Friday, May 20, 2011

For almost 6000 years ...............



Just when you think you’ve heard it all, you haven’t.
Just when you think that Obama cannot appall, he can.
Last night I was fuming and I said to a recovering Obama voter, “He’s stupid.”
When the recovering Obama voter protested the adjective, I modified it to “naïve”.
This morning, having slept on it, I’m ready to modify it yet again. He’s unfit for office!
Yesterday, Obama's major speech on the Middle East Thursday will come back to haunt him. He said nothing that will have any impact in deterring Syrian government violence against pro-democracy protestors, but the he did make pronouncements that threaten another state in the Middle East: Israel, America's strongest ally in the region.
In his speech Thursday, he paid lip service to Israeli security but laid down dangerous markers for restarting peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. With this speech, Obama became the first American president to require that Israel accept its pre-1967 borders as a starting point to negotiations with the Palestinians.
This is a dramatic departure from U.S. policy, which recognized that agreed-to final borders would be the end product of negotiations between the parties, not a precondition to starting talks. In essence, what Obama has called for is unilateral concessions from Israel without a single concrete concession from the Palestinians.
What makes this even more dangerous is that a terrorist group dedicated to the destruction of Israel -- Hamas -- governs Palestinians in Gaza. On the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority is in the hands of a Hamas-Fatah coalition, with the two groups having agreed to put aside their differences in order to demand recognition of a Palestine state by the United Nations this fall. If that happens, there will be no such thing as what the president termed "a secure Israel."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to respond, calling Israel's pre-1967 borders "indefensible." History proves he's right. In 1967, Israel was on the eve of an all-out assault by its Arab neighbors when it took out the Egyptian and Syrian air forces. Within six days, Israel had defeated Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon and gained significant territory, including the Arab-controlled parts of Jerusalem.
Nonetheless, Israel was attacked again a few years later. In 1973, Egypt and Syria launched an offensive on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, Yom Kippur. Again, Israel was successful in defeating both countries and gained more territory in the process.
Even though Israel was twice the victor, both wars were the result of Arab aggression. Yet Israel has proven its willingness to return territory gained in war. Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt after negotiating a peace settlement with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.
Israel has been the one country in the area willing from the start to negotiate away land in return for recognition of its right to exist and a promise of peaceful coexistence from its neighbors. But instead of encouraging that precedent, Obama wants unilateral territorial concessions from Israel in return for empty promises.
The good news is that the Obama plan will go nowhere. There is no chance that Congress will support the administration's heavy-handed pressure on Israel. And the Israelis will never agree to such conditions as a prerequisite to peace negotiations.
And Obama has hurt himself domestically as well. Jewish donors and voters were an important part of Obama's winning coalition in 2008. But many in the pro-Israel community are deeply disturbed at what they see as the president's lukewarm support for Israel and will not likely give him the same level of support in 2012.
On Sunday, Obama is set to address the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the most influential lobbying groups in the country. It is expected that t he'll say all the right things about how important an ally Israel is to the United States and that our two countries share common values and principles. The audience will applaud politely -- and some die-hard Democrats in the group may even tell themselves that Obama is a good friend to Israel.
But Obama can't have it both ways even though he may think he can. He can't give a speech next week that makes dangerous demands on Israel and pretend a few days later that his words have not damaged the important U.S.-Israeli relationship.
And note that Obama made no mention of the Arab’s claim to “Right of Return.” Israel will never accede to that claim and the Palestinians will never abandon it.
Obama has abandoned Israel. Now it’s time that Israel's supporters in the U.S. abandon him.

What’s the Hebrew for “F*ck You?” I’m sure that today’s Oval Office tapes could supply the answer.


Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Stupid is as Stupid Does!


I am indebted to a good friend for sending me the following tidbits. Some may be purely apocryphal but they are hilarious and even if only one is true the implication is terrifying. And it would explain a lot wouldn’t it?

A DC airport ticket agent offers some examples of why this country is in trouble:

1. I had a New Hampshire Congresswoman (Carol Shea-Porter) ask for an aisle seat so that her hair wouldn't get messed up by being near the window. (On an airplane!)


