Baseball, Politics and Pain (the connection)

Baseball season is coming up very soon and if the past few weeks of Spring training is any indication, the Texas Rangers are in position to lose a lot of games. Besides playing badly, their suddenly piss-poor pitching staff looks to be a weak spot on this team. But what really has my pessimism roaring is the injury bug. They had already lost Derek Holland for 2-3 months, as well as Matt Harrison (coming off of major back surgery) and Colby Lewis (trying to come back after getting injured during last season). In addition, Neftali Perez is nowhere near ready to return to any meaningful playtime and last season's set-up man, Tanner Scheppers is being moved to the rotation, leaving a huge void that needs to be filled.

You may consider that the additions of Shin-Soo Choo and Prince Fielder will help this team. Had the Rangers been able to have Choo for last season, the team would have easily won the AL West. As for Fielder, his numbers were down considerably last season and it's possible that the trade of Ian Kinsler for Prince is but a wash. Personally, I believe that Fielder will have a great season attacking the short right field porch at the Ballpark in Arlington (Oops, I mean Globe Life Ballpark, or whatever they named it).

Now comes word that Jurickson Profar may miss up to 2-3 months with a shoulder injury.

Bad luck does seem to follow these local teams a lot. Between the Cowboys, Rangers and Mavericks, it seems that lady luck is definitely not on her side. For those of us who have been consistently watching these teams for the past 20 years, this should come as no surprise. I really just hope that by the time the Rangers get their players healthy again, that there is still time on the schedule to make a legitimate run. But right now, I do not feel too optimistic.

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

I can't tell if Nancy Pelosi is truly delusional, or of she is simply saying what she needs to say to keep her party together. Being that she is a life-long politician, I have to give her the benefit of the doubt. As for Harry Reid, well that man is just bat-shit crazy.

It may seem deadly obvious, but it really is time for French Jews to get the hell out of France. If this story doesn't show them what the future holds, nothing will. And while we're at it, keep praying for the Jews in the Ukraine. Nothing spells gloom and doom for Jews than a Russian civil war. As was in the past, the Jews will be scapegoated first. I hope it isn't too late for British Jews, as well. I have said this prophecy before and it still scares the crap out of me - but I fear the day the Queen will be forced out to the courtyard at Buckingham Palace to be executed by the Muslim majority. They have invited the beast to dine without realizing they are on the menu. I just hope it doesn't happen in my lifetime (or my children). But you have to know that this is the goal of Islam 4 UK, the illegal Muslim group headed by Anjem Choudary. Choudhary is perhaps the most vile and extreme supporter for terrorism in Great Britain. Sadly, England has long since lost her will to survive and Choudary easily fills the void left behind.

Great Britain was once under the power of the Church of England. But two world wars sapped whatever life force the Island once had. Losing that connection to faith, Great Britain simply surrendered that void to Islam and Islam is taking full advantage. Sadly, most European countries have been following in England's path. To be honest, who can blame them? Watching their young soldiers die young in not one, but two great wars was just too much to bear. So better than dying, Europe gave up the fight and basically decided to let the United States fight to protect them. Yes, England and France (and many other European countries) field armies. However, their existence is pitifully weak without America's intervention. And just as sadly, President Obama is committed to weaken the American armed forces as well. But that's a tale for another day.

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

There are so many scandals and problems created by the Obama administration that much of it gets dismissed by a cynical populace. Obama's approval is still far higher than it should be, given the bald-faced lies the President has uttered. Include the fact that Mitt Romney was proven correct regarding Russia, one would have to admit that without a sycophant media making sure that Obama is held blameless for anything that occurs during his administration, Obama's approval rating would be somewhere around 25% at best. No doubt the Republicans are partially to blame for this. The problem the GOP has had is picking the right fight to fight. ObamaCare alone should have brought this (or any other President) down. If not thrown out of office, certainly brought up on charges of impeachment. President Bush, and even President Clinton would not have survived the outrageous lies and misdirections perpetrated by the current administration.

Of course, ObamaCare is just the tip of the iceberg. Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, NSA surveillance and extreme cronyism in regard to the $800 million stimulus all individually fall into the "major scandal" category. Of course, for sheer chutzpa, the lies told by Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice (to just mention the top culprits), are off the charts in regard to the terror attack in Benghazi. Keep in mind, no one died because of Watergate. And even if Benghazi were inevitable, the cover up and lies surrounding the scandal made a tragic situation criminal, as well. There was no reason for Obama, Clinton or Rice to have said anything other than the truth. But to lie about the event when by that tie the real story had been discovered is simply arrogance on the administration's part. It simply showed the American people that the Obama administration holds her citizens in contempt and unworthy of the truth. Seriously, the arrogance of these people easily rival that of LBJ and his contempt for Blacks.

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

Today has been a particularly bad day health-wise. The pain from my herniated disk has continued to get worse - to the point that there is no longer a position I can lay down where there is no discomfort. Lifting myself up from a sitting position (like getting out of bed) has gotten progressively more painful. In fact, there have been a few times where I needed help from my son just to stand. I'm only able to walk with a cane to hold me up. I find I can stand in one place for up to 10 minutes, as long as I use a small stool or step under my foot. Driving had been most difficult because of the pain of getting in and out of the car. But now, in addition to that, using the accelerator and brake are becoming equally painful.

So I made an appointment with a neurosurgeon to discuss my options. I really do not want more surgery. But continuing to feel this way is becoming more untenable. So, I guess you should wish me luck as my appointment is in 9 days. Plus, I will get another epidural injection around then, also.

John Kerry, Phony or Fool?

For the past few weeks, I had in mind to write about the lack of self awareness of Secretary of State John F. Kerry. But as I started writing this today, I realized that many of the criticisms I have about Kerry can be blamed on the lack of direction his boss has portrayed in foreign policy. Clearly, Kerry is over his head as Secretary of State. He either doesn't understand the nuances of diplomacy, or he simply doesn't care. His charge, as SoS, is to clearly elucidate the foreign policy of the President. But there have been numerous examples of communication failure that I can't help but wonder if Obama didn't name him Secretary of State as punishment for some nefarious deed.

The first example was when he and Obama openly contradicted themselves regarding Syrian deployment of biological weapons. That took a strange twist when they couldn't find agreement as to what happened and how to deal with it. Kerry came out immediately accusing Basher Assad of gassing his own people, only to be contradicted a couple of days later by Obama. Kerry was far more threatening in his remarks and certainly more assured of the events. But Obama, as he did in Benghazi, softened his stance. All of this led to America's acquiesce to Vladimir Putin - at a great embarrassment to this country.

But the foreign policy issue I most am troubled by is how Kerry (and Obama) treat the state of Israel. Oh, Kerry talks a good game. He sounds almost believable when he recites the talking point about how America will always come to Israel's defense. But no one - whether in America or Israel - believes him. And why should they? In his almost 6 years in office, President Obama has gone out of his way to punish Israel for horrible deed of having Benjamin Netanyahu as her Prime Minister. In keeping with his policy of turning enemies into friends and friends into enemies. it seems Obama has saved his best rebuke to the only democracy in the Middle East. At first, it was Vice President Joe Biden who feigned anger over the audacity of the Israeli government to build apartments in the Jewish section of Jerusalem. The area where the buildings were to be built was not an area under any dispute, and in fact was in a section that even the UN recognized as not part of any "occupation."

But Biden (and by extension, Obama) decided t use this excuse to try and knock Bibi down a notch. However, this calculation failed and eventually led to Netanyahu's famous rebuke of Obama. After this, Biden was stowed away and didn't deal with the Middle East again. Next was Hillary Clinton's turn. However, many Israelis have long memories and remember Hillary's embrace of Suha Arafat. It was said of Hillary when she ran (and eventually won the NY Senate election) that there wasn't enough room on her head for all the faces she has. However, she did get her own digs into Bibi, when she called the Prime Minister personally and berated him for his insolence. That's what is so amazing about this relationship. For some reason, the American leaders treat Israel like they are their child - punishing, berating and even (metaphorically) spanking publicly for any perceived notion that Israel may be an independent nation. The left likes to use the excuse that Israel receives $3 billion in aid (the actual truth is that Israel receives that amount in loan guarantees, not cash). But so does Egypt and Jordan. Yet they are not treated with such disdain.

