Why Islam Will Never Accept the State of Israel

June 30, 2010 

By Steven Simpson

 

It is a common belief that the "Arab-Israeli conflict" is a conflict of two peoples fighting over the same piece of land and is therefore one of nationalism. Rarely, if ever, do we hear or read of the religious component to this conflict.

However, if anything, the conflict is more of a "Muslim-Jewish" one than an "Arab-Israeli" one. In other words, the conflict is based on religion -- Islam vs. Judaism -- cloaked in Arab nationalism vs. Zionism. The fact of the matter is that in every Arab-Israeli war, from 1948 to the present, cries of "jihad," "Allahu Akbar," and the bloodcurdling scream of "Idbah al- Yahud" (slaughter the Jews) have resonated amongst even the most secular of Arab leaders, be it Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s or the supposedly "secular" PLO of the 1960s to the present. Indeed, the question must be asked: If this is really a conflict of different nationalisms and not Islamic supremacism, then why is it that virtually no non-Arab Muslim states have full (if any) relations with Israel?

There is a common Arabic slogan that is chanted in the Middle East: "Khaybar, Khaybar! Oh Jews, remember. The armies of Muhammad are returning!" It would be most interesting to know how many people have ever heard what -- or more precisely, where -- Khaybar is, and what the Arabs mean by such a slogan. A short history of the Jews of Arabia is needed in order to explain this, and why Islam remains so inflexible in its hostile attitude towards Jews and Israel.

Until the founder of Islam, Muhammad ibn Abdallah, proclaimed himself "Messenger of Allah" in the 7^th century, Jews and Arabs lived together peacefully in the Arabian Peninsula. Indeed, the Jews -- and Judaism -- were respected to such an extent that an Arab king converted to Judaism in the 5^th century. His name was Dhu Nuwas, and he ruled over the Himyar (present day Yemen) area of the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, it is most likely that the city of Medina (the second-holiest city in Islam) -- then called Yathrib -- was originally founded by Jews. In any event, at the time of Muhammad's "calling," three important Jewish tribes existed in Arabia: Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qaynuqa.  

Muhammad was very keen on having the Jews accept him as a prophet to the extent that he charged his followers not to eat pig and to pray in the direction of Jerusalem. However, the Jews apparently were not very keen on Muhammad, his proclamation of himself as a prophet, or his poor knowledge of the Torah (Hebrew Bible). Numerous verbal altercations are recorded in the Qur'an and various Hadiths about these conflicts between the Jewish tribes and Muhammad.

Eventually, the verbal conflicts turned into physical conflicts, and when the Jews outwardly rejected Muhammad as the "final seal of the prophets," he turned on them with a vengeance. The atrocities that were committed against these tribes are too numerous to cite in a single article, but two tribes, the Qaynuqa and Nadir, were expelled from their villages by Muhammad. It appears that the Qaynuqa left Arabia around 624 A.D. The refugees of the Nadir settled in the village of Khaybar.

In 628 A.D., Muhammad turned on the last Jewish tribe, the Qurayza, claiming that they were in league with Muhammad's Arab pagan enemies and had "betrayed" him. Muhammad and his army besieged the Qurayza, and after a siege of over three weeks, the Qurayza surrendered. While many Arabs pleaded with Muhammad to let the Qurayza leave unmolested, Muhammad had other plans. Unlike expelling the Qaynuqa and Nadir, Muhammad exterminated the Qurayza, with an estimated 600 to 900 Jewish men being beheaded in one day. The women and children were sold into slavery, and Muhammad took one of the widows, Rayhana, as a "concubine."

In 629 A.D., Muhammad led a campaign against the surviving Jews of Nadir, now living in Khaybar. The battle was again bloody and barbaric, and the survivors of the massacre were either expelled or allowed to remain as "second-class citizens." Eventually, upon the ascension of Omar as caliph, most Jews were expelled from Arabia around the year 640 A.D.

This brings us, then, to the question of why modern-day Muslims still boast of the slaughter of the Jewish tribes and the Battle of Khaybar. The answer lies in what the Qur'an -- and later on, the various Hadiths -- says about the Jews. The Qur'an is replete with verses that can be described only as virulently anti-Semitic. The amount of Surahs is too numerous to cite, but a few will suffice: Surah 2:75 (Jews distorted the Torah); 2:91 (Jews are prophet-killers), 4:47 (Jews have distorted the Bible and have incurred condemnation from Allah for breaking the Sabbath), 5:60 (Jews are cursed, and turned into monkeys and pigs), and 5:82 (Jews and pagans are the strongest in enmity to the Muslims and Allah). And of course, there is the genocidal Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:177, which would make Adolph Hitler proud. "The Day of Judgment will not have come until you fight with the Jews, and the stones and the trees behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!"' Thus, the Arab Muslims had their own "final solution" in store for the Jews already in the 7^th century.