2. I got a call from a Kansas Congressman's (Moore) staffer (Howard Bauleke), who wanted to go to Capetown. I started to explain the length of the flight and the passport information when he interrupted me with, ''I'm not trying to make you look stupid, but Capetown is in Massachusetts ..''

Without trying to make him look stupid, I calmly explained, ''Cape Cod is in Massachusetts , Capetown is in Africa. ''

His response -- click.


3. A senior Vermont Congressman (Bernie Sanders) called, furious about a Florida package we did. I asked what was wrong with the vacation in Orlando .. He said he was expecting an ocean-view room. I tried to explain that's not possible, since Orlando is in the middle of the state.

He replied, “Don't lie to me, I looked on the map and Florida is a very thin state!''


4. I got a call from a lawmaker's wife (Landra Reid) who asked, ''Is it possible to see England from Canada ?''

I said, ''No.''

She said, ''But they look so close on the map.''


5. An aide for a cabinet member(Janet Napolitano) once called and asked if he could rent a car in Dallas . I pulled up the reservation and noticed he had only a 1-hour layover in Dallas. When I asked him why he wanted to rent a car, he said, ''I heard Dallas was a big airport, and we will need a car to drive between gates to save time.''



6. An Illinois Congresswoman (Jan Schakowsky) called last week She needed to know how it was possible that her flight from Detroit left at 8:30 a.m., and got to Chicago at 8:33 a.m.

I explained that Michigan was an hour ahead of Illinois , but she couldn't understand the concept of time zones. Finally, I told her the plane went fast, and she bought that.


7. A New York lawmaker, (Jerrold Nadler) called and asked, ''Do airlines put your physical description on your bag so they know whose luggage belongs to whom?'' I said, 'No, why do you ask?'

He replied, ''Well, when I checked in with the airline, they put a tag on my luggage that said (FAT), and I'm overweight. I think that's very rude!''

After putting him on hold for a minute, while I looked into it.  I came back and explained the city code for Fresno, California is (FAT - Fresno Air Terminal), and the airline was just putting a destination tag on his luggage.


8. A Senator John Kerry aide (Lindsay Ross) called to inquire about a trip package to Hawaii. After going over all the cost info, she asked, ''Would it be cheaper to fly to California and then take the train to Hawaii?''


9. I just got off the phone with a freshman Congressman, Bobby Bright (D) from Alabama who asked, ''How do I know which plane to get on?''

I asked him what exactly he meant, to which he replied, ''I was told my flight number is 823, but none of these planes have numbers on them.''


10. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) called and said, ''I need to fly to Pepsi-Cola , Florida. Do I have to get on one of those little computer planes?''

I asked if she meant fly to Pensacola , FL on a commuter plane.

She said, ''Yeah, whatever, smarty!''


11. Mary Landrieu (D) Senator from Louisiana called and had a question about the documents she needed in order to fly to China . After a lengthy discussion about passports, I reminded her that she needed a visa. “Oh, no I don't. I've been to China many times and never had to have one of those''

I double checked and sure enough, her stay required a visa.

When I told her this she said, ''Look, I've been to China four times and every time they accepted my American Express!''


12. A New Jersey Congressman (John Adler) called to make reservations, ''I want to go from Chicago to Rhino, New York.''

I was at a loss for words. Finally, I said, ''Are you sure that's the name of the town?''

“Yes, what flights do you have?'' replied the man.

After some searching, I came back with, ''I'm sorry, sir, I've looked up every airport code in the country and can't find a Rhino anywhere."

The man retorted, ''Oh, don't be silly! Everyone knows where it is. Check your map!''

So I scoured a map of the state of New York and finally offered, ''You don't mean Buffalo, do you?''

The reply? ''Whatever! I knew it was a big animal.''

Comment would be superfluous so I won’t.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

The Devil is in The Details


Last Saturday I entered a post which leveled criticism at Obamacare on several fronts. One liberal reader was not happy with this and I can only assume that he reads this blog because he enjoys self-flagellation. Anyway, he challenged me for specifics and I love confounding liberals even though the task of analyzing the thousands of pages of legislative gobbledygook of HB3200 is a daunting one.

