This weekend, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin delivered a stem-winder, barn-burner of a speech to the first Tea Party Convention. She spoke passionately of first principles: limited government, fiscal restraint, the Constitution. She had the crowd in the palm of her hand, but they share her views anyway. Now, however, we find that up to 80 percent of the American people share her views. According to Gallup, 78% of Americans disapprove of the liberal Congress. Remember: until new MA Senator Scott Brown was sworn in last week, Republicans could not stop anything the Democrats wanted to do. The Democrats luxuriated in their supermajorities and force-fed the American people a steady diet of Far-Left, progressive nightmares.
Recently Barack Obama observed — celebrated is not the word — his first year since taking office. Health care is a basket case. Unemployment is near 10 percent, and stuck. The Federal deficit is $1.5 trillion, and soaring. The Nobel Prize’s darling will never be Rookie of the Year.
In 1999 Hitler’s Pope by John Cornwell attacked the Vatican’s role in World War II, especially the inaction of Pope Pius XII. Within eighteen months of the hardcover publication of Hitler’s Pope Papal Sin by Garry Wills, Under His VeryWindowsby Susan Zuccotti and Constantine’s Sword by James Caroll entered the fray to discredit Pius XII.
We all blinked furiously when we read the government’s claim that the number of unemployed rose in January by 20,000 but the unemployment rate fell from 10% to 9.7%. Somebody has obviously been cooking the numbers in a most ingenious manner. On Meet the press, Alan Greenspan explains the absurdity thus:
On Easter Sunday in April, 1993, 450 prisoners, spurred on partially by Black/Muslim instigators, fomented a riot in the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville, Ohio. Their demands included: amnesty for the riot; the right to wear Muslim caps and attire; the provision of halal food; the cessation of integrated cells and the more general demands for better service, i.e. more phone calls and visitors. At the end of the eleven day riot, after nine inmates had been beaten to death and one guard strangled by the rioters, the state of Ohio agreed to review prisoner complaints and institute appropriate changes. It cost more to repair the $40 million dollars worth of damage to the prison than it had cost to build it. Over the next decade, Ohio tripled its prison budget, built twelve new prisons, hired 900 more guards and provided better medical and educational programs for its prisoners.
Let me be clear (as President Obama loves to say): After a year in office, there isn’t much for this White House to brag about foreign policy-wise, in spite of rhetorical flourishes and grandiose promises.
I just returned from Haiti with _____. We flew in at 3 AM Sunday to the scene of such incredible destruction on one side, and enormous ineptitude and criminal neglect on the other.
Day laborers in one California city are suing city officials for passing an ordinance prohibiting their standing around trying to get work, an Associated Press story said.
In my town of Vallejo, California, a city worker was attacked the other day by dozens of what appeared to be a pack of high school-aged punks and beaten to within an inch of his life.
In a townhall meeting in New Hampshire on Tuesday, President Obama made yet another laughable statement about fiscal responsibility. The most profligate spender in American history went on another lecture spree, saying with a straight face that the government needs to tighten its belt. Seriously. Perhaps he forgets that he IS the government. Or perhaps he’s just full of crap.
After nearly a year of well-intentioned efforts to develop the United States’ relationship with the People’s Republic of China, President Barack Obama isn’t so gung-ho anymore - and ties are taking a downturn.
“Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t.”–Barack Obama, State of the Union, Jan. 27, 2010
For the past year we were ruled by a single party, the Democratic one. We have a Democratic president with a veto proof Democratic Congress. The result? Massive economic harm. Blaming Republicans is absurd but clearly Tom Friedman believes in the BIG LIE and so did many pundits this past Sunday. He writes:
For the past eight years, I’ve had a brochure from the Talland Bay Hotel, in Cornwall on the southern coast of England, floating around in the slurry of papers on my desk. Every so often, it’ll bob to the surface and I’ll notice it and think, “I’ve got to get that in the newspaper somehow.” But the opportunity is never right.
Among the most frustrating elements of the new war against the Jews, has been the complicity of many organizations that pretend to be protecting human rights.
I’ve been closely following the antics of Patrick Byrne, CEO of a Utah-based internet retailer called Overstock.com. Overstock is mainly known for bad service, junky products and restocking charges if you try to send back their crud. To the media it is known for two things: accounting fraud and a company-financed smear campaign.
Even as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared the Jews ready to face the new Amelek, that foe is making itself increasingly obvious in more and more places.
There is a show on cable TV’s Discovery Channel that has me thinking about the best way to reform government. It’s called “Dirty Jobs” and the premise is simple: in each episode, host Mike Rowe endeavors to perform a job so unpleasant that most people wouldn’t want to do it if their livelihoods–or their lives–depended on it.
I read a news story this morning that made me choke on my breakfast. As a human being and one who is concerned about other people it made me nervous. As the father of a daughter, I felt my heart in my throat…
I’d like a nickel for every Massachusetts Democrat who, after seeing Scott Brown win “Ted Kennedy’s seat,” said or thought to themselves, “I don’t understand it. Everyone I know voted for Martha Coakley.”
Buried deep in an AP story about Israel demanding a precautionary presence in part of the West Bank in any agreement reached with the Palestinians, was a little news nugget capable of torpedoing Israel’s relationship with the United States.
According to the Associated Press story, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has proposed the Obama administration negotiate the final borders of a Palestinian state with Israel on the Palestinian’s behalf.
“Such a proxy arrangement could provide a way around the current deadlock over reviving Israeli-Palestinian talks, which broke off more than a year ago,” the story notes. “As an alternative, U.S. officials could replace Palestinian negotiators in border talks with Israel, said an Abbas aide.”
This tells me the Palestinians are pretty sure whose side the United States President is on — so much so that they’re willing to let him do their bargaining on their country’s final borders for them.
Abbas evidently made the proposal in recent meetings with Egyptian officials who passed the idea along to Washington, the story said. It was not clear how the Americans reacted, according to the story.
I find chilling the fact the Palestinian officials are so confident of Barack Obama’s advocacy.
Such an arrangement would seem, by it’s nature, to pit Israel against the United States.
It would put Israel in the position of risking its historically close alliance with the U.S. if it failed to agree to some proposal the U.S. put forward on the Palestinians’ behalf.
I can’t see that working out well for Israel on any level.
Some of us may have underestimated Abbas’ cunning. What a clever way to try to undermine the main international relationship helping ensure the Jewish state’s survival.
If the United States were to agree to such an arrangement, Israeli officials would be in the position of having either to accept the idea, which would jeopardize the relationship between the two longtime allies, or reject it, and I’m not sure how they diplomatically do that.
On the other hand, were the U.S. to accept such a suggestion — to act on behalf of the Palestinians — it may not matter, anyway, because all pretense of neutrality will have flown out the window.