So now comes big, bad John F. Kerry. Of course, there was a reason he couldn't even beat a very beatable George W. Bush in the 2004 election. Kerry may well be the one person who thinks higher of himself than Obama thinks of himself. Kerry has and always will be a big phony. His accomplishments were always at the expense of someone else's efforts. And for all of you who like to question the intelligence of former President Bush (43), Kerry's GPA at Harvard was lower than Bush's grades at Yale. But Democrats are more interested in appearance and less in substance (that's how they can vote in Obama twice). Kerry looks the part of statesman. That's also why Joe Biden is Vice President. He was chosen because of his supposed strength in foreign affairs. However, no one looked at his foreign policy choices were. Low information voters don't need specifics, just optics. Call it the American Idolization of American politics.

Because Kerry looked the part, the left gave him respect and honor. Of course, when you scratch the surface with Kerry, there isn't a lot there. Certainly nothing overwhelmingly positive. And yet the left nominated him for President. Regardless, Israelis are no longer fooled by lofty rhetoric, which has always been modus operandi of liberal politicians. When Obama criticized Netanyahu, Israelis took notice and - unlike when Bill Clinton rebuked Bibi in 1997 - they stood by their Prime Minister. Bibi's popularity is at an all-time high, while Obama's - and by extension, Kerry's - is at an all-time low.

For the past few months, Kerry has been focusing all of his time on solving the Israel-Palestinian situation. But as anyone with half a brain (and some intellectual honesty) can attest, there isn't a viable solution at this point. Obama and Kerry keep moving the goalposts while blaming Israel for not doing enough. But of course, nothing has been demanded of the Palestinians. On the contrary, due to the feckless incompetence of the American leadership, the Palestinians know they don't have to do anything and eventually the American leadership will force it upon the Israelis. Kerry himself has caused more consternation in Israel than Abbas ever could. And he didn't do anything on purpose. It wasn't anything that was planned.

No, it was just the fallout from the incompetent leadership of Obama and Kerry. Kerry didn't really mean to threaten Israel with a new intifada. But as the top diplomat in the Obama administration, he should understand what his words mean to those who hear them. It was sheer stupidity, but something we are all coming to expect from this administration. Never before have I seen so many "corrections" made by the press secretary to "explain" what the President "meant." Liberals love to talk about Obama as the "smartest person in the room." Well, if he's so intelligent, why does he need his press secretary to come out and explain what he meant?

And this goes for John Kerry, as well. Optically, Kerry looks the part. He has the "experience" and is a "statesman." But is he really? And certainly, who says so? So far, I have not seen anything that proves to me that Kerry is anything but a fool and a charlatan. And this goes for his boss, too.

Of Red Lines and War

I purposely have not written much about the goings on in Syria for two very valid (in my mind) reasons. Reason #1 is that as a staunch supporter of the State of Israel, I felt that it would be hard to be taken seriously, as if I have an axe to grind against Assad and his government.

The second reason is because I truly wanted to stay neutral until I better understood exactly what the heck was going on out there. You see it would be very easy to have a knee-jerk reaction against the President and blame incompetency on his part for what could be the start of a much larger Middle East war. Regardless, after all has been said and done so far, my biggest conclusion is that I do not envy the corner he has painted himself in.

Let's look at the latest pronouncements from Mr. Obama; for one thing, he has tried to move the infamous "red line" from his red line to the "world's red line." That may work among his sycophants on the far left, but aside from the bozos at MSNBC, no one is buying it - and it is an embarrassment world wide. The sad thing is it was something he should have said originally (that it is the world's red line). But with an election coming up and Obama desperate to look tough against his GOP challenger, it was par for the course for Obama to make such pronouncements. After all, this came off the heels of Obama ordering the hit on Bin Ladin. Granted, even that was wrought with indecision and unneeded drama. But the reality was he was the President of who got him.

If there was any particular time Obama could threaten with a "red line" it was at that time a year ago. Although most clear thinking Americans roll their eyes at the idea of Obama's toughness, most of us did give him credit (although more credit went to the Navy Seals) for the hit. But now that the election is long over, these words have come back to haunt him. And the reason why is because in 2012 they were "just words."

In 2008, during the election cycle, President Obama made a famous speech where he condemned a verbal attack by Hillary Clinton. In her remarks, she criticized Senator Obama as a man of just words and no substance (how right she was!). In his rebuttal, Obama said the following:

“Don’t tell me that words don’t matter. ‘I have a dream.’ Just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ Just words. ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words. Just speeches. It’s true that speeches don’t solve all problems, but what is also true is that if we can’t inspire the country to believe again, then it doesn’t matter how many plans and policies we have.

These remarks became known as his "just words" speech and because of of his eloquence, as well the mainstream press not interested in looking into his history and instead swallowing each word as if it were gospel, Obama was able to deflect any questions of his (lack of) substance.

Sadly, as it has turned out, Hillary Clinton was right. Time after time the President has made speeches that have proven him to be a man of great oratory, with little or nothing to back it up. Now, after 5 years in office, the President's chickens are coming home to roost. After 5 years of talking tough and expressing beliefs he really just doesn't have, he's painted himself in a corner on the word stage and because of his lack of substance hasn't a clue how to get out of it.

The way it has turned out today, Obama has 3 choices; One - if Congress gives him to okay to attack, do so. If it goes poorly, blame the GOP for forcing his hand. How can he do that, after it was his own words that started it? Easy, Obama has already changed the vernacular to say that it is the "world's red line" and the MSM is only slightly calling him on it. By the time any and all aggression has ended, the press will scrub Obama's "red line" quote to protect his legacy.

Choice #2 - Congress says no. Obama will most likely use that excuse to not attack and once again blame the GOP - calling them hypocrites for approving Bush's war in Iraq - although we are comparing apples to oranges.

Choice #3 - Congress says no but Obama goes ahead with it anyway. In this scenario, the President pulls a Bill Clinton and fires a few tomahawk missiles into the desert, perhaps killing a few civilians, but generally doing nothing to making a difference. In this case, it will make the President look even more foolish and weak.

The big problem Obama has is his credibility gap. Aside from his friends in the media, no one trusts him to do what's right. Instead of "rebuilding broken alliances" that weren't all that broken in the first place (after all, Bush managed to create a 50-country "coalition of the willing" for war with Iraq), Obama has turned us into a disrespected laughingstock on the world stage. We've made countless enemies of the very people we should be helping. And now, after 5 years, Obama'a words have never had any real meaning. Certainly he has had his opportunities to back up his lofty rhetoric. But he has not be able because there is no substance or meaning to what he says.

His first opportunity was with the Green Revolution in Iran. if only he meant what he said, in regards to supporting freedom and supported the revolution, our reputation would have soared and Iran would know we were not to be trifled with. The situation there was so volatile that it was indeed possible for the Khomenei regime to have been overthrown and Iran returned to it's moderate standing. But Obama dithered, feeling his personality and words would win the day and mollify the Mullahs.

In Egypt he immediately called for the removal of Mubarak, even though the only possible outcome at that time would be for the Muslim Brotherhood to fill the void. And to this day, he supports the MB blindly against the wishes of the vast majority of non-Jihadists in the region. Obama's MB support simply makes no sense when considering how they treat their citizens, especially Christians.

The same pretty much could be said with regard to Libya, even though Khaddafi not only gave up his cache of WMDs, but also posed no immediate threat to the US. Still, Obama went after him in order to install an even more extreme, MB-aligned government.

So now it's Syria's turn and this country is tired of it. We do not trust Obama's words any longer. If this were still President Bush, it's likely he would be able to convince the American people of the reason going into Syria is right. Because deep down, if it's try Assad gassed his own people, the world should see to it that Assad losses the ability to be on the word stage. It should a be personal and quick and something that warns others of the consequences of using such weapons.

But Obama no longer has credibility. His words are meaningless and no one is buying them. If Congress does not give him authority, what then? My guess is he goes the Clinton route and lobs a few missiles their way. Just enough to make some noise, but not enough to pull Russia in. It will be a big waste of time and money, will do nothing to prevent WMD use again and will be praised by the administration and MSNBC for his boldness.

Regardless of what the President ultimately does, this episode has greatly weakened him. There are still a myriad of scandals and issues that must be dealt with back home. How will this issue with Syria affect his governing domestically? I'm almost afraid to ask.

Post-Debate Debate

Just a few hours ago, the second presidential debate between President Obama and Former Governor Mitt Romney transpired on national television. Here are a three thoughts I jotted down prior to the debate:

1. There is no doubt in my mind that unless Pres. Obama repeats his performance from the first debate, the entire MSNBC crew will declare him the clear winner - regardless of the substance, or even honesty of the answers.

2. While the audience members who ask the questions are supposedly "undecided" voters, there will be a few questions that will be clearly set up to provide "gotcha" moments for President Obama to attack the Governor. In addition, Moderator Candy Crowley will will show her bias in more subtle ways - be it how often she cuts off Romney, while not affording him the same time to rebut Obama. Sadly, most people will overlook this.