But, as luck would have it, another reader forwarded me part of the text which follows and I was able to concentrate on the taxation implications of the legislation. Note that the writer has translated the “legalese” into language for normal mortals but on an otherwise sleepless night you can cross check to your heart’s desire.


Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).

Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospitals will ration care according to the patient's age.

Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)

Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.
And here are some of the new ways we pay for all of this via tax hikes included in H.R. 3962, the revised House version of Obamacare, otherwise known as "The Affordable Health Care for America Act." The text of this bill runs to 1,990 pages, all of which can be read in pdf format. The page number references to each of the tax hikes noted below correspond to those in the pdf.
Page 275, Employer Mandate Excise Tax: If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages.  Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).

Page 296, Individual Mandate Surtax: If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium.  MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.

Page 324, Medicine Cabinet Tax: Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs).  Insulin excepted.

Page 325, Cap on FSAs: FSAs would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped). 

Page 326, Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions: Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent).  This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)

Page 327, Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D: This would further erode private sector participation in delivery of Medicare services.

Page 336, Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses: Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly).  MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest.  This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent—a new effective top rate.

Page 339, Excise Tax on Medical Devices: Imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price.  It excludes retail sales and unspecified medical devices sold to the general public.

Page 344, Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting: Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments.  Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons.  Also expands reporting to exchanges of property.

Page 345, Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest: Delays for nine years the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act

Page 346, Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments: Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.

Page 349, Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine”: Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.

Page 357, Application of “More Likely Than Not” Rule: Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties.  If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability.

Specific enough for you?





Saturday, May 14, 2011

Is there a Doctor in the House?

Just when Obama thought that his bin Laden foray had diverted attention from things domestic we learned a couple of days ago that Social Security goes broke in 2036, a year earlier than thought in 2010 and the outlook for Medicare is even bleaker. That runs out in 2024 which is a full 5 years earlier than previous estimates.

All this gives Paul Ryan’s budget proposals to overhaul both programs even greater urgency and should make it harder for the other side of the aisle to bury their heads in the congressional sand. And surely, the last thing we need to do to pile onto Medicare’s misery is to add Obamacare with all its fiscal profligacy.

Unlike the proponents of Obamacare, the opponents are often medical professionals including one Congressman Burgess. After spending nearly three decades practicing medicine in North Texas, Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D., was first elected to Congress in 2002, and re-elected in 2004, 2006, 2008, and most recently in 2010 and he is warning that pulling the reins on the Obamacare expansion of federal bureaucracy, costs and control over consumers is critical right now.

Burgess said during an interview last week that the longer the problematic legislation is left unaddressed the worse it will be.

"Oddly enough I year ago I wouldn't have thought this would be where we were today," Burgess, whose new book “Doctor in the House,” outlines what he sees as solutions America needs to embrace.

"We're looking at the courts actually to save us from this," he continued. "Defunding right now is critical because the rapidity with which it is being implemented is startling."

"It's only going to be more difficult to unwind in a year, when the Supreme Court finally rules," he continued. "It's bad from start to finish."

He referenced the political manipulation through which the bill was adopted: pressure that was applied to some Democrats who said they were pro-life and opposed the plan for its favors to the abortion industry. One key member changed his vote at virtually the last minute, greasing the way for Obama's plan to become law.

"Right until that pro-life Democrat switched his position that Sunday night, no one thought this thing was ever going to go anywhere," Burgess said. "People really won't know how bad it is until 2014, 2016 when some of the major provisions kick in.”

He was referencing some of the provisions in Obamacare that raise taxes and delete consumer choice as the full spectrum of government boards, panels, rules, guidelines, demands, requirements and procedures, including details such as government access to bank accounts and medical records, become reality.

The Obamacare law is also being challenged in a number of lawsuits, and more than half of the states are trying to prevent its implementation. Those lawsuits now mostly are at the level of appellate courts, probably en route to the U.S. Supreme Court. They argue that it simply is unconstitutional for the government to require consumers to purchase a product or face a tax penalty for not doing so.

