal bills to fight them. Democrats filed dozens of these bogus lawsuits. Sarah easily won each of them, but it was eating up the Governor’s staff’s time and had put her into half a million dollars in personal debt.]

Palin Basher 2, if Sarah has stayed in office would have been endless bad press as the left continued to file one frivolous lawsuit after another against her using that legal loophole . I find it interesting that those who blast her for “quitting” never have anything to say about why she did it, or have anything bad to say about how sleazy the Democrats were in their behavior. Forgive me for being skeptical when people are far more willing and eager to blast our nominee than Democrats who behaved horribly.

Also, if Sarah had not taken on ObamaCare on her nation wide tour, not taken the slings and arrows for other conservatives, and not gone after Obama constantly to drive up his negatives, the 2009 and 2010 elections win margins would not have been what they were for us, so again if Sarah had taken any other course, Democrats would have been the ones who benefited. Who needs Democrats when “Republicans” are writing their spin and talking points for them?

Said Palin basher had no response. What is there to say? These facts are irrefutable and I am confident they felt embarrassed after being shut down with such authority.

Still, in the same conversation, entered a rather clueless Palin Basher #3:

And now we are rewriting history! Paul Revere warned the BRITISH that the British were comming! For me Intelligence is one of the must have traits to be President.

Palin Basher #3 did not bother to look up the record or the news all over the internet that Palin was correct in her account.

My Response:

NPR’s historian said that Palin was absolutely right about that. So did Prof William Jacobson at Cornell Law School who posted the quote from Paul Revere himself about it. Palin is a voracious reader of the Founders and if you watch her interviews she quotes them at length from memory from time to time. It is all over the net how the Palin bashers are easting crow on that one. So why are we bashing a nominee when we are not doing the homework and getting it wrong? If our “best” are going to believe the elite media narrative and not do any homework we might as well just ask NBC to pick our next nominee.

Another GOP’er claiming to be wise who has not done a lick of homework and had no response. Republicans are not supposed to behave that way and will pay a price as long as they do.

Words of Wisdom

Here is a 25 minute interview with Sarah where Chris Wallace throws every policy question in the book at her, and she answers each one with the proper detail – www.therightscoop.com/full-interview-sarah-palin-on-fox-news-sunday/  so to say that she is unintelligent is not only wrong, but foolish for Republicans in the long run. On at least 70% of the issues all of the potential candidates agree so if Sarah is an idiot and our nominee agree on most issues, what does that say about our nominee? Do you think the left will not take advantage of that? Sarah may decide to run for Senate, what then? Make no mistake, since Sarah Palin is a GOP VP Nominee, smearing her is smearing the Republican Brand.

The simple truth is that Sarah Palin has posted detailed policy positions on almost very issue imaginable. Most of the others do not.

This early in the primary season, it is wide open. ANYTHING could happen and the political landscape can change radically in a single day. Never forget that.

Early in the primary season for Reagan he was in double digit negatives as well. We need to support all of our potential candidates. I will be supporting all of them (except Ron Paul as he goes places I simply cannot follow). Early in his campaign season Ross Perot had double digit positives.

Now is NOT the time to be violating the 11th Commandment. We should express concerns about our candidates, ask tough questions and expect good answers from all of them, but we should not trash them. Anyone who says that X can win and Y cant at this stage in the game is just off their rocker. At this stage before the last election people were like “What is an Obama?” or “Someone with a last name like Obama (Usama) could never get elected”. Well here we are.

Lastly, Sarah Palin keeps score and is very good at political payback as Mitt Romney, Ed Rollins, Chris Christie, and a pile of now former political players in Alaska have found out the hard way. As the Alaska Daily News points out, “The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who crossed Sarah”.

If Sarah Palin becomes our nominee she will control the RNC and perhaps the White House. All of those who smeared her will be on the outs for a long time.

So why be so invested in Sarah Palin?

The simple answer is that I am not. The the elite media is beyond incompetent and is in fact corrupt and there is no better or more numerous example of this truth than the elite media coverage of Sarah Palin, which is more wrong than it is right, and in which journalistic ethics is completely abandoned more often. I take an interest in correcting the record of the elite media, it is just that in the case of Sarah Palin, more correction is needed.

Do Not Make This Mistake Journalism Students: Washington Post Columnist Insults Intelligence of Readers

Different newspapers can get away with different things depending on where they are and who their audience is.

When you are in Washington D.C. some of the smartest people in the world are going to read your column. It is important to not say things that are so flamboyantly incorrect that many thousands of readers will wince.  It is no different when I was a radio host on AM 1580. I know that Notre Dame Law School is right here. Some of the finest law professors in the world, such as Charlie Rice, are likely in my audience. So I had to be sure that when I spoke on the law that I had it as correct as possible. Here in South Bend there is likely someone in the audience who is a better expert on any given subject than the host, but in Washington D.C. if you try to pull one over on the audience in the fields of basic political history or basic communications strategy the result is ridicule and laughter by a great many.

I know it seems like we have been picking on The Washington Post lately, but only because they have made themselves an easy target.

The Washington Post Columnist Richard Cohen engages in spin for the president. In Washington almost everyone spins some and that is to be expected. The trick is to not get laughed at when you go too far.

Quote:

The insane policy would be to ignore the signal lesson of the Great Depression — when Franklin Roosevelt, listening to the John Boehners of his day, cut spending to reduce the deficit. The Depression deepened.

Amazing, this is exactly the opposite of historical reality. Cohen apparently never heard of the “New Deal” where government spending went off the charts. Government spending, over regulation, and redistribution don’t work well and even FDR’s own Treasury Secretary finally said so. Non farm unemployment never dropped below 20% during the “New Deal”. The United States did not enjoy full employment in a non-war economy until 1947 when government spending dropped by two third’s.

Henry Morganthau, Roosevelt’s Treasury Secretary from 1934-1945 , wrote in a letter to Congressional Democrats  May 1939:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … And an enormous debt to boot!”*

* Burton Folsom, Jr., New Deal or Raw Deal? (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008), p. 2.

Quote:

As with the business community, Obama’s assurances to the pro-Israel community mean little. His precise words are discounted. As with the business community, rumor or anecdote trumps pronouncements …

Ah yes, the old “precise words” defense. This is the oldest political trick in the book. Always include a word or a phrase that acts as an escape hatch so that, if needed, said politician can flip to the other side of the political issue in case backtracking becomes a political necessity. [Editor’s Note: always look for the escape hatch phrase in any political speech]

In the case of Obama’s controversial recent Israeli policy speech the escape hatch phrase was “1967 borders with mutually agreed swaps”. That sounds so good doesn’t it? Tell me, how can Israel give up any land West of the large valley between Israel and Jordan, or the Golan Heights etc ? [Note: If you are not aware of the details of the critical geography mentioned see the video HERE]  To do so would leave Israel with borders that are structurally indefensible. It has only been by the bravery of the Israeli people and the overwhelming technical superiority of American military hardware that has prevented a second holocaust.

With the escape hatch phrase Obama can say “I wanted borders based on the 1967 lines” which had resulted in an invasion, while at the same time saying “I said that we cannot just go back to the 1967 borders”. There are few politicians who speak that do not include these escape hatch phrases.

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu made use of Obama’s escape hatch phrase and wiped his feet on it saying “President Obama says that we cannot go back to the 1967 borders”. Of course the Prime Minister knows full well this was not Obama’s intent, but graciously gave him an out.

Gov. Christie of New Jersey does not use escape hatch language and even made a speech against the use of it:

“Anti-Hate” group that protested councilwoman for criticizing Islam turns out to be Muslim Brotherhood front group.

It is called Taqiyya, deception. Preach peace, love and tolerance while attacking anyone who would critique Sharia Law or the other parts of Islam that are anti-American and anti-civilization.