3. Anything close to a draw will cause certain FOX commentators to crow that Romney was the victor, regardless of the actual final tally. However, as opposed to MSNBC, it will not be from their newscasters, but from opinion guys, like Sean Hannity. On MSNBC, ALL of their newscasters are opinion people.

And here are three thoughts I had during the debate:

1. As expected, Obama came out swinging. In fact, at one point, it looked like the two candidates were going to get into a physical altercation. As for style points, having a more animated Obama certainly adds to the debate. However, unlike Romney - who was strong and focused again, just like last time, Obama seemed to speak faster and with a higher octave than normal (especially at first). Considering his last performance, I'm really not surprised.

2. Under no circumstance should the moderator have allowed the question about how is Romney different from George W. Bush (and yes, she had veto power on which questions would be asked). There were two significant issues at play here. Number one, the woman who asked was clearly not an independent, nor would I ever assume she was an undecided voter. The reason this question as so inappropriate was because, for one thing, GWB is not running for President and hasn't in 8 years. The world is a far different place in 2012 (I thought Romney answered as best he could for such an imbecilic question). The other reason is that the question allows the President to once again do what he has done since he started running in 2007 - and that is "blame Bush." Which of course, he did once more tonight. 

The only way this question could be fair would have been if the moderator then called on Obama to explain how he's any different from Jimmy Carter. I would have loved to see Romney pull that out of his hat. But my impression was he was trying to be more Presidential and not use the tactics of the left. instead, he simply kept harping on the President's own record, which truly can not be defended.

3. For the first time in memory, we really do have an election between two completely different world views. And the contrast was very clear tonight. Regardless of past success or failure, both candidates showed a passion into their core beliefs. The only time I felt that this was not the case was in regard to the Libya question. Anyone who has followed this story from the beginning knows that Romney was correct. Yes, the President mentioned "acts of terror" but it was in passing regarding all terror acts, not this one. The question is, if he truly meant to include Benghazi in his remarks, why then did he send his UN ambassador Susan Rice to go on Sunday morning talk shows - a few days later - to assure American the attack was directly caused by a spontaneous riot over a YouTube video? In addition, Obama himself appeared before the UN and also said the video was the main cause of what happened (he said it 6 times in his UN speech). However, the idea of it being a terror attack against the US on the anniversary of 9/11/02 never passed his lips. Even 2 weeks later, Obama refused to say it was a terror attack while being "eye candy" on "The View."

Conclusions

In reality, who "won" the debate will be over shadowed by who told what lies. I have to give credit to the President for actually appearing to be interested this time around. After the two debate debacles this administration suffered over the last two weeks, nothing but how he appeared tonight would have been accepted by the left base. I do believe those who support the President will feel this was a good win for him. Those who support Romney will say it was a great win for Romney. Unlike the first debate, neither candidate came out flat and uninspired.

I do believe that the Libya issue is going to be the one that will give Obama the most concern. After the debate, Candy Crowley said on CNN that she was mistaken and Romney was 100% correct regarding his claim that the administration was not consistent, or even truthful in regard to the attack a few weeks ago. I truly believe that this one talking point will be the one most talking heads will focus on over the next week. If so, that portends very poorly on the President, as it was Romney who was correct.

There was, by my estimation, one major gaffe. President Obama claiming that the reason gas prices are now so high, as opposed to when he entered the office, was due to the economy tanking in '08, is ludicrous at it's face. Low gas prices are a lagging indicator of growing economy, not a one that's slowing. To me, this shows the complete lack of understanding how the economy really works.

My take from this debate is that on style and points, it was a slight won for Governor Romney. It would have been a bigger win had Romney been allowed to follow his answers after each Obama attack. However, the moderator allowed the President close to 10% more time than she did the governor. Like what happened at the Vice-Presidential debate, the Republican was often cut off by the moderator, while the President was not (with one exception at the end).

For the most part, I thought the questions were fair (except the GWB one) and I had no issues with Crawley's follow-up questions. In terms of voting, I've pretty much made clear which candidate I prefer and I am trying to be as honest and consistent as possible in this post. I do fully understand that it is vastly more difficult to debate as an incumbent, especially when your four record is not very favorable. The Governor did the right thing by constantly explain what he would do as President, as well as hammer Obama on what he has failed to do over the past 4 years.

On the other hand, Obama used a brilliant strategy of using Romney's words in the Republican debates against him. Of course, in the primaries, Romney had to appeal to the base constituencies in order to even get the nomination. But the best thing he did for his party was naming Paul Ryan his running mate, Once he did that, he secured the backing of the Republican Party. Where Obama is failing is he has been trying to paint Romney as a stereotypical, right-wing ideologue. But after these two debates, countless Americans aren't buying it. Yes, Mr. Romney is but stiff and Mr. Obama ais as cool as the other side of the pillow. But these are very serious times and because these two are so fundamentally different, there is a clear choice for the election.

Do we want someone who has been successful in all his endeavors on a grand scale, who has a true understanding of how our economy works and who speaks of American exceptionalism like he means it? Do we elect someone who's experience in government was to get along with the opposition to work for the betterment of the country? Someone who has and knows how to balance a budget and more importantly, understands the severity and responsibilities of the office in which has been given responsibility for?

Or do we elect someone who has - from day one - blamed his predecessor for doing many of the same things he is doing now? Yes, the nation was in a major financial mess when he became the President. But over 4 years, he has not only not made it better, but has in fact, made things progressively worse. The president offered hope for rebuilding our future according to his fundamental way of thinking. He surrounded himself with far left ideologues who admitted to following the teachings Chairman Mao and other anti-American figures. He has pushed Keynesian economics that have never worked on a grand scale in the history of the world. 

President Obama likes to say "we should not go back to what got us in this mess in the first place." Sadly, he fails to acknowledge the fundamental facts as to why we were in this situation at all. This post is not the forum tonight to review those facts, as I have discussed them in detail over the course of the past 4 years. In addition - and this can not be stressed enough - the President has had four years, including two with a majority-proof House and Senate, to do the things he has wanted to do. Now it's four years later and what have the results been? Unemployment is up, we now have a $16 trillion deficit, we have a bureaucratic disaster called "ObamaCare" that will easily destroy whatever financial recovery we can muster. We have a foreign policy that is the laughingstock of the world - only it's our sworn enemies who are laughing, while our friends are dismissed. we have a joke of an immigration solution, where the individual states have been sued by the federal government for doing the job the feds are not doing. We have 47 million people now on food stamps and 23 million people out of work - plus G0d knows how many people have simply stopped looking for work. We have a man as President who refuses to meet face to face with world leaders - even if he speaks to them by phone, the seriousness of the situation requires a certain amount of respect - wile instead jettisons off to a Las Vegas fundraiser and an appearance on a late night television program.

I've heard the excuses from the Obama people, about how he is in special touch with the leaders by phone and how it would have been unacceptable to cancel his Vegas fundraiser. To which I say "BULLSHIT!" A leader leads. A leader wants the ball late in the 4th quarter in a close game. A true leader would have told his guests and hosts that because of the tragedy in Libya, going to a fundraiser and having a celebration is poor taste and also sends the message of priorities, which this President so clearly lacks.

The two questions you should be asking are what has President Obama really done that would deserve him an other four years? And what will happen in four years after we've had a repeat of these past four?

Reasons To Worry

As we begin the next post 9/11 decade, I can't help but wonder what the country will look like in ten years. When 1979 turned to 1980, the world was quite dangerous. Jimmy Carter's feckless foreign policy decisions led to the rise of a fundamentalist Iran, there were anti-American riots on the Arab streets, the Soviets felt they had a comrade in arms, or at least a weak opponent in the White House and the economy, like much of the country, was in a malaise.

I was 17 going on 18 and yet, at no point did I worry that my country wouldn't be around for the next 10 years. While Hollywood tried to relive the scary days of the Cuban Missile Crises - by airing the movie "The Day After," somehow we knew America would overcome this. Thankfully, we had the intelligence and foresight to elect Ronald Reagan to replace the incredibly shrinking James Earl Carter before the year ended.

But what about now? Once again, we are faced with Islamic revolutions that were at least stoked, if not completely tolerated (even wanted) by a feckless, incompetent Commander-in-Chief. We once again have an American embassy under attack in an Islamic-ruled country (that was once our ally, if not for the President's weak foreign policies). Once again, we are being ridiculed by an ever menacing Russia - while no longer a Soviet threat, Russia is once again raising its fist. Once again, the economy is in the tank and once again, gas prices are outrageous and crippling us. And this time, we have to add the enormous financial debt we owe to the Chinese.

