Bear To The Right

ABC Becomes the White House Network

2009-06-17T00:23:00.000-07:00

Relations between ABC News and President Obama are being criticized as becoming too intimate, as the network announced it would produce a prime-time broadcast on June 24th from the White House that includes questions solicited from viewers without equal time for the Republican point of view.

Media credibility and fairness are at issue, with waggish bloggers renaming ABC the "All Barack Channel."

At issue is "Prescription for America," a live, one-hour special to be moderated by ABC's Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer, set to air at 10 p.m. June 24 from the East Room. Even before that prime-time hour, Ms. Sawyer will have interviewed Mr. Obama on "Good Morning America," and Mr. Gibson will have anchored "World News Tonight" from the White House's Blue Room.

Media watchdogs doubted the show would be balanced, and the Republican National Committee was officially irked.

ABC has informed the Republican National Committee that they will not broadcast the Republican Health Care Plan so that the audience can compare the two and make an informed decision.

The following is a letter written to ABC by Ken McKay, Chief of Staff of the RNC:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform "town hall" at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC's web news "will all feature special programming on the president's health care agenda." This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president's health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

ABC's response follows:

June 16, 2009

Mr. Ken McKay
Chief of Staff
Republican National Committee
310 First Street SE
Washington, D.C. 20003

Dear Mr. McKay:

I am in receipt of your letter of June 15, 2009 and wanted to respond to a number of false premises you raise regarding our ongoing and upcoming coverage of health care.
I hope we can all agree that a robust debate of health care issues and potential policies is in order.

To that end, ABC News announced plans to broadcast a primetime hour from the White House devoted to exploring and probing the President's position and the giving voice to questions and criticisms of that position. We hope that any American concerned about health care will find our efforts to be informative, fair and civil.

Second, ABC News prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABC News is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue. ABC News alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience.

Third, there already has been extensive coverage of the upcoming health care debates, on ABC and elsewhere, and there will be much, much more. Indeed, we've already had many critics of the President's health care proposals on the air â€“ and that's before a real plan has even been put before the country.
In the end, no one watching, listening to, or reading ABC News will lack for an understanding of all sides of these important questions.

Thank you for your interest.

Kerry Smith
SVP, ABC News

Not only is the White House controlling American business, but now the media is only permitting one side of an issue to be broadcast because of White House control of ABC.

No Words Will Suffice to Describe This

2009-06-11T11:39:00.000-07:00

This is a hearing on May 5, 2009 of a committee of the House of Representatives looking into oversight of the Federal Reserve and seeking an explanation for the large and sudden expansion of the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve. The Congressman asking the questions is Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson. He is questioning Elizabeth Coleman, Inspector General of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Watch it and despair. A clear example of why Government is not the answer.

Technorati Tags: Federal Reserve,Transparency,Government Incompetence

Obama Using the Settlement Issue to Force Israel's Hand

2009-06-08T12:50:00.000-07:00

Stratfor Global Intelligence gives an important analysis of why Obama is using the settlements issue. In reality, if Israel stopped building settlements, or, in fact, if it withdrew from all existing settlements, the attitude of Hamas, Hizbollah, Fatah, or the other Arab countries toward Israel would not change.

Israel is a bastion of democracy and capitalism, where the practice of all religions are welcomed, and is surrounded by countries ruled by dictators or terrorist groups who want Israel's destruction and do not welcome Jews. One might wonder, as I did, why Obama is making an issue of the settlements when they aren't the issue?

Stratfor answers that question.

Amid the rhetoric of U.S. President Barack Obama’s speech June 4 in Cairo, there was one substantial indication of change, not in the U.S. relationship to the Islamic world but in the U.S. relationship to Israel. This shift actually emerged prior to the speech, and the speech merely touched on it. But it is not a minor change and it must not be underestimated. It has every opportunity of growing into a major breach between Israel and the United States.

The immediate issue concerns Israeli settlements on the West Bank. The United States has long expressed opposition to increasing settlements but has not moved much beyond rhetoric. Certainly the continued expansion and development of new settlements on the West Bank did not cause prior administrations to shift their policies toward Israel. And while the Israelis have occasionally modified their policies, they have continued to build settlements. The basic understanding between the two sides has been that the United States would oppose settlements formally but that this would not evolve into a fundamental disagreement.

The United States has clearly decided to change the game. Obama has said that, “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has agreed to stop building new settlements, but not to halt what he called the “natural growth” of existing settlements.

Obama has positioned the settlement issue in such a way that it would be difficult for him to back down. He has repeated it several times, including in his speech to the Islamic world. It is an issue on which he is simply following the formal positions of prior administrations. It is an issue on which prior Israeli governments made commitments. What Obama has done is restated formal U.S. policy, on which there are prior Israeli agreements, and demanded Israeli compliance. Given his initiative in the Islamic world, Obama, having elevated the issue to this level, is going to have problems backing off.

Obama is also aware that Netanyahu is not in a political position to comply with the demand, even if he were inclined to. Netanyahu is leading a patchwork coalition in which support from the right is critical. For the Israeli right, settling in what it calls Samaria and Judea is a fundamental principle on which it cannot bend. Unlike Ariel Sharon, a man of the right who was politically powerful, Netanyahu is a man of the right who is politically weak. Netanyahu gave all he could give on this issue when he said there would be no new settlements created. Netanyahu doesn’t have the political ability to give Obama what he is demanding. Netanyahu is locked into place, unless he wants to try to restructure his Cabinet or persuade people like Avigdor Lieberman, his right-wing foreign minister, to change their fundamental view of the world.

Therefore, Obama has decided to create a crisis with Israel. He has chosen a subject on which Republican and Democratic administrations have had the same formal position. He has also picked a subject that does not affect Israeli national security in any immediate sense (he has not made demands for changes of policy toward Gaza, for example). Obama struck at an issue where he had precedent on his side, and where Israel’s immediate safety is not at stake. He also picked an issue on which he would have substantial support in the United States, and he has done this to have a symbolic showdown with Israel. The more Netanyahu resists, the more Obama gets what he wants.

Obama’s read of the Arab-Israeli situation is that it is not insoluble. He believes in the two-state solution, for better or worse. In order to institute the two-state solution, Obama must establish the principle that the West Bank is Palestinian territory by right and not Israeli territory on which the Israelis might make concessions. The settlements issue is fundamental to establishing this principle. Israel has previously agreed both to the two-state solution and to not expanding settlements. If Obama can force Netanyahu to concede on the settlements issue, then he will break the back of the Israeli right and open the door to a rightist-negotiated settlement of the two-state solution.

In the course of all of this, Obama is opening doors in the Islamic world a little wider by demonstrating that the United States is prepared to force Israel to make concessions. By subtext, he wants to drive home the idea that Israel does not control U.S. policy but that, in fact, Israel and the United States are two separate countries with different and sometimes conflicting views. Obama wouldn’t mind an open battle on the settlements one bit.

For Netanyahu, this is the worst terrain on which to fight. If he could have gotten Obama to attack by demanding that Israel not respond to missiles launched from Gaza or Lebanon, Netanyahu would have had the upper hand in the United States. Israel has support in the United States and in Congress, and any action that would appear to leave Israel’s security at risk would trigger an instant strengthening of that support.

But there is not much support in the United States for settlements on the West Bank. This is not a subject around which Israel’s supporters are going to rally very intensely, in large part because there is substantial support for a two-state solution and very little understanding or sympathy for the historic claim of Jews to Judea and Samaria. Obama has picked a topic on which he has political room for maneuver and on which Netanyahu is politically locked in.

Given that, the question is where Obama is going with this. From Obama’s point of view, he wins no matter what Netanyahu decides to do. If Netanyahu gives in, then he has established the principle that the United States can demand concessions from a Likud-controlled government in Israel and get them. There will be more demands. If Netanyahu doesn’t give in, Obama can create a split with Israel over the one issue he can get public support for in the United States (a halt to settlement expansion in the West Bank), and use that split as a lever with Islamic states.

Thus, the question is what Netanyahu is going to do. His best move is to say that this is just a disagreement between friends and assume that the rest of the U.S.-Israeli relationship is intact, from aid to technology transfer to intelligence sharing. That’s where Obama is going to have to make his decision. He has elevated the issue to the forefront of U.S.-Israeli relations. The Israelis have refused to comply. If Obama proceeds with the relationship as if nothing has happened, then he is back where he began.

Obama did not start this confrontation to wind up there. He calculated carefully when he raised this issue and knew perfectly well that Netanyahu couldn’t make concessions on it, so he had to have known that he was going to come to this point. Obviously, he could have made this confrontation as a part of his initiative to the Islamic world. But it is unlikely that he saw that initiative as ending with the speech, and he understands that, for the Islamic world, his relation to Israel is important. Even Islamic countries not warmly inclined toward Palestinians, like Jordan or Egypt, don’t want the United States to back off on this issue.

Netanyahu has argued in the past that Israel’s relationship to the United States was not as important to Israel as it once was. U.S. aid as a percentage of Israel’s gross domestic product has plunged. Israel is not facing powerful states, and it is not facing a situation like 1973, when Israeli survival depended on aid being rushed in from the United States. The technology transfer now runs both ways, and the United States relies on Israeli intelligence quite a bit. In other words, over the past generation, Israel has moved from a dependent relationship with the United States to one of mutual dependence.

This is very much Netanyahu’s point of view, and from this point of view follows the idea that he might simply say no to the United States on the settlements issue and live easily with the consequences. The weakness in this argument is that, while Israel does not now face strategic issues it can’t handle, it could in the future. Indeed, while Netanyahu is urging action on Iran, he knows that action is impossible without U.S. involvement.

This leads to a political problem. As much as the right would like to blow off the United States, the center and the left would be appalled. For Israel, the United States has been the centerpiece of the national psyche since 1967. A breach with the United States would create a massive crisis on the left and could well bring the government down if Ehud Barak and his Labor Party, for example, bolted from the ruling coalition. Netanyahu’s problem is the problem Israel has continually had. It is a politically fragmented country, and there is never an Israeli government that does not consist of fragments. A government that contains Lieberman and Barak is not one likely to be able to make bold moves.