The Islamic Circle is such a group, like CAIR, which documents obtained by the FBI among other evidence shows that this Islamic Circle group you will see in the video below, is in fact a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest and oldest radical Islamic group in the world, whose founding goes back to the Grand Mufti in WWII. This group wanted to help Hitler to carry out “the final solution” against the Jews.

To see the evidence about the Islamic Circle you can get the narrative, filled with links and the documents themselves right HERE.

[Editor’s Note – Notice that the anchor said that the councilwoman made statements about Muslims. No she didn’t. She made a statement about Islam itself, which is a theo-political, legal and cultural belief system. This is another example of reporters just making dumb mistakes.]

Islam is not a religion of peace, a statement I will be happy to debate anytime. Most Muslims do not take their religion to militant levels of seriousness, but since he Koran, the Hadith and Islamic precedent are what they are we cannot be afraid to acknowledge that many of the militant groups are interpreting these documents correctly. We also cannot forget the lesson of Lebanon. Lebanon was a modern Christian country. When Islamists started coming in many Christians wanted it stopped, but they insisted that they were about peace, love, democracy and “social justice”. The numbers continued to grow. It was not long before Christians were being killed, and the Islamist numbers grew to the point where they started to get power in the government. Anyone who wanted to slow down the immigration was dealt with by the tactics you see in this video above into silence, or otherwise eliminated. Now look at what has happened. Within a few short years the Christians are out of power, being slaughtered and many had to flee. Then Lebanon started launching missiles against Israel.

Now Lebanon is a Iranian satellite state controlled by Hezbollah. These same tactics were used the 70’s in Iran. Jimmy carter and Zbignew Brzezinski were so fooled that they helped the Mullahs come to power. The same tactics have been used in Egypt where now it seems that the Muslim Brotherhood may take over the country, and Obama helped them by helping them force Mubarak out. The same tactic is being used in Sweden and France and England. All of these countries are having problems with Islamic Rape gangs targeting young girls. Those who speak out against the gangs in Europe get the treatment you saw in that video, and these militant Islamists combined with their allies on the radical left have set up the hate crime laws and their biased enforcement to makes it dangerous for others to speak out against them.

If any doubt me just ask Lebanon survivor Brigitte Gabriele, former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat, the scholar Robert Spencer, or the heroic Ayaan Hirsi Ali and they can tell you first hand.

CORRUPTION: 40% of top Obama fundraisers get posts

“Your doing a good job Brownie.” Those are the words spoken by President Bush to the soon after to be doomed FEMA Director Michael Brown. Democrats including Barack Obama chastised the Administration for appointing cronies to government positions. Obama promised to appoint professionals based on merit. As we can see this was just another lie.

USA Today:

WASHINGTON — More than 40% of President Obama’s top-level fundraisers have secured posts in his administration, from key executive branch jobs to diplomatic postings in countries such as France, Spain and the Bahamas, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Twenty of the 47 fundraisers that Obama’s campaign identified as collecting more than $500,000 have been named to government positions, the analysis found.

Overall, about 600 individuals and couples raised money from their friends, family members and business associates to help fund Obama’s presidential campaign. USA TODAY’s analysis found that 54 have been named to government positions, ranging from Cabinet and White House posts to advisory roles, such as serving on the economic recovery board charged with helping guide the country out of recession.

Nearly a year after he was elected on a pledge to change business-as-usual in Washington, Obama also has taken a cue from his predecessors and appointed fundraisers to coveted ambassadorships, drawing protests from groups representing career diplomats. A separate analysis by the American Foreign Service Association, the diplomats’ union, found that more than half of the ambassadors named by Obama so far are political appointees, said Susan Johnson, president of the association. An appointment is considered political if it does not go to a career diplomat in the State Department.

That’s a rate higher than any president in more than four decades, the group’s data show, although that could change as the White House fills more openings. Traditionally about 30% of top diplomatic jobs go to political appointees, and roughly 70% to veteran State Department employees. Ambassadors earn $153,200 to $162,900 annually.

The list of donors who got jobs:

RAISED MORE THAN $500,0000

Nicole Avant     Ambassador to the Bahamas

Matthew Barzun     Ambassador to Sweden

Don Beyer     Ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein

Jeff Bleich     Ambassador to Australia**

Richard Danzig     Member, Defense Policy Board

William Eacho     Ambassador to Austria

Julius Genachowski     Chairman of Federal Communications Commission

Donald Gips     Ambassador to South Africa

Howard Gutman     Ambassador to Belgium

Scott Harris     General Counsel, Department of Energy

William Kennard     Ambassador to the European Union**

Bruce Oreck     Ambassador to Finland

Spencer Overton     Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Thomas Perrelli     Associate Attorney General

Abigail Pollack     Member, Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum of the American Latino

Charles Rivkin     Ambassador to France and Monaco

John Roos     Ambassador of Japan

Francisco Sanchez     Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade

Alan Solomont     Ambassador to Spain and Andorra**

Cynthia Stroum    Ambassador to Luxembourg**

RAISED BETWEEN $200,000 and $500,000

A. Marisa Chun     Deputy associate attorney general

Gregory Craig     White House counsel

Norman Eisen     Special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform

Michael Froman     Deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs

Mark Gallogly     Member, Economic Recovery Advisory Board

Max Holtzman     Senior adviser to the Agriculture secretary

James Hudson     Director, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Jeh Johnson     General counsel, Department of Defense

Samuel Kaplan     Ambassador to Morocco

Nicole Lamb-Hale     Deputy general counsel, Commerce Department

Andres Lopez     Member, Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum of the American Latino

Cindy Moelis     Director, Commission on White House Fellows

William Orrick     Counselor to the assistant attorney general

John Phillips    Chairman, Commission on White House Fellows

Penny Pritzker***    Member, Economic Recovery Advisory Board

Bob Rivkin     General counsel, Transportation Department

Desiree Rogers     White House social secretary

Louis Susman     Ambassador to the United Kingdom

Robert Sussman     Senior policy counsel, Environmental Protection Agency

Christina Tchen     Director, White House Office of Public Engagement

Barry White     Ambassador to Norway


RAISED BETWEEN $100,000 and $200,000

Preeta Bansal     General counsel, Office of Management and Budget

Laurie Fulton     Ambassador to Denmark

Fred Hochberg     President, Export-Import Bank of the United States

Valerie Jarrett     Senior adviser to the president

Kevin Jennings     Assistant deputy secretary of Education

Steven Rattner     Treasury Department adviser

Miriam Sapiro     Deputy U.S. trade representative**

Vinai Thummalapally     Ambassador to Belize

RAISED BETWEEN $50,000 and $100,000

Eric Holder     Attorney general

David Jacobson     Ambassador to Canada

Ronald Kirk     U.S. trade representative

Rocco Landesman     Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts

Susan Rice     Ambassador to the United Nations

** Nominated, not yet confirmed by Senate

*** National finance chairwoman

Sources: Obama campaign, Public Citizen; White House; USA TODAY research

CAIR gets on TV with Robert Spencer

It is rare when CAIR will get on the same air with Robert Spencer and you just saw why.

Robert Spencer is perhaps the worlds foremost expert on the jihadist movement. I have read one of his books. Spencer, like Walid Shoebat (Palestinian former Muslim Brotherhood member), Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Somalia), and Brigitte Gabriel (Lebanon) believe that Islam itself is a militant cultural theo-politic. According to all of my study of the Koran, Hadith and Sharia this is correct.

Pamela Gellar is correct when she reminds people that Islam is not a race, it is an ideology. Islam has rules for culture, criminal law, family law, taxes, finance and banking, war, courts etc.

Of course these people will also be the first to tell you that 70% or more of the worlds Muslims do not practice Islam much beyond saying the prayers. However polls in England for example have shown that 28% of Muslims polled were willing to tell a pollster that they were sympathetic of or supportive of the 9/11 hijackers and the subway bombers. Hardly a tiny minority. In fact this very writer has been threatened by a jihadist student face to face.