One such is in Virginia where the challenge is the constitutionality of this president or any other to take over the healthcare decision-making processes in these United States.


But the arguments before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will go far beyond the dispute over health care and its related issues of privacy, federal limits on treatment, an unaccountable panel imposing its payment rates on doctors and others.

The appeals court will be hearing arguments in two cases. In the first, Liberty University’s Counsel is arguing that the law's individual and employer mandates are unconstitutional.

Furthermore, critics have argued that by expanding the definition of "interstate commerce" to include someone in his or her own home, not participating in any business transaction, there simply is nothing that the federal government could not do in pursuit of providing a "better" life.

For example, critics have said the government then could ban certain foods, or require consumers to buy others, ban certain vehicles or require consumers to buy those earning government approval. There even have been accusations that the government could restrict a person's purchases or activities based on a health profile that a person would be required to provide, in order to "protect" the person.

Under the law, consumers must purchase the health insurance mandated by the government or pay massive fines and penalties to be collected by the Internal Revenue Service. Employers have mandates to provide certain levels of coverage – also all under the thumb of government bureaucrats who are scheduled to watch to make sure the government's demands are met.

According to Mathew Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, the fight really is about just how much of your life can Washington simply take control of and dictate.
"This really is a major step toward centralized government," he emphasized. "This is government by coercive power."

There also remain several additional cases that are advancing on the appellate court level at this point, including one in Florida where the judge ruled the law unconstitutional at the request of more than two dozen states.

Liberty University's challenge alleges both the individual and employer mandate are illegal while in a second case, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius, alleges only that the individual mandate is illegal.

Under the law, consumers must purchase the health insurance mandated by the government or pay massive fines and penalties to be collected by the Internal Revenue Service. Employers have mandates to provide certain levels of coverage – also all under the thumb of government bureaucrats who are scheduled to watch to make sure the government's demands are met.

Staver said the issue of health care is significant, but he said the Obamacare plan, which is expected to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, moves far beyond what the Constitution allows.

The government's arguments cite the Commerce Clause, which allows regulation of "interstate commerce." Bureaucrats then defined someone sitting in his own living room, not making purchases or requiring services, to be part of the definition of "interstate commerce."

"This massive health insurance law goes beyond the outer limits of the Constitution. It is a big step toward a centralized government. … This case goes beyond health insurance and is more about the role of the federal government to control private decisions and burden the free enterprise system,” Staver said.

Amen to that.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

The Memory Lingers On ............


So, Osama Bin Laden is dead.
Good!
But his legacy lingers still. For decades, bin Laden had two foci for his hatred. One of course was the West with special emphasis on us, the Great Satan, and the state of Israel.
Thus we mustn’t lose sight of our major focus in the Middle East—stopping the advance and attacks from radical Islam and supporting our critical allies. As America moves forward in crafting a response to the changing landscape in the Middle East, there are questions we should be asking: Will our actions make the world more stable or less stable? Will our actions support our long-term allies? Will this stop the advance of radical Islam?
While Hamas and Fatah groups have signed a unity pact in support of Palestinian statehood, Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas administration in Gaza, reacted to Bin Laden’s death: “We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood…. We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior.” In the days following Bin Laden’s death, it’s clear that many share such sentiments and let’s look at one version of that reality.
Some in the Middle-East wish to perpetuate the hang-wringing over the situation in Gaza and elsewhere while their liberal counterparts in the West are ever eager to beat their anti-Semitic piñatas with claims like this:-

The Jews stole the land from the Palestinians.