The fact that Muslims still point to these (and many other) hateful verses in the Qur'an and Hadith should give Jews -- not just Israelis -- pause to consider if there can ever be true peace between Muslims and Jews, let alone between Muslims and Israel. When the armies of Islam occupied the area of Byzantine "Palestine" in the 7^th century, the land became part of "Dar al-Islam" (House of Islam). Until that area is returned to Islam, (i.e., Israel's extermination), she remains part of "Dar al harb" (House of War). It now becomes clear that this is a conflict of religious ideology and not a conflict over a piece of "real estate."

Finally, one must ask the question: Aside from non-Arab Turkey, whose relations with Israel are presently teetering on the verge of collapse, why is it that no other non-Arab Muslim country in the Middle East has ever had full relations (if any at all) with Israel, such as faraway countries like Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Indeed, why would Persian Iran -- conquered by the Arabs -- have such a deep hatred for Jews and Israel, whereas a non-Muslim country such as India does not feel such enmity? The answer is painfully clear: The contempt in which the Qur'an and other Islamic writings hold Jews does not exist in the scriptures of the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and other Eastern religions. Therefore, people that come from non-Muslim states do not have this inherent hatred towards Jews, and by extension, towards Israel. But when a people -- or peoples -- is raised with a scripture that regards another people and religion as immoral and less than human, then it is axiomatic why such hatred and disdain exists on the part of Muslims for Jews and Israel.

Islam -- as currently interpreted and practiced -- cannot accept a Jewish state of any size in its midst. Unless Muslims come to terms with their holy writings vis-à-vis Jews, Judaism, and Israel and go through some sort of "reformation," it will be unlikely that true peace will ever come to the Middle East. In the meantime, unless Islam reforms, Israel should accept the fact that the Muslims will never accept Israel as a permanent fact in the Middle East.

 

American Thinker

Peace Through Strength and American Pride vs. “Enemy-Centric” Policy

06/30/2010 at 2:56pm

Earlier this week, I spoke at the Freedom Fest in Norfolk, Virginia; and, evidently, the media was asked to leave – not by me, that’s for sure. I want my message out, so despite reporters making up a story about “Palin people kicking us out” (uh, the “Palin people” entourage would consist of one person – my 15-year-old daughter, Willow – and I have no doubt she could take on any reporter, but I know for certain she didn’t “kick ‘em out” of the event). Anyway, here are some of the key issues I spoke about.

DEFENSE SPENDING

It takes a lot of resources to maintain the best fighting force in the world – especially at a time when we face financial uncertainty and a mountain of debt that threatens all of our futures.

We have a federal government that is spending trillions, and that has nationalized whole sections of our economy: the auto industry, the insurance industry, health care, student loans, the list goes on – all of it at enormous cost to the tax payer. The cost of Obamacare alone is likely to exceed $2.5 trillion dollars.

As a result of all these trillion dollar spending bills, America’s going bust in a hurry. By 2020 we may reach debt levels of $20 trillion – twice the debt that we have today! It reminds me of that joke I read the other day: “Please don’t tell Obama what comes after a trillion!”

Something has to be done urgently to stop the out of control Obama-Reid-Pelosi spending machine, and no government agency should be immune from budget scrutiny. We must make sure, however, that we do nothing to undermine the effectiveness of our military. If we lose wars, if we lose the ability to deter adversaries, if we lose the ability to provide security for ourselves and for our allies, we risk losing all that makes America great! That is a price we cannot afford to pay.

This may be obvious to you and me, but I am not sure the Obama Administration gets it. There isn’t a single progressive pet cause which they haven’t been willing to throw billions at. But when it comes to defense spending, all of a sudden they start preaching a message of “fiscal restraint.” Our Defense Secretary recently stated the “gusher” of defense spending was over and that it was time for the Department of Defense to tighten its belt. There’s a gusher of spending alright, but it’s not on defense. Did you know the US actually only ranks 25th worldwide on defense spending as a percentage of GDP? We spend three times more on entitlements and debt services than we do on defense.

Now don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing wrong with preaching fiscal conservatism. I want the federal government to balance its budget right now! And not the Washington way – which is raising your taxes to pay for their irresponsible spending habits. I want it done the American way: by cutting spending, reducing the size of government, and letting people keep more of their hard-earned cash.

But the Obama administration doesn’t practice what it preaches. This is an administration that won’t produce a budget for fear that we discover how reckless they’ve been as fiscal managers. At the same time, it threatens to veto a defense bill because of an extra jet engine!

This administration may be willing to cut defense spending, but it’s increasing it everywhere else. I think we should do it the other way round: cut spending in other departments – apart from defense. We should not be cutting corners on our national security.