It is therefore difficult to see how Netanyahu can both deal with Obama and hold his government together. It is even harder to see how Obama can reduce the pressure. Indeed, we would expect to see him increase the pressure by suspending minor exchanges and programs. Obama is playing to the Israeli center and left, who would oppose any breach with the United States.

Obama has the strong hand and the options. Netanyahu has the weak hand and fewer options. It is hard to see how he will solve the problem. And that’s what Obama wants. He wants Netanyahu struggling with the problem. In the end, he wants Netanyahu to fold on the settlements issue and keep on folding until he presides over a political settlement with the Palestinians. Obama wants Netanyahu and the right to be responsible for the agreement, as Menachem Begin was responsible for the treaty with Egypt and withdrawal from the Sinai.

We find it difficult to imagine how a two-state solution would work, but that concept is at the heart of U.S. policy and Obama wants the victory. He has put into motion processes to create that solution, first of all, by backing Netanyahu into a corner. Left out of Obama’s equation is the Palestinian interest, willingness and ability to reach a treaty with Israel, but from Obama’s point of view, if the Palestinians reject or undermine an agreement, he will still have leverage in the Islamic world. Right now, given Iraq and Afghanistan, that is where he wants leverage, and backing Netanyahu into a corner is more important than where it all leads in the end.

Obama is determined to force Israel to make concessions to create a Palestinian state next to Israel. He is using the one issue he is likely to win on, because there is little support in the US, even among many Jews, for the settlements. Israel will be forced by Obama to subject itself to having its existential security at risk every day.

Many of us predicted that Obama would not be a supporter of Israel and that Jews who supported Obama for President would find that he was likely to undermine the security of Israel. Unfortunately, many American Jews had their eyes clouded over for many reasons discussed in prior posts. It is now clear that the security of Israel is being placed in jeopardy by the Obama administration.

Prior related posts:
Israel Will be Thrown Under the Bus
Arabs Defend Israel Against American Administration
Obama: No Ally to Israel
Obama: No Friend of Israel
American Jews are in Denial
Can Jews Afford To "Roll the Dice" on Obama?
Morris: American Jews Misguided
Jackson Confirms Jewish Community Concerns About Obama
Foreign Policy is Reason to Vote McCain
The Jewish Case Against Barack Obama
Obama, McCain and Israel’s National Security
The Obama Voter – Not This Jew

Technorati Tags: Obama Cairo Speech,Israel,Settlements,Middle East

Dennis Prager: The American Trinity

2009-05-24T11:59:00.000-07:00

An important 5 minutes to understand American values:

An Important Day For California

2009-05-20T09:07:00.000-07:00

News Release from the Republican Party of Los Angeles County:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Los Angeles County Defeats Propositions 1A-1E
and Elects Tina Park, Carmen Trutanich

Strong Message Sent to State Government

Los Angeles, CA - May 20, 2009 - Los Angeles County sent a clear message to state legislators in yesterday's election. Strongly rejecting a contrived budget remedy that did little to curtail runaway spending and sought to further burden Californians with an additional $16 Billion in taxes in Propositions 1A-1E.

Voters soundly rejected the legislation, saying enough is enough, go back to the drawing board, and implement real fiscal strategies for a better future, not gimmicks that do not address the systemic problems that plague us year after year. Chair of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County, Jane Barnett said; "Today we relish a small victory for all taxpayers of the State of California. Now our legislature must exercise the same restraints they ask of you, me and our families." Chair Barnett said, "We cannot spend money we don't have." A good lesson for all forms of Government.

In other races, Carmen "Nuch" Trutanich won his race for City Attorney of Los Angeles defeating a Villaraigosa-endorsed Democrat, Jack Weiss.

In addition, Tina Park handily won her race defeating Democrat-incumbent Angela Reddock for the Community College Board of Trustees, Seat #2.

Jane Barnett says; "We expect that Tina will be vigilant, assuring that recent Prop J bond monies are not wasted like previous taxpayer dollars spent by the Community College Board. "

Press Contact:
Ashley Ingram
Executive Director
(818)277-1563
ashleyingram@lagop.org

U.S. Unemployment Rate Nearly 16%

2009-05-11T11:42:00.000-07:00

The actual U.S. Unemployment Rate as of this morning is 15.8%

Read details in the Washington Post here.

Israel Will be Thrown Under the Bus

2009-05-08T14:24:00.000-07:00

From Richard Baehr's Israel-Letter:

How bad will it get for Israel? Very bad.

Four commentaries below from Caroline Glick, Victor Davis Hanson, Melanie Phillips and Charles Krauthammer explain why. We are headed, I think, for the most serious breach in US Israel relations in history.

President Obama has legitimized the left wing Jewish "peace" camp"- groups like J-Street, the Israel Policy Forum, and Brit Tsedek, that want pressure on Israel, and conflict between Israel and the US. The Jewish left believes Israel is in the wrong, and so does Obama. Of course, many on the Jewish left couldn't care less about Israel. But those on the Jewish left who do care (and are negative about Israel) will be cheerleading when Obama starts publicly pressuring Israel, and this will make it easier for the rest of Obama's many millions of supporters to do the same.

Obama threatened Chrysler bondholders that he would use his bully pulpit to humiliate them if they did not buy into his plan which took the bondholders money and gave it to the UAW. It is a lesson for what is going to happen here.

For some time, it could have been argued that the two parties differed by degree when it came to Israel. No more. Now the differences are stark, especially as represented by the President versus Republicans in Congress. There are Israel supporters in the Senate and House who are Democrats. Will they take on a very popular President of their own Party on this issue? I can name a few who will be there, but I am not sure how many will answer the call. I think some will back Obama and give him even greater room to hammer Netanyahu.

As if the President has not had enough Muslim outreach for 4 months, he will give another talk to the Muslim world from Egypt on June 6. Then he is going on to Buchenwald. Makes sense. I am sure you can draw the connection for modern times. Obama's outreach partners he will speak to from Cairo, by and large want Jews in graves. Obama's policies will make it more likely they will get their wish fulfilled by endangering Israel's security. Chatting with Iran while they complete their nuclear program, and sacrificing Israel's security to create a Palestinian state are both very bad ideas and create a serious danger for Israel from an American government.

Obama's Green Light to Attack Iran
By Caroline Glick
Excerpt:

Arctic winds are blowing into Jerusalem from Washington these days. As Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's May 18 visit to Washington fast approaches, the Obama administration is ratcheting up its anti-Israel rhetoric and working feverishly to force Israel into a corner.

The Wages of Moral Equivalence
By Victor David Hanson
Excerpt:

Once U.S. foreign policy is based on moral equivalence — that a Western democratic state is about the same as an undemocratic, radical authoritarian entity that embraces terrorism as a tool of state policy — then anything is possible, from calling for Israeli nuclear disarmament as part of an Iranian deal, to pretending that a Hamas ten-year truce is something other than a decade of chest-thumping before the final assault.

Given the fact that the vast majority of American Jews voted for Obama — despite clear indications that he would embrace radical changes in U.S. policy toward Israel — the politics of what is to come will be as fascinating as they will be tragic.

Obama Prepares to Throw Israel Under the Bus
By Melanie Phillips
Excerpt:

None of this, however, should come as the slightest surprise to anyone who paid any attention to Obama’s background, associations and friendships before he became President and to the cabal of Israel-bashers, appeasers and Jew-haters he appointed to his administration, with a few useful idiots thrown in for plausible deniability.

Almost eighty per cent of American Jews voted for Obama despite the clear and present danger he posed to Israel. They did so because their liberal self-image was and is more important to them than the Jewish state whose existence and security cannot be allowed to jeopardise their standing with America’s elite.

But the ordinary American people are a different matter. They do value and support Israel. They do understand that if Israel is thrown under that bus, the west is next. And it is they to whom Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu must now appeal, over the heads of the politicians and the media and America’s Jews and everyone else. He must tell the American people the terrible truth, that America is now run by a man who is intent on sacrificing Israel for a reckless and amoral political strategy which will put America and the rest of the free world at risk.

The Hamas Peace Gambit
By Charles Krauthammer
Excerpt:

Netanyahu is reluctant to agree to a Palestinian state before he knows what kind of state it will be. That elementary prudence should be shared by anyone who's been sentient the last three years. The Palestinians already have a state, an independent territory with not an Israeli settler or soldier living on it. It's called Gaza. And what is it? A terror base, Islamist in nature, Iranian-allied, militant and aggressive, that has fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortars at Israeli civilians.

If this is what a West Bank state is going to be, it would be madness for Israel or America or Jordan or Egypt or any other moderate Arab country to accept such a two-state solution. Which is why Netanyahu insists that the Palestinian Authority first build institutions -- social, economic and military -- to anchor a state that could actually carry out its responsibilities to keep the peace.

While I think Richard is right that American Jews on the left don't really care about Israel, I think many Jews who do care and voted for Obama are going to realize that by doing so they too threw Israel under the bus.

Previous Related posts:
Arabs Defend Israel Against American Administration
Obama: No Ally to Israel
Obama: No Friend of Israel
American Jews are in Denial
Can Jews Afford To "Roll the Dice" on Obama?
Morris: American Jews Misguided
Jackson Confirms Jewish Community Concerns About Obama
Foreign Policy is Reason to Vote McCain
The Jewish Case Against Barack Obama
Obama, McCain and Israel’s National Security
The Obama Voter – Not This Jew

Arabs Defend Israel Against American Administration

2009-04-28T10:42:00.000-07:00

Miracles continue to happen in the Holy Land. Of course, when it comes to survival, Arabs know who to look to for protection.

Caroline Glick, writing in the Jerusalem Post, says:

It is a strange situation when Egypt and Jordan feel it necessary to defend Israel against American criticism. But this is the situation in which we find ourselves today.

Last Friday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee that Arab support for Israel's bid to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is contingent on its agreeing to support the rapid establishment of a Palestinian state. In her words, "For Israel to get the kind of strong support it's looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can't stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts." As far as Clinton is concerned, the two, "go hand-in-hand."

But just around the time that Clinton was making this statement, Jordan's King Abdullah II was telling The Washington Post that he is satisfied with the Netanyahu government's position on the Palestinians. In his words, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has "sent a message that he's committed to peace with the Arabs. All the words I heard were the right words."