Right now the far left and the domestic smiley face of Jihad (CAIR) are having a cow over hearings into domestic terror and Islam. The far left and their friends in the elite media are playing up the “McCarthy” or “racist!” propaganda angle. The truth is that Joe Lieberman had over a dozen hearings on this very subject and no one had a cow. But you see the new head of the committee is a Christian and not a committed Jew such as Joe Lieberman so people can criticize Chairman King without being called an anti-Semite. Of course since King is a Republican the double standard in coverage applies automatically.

This writer has great sympathy for non-militant Muslims. They are in between a rock and a hard place. If they speak out someone in their family may be offended and they usually keep in mind that militant Muslims have no qualms about killing dissenters.

Related:

AWESOME VIDEO: CAIR Activist Confronts Allen West and ……

Robert Spencer takes down an elite media journalist who is “playing the game”

If you are an elite media journalist, this is what will happen to you if you pull the David Gregory style of bogus accusations in the form of a question trick.

Robert Spencer is a remarkably clear thinking man. I have met Mr. Spencer and chatted with him for about five minutes at CPAC. He could not have been more gracious and kind. Do not confuse his willingness to stake out where he stands with boldness as being unkind or nasty.

Bill O’Reilly Now Convinced: The Far Left is Trying to Blow Up the System

Via The Blaze:

Bill O‘Reilly and Glenn Beck don’t always see eye-to-eye — they don’t always agree on everything. But one thing that O’Reilly is agreeing with Beck on now is that there are those on the left who would love to see an economic collapse so that they can remake the system. Chief among those cheerleaders, O’Reilly says, is Beck’s “spooky guy” — George Soros.

Click the link below to watch the video.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4639217/who-won-the-budget-battle/

Bill O’Reilly resisted accepting this premise for a long time;  years even. But as the evidence mounted up it became hard to ignore.

The Democrats are the party of the status quo when it comes to Social Security and Medicare while the governments own numbers admit that these programs will go bankrupt and crash very soon. The reductions in spending discussed in the video were not real cuts at all, they were only reductions in Obama’s proposed budget, and even so it was not even a 1% cut in that budget proposal. The truth is that spending was higher this year than last year, so in reality there were no real cuts, yet the left was still upset.

One of the big problems with Medicare is that the bureaucracy is expensive and truly gargantuan. Billions of dollars go to fund those government jobs that should go to seniors care. The Democrats benefit in the short run and the long run by letting Medicare collapse. In the short run, Medicare not being reformed will mean countless thousands of government employees, will be paying Democrats and the government union dues which is used to finance Democrat political campaigns. Government employees make between 30% and 300% more than their private sector counterparts depending on the job field. That is right folks, Medicare funds are essentially being used to fund Democrat political campaigns.

In the long run, when Medicare explodes seniors will be forced into ObamaCare, which can ration care and push doctors into just “giving gramps the pain pill” kind of care. This is why the Democrats raided half a TRILLION DOLLARS of Medicare funds to pay for the ObamaCare implementation. The administration had moved to implement “death panels” like language but outrage forced them to delay implementation. The bottom line is that ObamaCare gives the President, or the HHS bureaucrat the regulatory authority to implement “death panel” like rationing with the stroke of a pen.

Obama Advisor and former Labor Sec. Robert Reich: We are going to let the old die because its to expensive and we are going to make the drug companies poor so they cant innovate new drugs so you young people likely will not live much longer than your parents.

‘Arab Spring’ in Egypt: General admits protesters subjected to ‘virginity tests’

Now just so you understand, it was the military who did this, well the spin from the State Department and the Muslim Brotherhood [they give the same spin…think about that for a moment] is that the military is “secular” , wants “democracy” and can be “trusted” and will ‘oversee elections’. What kind of real democracy does not respect these women’s rights and sovereignty?  The truth (and has been reported by foreign press) is that the military is cooperating with the Muslim Brotherhood and maybe they will have an election, but since the Muslim Brotherhood is who is organized, financed and already has vast influence with the military it is not difficult to see what will happen. The Muslim Brotherhood backed Hamas was elected in Gaza and do you think they will ever have another fair election again?

Photo: Salwa Hosseini, a 20-year-old Egyptian hairdresser and one of the women named in an Amnesty International report about human rights abuses during protests that led to the downfall of former President Hosni Mubarak, described to CNN how she was subjected to a “virginity test.” Credit: CNN

Read carefully…

L.A. Times:

A senior Egyptian general told CNN Tuesday that officials performed “virginity checks” on women arrested during the uprising that led to former President Hosni Mubarak’s ouster, the first time the authorities have admitted they performed such tests during the revolution.

The tests were first reported by the human rights group Amnesty International, weeks after a March 9 protest in Cairo’s Tahrir Square in which female demonstrators were allegedly beaten, strip-searched, threatened with prostitution charges and forced to submit to procedures that supposedly determined whether they were virgins.

At the time, Maj. Amr Imam said 17 women had been arrested but denied they had been tortured or had their virginity tested.

On Tuesday, a senior general who asked not to be identified admitted to CNN that military officials conducted virginity tests — and he defended them.

“The girls who were detained were not like your daughter or mine,” the general told CNN. “These were girls who had camped out in tents with male protesters in Tahrir Square, and we found in the tents Molotov cocktails and [drugs].”

The general said the virginity checks were conducted to prevent the women from claiming they had been raped in custody.

“We didn’t want them to say we had sexually assaulted or raped them, so we wanted to prove that they weren’t virgins in the first place,” the general said. “None of them were [virgins].”

Salwa Hosseini, a 20-year-old hairdresser and one of the women named in the Amnesty International report, described to CNN how, on the day of the protest, uniformed soldiers tied her up on the grounds of the Egyptian Museum near Tahrir Square, forced her to the ground and slapped her, then shocked her with a stun gun while calling her a prostitute.

“They wanted to teach us a lesson,” Hosseini said. “They wanted to make us feel that we do not have dignity.”

Hosseini said she was taken with 16 other female prisoners to a military detention center in Heikstep and subjected to a “virginity test.”

Hosseini said she did not want to be tested by a male doctor, but her captors threatened her with stun guns until she complied.

“I was going through a nervous breakdown at that moment,” she recalled. “There was no one standing during the test, except for a woman and the male doctor. But several soldiers were standing behind us watching the backside of the bed. I think they had them standing there as witnesses.”

Some bloggers have announced plans to hold an online day of protest Wednesday about the virginity testing.The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which has been running the country since Mubarak stepped down, has increasingly faced criticism from the youth protest movement, upset at the government’s unwillingness to address past abuses, release political prisoners and prosecute former leaders.

On Tuesday, the military prosecutor questioned a prominent blogger, Hossam al-Hamalawy, after he criticized the ruling military council on a TV talk show.

Military leaders plan to meet with some youth leaders on Wednesday at the El Galaa Theatre in Heliopolis that holds up to 1,000 people, but the meeting has been condemned by protesters on Twitter and Facebook as a ploy.

“They’re just going to pick one thousand kids and get in an argument and say the revolutionaries don’t know what they want,” said Tarek Shalaby, a blogger and social media consultant who was jailed after participating in recent protests and has been tweeting his opposition to Wednesday’s meeting.

STONED TO DEATH…

…by those professing “the religion of peace”.

UK Daily Mail

A teenage Muslim girl was stoned to death under ‘Sharia law’ after taking part in a beauty contest in Ukraine.

Katya Koren, 19, was found dead in a village in the Crimea region near her home.

Her battered body was buried in a forest and was found a week after she disappeared.

Police have opened a murder investigation and are looking into claims that three Muslim youths killed her, claiming her death was justified under Islam.

One of the three – named as 16-year-old Bihal Gaziev – is under arrest and told police that Katya had ‘violated the laws of Sharia’. Gaziev has said he has no regrets about her death.