THE U.S. NAVY

Secretary Gates recently spoke about the future of the US Navy. He said we have to “ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines, and $11 billion carriers.” He went on to ask, “Do we really need... more strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?”

Well, my answer is pretty simple: Yes, we can and, yes, we do because we must. Our Navy has global responsibilities. It patrols sea lanes and safeguards the freedoms of our allies – and ourselves. The Navy right now only has 286 ships, and that number may decrease. That will limit our options, extend tours for Navy personnel, lessen our ability to secure our allies and deter our adversaries. The Obama administration seems strangely unconcerned about this prospect.

OBAMA’S FOREIGN POLICY INHERITANCE

When George W. Bush came into office, he inherited a military that had been cut deeply, an al Qaeda that had been unchallenged, and an approach to terrorism that focused on bringing court cases rather than destroying those who sought to destroy us. We saw the result of some of that on 9/11.

When President Obama came into office, he inherited a military that was winning in Iraq. He inherited loyal allies and strong alliances. And thanks to the lamestream media pawing and purring over him, he had the benefit of unparalleled global popularity. What an advantage! So their basic foreign policy outlines should have been clear. Commit to the War on Terror. Commit to winning – not ending, but winning the war in Afghanistan. Commit to the fight against violent Islamic extremism wherever it finds sanctuary. Work with our allies. Be resolute with our adversaries. Promote liberty, not least because it enhances our security. Unfortunately, these basic principles seem to have been discarded by Washington.

THE WAR ON TERROR

His administration has banned the phrase “war on terror,” preferring instead politically correct nonsense like “overseas contingency operations.” His Homeland Security Secretary calls acts of terrorism “man-caused disasters.” His reckless plan to close Guantanamo (because there’s no place to go after it’s closed) faces bipartisan opposition now.

The Attorney General just announced that a decision about where to try terrorists like 9/11 master mind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would not be announced until after the mid-term elections. Is there something he’s afraid to tell us?

The President’s new National Security Strategy does not even use the word “Islamic” when referring to violent extremism. Does he think the ideology of those who seek to kill Americans is irrelevant? How can we seek to defeat an enemy if we don’t acknowledge what motivates them and what their ultimate goals are? President Obama may think he is being politically correct by dropping the term, but it flies in the face of reality. As Senator Joe Lieberman noted, refusing to use the word Islamic when describing the nature of the threat we face is “Orwellian and counterproductive.”

AFGHANISTAN

In Afghanistan, it is true that President Obama approved deploying additional forces to the conflict – most, but not all the troops requested by commanders on the ground. But it took months of indecision to get to that point, and it came at a very high price – a July 2011 date to begin withdrawal.

This date was arbitrary! It bears no relation to conditions on the ground. It sends all the wrong signals to our friends and to our enemies. We know our commanders on the ground are not comfortable with it.

As that great Navy war hero, Senator John McCain recently put it: “The decision to begin withdrawing our forces from Afghanistan arbitrarily in July 2011 seems to be having exactly the effect that many of us predicted it would: It is convincing the key actors inside and outside of Afghanistan that the United States is more interested in leaving than succeeding in this conflict.”

Does the President really believe the Taliban and al Qaeda won’t be empowered by his naming of a starting date for withdrawal? They now believe they can beat him simply by outlasting us. What sort of effect does he think this will have on the morale of our troops – and of our allies?

ALIENATING OUR ALLIES

It’s not the only area where the Obama administration has failed our allies. They escalated a minor zoning issue in Jerusalem into a major dispute with our most important ally in the Middle East, Israel. They treated the Israeli Prime Minister shabbily in Washington. When a Turkish sponsored flotilla threatened to violate a legal Israeli blockade of Hamas-run Gaza, the Obama Administration was silent. When Israeli commandos were assaulted as they sought to prevent unmonitored cargoes from being delivered to Hams terrorists, the Obama Administration sent signals it might allow a UN investigation into the matter – an investigation that would be sure to condemn our ally Israel and bemoan the plight of Hamas. Loyal NATO allies in central Europe were undermined by the cancellation of a missile defense program with virtually no warning. At the same time, Russia and China are given preferential treatment, while remaining silent on their human rights violations.

CODDLING ADVERSARIES

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration reaches out to some of the world’s worst regimes. They shake hands with dictators like Hugo Chavez, send letters to the Iranian mullahs and envoys to North Korea, ease sanctions on Cuba and talk about doing the same with Burma. That’s when they’re not on one of their worldwide apology tours.

Do we get anything in return for all this bowing and apologizing? No, we don’t. Yes, Russia voted for a weak sanctions resolution on Iran, but it immediately stated it could sell advanced anti-aircraft missile to Iran anyway, and would not end its nuclear cooperation. In response to North Korea’s unprovoked sinking of a South Korean Navy ship, China warned us not to take part in military exercises with our ally.