Faced with all of these very serious issues, once again a malaise has surrounded us. But, unlike 1980, many Americans are hiding from these problems. Listening to the Democratic National Convention, you would think the worst thing we have to deal with as a nation is whether or not 31-year-old college students get their contraception paid for by the taxpayer. Or whether or not peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are bringing us back to Jim Crow.

But just yesterday, there were three very disturbing stories that barely made the mainstream press.

The first was this from the Government Accountability Institute:

The Government Accountability Institute, a new conservative investigative research organization, examined President Obama’s schedule from the day he took office until mid-June 2012, to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) — the meeting at which he is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent.

Also from the article:

This isn’t the first time a Government Accountability Institute study has caused controversy. In July, a GAI analysis of President Obama’s calendar found that the president has spent just 412 hours in economic meetings of any kind throughout his presidency versus the over 600 hours he’s spent golfing.

It's bad enough that the President has a serious flaw in his priorities. But to see a report like this, while the economy is in it's worst condition since the Great Depression and while the Arab street is on fire and hoping to burn us down is simply maddening.

Yet the media wants us to believe that Mitt Romney's dog is a far more vital story.

Here is the second story...

Protesters Storm US Embassy In Egypt, Tear Apart American Flag

Can someone say "asleep at the wheel?" Just like 1979, when Jimmy Carter "welcomed" a new regime in Iran (in reality, he simply turned the other way and abandoned his ally, which showed the Islamists America was a "paper tiger). Of course, this gross negligence by our government has led to thousands and thousands of deaths and a reign of terror not seen since the '40s. Will Egypt turn into Iran II? At this point, unless Iran is successful and acquires and detonates a nuclear bomb (which changes everything), I would say it's inevitable. But like Jimmy Carter all those years ago, our President was either too incompetent to see the obvious, or else this was exactly the outcome he desired - which is far more insidious and dangerous. I tend to believe it's incompetence. After all, we elected a man without a shred of experience who talked a good game, but was really just an empty suit. Joe Biden famously said that in the near future, a crisis will arise that would "test the mettle" of Obama. He was right. Sadly, Joe was wrong as to the success of such a crisis.

The third story has not gotten the media play it deserves. However, that's mostly because it puts Obama is a poor light and the MSM would never do that, if it can avoid it.

U.S. rejects Netanyahu meeting request

Go ahead and find me another time in our recent history where an ally was facing imminent war and the President of the United States can not find the time to meet with the ally's leader.

You can't. Some will say that Obama is rejecting Bibi because of the comments the Prime Minister made regarding making a red line in the sand to stop Iran. If this is the reason, it shows an unbelievable amount of petulance and immaturity on the part of the US President. If this is the reason, what kind of man does that make Obama? As leader of the United States, the President MUST stand above such petty behavior. But sadly, this has become the norm for this President. His loathing of the Israeli Prime Minister has long been known. But for Israel, the Iran issue is a matter of life and death. For our President to treat this situation like gum on the bottom of his show is the most visual reason I can show you as to the incompetence, petulance and arrogance of the man-child in the oval office.

And what if that isn't the reason? What else could it be? The Obama people claim he simply can not fit meeting Netanyahu on his schedule. Would that be the schedule that sees his miss 60-70% of his daily intelligence briefings? Or the less that 45 minutes a day on his economic briefings? Is this the schedule that has him playing over 100 rounds of golf and taking exotic vacations? Or is this the busy schedule that has him attending over 300 fundraisers over the past 2 years?

The office of the President of the United States was never this much of a joke under Jimmy Carter. While Carter was clearly incompetent, he at least took the office and the oath seriously. From Day One, Obama promised to "fundamentally transform" the country. Sadly, a majority of Americans either didn't, or couldn't believe what those words meant.

We have less than two months to see he isn't allowed to continue. Please vote wisely.

Obama's Obsession with Race

Race is a very delicate subject in America. Although we are almost 150 years past the Civil War, the stain of slavery still plagues us today. Of course, no one who survived that era is alive today. However, the inability of the Republicans to stop the Democrats from ending Reconstruction, has single-handily allowed the Black population to continue to be oppressed long after the last shots were fired.

In fact, even as late as the 1960's, equality was just a dream for many African-Americans. I still remember the stark racism of separate water fountains, "coloreds only" signs at the Woolworth lunch counters and the riots that plagued America at the turn of the next decade. Growing up in Tennessee, it was all around. After I moved to Texas, in 1969, things remained brutal for the Black population. Rare was a Black person even seen in North Dallas, unless they were there to clean someone's house, or mow their lawn. In sports, Black Cowboy players could not stay at the same hotels as their White counterparts, and they were often treated as second class citizens by the media.

And yet, even though the Black population was fighting for their equal rights, which of course, should never even have been an issue, Black families stayed together, children graduated high school (and college) and unemployment - while not ideal - was not far off from the national averages.

So what makes today's Black community different? Why are their children dropping out at an alarming rate? Why are their father's nowhere to be found?

Well, the NAACP thinks the problem is racism, and clearly, so does President Obama. But who are the racists?

According to the NAACP, as well as the Democrat Party, the real racists are conservatives and, by extension, the Tea Party movement. So let's look back a few years...

Who was it that fought against Reconstruction, which kept the "Negroes" in their place? Who was it that created the Ku Klux Klan? Although President Lyndon Johnson eventually signed the Civil Rights Bill, it was ex-Klansman and Senator Robert Byrd, along with many Democrats who filibustered the bill. Byrd, of the course, the longstanding leader of the Democrat Party, who passed away last week, who once said:

"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

It was the Democrats who fought against integration of the races. In fact, while it's a dirty little secret amongst the Democrats, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., himself, was a Republican. Of course, so was Abraham Lincoln.

So did the Democrats and Republicans simply reverse sides? Of course not. The Democrats knew that they were fighting a losing battle. It wasn't that they simply changed their opinions. No, what they did was far more sinister. What they did, in effect, was use their rhetoric to successfully enslave the African-American population.

And boy did it ever work!

Under the guise of "caring," the Dems began passing legislation which simply destroyed the fabric of the Black community. Expanding welfare - which allowed women to raise babies without the father around, redirecting education - which gave power to the State, instead of where it belongs, in the hands of the parents and basically giving away the farm to those who should have earned it and created their own American Dream.

Of course, we all know the lesson of teaching a man to fish, instead of giving him a fish to eat. Why would anyone learn how to survive and excel if the government (read: Democrats) will take of you instead. When that happens, a Nanny State ensues - which is what's happening throughout the country now, thanks to the filibuster-proof government.

What this all has led to is the degradation of the Black community. And unfortunately, many of their leaders are on the take as well. Where we had leaders like MLK - who once said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character," we have Malik Shabazz, the leader of the New Black Panther Party, who says, "You want freedom you’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies."

While the African-American community has reason to be angry, they have been fed so much crap by the Democrats that they feel owed. It is no longer a case where each individual is responsible for himself. According to the gospel of Black leaders, like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan, the White man hasn't given us our due.

When you expect someone else to give you opportunity, you are enslaved. That is simply a fact of life. And that is why President Obama has been so damaging to race relations in this country. It's almost as if he believes the Black community can't exceed by themselves. While his racism is more subdued, other leaders have been very outspoken. The NAACP, once the beacon of light for a growing community, has become so irrelevant that they also have to find racism where it no longer exists.

Whether it was their call to arms over a greeting card, based on space exploration, which mentioned "Black Holes" (the NAACP either doesn't understand that a Black Hole is a scientific term for a region of space from which nothing, including light, can escape, or they do know but don't care), to condemning the Tea Party movement for making racist comments that clearly weren't made.

The more they scream "racism," the more irrelevant they become and by becoming so irrelevant, they set race relations way back.

But when I read what President Obama said about Al-Qaeda, it proved to me that this is not just a problem with the NAACP, but it has infected the entire Democrat leadership. This is what he said:

(From ABCNews.com) Speaking about the Uganda bombings, the president said, "What you've seen in some of the statements that have been made by these terrorist organizations is that they do not regard African life as valuable in and of itself. They see it as a potential place where you can carry out ideological battles that kill innocents without regard to long-term consequences for their short-term tactical gains."

I had to read that three times because I could not believe what I saw. According to Barrack Obama, the terror organization of Al-Qaeda is racist because they do not regard "African life as valuable in of it's self." Furthermore, as the article mentions, he takes task with Al-Qaeda because "it's racist against black members from West Africa because they are only used in lower level operations."

What this means is that President Obama does not look at the fact that Al-Qaeda is evil because they kill innocent people across the globe. No, they are evil because they aren't giving Blacks the opportunity for advancement!