Related:

Video at Socialist Conference: Work with Hezbollah and other jihadists to oppose the US, Britain, Israel…

These Girls from Texas Were Shot Dead by Their Father for Not Dating Muslim Boys

Buffalo Man Starts TV Network to Show Muslims in a Positive Light Beheads Wife in Honor Killing – National Media Mum

Elite Media Mum on Honor Killings, NBC Gave Killer a Positive Puff Piece

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Swiss ban on minarets was a vote for tolerance and inclusion

Christian convert from Ohio faces honor killing from father

Swiss ban on minarets was a vote for tolerance and inclusion

Video at Socialist Conference: Work with Hezbollah and other jihadists to oppose the US, Britain, & Israel.

We have seen leftist groups coordinate with the Muslim Brotherhood backed Muslim Students Association on campus. David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, and Robert Spencer have been talking about it for years. Glenn Beck has also highlighted this issue on his program. Leftist groups in coordination with MSA have joined forces to disrupt campus speeches made by traditionalists, Israeli’s, Republicans etc.

Top 11 reasons to blame Democrats for soaring gasoline prices

<# 11 Via American Thinker
In June of 2008, Congressman Roy Blunt released the following information about how the House members voted on energy issues. During this time Democrats were the majority party in both the House and Senate.

ANWR Exploration:
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats:   86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid:
House Republicans 97% Supported
House Democrats:  78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration:
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats:   86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration:
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats:    83% Opposed

Refinery-Increased Capacity:
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats:    96% Opposed

Summary:

91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas, while 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.

In 2009, the United States still imported 51% of all its petroleum requirements, both crude and refined. This continues to be an unacceptably high number in our quest for energy independence. Gas prices remain hostage to the increasing hostile regimes that sell us oil. Our own Department of Energy has proudly halted off shore drilling. With the political unrest in so many oil producing nations, and the long-term obstruction of Democrats to domestic oil exploration and production, American families have begun to pay the steep price for our failed national energy policies.  This current Administration has wasted tens of billions of stimulus dollars on solar panel factories and windmills rather than building new oil refineries and using new technologies to recover the oil buried in our own back yard.

Number 1-10 via American Thinker<

10) ANWR  If Bill Clinton had signed into law the Republican Congress’s 1995 bill to allow drilling of ANWR instead of vetoing it, ANWR could be producing a million barrels of (non-Opec) oil a day–5% of the nation’s consumption. Although speaking in another context, even Democrat Senator Charles Schumer, no proponent of ANWR drilling, admits that “one million barrels per day,” would cause the price of gasoline to fall “50 cents a gallon almost immediately,” according to a recent George Will column.

9) Coastal Drilling (i.e., not in my backyard) Democrats have consistently fought efforts to drill off the U.S. coast, as evidenced by Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s preotestation against a failed 2005 bill: “Not only does this legislation dismantle the bi-partisan ban on offshore drilling, but it provides a financial incentive for states to do so.”

A financial incentive? With the Chinese now slant drilling for oil just 50 miles off the Florida coast, wouldn’t that have been a good thing?8) Insistence on alternative fuels  One of the first acts of the new Democrat-controlled congress in 2007 was an energy bill that “calls for a huge increase in the use of ethanol as a motor fuel and requires new appliance efficiency standards.”  By focusing on alternative fuels such as ethanol, and not more drilling, Democrats have added to the cost of food, worsening starvation problems around the word and increasing inflationary pressures in the U.S., including prices at the pump.

7) Nuclear power   Even the French, who sometimes seem to lack the backbone to stand up for anything other than soft cheese, faced down their environmentalists over the need for nuclear power. France now generates 79% of its electricity from nuclear plants, mitigating the need for imported oil. The French have so much cheap energy that France has become the world’s largest exporter of electric power. They have plans in place to build more reactors, including an experimental fusion reactor.

The last nuclear reactor built in the United States, according to the US Dept of Energy, was the “River Bend” plant in Louisiana. Its construction began in March of 1977.  Need I say more?

6) Coal   “The liquid hydrocarbon fuel available from American coal reserves exceeds the crude oil reserves of the entire world,” writes Dr. Arthur Robinson in an article on humanevents.com. The U.S. has approximately one-fourth of the world’s known, proven coal reserves. Coal would be a proven, and increasingly clean, source of electric power and–at current prices–a liquified fuel that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Yet Dems and their enviro friends have fought, and continue to fight, both coal-mining and coal plants.

5) Refinery capacity  “High oil prices are still being propped up by a shortage of refinery capacity and there is little sign of the bottleneck easing until 2010,” according to Peak Oil News.  And, while voters in South Dakota have approved zoning for what could become the first new oil refinery in the United States in 30 years,  the Dems’ environmentalist constituency vows to oppose it, just like environmentalists opposed the floodgates that could have saved New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina.

4) Reduced competition  With consolidation in the oil industry, has come reduced competition. Remember, most of the major oil company mergers — Shell-Texaco, BP-Amoco, Exxon-Mobil, BP-ARCO, and Chevron-Texaco — happened on Clinton’s watch.  The number of oil refiners dropped from 28 to 19 companies during Clinton’s two terms.

3) The Global Warming Myth  At a Group of 8 meeting this week, host and Japanese Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Akira Amari “described the issues of climate change and energy as two sides of the same coin and proposed united solutions … to address both issues simultaneously”.   As a result of Global Warming hysteria, the Al Gore-negotiated Kyoto Protocol created a worldwide market in carbon-emissions trading. Both 2005  –the year that trading  was initiated–and this year  –when the trading expanded dramatically — saw substantial and unexpected price spikes in the cost of oil, leading us to reason Number…

2) Speculation  “Given the unchanged equilibrium in global oil supply and demand over recent months amid the explosive rise in oil futures prices … it is more likely that as much as 60% of the today oil price is pure speculation,” writes F. William Engdahl, an Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.  According to a June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report, US energy futures historically “were traded exclusively on regulated exchanges within the United States… The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic exchanges was exempted from (federal) oversight by a provision inserted at the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.” The bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton, in one of his last acts in office.

1) Defeat of President Bush’s 2001 energy package   According to the BBC, “Key points of Bush(‘s 2001) plan were to:
Promote new oil and gas drilling
Build new nuclear plants
Improve electricity grid and build new pipelines -$10bn in tax breaks to promote energy efficiency and alternative fuels

A New York Times article, dated May 18, 2001, explained:

“President Bush began an intensive effort today to sell his plan for developing new sources of energy to Congress and the American people, arguing that the country had a future of ‘energy abundance if it could break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates.
Mr. Bush’s plea for a new dialogue came as his administration published the report of an energy task force containing scores of specific proposals… for finding new sources of power and encouraging a range of new energy technologies.”[The Bush plan] “mentions about a dozen areas including land-use restrictions in the Rockies, lease stipulations on offshore areas attractive to oil companies, the vetting of locations for nuclear plants, environmental reviews to upgrade power plants and refineries that could be streamlined or eliminated to help industry find more oil and gas and produce more electricity and gasoline.” The article went on to quote some rather prescient words from the President, “this great country could face a darker future, a future that is, unfortunately, being previewed in rising prices at the gas pump and rolling blackouts in the great state of California” if his plan was not adopted in 2001.
The Times account continued:

“Mr. Bush talked not only of blackouts but of blackmail, raising the specter of a future in which the United States is increasingly vulnerable to foreign oil suppliers…Mr. Bush was praised by many groups for laying out a long-term energy policy. His report contained 105 initiatives…”

Just as President Bush’s predictions have been born out, the article quoted from that most sage of Democrats, former President Jimmy Carter:

“World supplies are adequate and reasonably stable, price fluctuations are cyclical, reserves are plentiful,” he (Carter) argued. Mr. Carter said “exaggerated claims seem designed to promote some long-frustrated ambitions of the oil industry at the expense of environmental quality.”