As for Egypt, in spite of the media's hysteria that Egypt won't deal with the Netanyahu government and the Obama administration's warning that Israel can only expect Egypt to support its position that Iran must be denied nuclear weapons if it gives Jerusalem to the PLO, last week's visit by Egypt's intelligence chief Omar Suleiman clearly demonstrated that Egypt wishes to work with the government on a whole host of issues. Coming as it did on the heels of Egypt's revelation that Iranian-controlled Hizbullah agents were arrested for planning strategic attacks against it, Suleiman's visit was a clear sign that Egypt is as keen as Israel to neutralize Iranian power in the region by preventing it from acquiring nuclear weapons.

And Egypt and Jordan are not alone in supporting Israel's commitment to preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. American and other Western sources who have visited the Persian Gulf in recent months report that leaders of the Gulf states from Bahrain - which Iran refers to as its 14th province - to Saudi Arabia to Kuwait and, of course, to Iraq - are praying for Israel to strike Iran's nuclear facilities and only complain that it has waited so long to attack them.

As one American who recently met with Persian Gulf leaders explained last week, "As far as the Gulf leaders are concerned, Israel cannot attack Iran fast enough. They understand what the stakes are."

UNFORTUNATELY, THE nature of those stakes has clearly eluded the Obama administration. As the Arabs line up behind Israel, the Obama administration is operating under the delusion that the Iranians will be convinced to give up their nuclear program if Israel destroys its communities in Judea and Samaria.

According to reports published last week in Yediot Aharonot and Haaretz, President Barack Obama's in-house post-Zionist, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, told an American Jewish leader that for Israel to receive the administration's support for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it must not only say that it supports establishing a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and Gaza, it must begin expelling its citizens from their homes and communities in Judea and Samaria to prove its good faith.

Many of us warned American Jews prior to the election that an Obama administration would create danger for Israel. American Jews were so enthralled with electing an African-American President so they could assuage their guilt and could show that they were not racist, that they wouldn't believe that an Obama Administration might not be good for Israel.

More from Glick:

With just months separating Iran from either joining the nuclear club or from being barred entry to the clubhouse, the Obama administration's apparent obsession with Judea and Samaria tells us that unlike Israel and the Arab world, its Middle East policies are based on a willful denial of reality.

The cold hard facts are that the Middle East will be a very different place if Iran becomes a nuclear power. Today American policy-makers and other opponents of using military force to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons compare the current situation to what the region could look like in the aftermath of an Israeli campaign against Iran's nuclear installations. They warn that Hizbullah and Hamas may launch massive retaliatory missile attacks against Israel, Egypt, Jordan and other states, and that US military personnel and installations in the region will likely be similarly attacked by Iranian and Syrian proxies.

Indeed, proponents and opponents of an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear installations alike warn that Iran's deployment of terror proxies from Beirut to Bolivia, from Managua to Marseilles, and from Gaza to Giza means that things could get very ugly worldwide in the aftermath of an Israeli attack.

But all of that ugliness, all of that instability and death will look like a walk in the park compared to how the region - and indeed how the world - will look if Iran becomes a nuclear power. This is something that the Arabs understand. And this is why they support and pray for an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear installations.

IF IRAN acquires nuclear weapons, the Obama administration can throw its hopes for Middle East peace out the window. Today, even without nuclear weapons, Iran is the major force behind the continued Palestinian war against Israel. Iran exerts complete control over Hamas and Islamic Jihad and partial control over Fatah.

In and of itself, Iran's current control over Palestinian terror groups suffices to expose the Obama administration's plan to force Israel to destroy its communities in Judea and Samaria as misguided in the extreme. With Iran calling the shots for the Palestinians, it is clear that any land Israel vacates will fall under Iranian control. That is, every concession the US forces Israel to make will redound directly to Iran's benefit. This is why Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's claim that it will be impossible to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians without first neutralizing Iran rings so true.

The Obama Administration is totally clueless about the mentality of the Middle East. Their naivete, ignorance and inexperience will cause the deaths of many people in the region, most of whom will likely be Israelis.

Glick concludes by describing what will happen to the world if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. You can read the whole article for that information, but here is what she says about America.

Finally, there is America. With Israel either barely surviving or destroyed, with the Arab world and Europe bowing before the mullahs, with much of Central and South America fully integrated into the Iranian axis, America would arguably find itself at greater risk of economic destruction and catastrophic attack than at any time in its history since the War of 1812. An EMP attack that could potentially send the US back to the pre-industrial age would become a real possibility. An Iranian controlled oil economy, financed by euros, would threaten to displace the dollar and the US economy as the backbone of the global economy. The US's military options - particularly given Obama's stated intention to all but end US missile defense programs and scrap much of its already aging nuclear arsenal - would be more apparent than real.

Yet what Clinton's statements before Congress, Emmanuel's statements to that American Jewish leader and Obama's unremitting pandering to Teheran and its Syrian and Turkish allies all make clear is that none of these reasonable scenarios has made a dent in the administration's thinking. As far as the Obama White House is concerned, Iran will be talked out of its plans for regional and global domination the minute that Israel agrees to give its land to the Palestinians. The fact that no evidence exists that could possibly support this assertion is irrelevant.

On Sunday, Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland claimed that Obama will not publish his administration's policy on Iran until after he meets with Netanyahu at the White House on May 18. It will be during that meeting, Hoagland wrote, that Obama will seek to convince Netanyahu that there is no reason to attack Iran.

The fact that Obama could even raise such an argument, when by Israel's calculations Iran will either become a nuclear power or be denied nuclear weapons within the next 180 days, shows that his arguments are based on a denial of the danger a nuclear Iran poses to Israel and to global security as a whole.

It is true that you can't help but get a funny feeling when you see the Arabs defending Israel from American criticism. But with the Obama administration's Middle East policy firmly grounded in La La Land, what choice do they have? They understand that today all that stands between them and enslavement to the mullahs is the Israel Air Force and Binyamin Netanyahu's courage.

One wonders at what point American Jews will realize that they made a catastrophic mistake in electing Barak Obama to the Presidency.

Previous Related posts:
Obama: No Ally to Israel
Obama: No Friend of Israel
American Jews are in Denial
Can Jews Afford To "Roll the Dice" on Obama?
Morris: American Jews Misguided
Jackson Confirms Jewish Community Concerns About Obama
Foreign Policy is Reason to Vote McCain
The Jewish Case Against Barack Obama
Obama, McCain and Israel’s National Security
The Obama Voter – Not This Jew

A Scary Rightwing Extremist

2009-04-14T18:32:00.000-07:00

Here is one of those scary rightwing extremists that the Department of Homeland Security is warning us about here.

(Photo courtesy of Gateway Pundit

Limited Government and the Tenth Amendment

2009-04-11T16:02:00.000-07:00

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution, consisting of just 28 words, reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is one of the most important amendments to the Constitution. Our Founders were concerned that a Federal Government that did not have limitations would become too powerful, which would lead to an oppressive national goverment and weaken the rights of the States and the people. That is exactly what has happened.

The 10th Amendment, called the Enumerated Powers Amendment, states that only those powers specifically delegated to the Federal Government in the Constitution are the powers it has, and all others are reserved either to the States or to the people.

For 70 years the Federal Government has expanded its powers far beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. One example: The Department of Education. The Federal Government has no Constitutional authority for regulating education. Not only is it not a power enumerated in the Constitution, but education is clearly an area best administered by the States, or the people (parents).

There are many such examples of the unconstitutional overreach of the Federal Government.

H.R. 450, introduced by Republican John Shadegg (R. AZ) and 15 others requires any Act of Congress to contain an explanation of which enumerated power in the Constitution gives the authority for that act. Excerpt:

'Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. The availability of this point of order does not affect any other available relief.'

Write to all members of the House of Representatives, especially your own, and urge them to vote for H.R. 450. It is a major deterrent to the unprecedented expansion of the Federal Government.

Urge Congressmen to vote YES on H.R. 450.

Legislative Alert: SB 773 and SB 778

2009-04-11T15:58:00.000-07:00

Obama to Control the Internet?

Senate bills No. 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., are both part of what's being called the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which would create a new Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, reportable directly to the president and charged with defending the country from cyber attack.

I have a copy of a working draft of the legislation. It spells out plans to grant the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be critical to the nation's infrastructure "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."

There are three areas where we need to be very concerned, and where it seems to me there might be violations of the Constitution:

* First, the White House, through the national cybersecurity advisor, shall have the authority to disconnect "critical infrastructure" networks from the Internet - including private citizens' banks and health records, if Rockefeller's examples are accurate - if they are found to be at risk of cyber attack. The working copy of the bill, however, does not define what constitutes a cybersecurity emergency, and apparently leaves the question to the discretion of the president.
* Second, the bill establishes the Department of Commerce as "the clearinghouse of cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information," including the monitoring of private information networks deemed a part of the "critical infrastructure."
* Third, the legislation proposes implementation of a professional licensing program for certifying who can serve as a cybersecurity professional.

In layman's terms, what this means is that the White House will have the power to shut down the internet if there is a "cybersecurity emergency." A cybersecurity emergency isn't defined and is left to the discretion of the President. Which means that whenever there is information coming across the internet that is unfavorable to the President, he would have the power to declare a "cybersecurity emergency."

This is a very dangerous power to give to the President and the Administration. Having the power to control the internet is a way for the Party in power to control free speech, under the guise of declaring a cybersecurity emergency.

The internet is the only way that we can freely disseminate information. We can't do it through the mainstream media. If we give control of the internet to the government, free speech, and our ability to communicate our message can be totally stifled in this country.

Urge your Senators, and others, to vote NO on S.B. 773 and S.B. 778.

Obama Appeals to Moderate Pirate Community

2009-04-11T12:13:00.000-07:00

Exurban League has the info.

Excerpt:

For too long, America has been too dismissive of the proud culture and invaluable contributions of the Pirate Community. Whether it is their pioneering work with prosthetics, husbandry of tropical birds or fanciful fashion sense, America owes a deep debt to Pirates.

The Global Financial Meltdown Did Not Start in the U.S.