I have never heard such a ridiculous garbage come out of the mouth of an American President and add this to the comment he made last week, that Israeli's do not like him because his middle name is "Hussein" - forget the fact that most Israeli's liked King Hussein from Jordan - and you can see what I mean. It's all about Race to him.

Remember, this is the man who condemned the the Cambridge, Mass. police department for arresting his "friend," and called them "stupid," when all they were doing was their job. This is the President who has ordered his Attorney General to not prosecute the two members of the New Black Panther Party who were clearly violating the voter intimidation laws.

And now, J. Christian Adams - an ex-Justice official who quit over the handling of the voter intimidation case - told Megyn Kelly, on FOX News, that "There is a pervasive hostility within the civil rights division at the Justice Department toward these sorts of cases." He added that he believes the Justice Department has a policy now of not pursuing voting rights cases against white victims.

What this is doing is pitting Whites against Blacks in an era where we should have long ago buried our racial divisiveness. Anyone who has been to a Tea Party can attest that not only are there no racist/anti-Black tendencies, but that people of all colors and races are welcome with open arms to join.

The same can not be said for the NAACP. They even went so far as the condemn a Black man, who was beaten up by SEIU thugs for handing out flyers that disagreed with their agenda. It is very apparent that this President has not only turned a blind eye to reverse discrimination, but that he actively supports it.

Who are the real racists?

Yes, I know it's been a while. I was out of town and had limited access to a computer. Since I just came back today, I'm a bit too tired to write anything original. But I did want to share with you an article I read over the weekend about Elana Kagan. I think it's very important to read this and understand who this woman is:

Is Elena Kagan Morally Blind? (American Thinker)
By James Lewis

Elena Kagan has now admitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee that as a Clinton lawyer in 1997, she fraudulently revised an official medical opinion by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The medical society was going to publicly reveal that "its panel of experts found no circumstances in which the (partial birth abortion) procedure was the only option for saving the life of the woman."

In a secret internal memo, she wrote that "This, of course, would be a disaster[.]"

Kagan therefore secretly revised the language so the final statement in 1997 claimed that the partial-birth abortion "may be the best and most appropriate procedure in particular circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."

That was a pernicious lie. The medical panel originally said that was false. Kagan substituted her own judgment for a medical consensus.

No wonder eight hundred Jewish rabbis have publicly stated that in their opinion, Elena Kagan is not morally qualified to be on the Supreme Court. Her fraudulent actions in 1997 legally authorized the killing of approximately two thousand newborns or almost-newborns each year, according to the pro-abortion Gutmacher Institute.

Partial birth abortion means killing a full-term fetus, a human being. That is murder by biological definition. The media try to throw dust in our eyes about that fact, but most Americans know. We might have mixed feelings about abortion in the first month of pregnancy, but a full-term baby is a human being, and whether it is killed ten minutes before or after delivery makes no difference. It's still the same baby.

What part of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" don't liberals understand? These are the most compassionate people in the world, remember? Elena Kagan doesn't seem to get the biological reality of babies who are identical to newborns but still living in the womb. She seems to be so stuck that she cannot see reality.

In 2003, the Republicans passed a ban on partial birth abortion, later affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. That lead has now been followed by a number of states. But a recent medical article on the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Act claims that the law only forced abortion doctors to kill fetuses in the womb. That's not "partial birth," get it? You can do anything to a baby in the womb, no matter how developed it might be. These "abortion providers" are publicly boasting that they are getting around the law by killing near-term babies in the womb. It is astonishing what ideological blindness will do to people.

I know Miss Kagan is Jewish by heritage, but that only makes her more painful to watch. Of all the people in the world, the Jews, whose babies and toddlers were taken away to be killed by the Nazis, should be hypersensitive to this question. Dr. Kagan is a woman, and we think women are especially sensitive to babies. And yet, in a once-in-a-lifetime moment of decision in 1997, Kagan failed to stand for the most basic protection of innocent life.

Elena Kagan has some terrifying opinions about the government's ability to kill free speech. At Harvard she was part of the feminist establishment that got Larry Summers fired as president for dropping a politically incorrect remark. Kagan is no defender of free speech, not even on university campuses where telling the truth is the essence of scholarship. Just the opposite. We have censorship on our campuses today because of the likes of Dean Kagan.

In front of the Judiciary Committee she's been clowning it up. But I don't think Kagan is a funny lady. No, when I look at her, I look at a commissar of Political Correctness, who rose to the top at Harvard Law in the New Age of PC. Stalin's Commissars also made sure the right people died in Siberia and Lublyanka.

We know that premature babies born in the third trimester respond to touch, pain, cuddling, and baby talk. Many biomedical articles in peer-reviewed journals support that claim. Others dispute it, but when there is honest disagreement, we should follow the ancient medical rule: First, Do No Harm!

The brain waves of third-trimester fetuses show that they go through sleeping, dreaming, and waking. The closer they grow to term, the more they are just like any other baby. And then you kill them at the moment of birth -- not in a desperate bid to save the life of the mother, but because it's not convenient to raise a Down Syndrome child? And then we don't even mandate general anesthesia for the baby, the way we do for convicted killers on death row?

Is this the person we want on the Supreme Court?

James A. Lewis is a senior fellow at Center for Strategic and International Studies and directs its Technology and Public Policy Program.

This and That

General Stanley McChrystal used surprisingly poor judgment in a Rolling Stone magazine article, where he openly criticized and, at times, unabashedly mocked President Obama, Vice President Biden, and other senior officials. As the Commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A), McChrystal has been a no-nonsense and an American hero.

However, as much as what the General said may well have been true, the fact is that a general - no matter how many stars he has - is still a subordinate to the President of the United States. And as such, can not, nor should not, say something that will embarrass his superior.

The question is, will President Obama pull the trigger? I guess that depends on how badly he wants to keep the general quiet. More than any American today, General McChrystal has the ammunition to completely embarrass Obama on his handling of the war. How much worse will it be for Obama if relieves the general and the general decides to start talking?

Could make for some serious drama.

What I find most interesting about all of this is how the main stream media is attacking this story. For the most part, they are all in lockstep calling for McChystal's resignation. The pundits mostly agree that embarrassing the President is needed to restore honor to the White House. While I agree with this point, I'm curious why when the roles were a bit different, when George Bush was in office, the media openly supported criticism of the President by his generals.

Well, I know the answer to that. In today's media, a scandal isn't a scandal unless it's caused by a Republican.

And speaking of scandals, it's now been 62 days since the Deepwater Horizon explosion started spewing into the Gulf of Mexico, in what has become the worst environmental disaster in American history. And what did the media focus on this weekend? The fact that the CEO of BP spent Saturday with his son, watching a yacht race that he had entered.

Some people, apparently, had a problem with this. I didn't. For one thing, BP CEO Tony Heyward has passed on the responsibility of the containment to BP Executive Robert Dudley. So for all intents and purposes, there isn't much Heyward can do. And besides, considering how awful a job Heyward had done, do we really want him on this?

But the same people who are furious with Heyward for spending an afternoon with his son, seem to always be giving a pass to President Obama. Granted, as he said, he can't suck the spill up with a straw (very Presidential comments, by the way). However, Obama did say, repeatedly, that he "will not rest until this is fixed."

By judging from the President's schedule since he made this statement, it appears that he really hasn't rested. Unfortunately, he hasn't actually done anything about the spill, either. Doug Ross has an accurate timeline about how laser-sharped focus the President has been in response to this crisis. And this was done before he partied with Paul McCartney and played round after round after round of golf. His dereliction of duty has become so transparent that even MSNBC, including the sycophants Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, have openly criticised Obama.

Adding to the misery in the Gulf, Obama used his speech last week to not only suspend all drilling in the Gulf, which puts not only a lot of people out of work, but will cause a tremendous trickle down effect on gasoline prices (a federal judge just struck down the ban, but of course, the White House is appealing the verdict), but he also used that platform to push for cap and trade, which is the absolutely dumbest idea one can do in the throws of a bad recession.

As we are all aware, Rahm Emanuel has always advised Obama that he should never let a good crisis go to waste. It was the financial crisis that allowed Obama to seize banks and car companies. It's the rising cost of health care that allows his to nationalize medical care. Now, he is attempting to control every aspect of our energy independence through cap and trade. Aside from the fact that the idea of cap and trade was based on the fiction of Global Warming, the fact remains that cap and trade is disastrous for our economy and must not be allowed to pass.