But, as a later Times article notes, “the president’s ambitious policy quickly became a casualty of energy politics and, notably, harsh criticism from Democrats enraged by the way the White House had created the plan.”

In other words, Democrats refused the President’s plea to “break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates.”
Remember that the next time you pull up to the pump … or the voter’s booth.

Attention Journalism Students Do Not Make a Mistake Like This

Always remember to double check the spellings of names and be SURE to double check all stats and numbers with a second source. Remember figures don’t lie but liars figure as they say. If you just take a single sources word for a key statistic in the story you may end up with egg on your face.

Washington Post:

Moonlighting blamed for air controller fatigue

By Ashley Halsey III, Published: May 24

Young air traffic controllers who make up almost a third of the workforce have had to work two or three jobs to compensate for a 30 percent wage cut imposed during the Bush administration, the head of their union told a Senate committee Tuesday.

Paul Rinaldi, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, told the subcommittee on aviation that wages have improved under a new contract signed 18 months ago, but many young controllers continue to hold more than one job.

“That’s asking for trouble,” Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) responded. “How do you make the case that that doesn’t cause fatigue and poor judgment?”

NATCA spokesman Doug Church said entry-level wages were cut to about $30,000 in some parts of the country in 2006. He said some local controllers began waiting tables at the Leesburg Applebee’s near Dulles International Airport. Under the new contract, he said new controllers start at about $45,000.

The number of recorded controller errors spiked by 53 percent in fiscal 2010, and after an overnight controller supervisor was caught sleeping in the tower at Reagan National Airport this year the Federal Aviation Administration was stung by an embarrassing series of sleeping controller incidents.

The subcommittee Tuesday sought explanations from Rinaldi, FAA administrator Randy Babbitt, U.S. Department of Transportation Inspector General Calvin L. Scovel III and Greg Belenky, a sleep expert from Washington State University.

They got sharply different perspectives from Babbitt and Scovel, who has been asked by the committee to investigate problems in the air traffic control system.

Babbitt expressed determination to reduce errors while underscoring the unparalleled air safety record in the past decade, which has not seen a single major commercial airline crash. He pointed out that the vast majority of controller errors posed little genuine risk to passengers, and said the increase in recorded errors was largely due to more accurate technology and a system that encourages controllers to report their mistakes in return for a promise they will not be punished.

Did you read that very carefully? Good work. What is the narrative of this story? The story is that the union believes that there are more air traffic controller errors because they are paid so poorly (30-45K) that they must take second jobs to make ends meet. The FAA Committee says that errors are just being reported more accurately because of the new error reporting system that is in place.

Now let us look at the story critically. We know that most readers will not get passed the 5th or 6th paragraph in a story unless it greatly interests them. With that said the narrative becomes more clear “Government employees are underpaid and the union is struggling to help them and as a result of the inferior pay lives may be lost.”

The prudent reporter in Washington DC would know that the government union is not so weak as to not be able to negotiate a decent wage. Washington in general does not work that way for government employees which tend to be paid rather well. You can see that we only have one source for the 30-45k pay figure. What would we learn by checking that number from official sources?

Here is a government job posting to hire a citizen to become an air traffic controller which was found in mere moments on the internet. This is an official government web site:

http://jobview.usajobs.gov/GetJob.aspx?JobID=99420536&JobTitle=Air+Traffic+Control+Specialist&jbf574=TD

As you can see the pay range starts at $113,000. Now that we have a rather glaring discrepancy we should look further. A trip to the Bureau of Labor Statistics will tell us what most any government employee makes:

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos108.htm

Air traffic controllers earn relatively high pay and have good benefits. Median annual wages of air traffic controllers in May 2008 were $111,870. The middle 50 percent earned between $71,050 and $143,780. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $45,020, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $161,010. The average annual salary, excluding overtime earnings, for air traffic controllers in the Federal Government—which employs 90 percent of all controllers—was $109,218 in March 2009.

They also receive vacations, sick days, and insurance.

The average salary is 109K plus benefits and according to the BLS web site the bigger the airport the larger the pay. Only 10% make near the $45k number mentioned and as the pay scale explains, this would be the most out of the way airports that only occasionally see traffic. No where is 30K even mentioned.

It is safe to conclude that the union representative gave the Washington Post reporter a sizable dose of spin. It is certainly safe to say that a false picture was created. Anyone with access to the internet could see that the story has a major problem in mere moments. The “Line Editor” at the Washington Post should have checked this number as well, as that is a primary responsibility of a “Line Editor”. Now the paper as an institution is starting to look pretty flimsy.

This reporter, Ashley Halsey III, compounded his mistake with a rather large blunder. A long time respected Washington intellectual noticed this discrepency and was kind enough to drop the reporter a note about the error. In response to an official source showing the air traffic controller pay scale the reporter wrote back:

“Why do you assume the website is correct?”

The real question is, why did the reporter assume the union representative gave a number that was representative of most air traffic controllers in the face of a .gov official source? It seems clear that the reporter responded with a rather flippant and elitist attitude.

Unfortunately for the reporter the Washington intellectual is a committee  member of an important press organization. The Washington intellectual pointed out that this is not the first time Ashley Halsey III had a problem.

Gerald Celente: American Journalism is a Disgrace

Now before you watch this video there are a few caveats.

Gerald Celente leads the Trends Research Institute. They look at history and examine patterns in events to extrapolate predictions based on trends and their track record has been pretty decent. They are not the end all be all but they are far from stupid.

The network he is on is RT – AKA Russia Today. Russia Today does some pretty good journalism compared to the American Elite Media (which isn’t saying much). RT’s agenda is to make America look bad in front of a Russian and international audience so they often bri8ng on people who have some kind of critique. Anyone who goes on that network needs to keep this in mind. RT is not huge in the states but it is very big around the world and on the internet.

I am presenting this video because Celente makes some good points; especially about why the American Elite Media has not covered the details of what is in the Wiki-leaks memo’s worth a darn.

America’s Founders Your School Will Never Tell You About: Black, Jewish, Women Founders and War Heroes. Women Voted in the 1770′s. What Happened?

Plus, the most recognizable man of the revolution was NOT George Washington, who was he, and why has he been erased from America’s school books? [Hint he was the first evangelical preacher – Editor]

Watch this video, even if you are not a fan of Glenn Beck, what you are about to see will change you forever.

Final word on Obama’s 1967 borders suggestion…

“But Gladiator, going back to the 67 borders doesn’t mean Genocide” … Anyone who tells you that, even if it is a President, is either lying to you or simply has not studied the issue and/or been to Israel. That is not extremist talk, that is not a theory, it is the reality on the ground. We understand that many people reading this do not understand or could even fathom such a reality. The following short video shows exactly the how and why of  what we have told you, and what the Israeli government has maintained for many years.

Let us keep a few thoughts in mind that President Obama went to that “church” in Chicago which preached caustic antisemitism for many years. Antisemitic comments from Rev. Wright and Louis Farakhan are nothing new (Farrakhan was a frequent visitor) . Antisemitism is also in high fashion among the academic left which the other of Obama’s peer circles.