2009-04-09T08:28:00.000-07:00

Alan Reynolds in an article on the Cato Institute site concludes that President Obama, and other G-20 leaders, have it wrong.

At the recent meeting of G-20 nations in London, officials from many nations agreed on one thing -- that the United States is to blame for the world recession. President Obama agreed, speaking in Strasbourg of "the reckless speculation of bankers that has now fueled a global economic downturn."

The article shows that the recession did not start in the U.S., and that the speculation of bankers was not the cause of the recession or the financial meltdown.

Instead, he lays the blame for the global meltdown at the feet of the oil cartel, and the price of petroleum.

What really triggered this recession should be obvious, since the same thing happened before every other postwar US recession save one (1960).

In 1983, economist James Hamilton of the University of California at San Diego showed that "all but one of the US recessions since World War Two have been preceded, typically with a lag of around three-fourths of a year, by a dramatic increase in the price of crude petroleum." The years 1946 to 2007 saw 10 dramatic spikes in the price of oil -- each of which was soon followed by recession.

In The Financial Times on Jan. 3, 2008, I therefore suggested, "The US economy is likely to slip into recession because of higher energy costs alone, regardless of what the Fed does."

In a new paper at cato.org, "Financial Crisis and Public Policy," Jagadeesh Gokhale notes that the prolonged decline in exurban housing construction that began in early 2006 was a logical response to rising prices of oil and gasoline at that time. So was the equally prolonged decline in sales of gas-guzzling vehicles. And the US/UK financial crises in the fall of 2008 were likewise as much a consequence of recession as the cause: Recessions turn good loans into bad.

The recession began in late 2007 or early 2008 in many countries, with the United States one of the least affected. Countries with the deepest recessions have no believable connection to US housing or banking problems.

The truth is much simpler: There is no way the oil-importing economies could have kept humming along with oil prices of $100 a barrel, much less $145. Like nearly every other recession of the postwar period, this one was triggered by a literally unbearable increase in the price of oil.

Read the complete article.

America is Not a Democracy

2009-03-30T22:37:00.000-07:00

This is an important video for all Americans to watch. It takes 10 minutes, but well worth the time.

Obama Administration Clueless on Economy

2009-03-29T17:52:00.000-07:00

Jim Rogers, Investor, Trader and Financial Commentator says that Tim Geithner and the Obama administration are dealing with the failing economy all wrong. They are taking the wrong steps to turn the economy around. Listen to Jim Rogers explain:

Obama: No Ally to Israel

2009-03-29T17:23:00.000-07:00

Representative, Adam Hasner (R-FL) wrote an article published in the American Thinker about how Obama talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk of support for Israel:

Barely a month into the presidency of Barack Obama, a profound realization is spreading among the pro-Israel community: we do not have an ally in the White House. The growing threat that Israel and the Jewish People now face demands an immediate acceptance of the "facts on the ground" regarding President Obama's perspective and agenda, and decisive action to prevent the frightening reality that he may play a leading role in creating.

So how exactly did this get by most Jewish voters during last year's election? While some, including this author, warned of his dubious associations and likely course of action regarding Israel, Obama brilliantly pandered to Jewish crowds around the country with his scripted and amorphous proclamations of support for Israel, while utilizing an array of prominent Jewish surrogates in order to avoid any real accountability.

Under the new Obama administration, our federal government is now beginning to comfortably operate within the realm of the anti-Israel perspective espoused by the likes of Mearsheimer and Walt, who argue that the political clout of American Jews is used to manipulate U.S. foreign policy in favor of Israel at the expense of broader American interests. On one hand, President Obama receives advice on Israel, Iran and the entire Middle East from advisors such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samantha Power, and Chas Freeman, all of whom possess strong anti-Israel biases that are well documented. Freeman, whose nomination to a top intelligence post faces growing criticism, was quoted as saying "the primary reason America confronts a terrorism problem today... is the brutal oppression of the Palestinians by an Israeli occupation." As if that were not bad enough, even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is apparently now joining the fray with her recent remarks intended to unduly pressure Israel.

On the other hand, there is also a faction of prominent Jewish politicians who don't seem willing to speak out against the President's judgment or the actions we are now witnessing. While allowing President Obama to tout their Jewish identities for political gain, these politicians are also helping the Administration to confer mainstream status and legitimacy upon treacherous new Jewish agencies like J-Street, whose vision for Israel more readily identifies with that of her enemies. Combined, the forces at work within the Executive branch are helping to create conditions that will allow President Obama to force dangerous concessions upon Israel.

The policies put forth by President Obama during his first 30 days in office paint a disturbing picture as well. In light of his first Presidential news interview having been granted to the Al-Arabia television network, his first head-of-state phone call placed to Mahmoud Abbas, and his allocation of $20 million dollars of taxpayer money to resettling Palestinians with ties to Hamas in the United States, what we have witnessed is a clear pattern of taking the pressure off terrorist groups, the Islamist regimes that support them and other tyrants who hate Israel and America in favor of offering them legitimacy and leniency. The growing danger of the Iranians and their nuclear weapons program, along with the network of villains they are organizing and arming, are without a doubt today's greatest threat to America, Israel and the Western World. As President Obama offers the Iranians more time, despite plenty of credible evidence that their nuclear weapons program is speeding ahead, he is also granting a reprieve to their vicious surrogates. For example, numerous overtures and contacts are taking place between the Administration and the Al-Assad regime, less than a year and a half after Israel was forced to destroy Syria's secret nuclear reactor facility built by the North Koreans.

Another Iranian proxy, the Hamas terror organization, is also benefiting from President Obama's appeasement and accommodation. Special Middle-East Envoy George Mitchell recently signaled U.S. approval for Hamas to join in governing the Palestinian Authority. That is in addition to the $900 million in U.S. taxpayer money that will shortly be gifted to Hamas-controlled Gaza for "aid," which will only help to ensure that the terrorists need not spend their own money on anything other than arms and death. Once Hamas is finally legitimized, which now appears to be likely, one can only imagine how their international acceptance will adversely impact the prospect of peace.

Anti-Israelism and other forms of latent anti-Semitism have also received a boost from President Obama's initial decision to send a delegation to the negotiation sessions of the upcoming Durban II conference. The U.S. representatives' silence in the face of repeated attempts to demonize Israel and vilify Zionism did plenty to gratify the gathering of wolves, before the President ultimately realized that America's presence was making things worse rather than better. The damage has been done however, and while the U.S. has indicated after the fact that it likely will not participate in the plenary session, many nations that would have otherwise followed the U.S. in boycotting Durban II will now be lending their credence. Israel's supporters must understand that this set of circumstances significantly helps our enemies' effort to delegitimize Israel's right to exist by harkening back to the "Zionism is racism" days of U.N. Resolution 3379.

In looking squarely ahead to the grave challenges we face on the horizon, it is important to keep in mind that we are still early in the new President's term, and that there are a variety of ways to demand action on the promises we were assured of during his campaign. To begin, we must call upon pro-Israel Congressional leaders and Jewish activists - those who supported President Obama and those who didn't - to hold him to his word and protect the America-Israel relationship. We cannot afford to be passive in performing this task. Where there is inaction or resistance, we must withhold all support from politicians who won't stand up to the Administration's harmful policies. The solemn oath of "Never Again" must not be forgotten in our time.

American Jews are going to come to a sad realization that they got taken in by an inexperienced Chicago neighborhood organizer who said that he was pro-Israel, and Jews believed him. Americans should have learned long ago that you can't count on ANYTHING a politican says when he is running for office and wants your vote.

We now have to be diligently on guard to protect the interests of Jews and of our democratic ally, Israel against the Obama administration.

Previous Related posts:
Obama: No Friend of Israel
American Jews are in Denial
Can Jews Afford To "Roll the Dice" on Obama?
Morris: American Jews Misguided
Jackson Confirms Jewish Community Concerns About Obama
Foreign Policy is Reason to Vote McCain
The Jewish Case Against Barack Obama
Obama, McCain and Israel’s National Security
The Obama Voter – Not This Jew

Technorati Tags: American Jews,Israel,Election 2008,Barack Obama

Propositions 1A - 1F - An Analysis

2009-03-28T12:04:00.000-07:00

The Propositions

By going to the web site of the California Secretary of State, which you can do by clicking here, you will find both the text of the propositions and the arguments for and against it in separate pdf files.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

THE NEW CALIFORNIA TAX REVOLT!
Vote No on Prop. 1A

March 7, 2009

"We are a government of the People and for the People instead of by and for the Politicians."
- Howard Jarvis, 1977

Proposition 1A is a blatant attempt to raise all Californians' taxes to support the continual overspending by Sacramento politicians.

Sacramento Politicians Wage War Against California Taxpayers!

Sacramento politicians just raised taxes on all Californians while 1 in 10 is unemployed, foreclosures are at record levels, and people and jobs are leaving the state.

These new taxes will cost the average California family over $1,100 per year.

That's right, higher sales taxes, higher income taxes and a higher car tax. If you have children, you have lost much of your tax credit for dependents.

Now is the time to fight back! It is time to show Sacramento that "WE THE PEOPLE" are the government. The people we elect are not the bosses, we are!

The Governor and two-thirds of the Legislature have voted to make California taxpayers the highest taxed people in the country for the next two years.

To make matters worse, these same political elitists have placed Proposition 1A on the May 19 special election ballot, which would DOUBLE the damage to taxpayers if passed.

Here is what is important about Proposition 1A: Masked behind a phony spending limit is an extension of the massive tax increase just approved. Proposition 1A means an additional two years, for a total of 4 years of record high taxes. That's another $16 billion of your money!

THE FACTS:

Prop. 1A will raise taxes on all Californians and extend them for an additional two years, taking another $16 billion from you! The already approved tax increase will cost a typical California family $1,100 annually.

HIGHER SALES TAX! Prop. 1A will extend the sales tax hike for another two years. California taxpayers already pay the highest sales tax in the nation - this is a direct attack on all working families, especially low-income residents.

HIGHER CAR TAX! Prop. 1A will extend the DOUBLING of the car tax. This affects every California car owner.

HIGHER STATE INCOME TAX! Prop. 1A will extend an income tax increase for two extra years. Californians already pay the highest income tax rates in the nation. And now they will collect more from you.