And while President Obama lets America get pushed around by the likes of Russia and China, our allies are left to wonder about the value of an alliance with the U.S. They have to be wondering if it’s worth it.

AN “ENEMY-CENTRIC” FOREIGN POLICY

It has led one prominent Czech official to call Obama’s foreign policy “enemy-centric.” And this “enemy-centric” approach has real consequences. It not only baffles our allies, it worries them. When coupled with less defense spending, it signals to the world that maybe we can no longer be counted on, and that we have other priorities than being the world leader that keeps the peace and provides security in Europe, in Asia and throughout the world.

Together with this enemy-centric foreign policy, we see a lessening of the long, bipartisan tradition of speaking out for human rights and democracy. The Secretary of State said she would not raise human rights with China because “we pretty much know what they are going to say.” Democracy promotion programs have been cut. Support for the brave Iranians protesting their government was not forthcoming because President Obama would rather try to cut a deal with their oppressors.

When the world’s dictators see the United States unconcerned with human rights and political freedom, they breathe a sigh of relief, because they know they have a free hand to repress their own people.

This goes against the very ideals on which our republic was founded. There is a long bipartisan tradition of speaking out in favor of freedom – from FDR to Ronald Reagan. America loses something very important when its President consigns human rights and freedom to the back burner of its international priorities.

A DIFFERENT VIEW OF AMERICA

We have a President, perhaps for the very first time since the founding of our republic, who doesn’t appear to believe that America is the greatest earthly force for good the world has ever known.

When asked whether he believed in American exceptionalism, President Obama answered, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Amazing. Amazing.

I think this statement speaks volumes about his world view. He sees nothing unique in the American experience? Really? Our founding, and our founding mothers and fathers? Really? And our history over the past two and half centuries?

Really? He sees nothing unique in an America that fought and won two world wars and in victory sought not one inch of territory or one dollar of plunder? He sees nothing unique in an America that, though exhausted by conflict, still laid the foundation for security in Europe and Asia after World War II? He sees nothing unique in an America that prevailed against an evil ideology in the Cold War? Does he just sees a country that has to be apologized for around the world, especially to dictators?

President Obama actually seems reluctant to even embrace American power. Earlier this year when he was asked about his faltering Middle East peace process, he said “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.” Whether we like it or not?! Really? Mr. President, this may come as news to you, but most Americans actually do like it. And so do our allies. They know it was our military might that liberated countless millions from tyranny, slavery, and oppression over the last 234 years. Yes, we do like it. As a dominant superpower, the United States has won wars hot and cold; our military has advanced the cause of freedom and kept authoritarian powers in check.

It is in America’s and the world’s best interests for our country to remain the dominant military superpower, but under President Obama’s leadership that dominance may be slipping away. It’s the result of an agenda that reeks of complacency and defeatism.

(I went on from there to talk about our need to end the negative, defeatist attitudes of those in leadership. I spoke further on American exceptionalism, and Willow and I ended a great evening with some great patriots. Sorry the media chose to report anything other than what actually happened at the event.)

- Sarah Palin

BREAKING: The Feds dropped their case against Mosab Hassan Yousef!

Posted by therightscoop in Politics on Jun 30th, 2010 

This is absolutely the best news this week!

The son of a Hamas founder who became a Christian and an Israeli spy will be granted U.S. asylum after he passes a routine background check, an immigration judge ruled Wednesday.
Mosab Hassan Yousef got the good news during a 15-minute deportation hearing after a U.S. Department of Homeland Security attorney said the government was dropping its objections.
The agency denied Yousef’s asylum request in February 2009, arguing that he had been involved in terrorism and was a threat to the United States.
Attorney Kerri Calcador gave no explanation for the government’s change of heart.

I heard this on the radio on my way to lunch, and I find it simply amazing that the government just decided to drop it’s case without explanation. You know I’m thanking Jesus for this and I am glad He intervened.
To all those who prayed with me, I thank you.

For further information on Mosab and why he deserved asylum go to :
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/obama-loses-court-grants-asylum-to-son-of-hamas-who-spied-for-israel/


The Right Scoop

Why Obamanomics Has Failed

Uncertainty about future taxes and regulations is enemy No. 1 of economic growth.

By ALLAN H. MELTZER

The administration's stimulus program has failed. Growth is slow and unemployment remains high. The president, his friends and advisers talk endlessly about the circumstances they inherited as a way of avoiding responsibility for the 18 months for which they are responsible.
But they want new stimulus measures—which is convincing evidence that they too recognize that the earlier measures failed. And so the U.S. was odd-man out at the G-20 meeting over the weekend, continuing to call for more government spending in the face of European resistance.