What I found amusing is that lie that came from the far left immediately after Obama’s speech is that “1967 borders have always been the policy of the United States so Obama isn’t saying anything new (so you must be racist because you are criticizing him for saying it)”. The truth must be put to this lie right now:

Via Bob Schneider (former Reagan Administration):

What Real Presidents, and their Secretaries of State, had to say about pre 1967 borders.

by Bob Schneider

Obama’s speech today took the peace process backward, instead of forward. Back when the USA had an adult in the White House, here is what they had to say about the Pre-1967 “Borders”

In an address delivered on September 1, 1982 President Ronald Reagan said:

In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again… So the  United States will not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and we will not support annexation or permanent control by Israel. There is, however, another way to peace. The final status of these lands must, of course, be reached through the give-and-take of negotiations; but it is the firm view of the United States that self-government by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gazain association with Jordan offers the best chance for a durable, just and lasting peace. It is the United States’ position that – in return for peace – the withdrawal provision of Resolution 242 applies to all fronts, including the West Bank and Gaza. When the border is negotiated between Jordan and Israel, our view on the extent to which Israel should be asked to give up territory will be heavily affected by the extent of true peace and normalization and the security arrangements offered in return. Finally, we remain convinced that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but its final status should be decided through negotiations

Meanwhile Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the U.N. Security Council: “We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 as ‘Occupied Palestinian Territory’. In the view of my Government, this language could be taken to indicate sovereignty, a matter which both Israel and the PLO have agreed must be decided in negotiations on the final status of the territories. “Had this language appeared in the operative paragraphs of the resolution, let me be clear: we would have exercised our veto. In fact, we are today voting against a resolution in the Commission on the Status of Women precisely because it implies that Jerusalem is “occupied Palestinian territory”.

U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recalled the first time he heard someone invoke “the sacramental language of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, mumbling about the need for a just and lasting peace within secure and recognized borders”. He said the phrase was so platitudinous that he thought the speaker was pulling his leg. Kissinger said that, at that time, he did not appreciate how the flood of words used to justify the various demands obscured rather than illuminated the fundamental positions. Kissinger said those “clashing perspectives” prevented any real bargaining and explained: “Jordan’s acquiescence in Resolution 242 had been obtained in 1967 by the promise of our United Nations Ambassador Arthur Goldberg that under its terms we would work for the return of the West Bank of Jordan with minor boundary rectifications and that we were prepared to use our influence to obtain a role for Jordan in Jerusalem.”

However, speaking to Henry Kissinger, President Richard Nixon said “You and I both know they can’t go back to the other [1967] borders. But we must not, on the other hand, say that because the Israelis win this war, as they won the ’67 War, that we just go on with status quo. It can’t be done.” Kissinger replied “I couldn’t agree more”

Moreover, President Gerald Ford said: “TheU.S. further supports the position that a just and lasting peace, which remains our objective, must be acceptable to both sides.

So this is what adults, from both political parties, have had to say about UN 242, and pulling back to 1967 borders. Of all the Presidents, Gerald Ford said it best: it must be acceptable to both sides. Trying to jam a dead UN Agreement down the throats of Israel, sets the stage for another blood bath.

Mini-Update: The spin several days later is that the Obama proposal was similar to the former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert peace proposal. What the administration forgot to say is that when Olmert made this proposal the Israeli population was not pleased as it made a border that was completely indefensible; when Olmert made his proposal to the Palestinian Authority they did not even answer diplomatically, they attacked with mortar fire and rockets [keep in mind that this was the old “more moderate” pre-Hamas Palestinian Authority]. Prime Minister Olmert had to step down because he was indicted for corruption.

The Escape Hatch

Of course, as in most speeches made by politicians an out word or phrase is always inserted so as to make it easier to be securely on both sides of the issue in case backtracking becomes a political necessity [Note: always look for the escape hatch phrase in any political speech].  In the case of Obama’s speech it was 1967 borders “with mutually agreed swaps”. That sounds so good doesn’t it? Tell me, after watching that video how can Israel give up any land West of the large valley between Israel and Jordan, or the Golan Heights etc? To do so would leave Israel with borders that are structurally indefensible. It has only been by the bravery of the Israeli people and the overwhelming technical superiority of American military hardware that has prevented a second holocaust.

With the escape hatch phrase Obama can say “I wanted borders based on the 1967 lines” which resulted in an invasion, while at the same time saying “I said that we cannot just go back to the 1967 borders”. There are few politicians who speak that do not include these escape hatch phrases [Gov. Christie of New Jersey does not use them and even made a speech against their use.]

So Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu made use of Obama’s escape hatch phrase and wiped his feet on it saying “President Obama says that we cannot go back to the 1967 borders”. Of course the Prime Minister knows full well this was not Obama’s intent, but graciously gave him an out. One thing is strikingly obvious, President Obama was shocked by the push-back he received from some in his own party. Not only did almost every Republican condemn Obama’s remarks, but so did many Democrats. The simple truth is that most Democrats are not anti-Semites in spite of the fact that the racist “liberation theology” types and many on the academic left are.

Congressman Allen West (Florida-22) gave  a response that was representative of most Republicans:

Today’s endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.

From the moment the modern day state of Israel declared statehood in 1948, to the end of the 1967 Six Day War, Jews were forbidden access to their holiest site, the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City, controlled by Jordan’s Arab army.

The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world’s Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism.

Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital.

In short, the Hamas-run Palestinian state envisioned by President Obama would be devastating to Israel and the world’s 13.3 million Jews. It would be a Pavlovian style reward to a declared Islamic terrorist organization, and an unacceptable policy initiative.

America should never negotiate with the Palestinian Authority – which has aligned itself with Hamas. Palestine is a region, not a people or a modern state. Based upon Roman Emperor Hadrian’s declaration in 73 AD, the original Palestinian people are the Jewish people.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid rebuked Obama on national televisionvideo

Social Security now in permanent deficit, Medicare Trustees admit the system is in trouble, liberal ‘Think Tank’ fails at statistics in deficit denial…

The system is not sustainable. The bureaucracy is huge and government employees earn 30-300% higher than their private sector counterparts and have gold plated benefits. Every dollar that goes to a bureaucrat who is not accountable to you and has no incentive to be efficient is another dollar that is not used for someones good care.

Government programs should not be “unionized job programs to get union dues to the Democrats” first, and programs people use second.  We cannot afford to carry on the status quo any more if we want to deliver on promised benefits. Unless we have reform such as the Paul Ryan plan, the system will blow up and the government reports show it.

Social Security

Heritage:

The debate about whether Social Security faces a problem and needs to be fixed is over. The 2011 trustees report, which was released this afternoon, shows that the program already faces massive permanent annual deficits. In 2010, Social Security spent $49 billion more in benefits that it took in from its payroll tax. This year, that deficit will be approximately $46 billion.

Now is the time to focus on solutions. Instead of just blindly defending the current program, both Congress and the Obama Administration should propose comprehensive programs that permanently fix Social Security. It is one thing to oppose a solution; it is another to come up with a plan and fix the problem.

Social Security Problem $1.2 Trillion and One Year Worse

In net present value terms, Social Security owes $9.1 trillion more in benefits than it will receive in taxes. The 2011 number consists of $2.6 trillion to repay the special issue bonds in the trust fund and $6. 5 trillion to pay benefits after the trust fund is exhausted in 2036—a year earlier. This is an increase of $1.2 trillion from last year’s report, which also reflects several changes to assumptions and methodology.

A key change in this year’s report is that Social Security is predicted to run cash-flow deficits from now on. The immediate cash-flow deficits are largely due to the effects of the recession on its finances. The recession increased the amount of benefits paid out by Social Security as older workers who have lost their jobs choose to file for benefits earlier than they might have otherwise. Meanwhile, younger unemployed workers are unable to pay Social Security taxes, while workers who suffer a drop in their income pay lower amounts.

Net present value measures the amount of money that would have to be invested today in order to have enough money on hand to pay deficits in the future. In other words, Congress would have to invest $9.1 trillion today in order to have enough money to pay all of Social Security’s promised benefits through 2085. This money would be in addition to what Social Security receives during those years from its payroll taxes.