REDUCTION OF TAX CREDIT FOR DEPENDENTS! Californians with children will see a reduction in the tax credits for dependents, costing families $200 per child. Prop. 1A will extend this attack on families for an extra two years.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is urging a vote of "NO" on Proposition 1A, which DOUBLES the tax increase!

DECEPTION, FAKE, FRAUD AND A $16 BILLION TAX INCREASE.

DON'T BE DECEIVED by statements that this is a "SPENDING LIMIT" initiative.

Those Sacramento politicians, who made a backroom "deal" to resolve the budget process with a tax increase that will cost the typical California family over $1,100, are offering another deal they hope will fool voters.

What they are offering is a package of measures on the May 19 Special Election ballot that will confirm their tax increase budget. However, the lynchpin of their plans is Proposition 1A.

1A is being promoted as a spending limit that will compel those under the Capitol dome to behave responsibly. This spending limit is a limit in name only because it will automatically go up as taxes are increased by the Legislature.

THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYSTS OFFICE TELLS THE TRUTH ABOUT PROPOSITION 1A

On March 13th the LAO released a budget report containing a graph that clearly illustrates how Proposition 1A would extend California taxes.

CLICK THE GRAPH below to open a larger version.

Legislative Analyst's Office says: "Proposition 1A Results in Tax Increases."

Click here for complete analysis by the California Legislative Analyst.

THE FIRST STEP IN THE NEW CALIFORNIA TAX REVOLT

SPREAD THE WORD with our printable fact sheet. This one-page summary explains in clear English exactly why Proposition 1A means HIGHER TAXES. Print out as many copies as you like and give them to your friends, family and neighbors. Keep one for yourself so you'll know what to say when people ask you how they should vote on May 19th. You'll have all the answers right in your hand! Click here to download our Prop. 1A Fact Sheet.

WHAT ELSE IS ON THE BALLOT?

The following are also part of the Sacramento politicians' budget and tax package:

Prop. 1B: Provides extra funds for schools and community colleges starting in 2011 to compensate for cuts in the current budget.

Prop. 1C: Allows the state to borrow $5 billion against future state lottery sales; allows the state to change the lottery system to generate more revenue and use funds for programs other than education.

Prop. 1D: Allows the state to divert $608 million from Proposition 10 (tobacco tax for children's health care) to general-fund costs of children's health care in the fiscal year beginning July 1. The amount drops to $268 million a year from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2014.

Prop. 1E: Allows the state to divert $230 million a year from Proposition 63 (taxes the wealthy to fund mental health programs) to offset general fund costs of other mental health programs for two years beginning July 1.

WE, THE PEOPLE, ARE THE TAX REVOLT! TOGETHER WE CAN SHOW SACRAMENTO WHO'S BOSS! VOTE "NO" ON PROP. 1A.

Knowledge is power! Get informed, be informed and stay informed.

To see this article on the HJTA web site go here.

A Letter from Steve Poizner to the CRP

Steve Poizner today sent the following letter to California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring. Steve called on the CRP to formally oppose Proposition 1A on the May 19 ballot.

Steve is vigorously campaigning against Proposition 1A because its passage would result in $16 billion in higher car, income, and sales taxes for an additional two years. A copy of the letter follows:

For the text of the letter, click here.

Sonoma County Analysis

The Republican Party of Sonoma County did a thorough review of the Propositions. They came up with the following information, which I have read and find that I agree with.

The Measures

The measures are set up as a "family"- all measure 1, but with alphabetical sub-designations to divide distinct items as Propositions 1-A through 1-F. This listing tends to produce confusion among the voters on the various parts of the "family" of propositions, making it more difficult for voters to remember which to favor and which to oppose on a divided ballot. It is a way of getting voters to vote on the "package" without looking carefully at the contents. Unfortunately, some will fall for this calculated ruse. The Sonoma County Republican Party thinks the voters are due more than disrespectful ruses from their government. We have looked carefully at each proposition and have come to a common conclusion: it is not just the ballot numbering that is a ruse.

In this election, California voters are facing a barrage of unparalleled falsehoods and misrepresentations. Proponents of these bogus measures called for a May vote hoping for a low voter turnout. Do not be bamboozled. We hope you will vote as we suggest, but at all hazards: VOTE in this election!

Proposition 1-A: THE "RAINY DAY" BUDGET STABILIZATION FUND

VOTE NO on this fraud. If politicians could be prosecuted for deceptive advertising this little item would land a bunch of Sacramento hacks in jail. According to the Secretary of State's Ballot Label for this proposition, the measure would "limit future deficits by increasing the State's 'rainy day' fund," but it would also exact "higher state tax revenues of roughly $16 billion." Yes, Proposition 1-A is nothing less than the authorization of a massive tax increase to deposit in a state "reserve;" but these additional reserve funds are intended to be spent when state revenues drop below the amount "needed" to fund the government. Those who decide how many dollars are "needed" to fund the government also decide when to spend the reserve. In the end, the State "Rainy Day" reserve is nothing more than another pot of money to feed the big government monster.

Proposition 1-B: EDUCATION FUNDING. PAYMENT PLAN

VOTE NO on this "save now - pay later" scheme. The Secretary of State says, "Potential state savings of up to several billion dollars in 2009-10 and 2010-11. Potential state costs of billions of dollars annually thereafter." Temporary cuts to education made now will be added back to the education budget later and taxpayers will receive the bill for the "repayment."

Proposition 1-C: LOTTERY MODERNIZATION ACT

VOTE NO on this shell-game gamble. If "modernizing" means increasing the public debt by writing IOU's in the name of California taxpayers to the California State Lottery, then this could rightfully be considered as a contribution to progress. The State is having problems selling its unsustainable debt instruments to investors, so why not just strongarm some more credit from one of its own public-private partnerships?

Proposition 1-D: CHILDREN'S SERVICES FUNDING

VOTE NO on this bait and switch sham. The California Legislature imposed a tax on cigarettes a few years back on the pretence that the new tax would yield money for early childhood programs. Now, here is that same Legislature in your face telling you that it wants to move that money around in whatever way it sees fit. Make a promise. Find an excuse. Break the promise. See a pattern here?

Proposition 1-E: MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING.

TEMPORARY REALLOCATION

VOTE NO on this hand-is-quicker-than-the-eye scam. Californians voted in 2004 to provide funds for specific mental health services. It was called Proposition 63. Now comes the Legislature to undo the work of the supporters of Proposition 63 by getting what they hope is a forgetful public to take money from that purpose and give it over to another purpose. So much for public earmarks! You may get your wish today, but ultimately all forms of revenue will go to the general fund where politicians can use it to meet their own agendas. Don't fall for this undermining of the California initiative process.

Proposition 1-F: ELECTED OFFICIALS' SALARIES. PREVENTS PAY INCREASES DURING BUDGET DEFICIT YEARS

VOTE NO on this sly bit of chicanery. The measure only empowers the Director of Finance to prevent the Citizens Compensation Commission from recommending an increase when a deficit year is declared. Of course, the politicians can still pass their own increases; but even if they don't, it would be a small loss compared to the big money showered on their campaigns by the unions and other special interests. Why punish our own people for having the courage to represent us?

May Propositions: Fix is in

Dan Baren, Chairman of the Lincoln Club of Orange County and Richard K. Wagner, President of the Lincoln Club of Orange County wrote an article in the Orange County Register. You can read the article here.

Excerpt:

The governor claims these "reforms" will solve California's current budget crisis and prevent future calamities. He will ominously warn that all hell will break loose if voters fail to pass these initiatives. The governor's propaganda machine will go largely unanswered - as potential opponents of the initiatives, both from the left (labor unions) and the right (business and taxpayers groups), have tacitly signed on to the deal or are simply sitting this one out.

That's unfortunate because the initiative package championed by the governor is a sham and does nothing to address the real problems in Sacramento - runaway spending, an ever-increasing tax burden and a budgetary process that is controlled by special interests, namely state employee unions.

Start with their blatantly dishonest packaging. Proposition 1A, the cornerstone measure of the package, asks voters to rubber-stamp one of the largest tax increases in state history. You would never know it by reading the official title of the measure - "Spending Cap Amendment."

Even worse, the official ballot statement opposing 1A makes no mention of any tax increases. Rather than use the persuasive anti-tax message submitted by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Irvine Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, the secretary of state selected an argument authored by labor groups and lamenting that the spending cap will make it too hard for the state to keep spending.

The fix is clearly in.

Other Information on 1A -1F

The following are links to articles commenting on the Propositions, particularly the deceptive Proposition 1A:

May Ballot Props - a Really Bad Deal, Assemblyman Ray Haynes

PROP. 1A: FR INTERVIEW WITH ECONOMIST BEN ZYCHER WHO SAYS THE MEASURE DOES NOT DELIVER ON A PROMISE OF A REAL SPENDING LIMIT

Assemblyman Jim Nielson Blasts Proposition 1A

Orange County Republican Party Joins Growing GOP Opposition To Special Election Ballot Props

There are many other articles, but you get the gist.

After reading all of the above material, you have probably come to the conclusion that Propositions 1A -1F should be defeated on May 19th. Do not be fooled by the so-called "spending cap" in Proposition 1A. As you have read above, it is not a true spending cap, and, of course, Proposition 1A extends the higher taxes for an additional two years.

If you still have some questions, or doubts about whether to oppose the Propositions, please feel free to contact me.

Before closing, I would like to address one other issue. I have heard it said that the Republican Party is just the Party of No. That all the Republicans do is oppose other people's ideas, but don't have any good ideas of their own.

There was an alternative to the vote of the Legislature to approve the present budget last February. Most Republicans in the legislature knew that. Republicans have presented viable alternatives to the huge budget that the California legislature adopted in February, including myself. It is not true that the only possibility was to adopt the budget presented because there was no way to cut further spending and because the State would have become insolvent. You can read my proposal here.

We are Republicans. We stand for liberty, limited government and low taxes. The Propositions 1A through 1F raise taxes and increase spending, the opposite of what we stand for. Higher taxes decrease Liberty. We need to take a principled stand for what we believe in.

Vote NO on Proposition 1A and on the other Propositions.