The contrast with President Reagan's antirecession and pro-growth measures in 1981 is striking. Reagan reduced marginal and corporate tax rates and slowed the growth of nondefense spending. Recovery began about a year later. After 18 months, the economy grew more than 9% and it continued to expand above trend rates.
Two overarching reasons explain the failure of Obamanomics. First, administration economists and their outside supporters neglected the longer-term costs and consequences of their actions. Second, the administration and Congress have through their deeds and words heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth.

Most of the earlier spending was a very short-term response to long-term problems. One piece financed temporary tax cuts. This was a mistake, and ignores the role of expectations in the economy. Economic theory predicts that temporary tax cuts have little effect on spending. Unless tax cuts are expected to last, consumers save the proceeds and pay down debt. Experience with past temporary tax reductions, as in the Carter and first Bush presidencies, confirms this outcome.
Another large part of the stimulus went to relieve state and local governments of their budget deficits. Transferring a deficit from the state to the federal government changes very little. Some teachers and police got an additional year of employment, but their gain is temporary. Any benefits to them must be balanced against the negative effect of the increased public debt and the temporary nature of the transfer.
The Obama economic team ignored past history. The two most successful fiscal stimulus programs since World War II—under Kennedy-Johnson and Reagan—took the form of permanent reductions in corporate and marginal tax rates. Economist Arthur Okun, who had a major role in developing the Kennedy-Johnson program, later analyzed the effect of individual items. He concluded that corporate tax reduction was most effective.
Another defect of Obamanomics was that part of the increased spending authorized by the 2009 stimulus bill was held back. Remember the oft-repeated claim that the spending would go for "shovel ready" projects? That didn't happen, though spending will flow more rapidly now in an effort to lower unemployment and claim economic success during the fall election campaign.
In his January 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama recognized that the United States must increase exports. He was right, but he has done little to help, either by encouraging investment to increase productivity, or by supporting trade agreements, despite his promise to the Koreans that he repeated in Toronto. Export earnings are the only way to service our massive foreign borrowing. This should be a high priority. Isn't anyone in the government thinking about the future?
Mr. Obama has denied the cost burden on business from his health-care program, but business is aware that it is likely to be large. How large? That's part of the uncertainty that employers face if they hire additional labor.
The president asks for cap and trade. That's more cost and more uncertainty. Who will be forced to pay? What will it do to costs here compared to foreign producers? We should not expect businesses to invest in new, export-led growth when uncertainty about future costs is so large.

Then there is Medicaid, the medical program for those with lower incomes. In the past, states paid about half of the cost, and they are responsible for 20% of the additional cost imposed by the program's expansion. But almost all the states must balance their budgets, and the new Medicaid spending mandated by ObamaCare comes at a time when states face large deficits and even larger unfunded liabilities for pensions. All this only adds to uncertainty about taxes and spending.
Other aspects of the Obama economic program are equally problematic. The auto bailouts ran roughshod over the rule of law. Chrysler bondholders were given short shrift in order to benefit the auto workers union. By weakening the rule of law, the president opened the way to great mischief and increased investors' and producers' uncertainty. That's not the way to get more investment and employment.
Almost daily, Mr. Obama uses his rhetorical skill to castigate businessmen who have the audacity to hope for profitable opportunities. No president since Franklin Roosevelt has taken that route. President Roosevelt slowed recovery in 1938-40 until the war by creating uncertainty about his objectives. It was harmful then, and it's harmful now.
In 1980, I had the privilege of advising Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to ignore the demands of 360 British economists who made the outrageous claim that Britain would never (yes, never) recover from her decision to reduce government spending during a severe recession. They wanted more spending. She responded with a speech promising to stay with her tight budget. She kept a sustained focus on long-term problems. Expectations about the economy's future improved, and the recovery soon began.
That's what the U.S. needs now. Not major cuts in current spending, but a credible plan showing that authorities will not wait for a fiscal crisis but begin to act prudently and continue until deficits disappear, and the debt is below 60% of GDP. Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.) offered a plan, but the administration and Congress ignored it.
The country does not need more of the same. Successful leaders give the public reason to believe that they have a long-term program to bring a better tomorrow. Let's plan our way out of our explosive deficits and our hesitant and jobless recovery by reducing uncertainty and encouraging growth.
Mr. Meltzer is a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of "A History of the Federal Reserve" (University of Chicago Press, 2003 and 2010).

WSJ

OH NOES! SARAH PALIN IS HUMAN!

Gary P.