Medicare

Heritage:

The just released 2011 Medicare trustees report does not contain any big surprises. Much of what the trustees say in this report they have said before: Medicare poses enormous challenges for patients and taxpayers alike, and its financial condition continues a downward slide. Some key findings:

  • Medicare’s unfunded obligations increased by $2 trillion. A key indicator of the true cost of the program is the cost of the promised benefits that are not financed by dedicated revenues. Using their standard 75-year projection (2011–2085), the trustees estimate this year that Medicare benefits promised that are not paid for amount to $24.6 trillion, compared to their projection of $22.5 trillion last year. These and other projections in the report are based on current law, including the official assumption that the estimated $575 billion in savings from Medicare provider cuts under Obamacare will be sustained, as well as the 29 percent reduction in Medicare physician payments in 2012. The Medicare trustees concede the point: “Although the long-term viability of some of these provisions is debatable, the annual report to Congress on the financial status of Medicare must be based on current law” (emphasis added). Different assessment and different accounting techniques, of course, can yield different estimates of these long-term costs. Based on an alternative scenario of projected costs and spending that many analysts considered more realistic, the Medicare actuary in 2010 estimated the long-term Medicare debt at $34.8 trillion. The Medicare actuary has yet to offer his alternative assessment for 2011.
  • The financial condition of the Medicare Part A trust fund is worse. The Hospitalization Trust Fund—the part of the program that pays seniors’ hospital bills—is in worse shape than reported last year. The Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is going to be exhausted in 2024 rather than 2029. While the fund has started running big annual deficits ($32 billion in 2010 and $34 billion in 2011), the five-year acceleration of the fund’s exhaustion has been aggravated by a combination of higher hospital spending and the consequent reduction in the payroll tax receipts resulting from the economic downturn. When the HI fund is exhausted, obviously it cannot pay benefits. Congress would have to replenish it with higher taxes. One more point: It should be noted that the most recent Congressional Budget Office assessment of the trust fund (March 2011) is more pessimistic and projects an exhaustion in 2020.
  • The “Medicare Funding Warning” has been issued again. Under current law, the Medicare trustees are required to issue a Medicare Funding Warning. This means that general revenues will account for more than 45 percent of Medicare’s total outlays. The 45 percent threshold for such funding, in contrast to dedicated revenues, is officially “excessive” under current law. In this year’s report, the statutory threshold has been reached again this year, as it was last year, and the President is required to develop a proposal to transmit to Congress to deal with the problem.

This year’s trustees report only confirms the seriousness of the financial challenge posed by an unreformed Medicare program. Over the full 75-year budget window for the entitlements, about 90 percent of the growth of Medicare and Social Security is going to occur by 2035. The baby boom generation, to be supported by a relatively smaller workforce, will drive costs to new levels. That is indeed why The Heritage Foundation’s comprehensive reform proposal, Saving the American Dream, takes on an even greater urgency.

Leftists in Deficit Denial

Heritage:

Liberal Think Tank Fails Statistics

A chart created by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has been circulating among liberal bloggers such as Ezra Klein, James Fallows, and Andrew Sullivan.

The chart, seen to the right, purports to show that the next decade’s deficits are entirely the result of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, wars, bailouts, recession, and stimulus.

Their methodology fails statistics 101.

Imagine a basketball team that loses 100-98. It would make no sense to cherry pick one single basket by their opponent and blame it for 100 percent of the loss – letting all other baskets scored off the hook. Yet that is essentially what CBPP is doing.

See the rest of the story with charts and evidence HERE.

Government Motors Sponsors Chinese Communist Propaganda Film.

Washington Times:

In late 2010, General Motors agreed to sponsor a propaganda film celebrating the 90th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP made film titled (translated to English) “The Birth of a Party” or “The Great Achievement of Founding the Party” is set to premiere all over the Communist nation on June 15 reported China AutoWeb last September. The auto website adds:

“According to an announcement posted on Shanghai GM’s official web site yesterday, whose title reads “joining hands with China Film Group, Cadillac whole-heartedly supports the making of the Birth of a Party…”

The report goes further:

“As the CCP marries totalitarianism with capitalism and fools the people with entertainment, only the “politically correct” or stupid–or those who pretend to be so–can get rich. And GM seems to know this very well. While Audi, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Volvo have all rushed to please China’s rich and powerful through physical enlargement (offering models of extended wheelbases), Cadillac gratifies the party orally, singing praises through a film.”

According to the above report, the film will discuss events that led up to the formation of the CCP following the 1917 Russian Revolution. When the movie first went into production GM signed up Cadillac as the “chief business partner” with the Communist Party, stating: “Cadillac whole-heartedly supports the making of the Birth of a Party.”

Wow, how much suffering has the Chinese Communist Party caused, how many of it’s own has it murdered, how many dissidents jailed, how many Christians persecuted?

I have an older Chevy Caprice and an older Chevy Blazer and I have been satisfied with those vehicles so I am happy to keep fixing them up.  My family bought a Chevy Trailblazer but it started falling apart right after the warranty expired.

The bailout was bad, the way they stripped Republican dealership owners of their businesses was bad, the commercial that painted a false picture about the bailout money being returned was really bad;  no one likes being lied to.  I am now beyond the last straw. I do not see how I could ever buy another GM vehicle again in good conscience.

Patriot Act Warrants That Let Agents Enter Homes Without Owner Knowing Triple Under Obama

This is exactly the opposite of what Obama promised.

KOAT News:

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A special type of government search warrant that allows authorities to search homes without informing the owner for months is becoming more common, Target 7 has learned.Imagine someone walking through your neighborhood, coming into your home and rifling through your intimate belongings.“(They) search through your home, your dresser drawers, your computer files,” Peter Simonson, with ACLU New Mexico, said.These search warrants don’t involve knocking on doors or any type of warning at all. Delayed-notice search warrants, or “sneak-and-peek” warrants, allow federal agents to enter your home without telling you they’ve been there until months later.

The warrants have always been around, but their use has spiked since the revamped Patriot Act in 2005. The number of delayed-notice search warrants spiked nationally from nearly 700 in fiscal year 2007 to close to 2,000 in 2009.Upwards of 200 approved during that same three-year stretch came out of the 10th Circuit Court, which covers a handful of states including New Mexico. The majority of those delayed search warrants aren’t even for terrorism-related cases. According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s figures, the majority of the warrants are for drug cases.“While billed as an anti-terror tool, (a sneak-and-peek warrant) had no requirements on it that it precluded it from being used in standard criminal investigations,” Simonson said.The warrants are so secret that the New Mexico U.S. Attorney’s Office wouldn’t go on record with Target 7 about them.The ACLU said it expects delayed-notice warrant numbers to keep growing each year as long as certain parts of the Patriot Act remain on the books.

On Oil Obama Says One Thing & Does Another

Polling shows that like Jimmy Carter, Obama’s energy policy is going to send him packing in 2012. So what is the new strategy, tell people you are expanding domestic oil production and just not do it.

But expanding leases does nothing because often it is discovered that a lease cannot be trilled upon for technical reasons. Also, the government and environmental groups are not allowing companies to drill on leases they have paid for. The lease is just the first step of a process that takes years and the government can halt it any step of the way, and has as you will see below.

Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu said after he was confirmed by the Senate that we have to find a way to get the price of gas to European levels (around $8 dollars a gallon). Even the new Democrats National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman just went on the record with a repeat of the Democrats energy policy, less domestic production, and more deficit spending for Chinese made solar panels.

Obama’s illegal offshore drilling moratorium explained. This will infuriate you. UPDATE – Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Confirms: Democrat Energy Policy is To Push For Less Energy and More Deficit Spending

This is a no miss short film explaining how the government can stop all drilling with the stroke of a pen….

On top of that Obama’s energy policy is now threatening to shut down the Alaska pipeline.

Heritage:

Obama Oil Policy Threatens Alaska Pipeline’s Existence

The invaluable Alaskan oil pipeline isn’t doing well these days. A remedy to help fix this precious resource is available but overzealous environmentalists and over-regulatory politicians are standing in the way.  The ever-decreasing amount of oil flowing through the pipeline is disrupting its effective operation — and threatening its very existence.