No, they didn't. After the Romans cleared out and decimated the mighty cities built by Jews like King Herod, Palestine was an arid, sparsely populated backwater that was eventually claimed (for land bridge reasons) by the Ottoman Empire, then by the British Empire. Jews have lived in the region continuously for well over 2,000 years. The British found themselves overseeing an indigenous population made up of Jews and Arabs-and sometimes Arab Jews. All were referred to as "Palestinians."
Ownership of the land was a patch work. Much of the land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in places like Egypt, and farmed by local Arab Palestinians. This may have made many Palestinians believe it was "their land," but sorry, that just wasn't the case. As the Zionist movement gained traction in the early 1900s, Jews around the world contributed to a fund to buy up land. Much of the land for the future Jewish state was acquired this way. Once again, the poor Arabs living on and farming the land may not have been happy to give up the land they lived on, but it was not "stolen from them," because they didn't own it to begin with.

Israel is an Apartheid State.

So that'll be why Arabs serve in the Israeli parliament as MPs (known as MKs for "Members of Knesset"); why they serve in the Israeli foreign service, in the government ministries, and even-in the case of the Druze sect who are not seen as having divided loyalties-in the Israeli Defense Force. Most signs are written in Hebrew and Arabic. An Arab woman has more rights in Israel than in most countries in the Arab and Muslim world.

Arabs are degraded by the treatment meted out by Israeli Jews.
Look at the enlightened attitudes of those nice caring Palestinians of Hamas who recently banned women from riding on motorcycles.
Clearly their motivation was to protect the fairer sex from the myriad dangers associated with this most risky form of transport. No wonder liberal Americans prefer Gaza's gentle, sensitive feminist government to that of Israel, whose government callously treats its women folk as if they were no different from men. Why, Israeli women are even allowed to be a prime minister or disport themselves in revealing swimwear on the beach, exposing themselves to the lascivious stares of men who might at any time come up to them and say "Hi" and invite them for a drink, with goodness knows what terrible consequences.
Much better to live in Gaza, where the religious police protect girls from such horrors by giving them a sound beating if they are found to be improperly dressed!

It is against this kind of background that we must evaluate the strident voices of the Arab world and their liberal shills.
Even though Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called the attack that saw five members of an Israeli family stabbed to death in their home in a West Bank settlement "despicable, immoral and inhuman," a poll conducted by a team of Israeli and Palestinian pollsters that surveyed nearly 1300 Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jerusalem found that 32 percent supported the attack. Palestinians talk of peace, but missiles are still being fired into Israel from Gaza.
There are more ominous signs. Egypt Airlines has stopped flights to Israel and taken Israel off their maps, the blockade of supplies into the Gaza Strip has been lifted, and the Muslim Brotherhood is well positioned to take advantage of early elections. The attacks on Christian churches, the merciless sexual assault on CBS reporter Lara Logan by an Egyptian mob, and the presence of some Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups within the ranks of rebel forces in Libya cannot be overlooked.