Published 06/30/2010 - 9:00 a.m. CST

 Yes, yes, I know when we see Sarah Palin we see a strong, powerful woman. We see a warrior. A woman who takes no prisoners and gives no quarter. We see an accomplished leader with an incredible record of reforming and streamlining government.
Knowing all if this, and much more, it’s sometimes easy to forget she’s only human. Yes Sarah, like the rest of us, is capable of making mistakes, especially when speaking off the cuff. Having done it for years, I can tell ya, it ain’t as easy as it looks.
It seems that when Sarah visited California State University at Stanislaus last week, she miss-spoke while talking about her hero, and mine, Ronald Reagan. During her speech, while talking about Reagan, small town values, and trying to tie that together with the fact Reagan moved to California, and how that shaped him, she got ahead of herself. Sarah was talking about Eureka College, which of course is in Illinois, but it came out “Eureka, California”.
Now obviously, as a student of Ronald Reagan, Sarah knows he went to Eureka College in ILLINOIS. How do I know this for a fact? Well it’s easy, not that long ago Sarah was in Illinois, speaking at Five Points Washington.
Karen McDonald from Peoria’s Journal Star reported at the time:

Palin commented on the Land of Lincoln having a “most diverse political scene” and referenced the “Will it play in Peoria?” cliche.

“Nobody here is ordinary. … Much of the eyes of America are on this part of our nation because this is a representation of good, hard-working, grounded, unpretentious, patriotic Americans,” she said.

One of those people, Palin said, is former President Ronald Reagan, a Eureka College graduate, who believed in limited government in order to expand opportunity and prosperity. Reagan was a Midwestern boy who understood the importance of work ethic, not entitlement, she said.

“We need a dose of that Midwestern common sense now more than ever,” Palin said.

John Morris, director of development for the Ronald W. Reagan Leadership Program and Ronald Reagan Museum at Eureka College, said remarks about the college by a potential Republican candidate for president in 2012 are “thrilling.”

“Eureka College is a national living legacy to this story that in America you can come from anywhere and with the right values you can go on to help change the world. Eureka College is the living legacy to the story of Ronald Reagan,” Morris said.

You can read the entire article here.
Now that should be that, end of story, but of course, it isn’t.
Evidently the left wing in this country is just as shocked as we are to find out that Sarah Palin is indeed human, and capable of miss-speaking. Now I get that, considering she has been kicking their tails from one end of this country to the other for the last year or more.
The woman has laid bare their Dear Leader for all to see. She’s exposed Obama for what he is: a corrupt, Chicago street thug, and nothing more.
So shocked are the Marxist-progressives to learn Sarah Palin, their bête noire, is but a mere mortal, they can’t stop talking about her gaffe. It’s understandable.
Of course, it just might be a bit of misdirection on their part. You see for all of the insanity, brought on by the left before her incredible speech that night, in the end, Sarah Palin raised more money than any speaker in CSU Stanislaus history!
After the dust settled, and all bills were paid, the university netted $200,000. That’s big money in anyone’s book, and again, a record for the university.
Now this is Northern California. The university, which is located in Turlock, is less than 100 miles from San Francisco. I mean this is right in the belly of the communist beast! This is serious business.
How would the Marxists in San Francisco ever be able to explain how that moose huntin’ hockey mom from Wasilla, Alaska was such a hit in own their backyard?
Think about it. If Sarah Palin can raise more money than any speaker in history, in the shadow of the most Marxist-progressive city in the country, that means come 2012, Barack Obama wouldn’t have a prayer against her in the state, IF (more like when) she runs for President.
One can only imagine the cold sweats Marxists all over the country broke out in once they realized this.
Now this is before we even talk about the speech itself! A lot has been made about the “reporters” caught on tape after the speech, but again, that’s just mis-direction. The radicals will do absolutely anything to keep you from actually listening to Sarah Palin’s words.
This was a great speech. Different than some of her latest. She wasn’t there to rip Obama apart, she would do that the next night in Tyler, Texas and over the weekend in Virginia! No, this was a speech about American values, American exceptionalism, and the need to get back to the basics in education. Three more things that make the left break out in a cold sweat.
So …. it’s kinda understandable that the Marxists and their media partners would make a big deal out of all of this.They absolutely must take your mind off the fact that Sarah Palin kicks ass!
Of course, the Dear Leader, Captain Kick Ass, and his lovable side kick, Vice President Smart Ass would never screw up, ever …. or would they.
Here Obama says he’s been to 57 states, with one, possibly two, that he wasn’t allowed to see.

Here’s the most gifted speaker that ever breathed not only speaking rather incoherently, because he was working without his trusty TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States) by his side, but also claiming a child, suffering from an asthma attack, needs a breathalyzer for treatment. In all fairness, after stumbling, he gets it right, but this still makes for great TV!

And who could forget when this genius claimed that doctors were taking out children’s tonsils to make more money.


Even better, here he accuses doctors of allowing obese people to become diabetics, so at some point, they can make $30,000 …. $40,000 …. or possibly $50,000 by amputating their feet!