This problem could easily be solved by opening up more domestic drilling in Alaska. This would allow more oil to flow through the pipeline, maintain the correct temperature (which falls to dangerous levels with insufficient supply). But access to drilling permits has been severely reduced. With gas prices hovering around $4 a gallon, it is inconceivable that the Obama administration would continue to hinder production and add regulations that could eliminate yet another standard domestic source of oil. Yet that is what is occurring.

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Russell Gold writes about the threat to kill the pipeline:

Shell earlier this year canceled plans to drill in the Beaufort Sea this summer because, after five years, it couldn’t get a federal air-emission permit for an offshore drilling rig. Its plans for drilling in the Chukchi Sea on Alaska’s northwest coast are also held up by a legal dispute. Exxon Mobil is also waiting for federal environmental approval, and in February, the federal government denied ConocoPhillips a permit the company had been working on for five years.

…Shutting the pipeline would force refineries to find new and more expensive supplies of crude oil. And President Barack Obama’s efforts to decrease oil imports would suffer a major setback.

While opening more drilling in Alaska would help significantly, there are even more places where permits and environmental regulations are causing problems. Heritage’s Nick Loris writes:

We can’t drill off the Pacific Coast, Atlantic Coast, or the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The U.S. Environmental Appeals Board withheld air quality permits preventing Shell from moving forward to develop 27 billion barrels of oil off the coasts of Alaska. The Environmental Protection Agency already issued two air permits, but Earthjustice filed a petition to review the permits, causing the Appeals Board to act.

Environmental activists within the Obama administration are literally halting the much needed domestic oil exploration America needs to improve our economic well being and reduce gas prices for hurting consumers. Saving the pipeline should be top priority right now.

What If Oil Producers Actually Received Subsidies Like Wind Energy Producers? – LINK

Related:

Obama: If you’re complaining about the price of gas get a trade in….

GAO – Government Shut Down Yucca Facility for Political Reasons, Not Scientific Ones

Press Grilled Bush When Gas Hit $3.00 – Nada for Obama… UPDATED!

The latest lie from the left: Two-thirds of oil and gas leases in Gulf inactive – UPDATED!

Sarah Palin: What We Were Saying One Year Ago About Obama’s Failed Energy Policy

Obama pushed Brazil to drill more, promises aid to Brazil to help drill. While at home imposes drilling ban.

Obama Administration Held in Contempt for Violating Court Order

API: Recent Studies Show Obama Drilling Moratorium Will Cost 50,000 Jobs; 160,000 by 2032.

Heritage: Anti-Drilling Policies Costing Federal Government Billions in Lost Revenue

Now Russia, along with Mexico, Spain, Cuba, and China are building oil wells just miles off our shores while Obama keeps Americans out. UPDATE – Steve Forbes: Obama repeating Carter’s mistakes.

If You Ever Needed Proof that Democrats Want Higher Gas Prices…

Obama back to old tricks: Pushing banks to give high risk loans again…

… all because this policy worked out so well the last time right?

[LINK – start at the bottom of the linked page and start reading to get a great education on the mortgage crisis. It started with the abuse and deliberate misapplication of redlining regulations to accomplish political goals and economic social engineering. When the OFHEO regulator tried to warn Congress Democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd insisted that the regulator was lying and even used the race card against them, of course the worst economy since the Great Depression has shown us that everything wasn’t fine – Editor]

Via Weasel Zappers and Business Week:

(Business Week) — Community activists in St. Louis became concerned a couple of years ago that local banks weren’t offering credit to the city’s poor and African American residents. So they formed a group called the St. Louis Equal Housing and Community Reinvestment Alliance and began writing complaint letters to federal regulators.

Apparently, someone in Washington took notice. The Federal Reserve has cited one of the group’s targets, Midwest Bank Centre, a small bank that has been operating in St. Louis’s predominantly white, middle-class suburbs for over a century, for failing to issue home mortgages or open branches in disadvantaged areas. Although executives at the bank say they don’t discriminate, Midwest Bank Centre’s latest annual report says it is in the process of negotiating a settlement with the U.S. Justice Dept. over its lending practices.

Lawyers and bank consultants say regulators and the Obama Administration are scrutinizing financial institutions for a practice that last drew attention before the rise of subprime lending: redlining. The term dates from the 1930s, when the Federal Housing Administration drew up maps using red ink to delineate inner-city neighborhoods considered too risky for lending. Congress later passed laws banning lending discrimination on the basis of race and other characteristics. “The agencies have refocused on redlining because, in the wake of the subprime explosion and sudden implosion, they are looking at these disadvantaged neighborhoods and not seeing any credit access,” says Jo Ann Barefoot, co-chair at Treliant Risk Advisors in Washington, D.C., which consults with banks on regulatory issues.

The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requires banks to make loans in all the areas they serve, not just the wealthy ones. A Bloomberg analysis found the percentage of banks earning negative ratings from regulators on CRA exams has risen from 1.45 percent in 2007 to more than 6 percent in the first quarter of this year.

President Obama, Why Has Your Administration Largely Ignored Struggling Homeowners?

President Obama,

You Promised To Save Millions From Foreclosure Yet Your Housing Program Was A Failure And Now The Housing Market Is In The Midst Of A “Double Dip.” Why Has Your Administration Largely Ignored Struggling Homeowners?

The RNC asks a very good question here. A question I asked over and over again on my old blog ( Link + 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
These girls would like an answer:

PROMISE: President Obama Promised That His Housing Program Would Prevent 7 to 9 Million Families From Foreclosure. “And we will pursue the housing plan I’m outlining today. And through this plan, we will help between 7 and 9 million families restructure or refinance their mortgages so they can afford—avoid foreclosure.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks On The Home Mortgage Industry In Mesa, Arizona, 2/18/09)

FACT:

Only One In Four Of 2.7 Million Homeowners Seeking Assistance From Obama’s Mortgage Relief Plan Succeeded In Getting Their Payments Reduced. “Just one in four of the 2.7 million homeowners who sought to participate in the Obama administration’s signature mortgage assistance program have succeeded in getting their monthly payments reduced.” (Alan Zibel and Louise Radnofsky, “Only 1 In 4 Got Mortgage Relief,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/28/11)

Inspector General Neil Barofsky, Who Oversaw HAMP, Said That The Program “Continues To Fall Short Of Any Meaningful Standard Of Success.” “The program has faced sharp criticism. Neil Barofsky, the departing special inspector general overseeing the program, has faulted the administration for launching it with inadequate analysis and only partially developed guidelines. This led to delays and confusion, and the program ‘continues to fall short of any meaningful standard of success,’ he said a report released in January.” (Alan Zibel and Louise Radnofsky, “Only 1 In 4 Got Mortgage Relief,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/28/11)

“It’s Official. Home Prices Have Double Dipped Nationwide, Now Lower Than Their March 2009 Trough, According To A New Report From Clear Capital.”(Diana Olick, “National Home Prices Double Dip,” CNBC, 5/5/11)

 “Home Values Posted The Largest Decline In The First Quarter Since Late 2008, Prompting Many Economists To Push Back Their Estimates Of When The Housing Market Will Hit A Bottom.” (Nick Timiraos, “Home Market Takes A Tumble,” The Wall Street Journal, 5/9/11)

The Oregonian: “Economists Who Once Predicted That Prices Would Bottom Out Sometime This Year Now Are Saying, Well, Maybe In 2012.” “Lenders have filed more than 300,000 foreclosures against American families every month for almost two years. As long as that’s occurring, the housing numbers will stay bleak. Home prices nationally have fallen for 57 consecutive months. … Economists who once predicted that prices would bottom out sometime this year now are saying, well, maybe in 2012. ” (Editorial, “American Housing: Underwater And Still Sinking,” The Oregonian, 5/9/11)