Sincerely,

Gary Aminoff
President
San Fernando Valley Republican Club
(310)387-6900
aminoff@sfvrc.org

UPDATE:

Former Los Angeles Mayor, Richard Riordan says May Ballot Propositions are a scam.

Go here to read the article in the Los Angeles Times

Here is an excerpt:

If you think Bernard Madoff is the swindler of the year, stop and consider Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, the gang responsible for the ballot measures we'll be voting on in May.

Let's start with the misleading titles of their initiatives.

Take Proposition 1B. It's called "Education Funding. Payment Plan," but all it really does is allow the Legislature to continue stealing money from education with the promise that the state will kick in $9.3 billion to K-12 education and community colleges starting in 2011.

Or how about Proposition 1C, the "Lottery Modernization Act"? What this measure does is allow the state to borrow against future lottery money to fund this year's budget. It also promises to improve marketing of the lottery to sell more tickets. But by its nature, the lottery places a disproportionate burden on the poor, who are more likely to buy tickets. It's hard to see how that's "modernization."

Then there's Proposition 1D, with its clunky and dishonest title: "Protects Children's Services Funding. Helps Balance State Budget." How does it "protect" children's services funding? By taking $1.6 billion currently committed to children's health services and preschool and throwing it into the budget maw.

Proposition 1E, "Mental Health Services Funding. Temporary Reallocation," is another travesty. It simply grabs $450 million that voters specifically directed to mental health services.

Additional Update - April 27, 2009

Michael Hiltzik, a Los Angeles Times reporter and analyst, wrote an article today titled,"California budget fixes on May 19 ballot are mostly shams and frauds"

Excerpt:

One can always tell that a California election is drawing near because commercials lying about ballot propositions start crowding commercials lying about detergents and pharmaceuticals off the TV.

So it is with the May 19 election. Every time I turn on my set, I can already detect the acrid stench of political mendacity billowing into the room. And nearly a month yet to go.

The May ballot features six propositions, dubbed 1A through 1F, that the Legislature concocted to end this year's embarrassing budget stalemate in Sacramento. The claim is that these measures will finally put state budget procedures on a sane path to "fiscal responsibility."

How? By undoing some of the excesses of the past and shuffling budgetary powers around a bit, mostly so the governor will get some powers he didn't have in the past and lose some authority he has today. Are we jazzed yet?

Read the whole article.

It remains obvious to everyone, except the uninformed public, many of whom will be swayed by and believe the deceitful advertisements that unashamedly lie about the Propositions, that these Propositions do nothing to fix the State Budget problems. Time to send the Legislature back to the drawing board to cut the fat. Don't believe them when they tell you there is no room to cut. Spending by the State Government has increased 50% in the past five years, while the population of California increased 10% during the same period. Why? The State has added 50,000 employees to the State payroll over the past 5 years. Why?

There is room to cut. The problem is the legislators don't want to offend the special interests that fund the Democratic Party.

Obama Makes U.S. Vulnerable

2009-03-23T09:21:00.000-07:00

Frank Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, and a columnist for the Washington Times has an article today about how the steps that Obama is taking with respect to our national security will not only diminish our power, but will also encourage our enemies to perceive us as less powerful - a very dangerous and vulnerable position for America.

President Obama’s stewardship of the national security portfolio to date amounts to a wrecking operation, a set of policies he must understand will not only weaken the United States but embolden our foes. After all, the Communist agitator Saul Alinsky, a formative influence in Mr. Obama’s early years as a “community organizer,” made Rule Number One in his 1971 book Rules for Radicals: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”

According to this logic, the various steps Barack Obama is taking with respect to the armed forces, the foreign battlefields in which they are engaged, our allies as well as our adversaries will not only diminish our power. They will encourage our enemies to perceive us as less powerful – with ominous implications. Consider some illustrative examples:

* The Obama administration is cutting the defense budget by 10%. The result will be to preclude much, if not virtually all, of the modernization that will be required to prepare the U.S. military to contend with tomorrow’s wars. Most of what the Pentagon spends goes to fixed – and growing – personnel-related costs (pay, bonuses, health care, etc.) and operations. As a result, at Obama funding levels, there will not be much available even to “reset” today’s forces by refurbishing the equipment they have been using up in present conflicts.
* The President is on a path to denuclearizing the United States by refusing to modernize the arsenal or even to fund fully the steps necessary to assure the viability of the weapons we have. He hopes to dress up this act of unilateral disarmament by seeking to resume arms control negotiations with Russia, as though such throw-backs to the old Cold War and its bipolar power structure apply today – let alone that there are grounds for believing the Kremlin will adhere to new treaties any better than the previous ones it systematically violated.
* For good measure, Mr. Obama is mounting a frontal assault on the armed forces themselves. The President plans to repeal the law prohibiting homosexuals from serving in the military. It is absolutely predictable that significant numbers of servicemen and women – including many of the most experienced commissioned and non-commissioned officers – will retire rather than serve in conditions of forced intimacy with individuals who may find them sexually attractive. The effect will be to break the all-volunteer force.
* Then there are the Obama initiatives in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President’s adoption of a deadline for withdrawing most U.S. forces from the former and his signaling that – despite a near-term 17,000 troop “surge” – he is preparing to turn the latter over to the oxymoronic-dubbed “moderate” Taliban are conveying unmistakable messages to friends and foes alike: Under Barack Obama, it is better to be a foe of America than one of its friends.

This message is, of course, being strongly reinforced by the treatment he is doling out to nations in each category.

* Friends like the Poles and Czechs have been left in the lurch as the Obama administration intimates that the United States now thinks Europe does not need after all to be defended against Iranian nuclear-armed missile threats. Not since Jimmy Carter abandoned the NATO deployment of so-called “neutron bombs” has a President conveyed such a devastating message of weakness and irresolution in the face of hostile threats to our European alliance partners.
* Other allies have not fared much better. Israel is on notice that its security interests are going to be sacrificed to the Obama administration’s pursuit of a Palestinian state – even one ruled by a terrorist organization like Hamas (or, for that matter, Fatah) committed to Israel’s destruction. Britain has been told it neither deserves nor has a “special” relationship with the United States.
* Meanwhile virtually every enemy of the United States is the object of assiduous cultivation and overtures for rapprochement by the Obama administration. It will reward IranSyria can expect the Golan Heights and removal from the terrorism list even as it pursues nuclear arms, renews its overtly colonial hold on Lebanon, supports the terrorists of Hezbollah and helps its abiding master, Iran, destabilize Iraq. for “going nuclear” with normalized relations.
* As mentioned above, Russia gets to be treated like a superpower again while it arms Iran, inserts bombers and naval units into our hemisphere, wields its energy leverage against our friends in Europe, Ukraine and Georgia and squeezes our supply lines into Afghanisan. There are no repercussions for China as it makes a mockery of the administration’s beloved Law of the Sea Treaty by threatening an unarmed U.S. naval vessel in its Exclusive Economic Zone.
* Last but hardly least, a “respectful” Obama administration seems keen to embrace those in the Muslim Brotherhood and like-minded Islamist organizations who seek to impose the toxic theo-political-legal program authoritative Islam calls Shariah on distant populations – and insinuate it into our country.

Can there be any doubt what America’s adversaries make of all this? Great grief will come our way if they conclude, as Alinsky surely would, that our power is waning, and that they can exercise theirs with impunity against our interests – and those of whatever friends we have left.

President Bush, whatever else you can say about him, was very careful to make sure that our enemies never got a perception of the U.S. as being weak or vulnerable. Is that why we were never attacked after 9-11? Will the actions of this President encourage at attack because we will be perceived as weak? Only time will tell.

Sen Gregg: Obama's Budget will Bankrupt America

2009-03-22T17:32:00.000-07:00

Sen. Judd Gregg made the following statement today:

“Today’s analysis of the President’s FY 2010 budget by the Congressional Budget Office confirms that under the President’s plan, our debt will increase to shocking levels that are simply unsustainable and will devastate future economic opportunities for our children and grandchildren.

“According to CBO, the President’s budget would double publicly held debt in five years and nearly triple it in ten years. President Obama’s borrow-and-spend-and-borrow-more policies result in debt growing to 82% of GDP by 2019. The last time the debt was near that level was in 1948 when the country was paying off its debts from World War II.

“This debt buildup is due to massive spending that we cannot afford, and deficits that go unaddressed. Unfunded entitlement obligations also are ignored. Debt at that level is unsustainable and represents an unprecedented threat to our economy and the value of our currency. This debt could very well bankrupt future generations.

“Our struggling economy is now at a crossroads, and I strongly urge the Democratic majority to show the fiscal restraint needed to control spending, maintain a fair tax policy and cut the deficit, so that we can head off the avalanche of debt that is poised to crush the economy.”

Contact your Congressman and Senators and ask them to vote against this huge expansion of government and the probable economic ruin of America.

Technorati Tags: Obama Budget,Obama,Judd Gregg,Deficit

Roots of the Crisis

2009-03-22T15:37:00.000-07:00

FreedomWorks has done an excellent, well-documented analysis of the roots of the current economic crisis. Their analysis begins in 1913 with the passage of the income tax law and the ability to deduct mortgage interest to encourage the assumption of debt by Americans in the purchase of a home, and continues through October of 2008 when the crisis was fully upon us. Anyone interested in how we got here should read this analysis.

Excerpts:

1965 – The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is created.

HUD and FHA insure loans for borrowers with insufficient credit, thereby driving down interest rates for low-income borrowers and artificially increasing the amount of housing produced and sold.

1977 – The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) becomes law

and requires banks to loan to the areas where the banks are located, regardless of the eligibility of potential borrowers. To enforce the statute, government agencies take the information they gather on the banks into consideration when deciding to approve applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions.

1992 The Clinton Presidency Begins

Government weakens bank lending standards. A now-discredited study published by the Boston Federal Reserve enables Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to accept lower underwriting standards for mortgages they are seeking to purchase, so they may expand their portfolios, enable private banks to make more loans and influence the housing sector.78

At the same time, Congress weakens Fannie and Freddie standards. The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act (FHEFSSA) is passed into law. This act mandates that the GSEs increase their acquisition of bank loans made to risky and lower income borrowers. GSE Fannie Mae announces a trillion dollar commitment. Banks know they can meet CRA requirements by giving these loans, and that they will be able to pass the risk of such loans on to the implicitly taxpayer-backed Government Sponsored Enterprises, so they make lower quality loans.