The world desperately wants peace, but at what cost? Ronald Reagan reminded Americans, “Trust but verify.” With the turmoil racing through the Middle East and the temptation to support rebels high, it’s easy to accept words without actions and to forget to support Israel, our most important ally. Pressuring Israel to give up land gained in a war Arabs initiated to bring on an illusion of peace is nothing short of asking Israel to commit national suicide.
The pressure on Israel is growing. Even UK Prime Minister David Cameron told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that unless Israel “engages seriously in a meaningful peace process” the U.K. will consider endorsing the Palestinian end-run for statehood through the United Nations General Assembly. Recently, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon termed the Israeli control of the territories obtained in the 1967 war “morally and politically unsustainable,” and called for the division of Jerusalem. Ban said, “A way must be found for Jerusalem to emerge as a capital of two states, Israel and Palestine, with arrangements for holy sites acceptable for all.”
Israel is not the problem. Judge Richard Goldstone, Chairman of the United Nations Human Rights Council report on the 2008-2009 Gaza war that declared both Israel and Hamas guilty of war crimes, recently said that he now believed Israel isn’t guilty of war crimes. He said the report “would have been a different document” had he known then what he knows now. Israel had refused to participate in its own defense. Goldstone said he had now concluded that Israel had caused civilian causalities due to errors of judgment, not intentionally.
Calling on the UN to rescind the Goldstone Report, Netanyahu said, “Israel didn’t intentionally harm civilians, its institutions and investigative bodies are worthy, while Hamas intentionally fired upon innocent civilians and didn’t examine anything.” In response to the recent Palestinian unity pact, Netanyahu observed, “How is it possible to achieve peace with a government, half of which calls for the destruction of Israel and even praises the arch-murderer Osama bin laden.”
When a Koran is burned by a Christian ministry in the United States, Christians from around the world condemn the act but Islamic extremists still killed UN staff and attacked churches in the Middle East. According to Asia News on March 25, a mob of Islamic extremists attacked a Pentecostal church in Hyderabad, India, killing two Christians and burning some copies of the Bible. Did Christians around the world kill Islamic believers for burning two Bibles? Of course not!
Where do you stand? Do you stand with people who attempt to create fear with their rockets and terrorist acts or do you stand with a country that has demonstrated restraint in the face of continuing provocations and limited retaliation to targeted attacks on terrorist leaders? Do you stand with the surviving members of the Fogel family or the people who condoned and celebrated their deaths? Do you support countries where gays are still tortured or one where they are free to exercise their preference? Do you support countries where religious conversion can get you stoned to death or do you support a country where you can bring in a Bible or the Koran and profess faith as a Jew, a Christian or an Islamic believer?
Thankfully, not all members of the Islamic faith are radicals, but as Seth Godin writes, “The worst voice of the brand ‘is’ the brand, we either ignore your brand or we judge it, usually with too little information. And when we judge it, we judge it based on the actions of the loudest, meanest, most selfish member of your tribe. When a zealot advocates violence, outsiders see all members of his tribe as advocates of violence. … I wonder, then, why loyal and earnest members of the tribe hesitate to discipline, ostracize or expel the negative outliers. ‘You're hurting us, this is wrong, we are expelling you.’ What do you stand for?”
In America, the many supportive comments from many Islamic groups on the death of Osama Bin Laden and their outrage at the killing of Christians in response to the burning of the Koran by a Florida minister are welcomed, but such public sentiments seem rare in the Middle East.
Yes, America must support responsible Islamic leaders and believers, but let’s never forget to stand strong with Israel in this time of turmoil.

Finally, I love crosswords and especially those which feature anagrams and I came across the two which follow:
President Barack Obama = Arab base, pink Democrat.
President Barack Hussein Obama = A Democrat speaks inane rubbish.

Saturday, May 7, 2011

I Have Directed Somebody Else to Order Everybody Else to Roll Except Me .......


At first, I thought it was me. I have never made any secret of the fact that I detest Obama both for his beliefs as a socialist as well as my visceral disgust of his personality and character or rather the lack thereof. But then it seems that other people noticed it too.

During Obama’s announcement last Sunday evening he used the words “I”, “My” and “Mine” more than a dozen times.

Surely this was the time, if you have to do it all, to honor the unsung heroes of the intelligence community who planned it and the military personnel who pulled it off.

Surely, it would have sent a stronger message to everyone including Al Qaeda and wannabes if bin Laden was just dead. Yes, of course, there would have been loads of clues, which even our enemy would have figured out. A bombed-out helicopter is hard to ignore even in a questionable neighborhood in Pakistan.

Then, also, it would not have been necessary to protect the identity of the Seals if the White House just declared, “No comment,” when questioned.

Now while I have zero clout, some people do. One such is Todd Beamer, and even perhaps from his son’s grave, his father’s words have some import.

For those readers who don’t know, David Beamer is the father of United 93 passenger and 9/11 victim and hero Todd Beamer, the author of “Let’s Roll.”

Clearly Todd cannot speak for himself but David found the time to do so for both of them when he had some harsh words for Obama this week.

David Beamer feels Obama has inappropriate aggrandized his own role in the death of Osama, politicizing the moment for his own gain.
Beamer said he welcomed news of Osama’s killing, but that he feels “some chagrin” at the way Obama has handled the aftermath, claiming that the President put too much emphasis on himself while announcing the operation that took out Osama,.

“And frankly it started May Day 2011 when the president announced what had happened. The excessive use of the personal pronoun that he used in his remarks, I really felt that was the beginning of the Commander-in-Chief putting too much spotlight on himself, taking too much credit for what the remarkable Americans had done.”