The idea that Obama could mismanage this crisis so badly speaks volumes about his executive inexperience and extreme left ideology. No, I don't necessarily expect Obama to cap the well. But instead of sitting on ass, or golfing, or looking for more ways to transform this country into a third-world hell hole, I'd expect instead for him to start appointing capable, EXPERIENCED people to fix this mess. From my vantage point, it almost looks as if this crisis was exactly what he wanted in order to advance his ideological plans. The more he sat on it, the worse it became and the more power he could grab because of it.

This spill is destroying the region and it must be contained and cleared. That Obama turned down equipment that would have done just that after just three days, seems to be to be an impeachable offense. He has proven to be incapable, immature and a bully. If not before 2012, he must be sent to the ash heap of history, before he causes even worse damage.

Here is an interest article, written by Chuck Green, of the Denver Post/Aurora Sentinel - which is one of the more liberal papers in the country. Additionally, Mr. Green is a life long Democrat...so this is rather a stunning piece. This article was originally published on February 7, 2010 - two months prior to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, which has been a personal disaster for Obama in the polls. (H/T SodaHead, via Curmudgeonly & Skeptical)

It's All Bush's Fault

Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first year in office.

Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises ever. Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever.

Wow. Talk about change.

Just one year ago, fresh from his inauguration celebrations, President Obama was flying high. After one of the nation’s most inspiring political campaigns, the election of America’s first black president had captured the hopes and dreams of millions. To his devout followers, it was inconceivable that a year later his administration would be gripped in self-imposed crisis.

Of course, they don’t see it as self imposed. It’s all George Bush’s fault.

George Bush, who doesn’t have a vote in Congress and who no longer occupies the White House, is to blame for it all.

He broke Obama’s promise to put all bills on the White House web site for five days before signing them.

He broke Obama’s promise to have the congressional health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN.

He broke Obama’s promise to end earmarks.

He broke Obama’s promise to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.

He broke Obama’s promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year.

He broke Obama’s promise to make peace with direct, no pre-condition talks with America’s most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office, ushering in a new era of global cooperation.

He broke Obama’s promise to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high White House jobs.

He broke Obama’s promise to end no-compete contracts with the government.

He broke Obama’s promise to disclose the names of all attendees at closed White House meetings.

He broke Obama’s promise for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all matters.

He broke Obama’s promise to have chosen a home church to attend Sunday services with his family by Easter of last year.

Yes, it’s all George Bush’s fault. President Obama is nothing more than a puppet in the never-ending, failed Bush administration.

If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, all of President Obama’s problems would be solved. His promises would have been kept, the economy would be back on track, Iran would have stopped its work on developing a nuclear bomb and would be negotiating a peace treaty with Israel, North Korea would have ended its tyrannical regime, and integrity would have been restored to the federal government.

Oh, and did I mention what it would be like if the Democrats, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, didn’t have the heavy yoke of George Bush around their necks. There would be no earmarks, no closed-door drafting of bills, no increase in deficit spending, no special-interest influence (unions), no vote buying (Nebraska, Louisiana).

If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, we’d have real change by now.

All the broken promises, all the failed legislation and delay (health care reform, immigration reform) is not President Obama’s fault or the fault of the Democrat-controlled Congress. It’s all George Bush’s fault.

Take for example the decision of Eric Holder, the president’s attorney general, to hold terrorists’ trials in New York City. Or his decision to try the Christmas Day underpants bomber as a civilian.

Two disastrous decisions.

Certainly those were bad judgments based on poor advice from George Bush.

Need more proof?

You might recall that when Scott Brown won last month’s election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, capturing “the Ted Kennedy seat,” President Obama said that Brown’s victory was the result of the same voter anger that propelled Obama into office in 2008. People were still angry about George Bush and the policies of the past 10 years, and they wanted change.

Yes, according to the president, the voter rebellion in Massachusetts last month was George Bush’s fault.

Therefore, in retaliation, they elected a Republican to the Ted Kennedy seat, ending a half-century of domination by Democrats.

It is all George Bush’s fault.

Will the failed administration of George Bush ever end, and the time for hope and change ever arrive?

Will President Obama ever accept responsibility for something — anything?

I couldn't have said it better myself. And coming from an extreme-left Denver columnist just makes it that much more stinging. Once you lose the base, you've lost the country. The November elections look to be a true disaster for the Democrats and unless Obama learns the lessons President Clinton learned in 1994 (and there has been no indication that he will, or even can), the election of 2012 may very well look like 1980 all over again.

The question is, can we hold on that long?

Here's an excellent article from James Lewis, at the American Thinker:

Obama and the Rising Mob Against Israel

The Middle East is now teetering on the brink of war because a vast international mob has been loosed, with the tacit approval of Barack Hussein Obama. That is the real meaning of the Gaza martyrdom stunt of May 31, 2010. That purposeful provocation is not past. The Gaza suicide operation is still being used all over the Middle East and Europe to whip up hatred and violence.

As Mark Steyn just reported from a dingy cafe in Morocco,

I can just about make out the plasma TV up in the corner on which Jimmy Carter, dubbed into Arabic, is denouncing Israel. Al Jazeera doesn't so much cover the Zionist Entity as feast on it, hour after hour, without end. So here, at the western frontier of the Muslim world ... the only news that matters is from a tiny strip of land barely wider at its narrowest point than a rural Canadian township way down the other end of the Mediterranean. ... (there is) saturation coverage of the "Massacre In The Med" (as the front page headline in Britain's Daily Mirror put it)."

Iran, Lebanon, and Islamist Turkey have just announced new flotillas to break the Gaza blockade. If they succeed, it will not stop with Gaza. The conquest of Jerusalem and rest of Israel is the target. That is why Ahmadinejad has trained all his life in the "Al-Quds" (Jerusalem) Brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the shock suicide brigade for reconquering Jerusalem. That is why the Hamas flag shows a green Islamic Jerusalem. It is why Kofi Annan at the U.N. proudly posed in front of a map of the Middle East with Israel erased.

Mob psychology has now been loosed upon the world again -- in the European media, the U.N., and the Middle East, all of them against the common scapegoat of Israel.

cartoon by Ronny Gordon

Lynch mobs have a psychology. They need agitators to whip up popular rage against their victims -- like the "community organizers" in Chicago, who once upon a time used to proudly call themselves communist "agitators." But agitators need followers, who do the actual work of running riot, killing, raping, and burning their helpless scapegoats in their homes and businesses. Think ACORN and the Black Panthers.

Finally, mobs need enablers, the authority figures -- the cops, military, and politicos who give the signal that it's now okay to run riot and kill the helpless victims of the moment. Political authorities usually try to control incipient mobs, because their power depends on keeping order. But in Russia and the Dixiecrat South, politicians and cops commonly withdrew their protection at critical moments and signaled the mobs when it was okay to run riot against victim groups like the Jews or the blacks. It happens all over the world, and the race, ethnicity, religion, or wealth of the victims makes no difference. A group label is enough.

Barack Hussein Obama is now playing the biggest role in the mob psychology of the Middle East. Why? Because he is the authority figure who has given the signal that it's okay to attack Israel. That is why Islamist Turkey, Lebanon, and Iran just announced that they are sending new flotillas to challenge Israel's small coastal navy. Intentionally or not, Obama has given the green light for Israel-haters to attack. In fact, this appears to be his strategy to put pressure on Israel to appease the Arabs, Iranians, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Fatah, the unappeasable mobs that want only to kill Israel.

That is how Obama's Cairo speech was interpreted by the agitators and mobs of the Middle East. It is how his middle name was interpreted, and how his reported remark to the Egyptian Foreign Minister that "I am a Muslim" is perceived. If Obama really is a Muslim, then he must follow the Quran. Turkish PM Erdogan has openly said that "a Muslim cannot commit genocide" -- because the Quran explicitly demands genocide against infidels who do not surrender to Islam. That is why the Turkish suiciders on the cruise ship Mavi Marmara screamed "Khaibar! Khaibar!" while attacking Jewish commandos rappelling down one by one with paintball guns. Khaibar is the name of a Quranic genocide committed by Mohammed against the Jews. It's like Neo-Nazis screaming "Auschwitz! Auschwitz!"

For almost a century, the United States has been the cop on the world beat, as the British Empire declined and crumbled. The U.S. was the great, civilized power that supported freedom of trade; resistance against the Kaiser, Hitler, and Stalin; relative peace in the third world; and the protection of post-World War Two stability, ranging from Japan and South Korea to Israel and Berlin. Europe today would not exist were it not for American protection; it would be a Soviet colony. India and Pakistan might be in a hot war. China might be attacking Japan to retaliate against the horrors of World War Two, which are constantly repeated in the Chinese media. Ancient hatreds exist all over the world, ready to explode when the cop on the beat gets drunk or just resigns.