According to Cheryl Clark, at HealthLeaders Media:

“President Obama got his facts completely wrong,” according to a statement from the ACS, whose 74,000 members make it the largest organization of surgeons in the world.

“In fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation,” sais ACS, which is care that includes evaluation of the patient the day of the operation and follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation.

Private insurers pay a variation of the same amount, said the group, adding that it is “deeply disturbed” over the President’s “uninformed public comments.“

Of course who could forget that Obama thinks people in Austria speak “Austrian” (about 1:33 in)

For the record, Austrians speak German!
Here’s another classic from the Harvard educated President. Obama thinks Europe is a country!

Now right about now, any left wingers reading this are going to shout: “Oh yeah! Well that crazy moose lady didn’t know Africa was a continent …. So there!“
On thing wrong with that, as Frank James noted in the Chicago Tribune, on November 13, 2008, a whole bunch of people, including Fox New’s “Campaign Carl” Cameron, owe Sarah Palin a HUGE apology. (Of course, as of this writing, June 29, 2009, she is still waiting for it)
You see the whole thing was a HOAX uncovered by, of all places, the New York Times!

It was among the juicier post-election recriminations: Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.

Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. “Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Mr. Shuster said.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months. MSNBC, which quickly corrected the mistake, has plenty of company in being taken in by an Eisenstadt hoax, including The New Republic and The Los Angeles Times.

BTW, “Martin Eisenstadt” was the source of a few more BS stories about Sarah, including the one about her greeting people in a bathrobe at her hotel. It’s sad enough the media fell for the Africa story, but as anyone with any amount of experience, or has ever seen a movie or TV show, would know, the Secret Service would never allow a protectee to open their own door, especially not in a hotel.
Read more here.
Now I promised you some Joe Biden, and God love the man, if we tried to show you all of Joe in his gaffetastic splendor, I fear our servers would explode, so here’s just a few of the thousands that will live on as classics forever.
First off, remember the Vice Presidential debate? The moderator Gwyn Ifel, alluding to the fact that Dick Cheney had been a strong Vice President, asked Sarah if she would carry on in that vein, which she said she would. This caused Biden (and the media) to lose it, as she cited the Constitution. Biden, who actually teaches the Constitution, got it all wrong. They chastised Sarah for weeks though.
Article I, Section 1 makes it clear that the Vice President is the President of the Senate, and while only having a vote in case of tie, has actual powers within the Senate. In fact, during the last hours, when the Marxists were shoving ObamaCare down America’s throat, Biden stood ready, in his capacity as President of the Senate, to overrule the Senate’s parliamentarian, had the Marxists’ plans been thwarted by him.
Of course, that’s heavy stuff, and why should a man who had only been in the Senate for 35 years, and taught the Constitution on weekends, know all of this. Of course, Sarah Palin, the Governor from way up there in Alaska knew it!
Again, that’s heavy stuff. Sheriff Joe does a lot better when you just let him talk!
Here’s Vice President Smart Ass talking about that three letter word J-O-B-S

And who could ever forget Chuck Graham? Stand up Chuck!

While we could do this for hours!
I want to leave you with one of my all time favorites. Knowing she would be interviewing Sarah Palin, and taking a break from her anti-Palin advisers former Senator Sam Nunn and Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haas, who coached her for the Palin interview, the Perky One did a softball interview with Joe Biden. This is Joe at his absolute gaffetastic best, just makin’ it up as he goes!
As Couric stares lovingly into his eyes, Good old Joe says:

When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed,. Look, here’s what happened.

Now I love this one on many levels. First, you got a two-fer. Both Biden and Couric are as clueless as they come. Can you imagine if that was Sarah Palin babbling that nonsense? Couric would have lost her mind right then and there! Instead, she studied up hard on Sarah and was aided by top Marxist-democrat operatives. It’s was almost like the Perky One worked for the DNC. Oh, wait ….
Anyhow, back to the fun. Biden got this so wrong it’s truly phenomenal. I mean a lesser person would have to work hard to do what just comes natural to Biden.
First off, when the Stock Market crashed, in 1929, Herbert Hoover was President. FDR was still the Governor of New York. Roosevelt wouldn’t take office until March of 1933. (presidential inaugurals used to happen in March)
Second, while television was in the concept stage, no such thing, in workable form, existed. FDR’s famous “fireside chats” were all broadcast over the radio. Radio was the way most Americans got their news and entertainment at home. This was true into the 1950's.
Roosevelt would indeed go on to be the first President to appear on television though. On April 30, 1939 NBC started broadcasting. This was opening day of the New York World’s Fair. This was a weak signal, and there were around 1000 viewers total.
NBC’s experimental New York City station was licensed for commercial telecasts beginning on July 1, 1941.
Read more here.
In case you are wondering, the first televised presidential inaugural was Harry S Truman’s in 1949
As one can see, as shocking as it is to learn that Sarah Palin is a mere mortal, and stumbled while speaking, in the grand scheme of things, others have done far worse.
Don’t let the left wing and their media partners distract you from Sarah Palin’s strong and powerful message, or the positive contributions she is making to our world.