Also in 1992, Countrywide, Wachovia, and others pushed by Federal Reserve publications and other regulations begin loaning to clients with no or bad credit. Lenders are able to pass on the added risk of these loans by selling them to the GSEs, who guarantee, repackage, and sell them as securities with the implicit backing of the government in the case of default.

2003 Corruption at Fannie and Freddie

In 2003, the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates to 1% – the lowest since the 1960s. The rate allows borrowers to borrow at an interest rate lower than the rate of inflation, effectively subsidizing borrowers, encouraging banks and individuals to borrow as much as possible.

President Bush calls for reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by increasing their capital-reserve requirements, the percentage of liquid assets lending institutions must keep on hand incase of financial trouble.17 Third-party groups call for the two Government Sponsored Enterprises to be fully privatized, rather than the current status which privatizes profits but socializes risk. Congress, heavily lobbied by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to oppose the reform, opposes reform.

Frank: “I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis… . I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury.
— Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), at a hearing in 2003

Read the whole article.

Technorati Tags: Economic Crisis,Economic Meltdown,Mortgage Meltdown,Banking Crisis

The Stimulus - Simply Explained

2009-03-12T01:56:00.000-07:00

A Purim Guide to the Perplexed

2009-03-07T14:32:00.000-08:00

Purim 2009 Guide for the Perplexed

Yoram Ettinger, March 6, 2009

Assembled from various Jewish Sages

1. THE TIMING – THE JEWISH MONTH OF ADAR. Adar is the root of the Hebrew adjective "Adir" (glorious, awesome, exalted, magnificent) and the Hebrew verb “Le’Ha’adir” (to glorify), which are frequently employed in the Old Testament (e.g. the Hymn of the Sea following the Parting of the Sea). It is, also, a derivative of the Akkadian word Adura (heroism). Jewish tradition (Babylonian Talmud) highlights Adar as a month of happiness, singing and dancing, prohibiting eulogies and fast on Purim. The zodiac of Adar is Pisces (fish), which is a symbol of demographic multiplication. Purim is celebrated on the 14th (in non-walled towns) and (in Jerusalem) on the 15th day of Adar (March 10/11, 2009), commemorating the national liberation of the Jewish People in Persia and the (161 BCE) victory of Judah the Maccabee over Nikanor, the Assyrian commander. Moses – whose burial site is unknown - was born, and died (1273 BCE), on the 7th day of Adar, which is Israel's Memorial Day for soldiers, whose burial site is unknown. The events of Purim occurred following the destruction of the 1st Temple by Nebuchadnezzar (586 BCE) and the exile from Zion, during the leadership of Ezra who returned to Jerusalem, and the inauguration of the Second Temple (3rd of Adar, 515 BCE) by Ezra and Nehemiah. Nebuchadnezzar died in Adar 561 BCE (Jeremiah 52:31). Einstein published the theory of General Relativity in Adar 1916.

2. PURIM'S Hebrew root is fate/destiny (“Pur”), as well as “to frustrate”, “to annul” (“Le’Ha’fer), “to crumble” and “to shutter” (Le’Phorer), reflecting the demise of Haman.

3. PURIM – A (522 BCE) WAR OF CIVILIZATIONS between Mordechai the Jew and Haman the Iranian-Amalekite – constitutes an early edition of the war between Right VS Wrong, Liberty VS Tyranny, Just VS Evil, Truth VS Lies, as were/are the precedents of Adam/Eve VS Snake, Abel VS Cain, Abraham VS Sodom & Gomorrah, Jacob VS Esau (grandparent of Amalek), Maccabees VS Assyrians, Allies VS Nazis, Western democracies VS Islamic terrorism.

4. MORDECHAI, the hero of Purim and one of Ezra’s deputies, was a role model of principle-driven optimism in defiance of colossal odds, in face of a global power and in spite of Jewish establishment. According to Judaism, deliverance is ushered by the bravery of faith-driven individuals, such as Nachshon - who was the first to walk into the Red Sea before it was parted – and Mordechai. He was a politically-INcorrect statesman and a retired military leader, who practiced “disproportionate pre-emption” instead of defense, deterrence or retaliation. The first three Hebrew letters of "Mordechai" spell the Hebrew word "Rebellion" ("Mered"), which is consistent with the motto/legacy of the American Founding Fathers: "Rebellion against Tyranny is Obedience to G-D"). Mordechai would not bow to Haman, the second most powerful person in the Persian Empire. Mordechai was a member of the tribe of Benjamin, the only son of Jacob who did not bow to Esau. The name Mordechai is also a derivative of Mordouch – the chief Babylonian god.

Mordechai was a descendant of King Saul, who defied a clear commandment and spared the life of Agag, the Amalekite king, thus causing further calamities upon the Jewish People. Consequently, Saul lost his royal position and life. Mordechai learnt from Saul’s error, destroying Haman (a descendant of Agag the Amalekite) and his entire power base, thus sparing the Jewish People a major disaster.

5. QUEEN ESTHER, the heroine of Purim’s ESTHER SCROLL (the 24th and concluding book in the Old Testament) was Mordechai's cousin. One cannot comprehend Purim without studying Esther Scroll. Esther demonstrates the centrality of women in Judaism, shaping the future of the Jewish People, as did Sarah, Rebecca, Miriam, Batyah, Deborah, Hannah, etc. Sarah was the first Jewish woman, and Esther was the last Jewish woman, mentioned by the Old Testament. Sarah lived 127 years and Esther ruled over 127 countries. The name Esther is a derivative of the Hebrew word "Hester" - "clandestine", "hidden", "subtle", which was reflective of her (initially) unknown Jewish identity and subtle-style at the royal court. The name Esther is also a derivative of Ishtar – a Mesopotamian goddess, Astarte – a Phoenician goddess. In fact, the one day pre-Purim Fast of Esther (commemorating the three day fast declared by Esther in order to expedite deliverance), was cherished by the Marano in Spain, who performed Judaism in a clandestine manner. The Scroll of Esther is the only book in the Old Testament, where the name of G-D is hidden/absent. It has been suggested that the explicit name of G-D is absent because the Scroll of Esther is the only Old Testament book, which deals exclusively with the Diaspora and not with the Land of Israel. According to Michael Bernstein, the noun "King" appears 182 times in Esther Scroll, which is the total sum of 26 (numerical value of G-D) times 7 (days of creation). Esther’s second name was Hadassah, whose root is Hadass – myrtle tree in Hebrew – which constitutes a metaphor for eyesight 20:20 and is identified with Venus (hence, Esther’s other Hebrew name – Noga – glaring divine light, which is Venus in Hebrew). Myrtle flowers and leaves are a traditional decoration of brides.

6. THE PERSIAN KING appointed Mordechai to be his top advisor, overruling Haman's intent to prevent the resettling of Jews in Zion, the reconstruction of the Temple and the restoration of the wall around Jerusalem. He foiled Haman’s plan to exterminate the Jews. The king prospered as a result of his change of heart and escaped assassination. That was the case with Pharaoh, who escaped national collapse and starvation and rose in global prominence, once he appointed Joseph to be his deputy.

7. CONVICTION-DRIVEN transparency/bluntness is one of the lessons of Esther Scroll, "Megilat Esther" in Hebrew. The Hebrew root of "Megilah" is "Galeh" – exposed, overt, in-the-open – the opposite of "Esther"-"Haster" (hidden). The contradiction between these terms constitutes a cardinal lesson: life is not a picnic; it is complex, full of contradictions and difficult dilemmas. One should be driven by principles, rather than by shifty convenience, in order to attain one's goals. Just as (Esther) the covert became overt, so would pessimism be transformed into optimism, if one adheres to one's long-term conviction, rather than to one's immediate convenience.

8. PURIM'S FOUR COMMANDMENTS:

*Reading/studying the “Esther Scroll” within the family highlights the centrality of family, education, memory and youth as the foundation for a solid future.

*Gifts to relatives and friends emphasize the importance of family and community.

*Charity (at least the value of a meal) indicates the value of compassion.

*Celebration and Happiness sustains the element of optimism and faith as the backbone of an individual and a nation.

9. TEN PARTIES are commemorated by the Scroll of Esther – the king's 2 parties for the entire kingdom and for Shushan (the capital), Esther’s coronation party, the king's and Haman’s party, Esther’s 2 parties for the king and Haman, Jewish deliverance party, post-deliverance parties in the entire kingdom and in Shushan and the 10th party is the traditional annual party. The number "Ten" has been very significant in Judaism: 10 commandments, 10 days of atonement, 10 plagues, 10 miracles during the Exodus from Egypt, 10 chapters and 10 parties in Esther Scroll, 10 key biblical hymns, 10 divine Genesis assertions, the 10th Hebrew letter is "Yod" (G-D), 10 measurements of wisdom, 10 spiritual dimensions, 10 sanctuary crowns, 10 tribes of Canaan, 10 participants as a quorum in Jewish services, etc.

10. THE FAST OF ESTHER (on the day preceding Purim) symbolizes the turning point from near-oblivion to deliverance. The fast constitutes a sobering morality-driven experience, which stands in contradiction to – and above – partying. Mordechai fasted upon learning of Haman’s conspiracy against the Jews. Esther declared a three-day Jewish fast, in advance of her crucial meeting with the king.

11. LETHAL ENEMY DESTROYED & COMMEMORATED. The pre-Purim Sabbath is called "Memorial Sabbath" ("Shabbat Zakhor"), commemorating the war of extermination launched by the Amalekites against the Jewish Nation, since the Exodus from Egypt. One of Purim's lessons is that there are enemies, whose strategic goal is extermination, advanced by the tactical element of false-tenuous accommodation.