The United States has preserved the balance of power and kept it on the side of civilization against the mob. All the feeble regimes in the third world depend upon us to come to their aid against their own mobs and agitators. In fact, those regimes are just the mob agitators who won the last round.

We are the cop on the beat that keeps the world from bloody anarchy. When the president of the United States signals that it's okay to run riot against the scapegoat of the moment, all the tottering regimes know they have to give in to their domestic mob agitators. That's what Mark Steyn was watching on Al Jazeera TV in Algiers.

This is what William Butler Yeats saw during the rise of the Nazis, when he wrote his poem "The Second Coming":

TURNING and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

Mob psychology has now been loosed upon the world again. Only an assertive superpower can stop them, and that is the United States. If Obama fails to understand that, the Gulf, Israel, and perhaps the Indian subcontinent will explode.

Being De-Friended

When I began recovering from my transplant, I decided to make it my goal to reconnect with as many old friends as possible. As I wrote in my transplant story, I was having a very difficult time trying to understand how my life turned out the way it had. Without going into detail here (you can read the story if you're that interested), I felt that the key to my future was by understanding my past.

In some respects, I was correct. I managed, over the next 8 years, to reconnect with everyone I set out to find. Some found me, and others I had to track down. There are a couple of people I decided against finding because I do believe some things are best left in the past.

What I discovered, though, is how precious every relationship was. Even though I don't communicate with everyone on a regular basis, I have kept up with them all - either by email or Facebook.

So, as I am now almost 8 years post-transplant, I find I have become Facebook friends with most of them. Add to my friend list my brothers, sister, nephews, nieces, aunts and uncles, children and other relatives; I find that I have more Facebook friends than I ever dreamed I'd have. Some of these friends are from my childhood, some from when I worked for NCSY (in a number of places) and yet others are people I've become acquainted with over the past 8 years. Each one is a different story and each one means so much to me.

So it is with sadness that I discover someone unfriending me. Granted, not everyone wants to be my friend, but once someone does, I like to believe they will be a friend for life. I have learned that life is so very short and we are only able to succeed upon the shoulders of those who support us.

This friend who unfriended me was not a lifelong friend from my youth, but someone I only met about three years ago. The details of how we met is not important, neither is the name. Since we met, we developed a nice connection over many miles. There were some very nice qualities about this person and I enjoyed the friendship.

But then, just a couple of days ago, this friend sent me a message, asking me to "like" (which is a Facebook way pf supporting a particular person or thing) something I felt was in poor taste. The thing was in support of removing someone from a particular show for their conservative views. While I may not watch the show for many reasons - one, because the others on the show are not only very liberal, but are quite insane - I don't believe having a different point of view is reason to fire someone from their job.

I worked for the past two years with a boss who was an extreme lefty. While I disagreed with many of his points of view, I never questioned his right to express them. On the other hand, he often would lambaste and embarrass me because I hold conservative opinions. Did it bother me that he was so condescending and intolerant? Absolutely. But because he was my boss, I mostly held my tongue. However, there were times he crossed the line and I argued with him.

This friend, however, never gave me that chance. This friend's first reaction to my comment was to de-friend me. Now, it should be pointed out that the comment I made to this person was neither mean-spirited, nor antagonistic in any way. I simply wrote to this person that I disagreed with the idea because I felt expressing a different point of view is important not only for that show, but for this country entirely.

See, I still remember when Hillary Clinton said that to disagree was patriotic. And yet, since Obama has become President, it seems any opinion that isn't in lock-step with the left is either hate speech, or racist. I do not begrudge anyone from having liberal views - in fact, a number of my Facebook friends are quite liberal. However, that does not mean I will just sit back and shut up whenever I am confronted with someone, or thing, I disagree with.

Earlier today, I posted an article written by Harris Senturia, a member of the Cleveland Chapter of the National Jewish Democratic Council. The article, titled "President a friend of Israel, reflects Jewish values," explained why he believes Barack Obama is, and has been, good for the Jews. Upon reading it, I came to the conclusion that Mr. Senturia is either very foolish, or else he really does not understand what being good for the Jews really entails. He uses the idea that Obama - and I can only assume by extension, the Democrat Party - shares the same core values as the Jewish people.

And what, exactly, are those same core values? Well, for one, he claims that President Obama was steadfast in his support of Israel's raid on the Mavi Marmara. But that is so far from the truth, it makes my head hurt. Aside from certain Obama "friends" being directly involved in the launching of this ship, Obama allowed the condemnation of Israel to proceed in the United Nations.

In addition, Obama's treatment of the State of Israel, since he took office, is nothing short of shameful and dangerous. He has surrounded himself with far too many anti-Semites - Reverend Wright, Samantha Powers, Joseph Cirincione, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Susan Rice, and Robert Malley, not to forget Rashad Khalidi to name another. Furthermore, his treatment of Prime Minister Netanyahu, along with his backtracking on his promise at the AIPAC meeting that "Jerusalem shall remain undivided" AND his slobbering over the Islamic world (while disgustingly insulting our allies) just adds to the proof that Barack Obama is no friend to the Jewish people.

When you look at the people who come out in support of Israel on a daily basis, what you see is that the overwhelming majority of them are conservatives. The liberal left has long ago aligned themselves with the enemies of Israel and the Jewish people. Yes, I know an exception is Pat Buchanan. But he is an exception rather than the rule. In general, if you want to read blog, or watch a talk show in support of the State of Israel, you need to read (and watch) conservative, right wing websites.

Are there liberals who support the State of Israel? Of course there are. But what Mr. Senturia wrote was not supportive of Israel. In fact, it was quite damaging because it gives Obama's treatment of Israel a cover to continue his policies, which are absolutely feckless and dangerous.

In addition to his claim that Obama stands with Israel, he also added "at home, Barack Obama is one of the greatest champions against intolerance and exclusion that this country has ever seen." Is he serious???

Since taking office, Obama has been the most divisive President in recent history. From his calling out the Cambridge Police Department, to his claim that the Arizona border laws are racist (assuming that, unlike his Attorney General and Homeland Security Secretary, he actually read the bill), he has shown a remarkable ability to divide this country even more than his predecessor.

Unfortunately, people like Harris Senturia are so blind by their ideology that they can not fathom that someone like Obama holds different values than he does. Of course, some will say that because I am a right-wing conservative, I am also blinded by ideology. But I do not see it that way. I do look and listen to the other side. But again, I will not just sit idly by while someone says, or writes something I vehemently disagree with.

Of course, one Facebook friend said I was "so angry" and that I "let someone else offer an opinion, even if you disagree"

But I didn't stop that man from stating his opinion and I'm never angry. However, I am frustrated by the condescending tone of someone telling me I'm somehow not letting anyone else have an opinion. What I have found from many of my liberal Facebook friends (and I've heard this quite a bit outside of Facebook), is this overwhelming feeling that because I do not tow the liberal line, I have to be careful what I say.

My ex-friend - the one who de-friended me - exemplified this attitude. It is condescending, it is rude and it just shows me who the intolerant ones are. Nowhere did I say Harris Senturia had no right to state his opinion. NOWHERE.

I simply stated I disagreed with him and felt he was ignorant and a self-hating Jew. Because anyone who could not only believe Obama has been good to the Jews (and shares the same values) and then write about it for all the world to see, can not truly love the Jewish people, or the State of Israel. What he is suggesting is for us to simply accept Obama's "purity" and allow him to continue to destroy this country's relationship with Israel.

Of course, this attitude is what allowed so many people to just walk into the ovens in Auschwitz. It is foolish and it is dangerous. And telling me (or anyone else on the right) to shut up and sit down is arrogant and disgusting, as well. If you don't agree with my views, that's your prerogative. You have a right to your opinions. But do not try to shame me for my having my own.

That just makes you look stupid.

More despicable views from the Obama administration, care of GWP:

Top Obama advisor John Brennan talks about his love for “al-Quds.”

John Brenna talks about his favorite city “al-Quds” and praises the Middle East for the freedom to practice your faith(?)

“I did spend time with classmates at the American University in Cairo in the 1970’s. And, time spent with classmates from Egypt, Jordan, Palestine from around the world who taught me that whatever our differences in nationality, or race, or religion, or language, there are certain aspirations that we all share. To get an education. To provide for our family. To practice our faith freely (huh?). To live in peace and security. And in a 25 year career in government, I was privileged to serve in positions across the Middle East… In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques at Mecca and Medina. I marveled at the majesty of the Hajj and the devotion of those who fulfilled their duty as Muslims by making that pilgrimage. And, in all my travels the city I have come to love most is al-Quds, Jerusalem where three great faiths come together.”