Beamer also took aim at the mainstream media excessive praise of Obama’s decision to issue to go-ahead for the operation, describing the directive as a no-brainer that any commander-in-chief would have issue:
“It’s been hailed as one of the greatest wartime decisions, bold, gutsy, but quite frankly under the facts and circumstances I think it was anything but that.”

Beamer went on to say that once the CIA pieced together the intelligence about Osama's whereabouts -- intelligence gathered during the Bush administration -- Obama had no choice but to allow the military to enter the Osama compound to kill or capture the terrorist mastermind.

No, it’s not just me, the guy is a political hack.

Friday, May 6, 2011

Enough To Make A Cat Laugh ............


Since the demise of bin Laden, governments around the world have warned of retaliatory action by Al Qaeda.

Coincidentally with this, the United States has scrapped the old color-coded threat level system for two sound reasons. Nobody understood it and nobody paid any attention to it.

What is clearly needed is something, which portrays an accurate picture, but is in line with national personalities and character. The rest of the world seems to understand this while it, and many other things, elude Janet Napolitano. 


Okay, pop-quiz time. 


Who can define the new American system?

I rest my case. And so here are some examples from beyond these shores.

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated," or even "A Bit Cross."

The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since "The Blitz" in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out.

Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's last remaining white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade thy Neighbor" and "Lose."

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels .

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is canceled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.

I’d love to claim that these are mine but the owner is one John Cleese of Monty Python and Fawlty Towers notoriety and, anyway, I figured we needed a break.

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Ding Dong The Witch is Dead .......


According to at least one of the liberal TV networks, school teachers across this nation are agonizing about telling their “little darlings’ that Osama bin Laden is dead and that we shot him.

For a start, it’s their job to teach them to read, write and do math and Oh, let’s not forget the paramount goal of modern education namely, self-esteem. Well if that’s the aim of American teachers they’re doing a helluva job as it seems that so many kids are as dumb as a box of rocks but they believe they’re the cats meow.

Perhaps if we taught civics in school that might help and anyway isn’t it the job of the parents to at least play a part in their offspring’s education. As an aside, I always felt sorry for the parents of kids who were born around 1990 because their parents had to explain to a seven-year old what a blowjob was and why it was OK or not for Clinton to get one in the Oval Office depending on whether they had an R or a D in their resume.

Why is it so hard to tell children that there are bad people in the world? After all, every teacher and parent is eager to warn kids about potential molestation. During my childhood, I was in no doubt that Hitler and the Germans were trying to kill me and all my friends and family. And even if we'd tried to pretend that wasn't true, the reality and the evidence was all around us; shattered buildings and lost nights due to air raids. Kids don't just learn to accept this stuff, it becomes part of normal life. Heck we even played “English and Germans” instead of “Cowboys and Indians.”  


Children can handle reality and they can handle the existence of evil. Just look at the evil elements and the violence and death in so many fairy tales. Well now one more witch is no longer extant.

I remember when Obama was on the campaign trail in 2008 and was in his usual “Pollyanna” mode when he declared that he “would not create a martyr by sanctioning bin Laden’s death but would want him captured and brought to justice.” When one considers the hoo-haw which accompanied the proposed trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed can you imagine the furor that would ensue if a trial of bin Laden had been scheduled for New York City?

Fortunately for all of us, a couple of factors intervened. Firstly, bin Laden and his troops decided to fight and the commanders on the ground acted accordingly. Secondly, Obama has seen a little sense since 2008 and authorized those commanders to take whatever steps they deemed necessary.

Naturally Obama didn’t mention his personal epiphany and he also conveniently overlooked the part that the wire-tap provisions of the “Patriot Act” had played as well as the interrogation techniques at our facilities at Guantanamo and elsewhere in the world. For all of these and many others we should thank the efforts and the insight of President George W. Bush and his administration.


And let's not forget that, as recently as just a few years ago, the Democrats referred to Seal Team Six as "Cheney's Executive Assassins."

God Bless America!