Technorati Tags: Judaism,Israel,Purim,Haman

A Letter To Secretary of State Clinton from Israel

2009-03-07T14:08:00.000-08:00

Respect our Wishes

Secretary of State Clinton must accept that most Israelis object to two-state solution

Dear Ms. Clinton,

This letter was originally written in Hebrew, which you would probably have trouble reading. However, I know that more than a language barrier stands between us. More than 3,000 years of history make a difference too. There are historic lessons and perspectives that the Jewish people learned in person. At this time, on the eve of Purim, when again we see a Persian archenemy planning to exterminate us, all the ancient defense mechanisms are emerging within us – the ones that refuse to buy into the false promises of those who view themselves as Israel’s friends, and as such tell us what is good for the Jewish people and for the State of Israel.

You came here from the world’s greatest and strongest democracy. You come from the Democratic Party and you know how to recite the familiar mantras, claiming that the United States respects Israel’s democracy and will cooperate with any elected Israeli government.

Well, Israeli democracy has spoken: Most Israeli citizens do not wish to establish an Arab terror state in our homeland. If your democracy is real, you should of course respect the democracy of others as well.

However, as we all realize that what guides the US is not democracy in other countries, but rather, what the American Administration perceives as American interests – it would be worthwhile to remind you of Einstein’s definition for madness. He said that madness is the attempt to repeat the same action time and again, in the hopes that the result will be different next time.

The US, while conveniently ignoring the values of democracy, attempted on more than one occasion to appease aggressors, especially by sacrificing the interests of other states. Yet it always ended disastrously. Only when these aggressors attacked the US, its citizens, or its interests, America changed its policy.

At this time it appears that the US is planning to appease the Iranians, Syrians, and Palestinians by paying with “Israeli currency.” As you recall, dear Ms. Clinton, we have too much history. We remember what happened when the Free World was willing to sacrifice Czechoslovakia in order to appease Hitler. We are unwilling to risk our very existence in order for the US to buy itself a quiet withdrawal from Iraq.

Encouraging terrorism

Nobody really thinks that words or economic sanctions will prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons. America’s declarations that it will destroy Iran should it dare attack Israel with nuclear weapons don’t help us, because we are unwilling to be the excuse for attacking Iran after we’ve already been exterminated. This too is a historical lesson we bear. We are also unwilling to see the desire to appease the Sunnis in Iraq to prompt an American payment to the Syrians and Palestinians.

Don’t you understand that pressing Israel to renounce the Golan Heights in order to buy Syrian cooperation with the withdrawal form Iraq will not calm the Mideast, bring peace, or reinforce western democracy? Rather, it will encourage the Arabs to continue on the path of terrorism because you will prove to them that terrorism pays off.

Dozens of bloody conflicts are taking place worldwide. The vast majority pit Muslims against their neighbors. The US is not fighting Jihadist terror in Afghanistan and Iraq because Israel is building houses in the West Bank. One cannot cure a global disease by using a local lotion; however, you may prompt a global Jihad flare-up should you try to sacrifice Israel’s interests in order to appease Muslim terror.

And if everything is no more than a show – hollow words empty of all substance – and the only purpose of your visit was to press the upcoming government to form a cabinet that would be convenient for the US and bring leftist Trojan horses into it – then certainly it would be worthwhile to remind you, Ms. Secretary of State, that Tzipi Livni or Ehud Barak failed to realize your dream or President’s Bush’s vision – to give the Arabs another state – even when they were in power.

So why should this suicidal attempt succeed now, after they lost the support of the Israeli people? Ms. Clinton, do you also believe that only Likud can realize the plans of Peace Now?

Arieh Eldad is a National Union Knesset member
From YNET News

Technorati Tags: Judaism,Israel,Two State Solution,Palestinians

California: Paradise Lost

2009-02-19T15:20:00.000-08:00

In the wee hours this morning,in an egregious act of irresponsibility,the California Legislature imposed new taxes on the People of California to the extent of a minimum of $70 Billion.

Rather than doing the hard work of reducing spending, lawmakers felt it was easier to solve the problem mostly by raising new taxes. The legislators voting to impose these additional taxes on Californians were 100% of the Democrats in the Assembly, 100% of the Democrats in the State Senate, three Republican Senators, Maldonado, Cogdill and Ashburn and three Republican Assemblymen, Niello, Villines and Adams, all of whom broke their word because they signed a "no new taxes" pledge. No other Republicans supported the tax increase proposal. I want to congratulate those Republicans who stood strong and tried to defend the people of California against these taxes. In particular, Assemblyman Chuck Devore, candidate for U.S. Senate, and State Senator Dennis Hollingsworth, new Minority Leader, although all Republicans who chose not to vote for the measure should be commended.

It is, in my view, unconscionable for Republicans to have supported the imposition of this huge additional tax burden on the residents of California. I know that those who voted for it thought that it was the only way that anything was going to get passed that would close the budget gap and prevent the State from having to go bankrupt, and I also know that they were strongly pressured by the Governor. I think they chose the easy way out rather than doing the hard work.

What were the alternatives, you ask? Well, let me say that one possibility was going back to the 2003 budget, which was the year we recalled Gray Davis and Arnold came in, and increase each line item in that budget by two factors: 1) the increase in population since 2003, and 2) the inflation rate for those years. The other possibility was to start over. Do Zero-based budgeting. That is you start with each line of the budget and decide what is necessary and what isn't. Each line starts out at zero and then you justify each addition.

Let me give you some examples of why the budget is out of whack (a professional term). In 2003 the population of California was approximately 35 Million. Today the population of California is about 38.5 Million. An increase in population of approximately 10% in five years, or roughly 2% per year.

The State spent a total of $78 Billion in the 2002-2003 fiscal year. The State spent a total of $105 Billion in the 2007-2008 fiscal year. That is an increase of 35% in spending in 5 years, or roughly 7% increase in spending every year. The population is increasing at the rate of 2% per year and spending is increasing at the rate of 7% per year. Is something wrong here?

The number of employees of the State of California in 2003 was approximately 321,000. The number of employees of the State of California today is approximately 360,000. An increase of 40,000 employees in five years, or an increase of an average of 8,000 new State employees per year, or roughly 30 new employees on the State payroll added EVERY DAY. Is the legislature saying that the State can't run without adding 30 new employees every day? Is the legislature saying that the State can't run if we lay off 20,000 of the new employees that we have added since 2003? Why not? The state ran with 40,000 fewer employees in 2003.

Are you telling me that the only way to make up the budget deficit is by raising taxes? Is reducing spending not an option?

The special interests in California who have Democratic legislators in their pocket are running the state and driving it into bankruptcy, and driving businesses out of California. California was the sixth highest taxed state in the nation before this bill was passed. We will soon have the distinction of being the highest taxed state in the nation.

Here are just a few of the new taxes Californians can look forward to:

* You will pay a state income tax "surcharge" of 5.25%
* Your sales tax on most everything you buy will boosted a full 1.00%
* Your car tax (Vehicle License Fee) will mushroom to 77% higher than now.
* Your dependent tax credit will be slashed by two-thirds, in effect, costing you $200 per child

I don't understand why any Republican would vote for a bill that will cost the average family between $1,000 and $2,000 per year in additional taxes. If you want to get an idea of what this new bill will cost your family, you can calculate it here.

But wait, there's more.

This tax increase will not solve the problem. I can almost guarantee that the projected tax revenues will not be received. There will be another shortfall within a few months and they will be back to take more money out of your pocket. This is not the end of your being over-taxed by a Democratic legislature that wants to take your money, because they feel they know how to spend it better than you do, and because they would rather take more money from you than make the difficult choices about cutting spending. More to come.

Because Abel Maldonado knew that he could not win a statewide election in the future where there were only Republicans voting, he made, as a condition of his agreeing to the tax increase bill, that there be open primaries in the State of California. That will be on your ballot soon. What does that mean? It means that Democrats will be able to vote in Republican primaries, and vice versa. That means that, if the measure passes, from now on, Democrats will choose who the Republican candidates are.

This bill is going to cause severe economic problems in the State of California, along with AB32 which places impossible burdens on businesses in California. Business are already moving out of state. California is now ranked as one of the most business-unfriendly states in the union.

This tax increase bill, coming on top of the huge devaluation in our currency (inflation) which will result from the gigantic federal stimulus spending package, will mean much economic pain for Californians over the next five or six years.

The car tax increase will not generate the revenue that the legislature and the Governor think it will. I heard two people today tell me that they are now going to postpone buying a new car because of the car tax. How does that help the auto industry? There are always unintended consequences of raising taxes.

What can we do about it? There is only one answer. Elect fiscally conservative honorable Republicans to the State legislature to replace profligate Democrats. California Democrats, as well as Republicans, will be hurt by this bill, and they may be more willing to listen in the future to candidates who care about their financial well-being and who will take a stand for them in the legislature.

My daughter and son-in-law left Los Angeles to move to Nevada in 2008. While I personally hadn't considered leaving the State before, I feel it is now something to think about. Nevada has no state income tax.

The Intellectual Challenge of Republican Ideas by the Democratic Underground

2009-02-15T18:32:00.000-08:00

The wonderful experience of reading the Democratic Underground discussion groups is the level of intellectual socratic discourse one encounters while hearing the ideas that conservatives expound challenged. Political differences are resolved by setting up each Republican idea and then presenting reasoned arguments why the Democratic path is the better one for the country.

Examples:

We have the votes in the House of Representatives.
We have the vote in the Senate.
We have the Executive Branch.
We don't need the Republicans to Govern.
It is time to remove the Republicans from play and implement full progressive policies in this country.

I can't stand to even watch a Republican or read any of their lying shit anymore. They make me too angry.
They are such evil, small people.

We don't need people with no conscience or empathy having a political party.We don't have the government for greedy bullies to destroy and pillage.If the rethugs don't have the sense to shut up and go away,if they keep that selfish bullshit going,the people who already hate the psychopath party won't tolerate the robber baron, fundie cultie bully loudmouth ,ignorant assholes on the right much longer. And if they go too far one day it will become open season on bigots.

Republicans should be eliminated with extreme prejudice by any means necessary

I don't believe in this American experiment either. Parties with different ideas about how to get things done are terrible for a country. Why should there be a debate about anything? We all know what will work!

The Republican Party needs to be eliminated. They serve no useful purpose. There's no reasoning with them. They'll gladly destroy the country if they think it will return them to power. May they all rot in pieces. I hate to say I hate anyone, but I hate them all. .....

You can find these statements and many more here.