Wow, just when I thought these jackass's in the administration not only insults the State of Israel by calling Jerusalem by it's Arabic name (imagine them having the nerve to call Zimbabwe "Rhodesia" without an international scandal), but then goes on to justify the huge revisionist lie that the Arabs welcome all faiths and religions to worship freely!

I'm going to give you a little history lesson. From 1948, until the Six-Day War ended in 1967, not only were Jews forbidden from from worshiping at the Western Wall, the holiest site still standing from the Jewish Temple, they were verboten from entering Jerusalem entirely.

In a addition, anyone who is not a Muslim is also forbidden from entering Mecca and Medina (regardless if you're a Jew, or not). To make matters even more alarming (and racist), Jews are forbidden to even be in Saudi Arabia.

When Israel liberated their ancient homeland in Jerusalem, they did not follow the Arabs example and they truly opened the city to every faith on earth, including Islam. Not only that, but they allowed (and still allow) the Temple Mount, THE holiest site in Judaism, to remain under the care of the Waqf, which is the Islamic religious endowment.

In hindsight, this was, in my opinion, a huge mistake. For it gave the Muslims a belief that Jews do not care enough for their own beliefs to fight for their most sacred soil. Muslims, on the other hand, take their faith and observances far more seriously, and religiously. It is this enormous difference that gives the Muslim such a strong sense of undeserved superiority. Muslims consider Jews and Christians be be generally faithless - which in general terms is not so far off. With the rise of secularism so rampant worldwide, Islam is seemingly filling the religious void left by the secularists in Europe - and doing so in a very rapid rate.

The only reason they have yet to conquer America is precisely because - in spite of President Obama's words to the contrary - we are still a Judeo-Christian nation.

Obama only attends a Church for political gain. If his Church was a larger part of his life, he would never have thrown it under the bus, along with his pastor. True believers do not abandon their beliefs because it's politically harmful In addition, while he has attended a Church service (only one I believe) since moving to Washington, it is clear that here to it's something he has only done for the political benefit.

Secularists like Obama, and a majority of the left, see religion as passe and dangerous. Obama's own words, when he claimed we were no longer a Christian nation portrays a man who believes that secularism is the best way to move forward as a nation. However this is an extremely dangerous notion because it ignores the true underlying reason for Islamic Jihad.

Of course, based on AG Eric Holder's comments this past week, we understand now why he can not identify Islamic Jihad as being the main motivation for the Times square bomber. Holder, and by extension Obama, can not distinguish the main inducement of Islamic Jihad because they can not internally understand religion and it's motivations.

If the Obama people remain in power in this country, we will not be able to fend off the grave threat of Islamic fundamentalism. We already see what it has done to Europe - especially once Great Britain. Obama, Holder, et al, are simply leading us down the path to our own slaughter.

From Augean Stables:

The Contempt of the “Right-Thinking” Peacock Rhinos: J-Street goes after Wiesel.

Elie Wiesel published a major ad, “For Jerusalem,” in several US newspapers, prompting President Obama to meet hastily with him and reassure him that he understands the importance of Jerusalem to the Jews. Jeremy Ben-Ami of J-Street responded with his own ad featuring a counter-attack by Yossi Sarid, one of the unrepentant architects of the Oslo process, that dismissed Weisel as misinformed, misled, deceived, and, worst of all, “imbuing our current conflict with messianic hues.”

This last accusation is particularly significant. Any religious affection for Jerusalem on the part of Jews appears on J-Street’s radar as messianic attachment, and since, by J-Street’s analysis, compromise on Jerusalem is a sine qua non of achieving peace, such feelings are impediments to reaching a “rational” solution.

Now one of my greater gripes with J-Street concerns the inconsistency with which they apply their principle that pressure should be put “on both sides.” When in doubt, their motto seems to run, squeeze Israel. I am open to correction, but I am unaware of one formal position that they have taken in which Palestinian concessions are the principle target of their actions or declamations.

So here, the fact that the Muslim claim to Jerusalem is not only historically weak, but filled with messianic overtones, indeed Jihadi messianic ones, at the core of an unrestrained apocalyptic struggle, has no bearing for him.

Only the Jews should be restrained from messianic urgings; indeed they should restrain their messianic yearnings to make room for those of the Muslims. Then we’ll have peace.

Barry Rubin, in a brilliant study of Assimilation and its Discontents, pointed out how Jews, eager to succeed in the modern world, found their talent for self-denial one of their most valuable tools, and, for example, would champion any people’s liberation cause but that of their own people. J-Street steps right into the mold, and in so doing, reveals just what levels of contempt it feels for anyone whose sensibility gets in the way of their own sure-fire recipe for peace.

And what if… what if such a strategy of self-denial and sacrifice for the sake of peace ends up backfiring? The fact that J-Street would have Israel carve up its capital to make Palestinians happy, without any attention to the religious stakes for Palestinians, speaks eloquently for a perspective I think as cruel to Jews as it is unwise.

For J-Street, Palestinians need not compromise on Jerusalem as their “capital,” despite the fact that when it lay in Arab hands, Palestinians showed no interest in making it their capital. It matters not that their attachment is part and parcel of a violent and irredentist demand for Palestine from the “river to the sea” for both Fatah and Hamas. It matters not that, in their demand for control of the sacred precincts of their “third most holy city,” Muslims treat Jewish claims with dismissive contempt.

Question for Jeremy and Yossi Sarid, and all the other believers that unilateral compromise will bring peace: What if Israel’s agreement to share Jerusalem, pressured by the Obama administration, produces the opposite effect on Palestinians? What if, rather than empower the moderates to produce matching Palestinian concessions, as you seem to fervently believe, it strengthens the position of the irredentists who argue “East Jerusalem today, Palestine from the River to the Sea” tomorrow?

J-Street: Is there a plan B here?

This got me about something. Yossi Sarid was, as mentioned above, one of the architects of the Oslo Accords, which basically was the trigger to the disastrous idea of giving autonomy to the Palestinians. As history has shown us, over the past 15 years, the grave mistake of bringing in chief terrorist Yasir Arafat has proven to be the absolute worst decision the State of Israel has ever made.

Since the Accords were signed, the Palestinian Authority has renege in every single agreement, including:

1. Recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.
2. Renounce the use of terrorism and punish those who commit terror.
3. Remove those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist.

It's been over 16 years and not one of these three main points of agreement have even been attempted to be kept. Instead, Arafat (and then Abbas) launched a second Intifada, refused to remove the language in PLO charter calling for Arab control over the entire region and refrained from having a revolving door policy in the imprisonment of terrorists.

None of this, however, was really ever expected by the many Jews who fought against this folly. Most of us understood that Arafat and the POL could never be trusted. Yet Yitzchok Rabin - with tremendous pressure by President Clinton and Shimon Peres - signed this suicide pact with the modern day Hitler.

If you asked any Israeli on the street what they think of the Oslo Accords, you'll be lucky if you're not spit at. The Israeli population understands how disastrous this stupid idea was. And yet, we have to still suffer the outrageous idiocy of two people who were intricately involved in the greatest blunder in Israel's history.

Look, J-Street (to most Jews) is a joke. The only reason for it's existence is to serve as a cover for President Obama's disastrous policy regarding Israel (and by extension, the Jewish community). Like "Organizing for America," it is wholly owned by the far-left liberal end of the Jewish world. These people are nowhere near the mainstream Jewish community. But that doesn't matter to Obama. He simply uses them as his cover. If he wants to screw Israel over - which he is currently doing - he simply can say that J-Street supports his actions.

In my opinion, the tools at J-Street are modern day Korachs. He was Moses' antagonist in the desert who led the Jews to sin at the Golden Calf. While in Egypt, he had a position above the slaves because he was counted on to support the Egyptian taskmasters, at the cost of Jewish lives. Of course, when the time came for the Jews to leave, he had no desire to do so. But to the Egyptians, they just considered him a Jew and sent him packing with the rest.

The same happened during the Holocaust. A number of Jews thought they could ensure better treatment by the Nazis by telling on their fellow Jews. For a while, they were "accepted." Of course, when their services were no longer needed, they were sent to the gas chambers along with everyone else.

These are the members of today's J-Street. As long as Obama is able to use them as his cover, they will be accepted. Once he no longer needs them (perhaps when either Obama forces Israel's complete surrender, or when Obama is finally thrown out of office), they will no longer be so well received. It's a horrible shame to see Jews acting this way. Whether it be guilt or fear, they are doing more damage to Judaism than even Yasir Arafat ever did.

And anyone who still considers what Ben-Ami, or Sarid, has gospel should look inside themselves and ask whether or not they too are dangerous to their fellow Jews.