The Cypress Times

Illegal aliens are breaking laws and breaking taxpayers' backs

This letter is in response to Steve Chapman’s column "The fence keeping illegal aliens out actually keeps them in" (April 25).
 After reading this column, I had to admit lots of the illegal aliens from Mexico are good people and good workers as well. Nevertheless, they are illegal and are lawbreakers because illegal means prohibited by law.
 Are you suggesting, Mr. Chapman, that we ignore this law or drop it and write up a new one so illegal aliens won’t be illegal anymore?
 Are you suggesting that our government ignore this law and make a new one for this special group of lawbreakers?
 Would you also allow this new law to cover our own lawbreakers who are presently behind wall and fence? You know, if it’s effective for one group of lawbreakers, it should be for the other. No partiality, please!
 If we did this, whether for the poor in their country or ours, would that not cause anarchy?
 Mostly, I believe the illegal aliens are coming into our country for the "free" handouts. Where else in this whole world can they go to get free housing, free schooling, free medical care and food (which is becoming more scarce). Where? Mr. Chapman, tell me where!
 And who in this whole world is paying for all this "free" stuff? Our big, free-spending government, of course!
 But Mr. Chapman, where does our big, free-spending government get all this money for all these "free" handouts? Mr. Chapman, you may not know who is paying for all this, but I will tell you: the true minority in America, the working people who pay taxes without cheating.
 I consider myself among this minority and I can tell you, Mr. Chapman, we do not want any more freeloaders to support. Our backs are almost broken already.
 If I sound angry, it’s because I’m fed up with all the hogwash and idiocy going on in Washington, D.C. A
simple solution: Stop all the handouts. They will have to go home by their own choice.

Laura Fannin
Kings Mountain

Gaston Gazett

How Obama Bungled the Oil Spill: An Inside Story

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

 It's one thing to say that President Obama's administration showed its ineptitude and mismanagement in its handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. It is quite another to grasp the situation up close, as I did during a recent visit to Alabama.

According to state disaster relief officials, Alabama conceived a plan -- early on -- to erect huge booms offshore to shield the approximately 200 miles of its coastline from oil. Rather than install the relatively light and shallow booms in use elsewhere, the state (with assistance from the Coast Guard) canvassed the world and located enough huge, heavy booms -- some weighing tons and seven meters high -- to guard its coast.

 But ... no sooner were the booms in place than the Coast Guard, perhaps under pressure from the public comments of James Carville, uprooted them and moved them to guard the Louisiana coastline, instead.
So, Alabama decided on a backup plan. It would buy snare booms to catch the oil as it began to wash up on the beaches.

But ... the Fish and Wildlife Administration vetoed the plan saying it would endanger sea turtles that nest on the beaches.

So, Alabama -- ever resourceful -- decided to hire 400 workers to patrol the beaches in person scooping up oil that had washed ashore.

But ... OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Agency) refused to allow them to work more than 20 minutes out of every hour and required an hour-long break after 40 minutes of work, so the cleanup proceeded at a very slow pace.

The short answer is that every agency -- each with its own particular bureaucratic agenda -- was able to veto each aspect of any plan to fight the spill with the unintended consequence that nothing stopped the oil from destroying hundreds of miles of wetlands, habitats, beaches, fisheries and recreational facilities.

Where was the president? Why did he not intervene in these and countless other bureaucratic controversies to force a focus on the oil, not on the turtles and other incidental concerns.
According to Alabama Gov. Bob Reilly, the administration's "lack of ability has become transparent" in its handling of the oil spill. He notes that one stellar exception has been Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, without whom, he says, nothing whatever would have gotten done.

Eventually, the state stopped listening to federal agencies and just has gone ahead and given funds directly to the local folks fighting the spill rather than paying attention to the directives of the Unified Command. Apparently, there is a world of difference between the competence of the Coast Guard and the superb and efficient regular Navy and military.

Now, the greatest crisis of all looms on the horizon, as hurricanes sweep into the gulf. Should one hit offshore, it will destroy all the booms that have been placed to stop the oil from reaching shore. And there are no more booms anywhere in the world, according to Alabama disaster relief officials.

The political impact of this incompetence has only just begun to be felt. While administration operatives are flying high after a week in which the president's ratings rebounded to 49 percent in Rasmussen after his firing of Gen. McChrystal, the oil is still gushing and the situation is about to worsen.

The obvious fact is that Obama has no executive experience, and neither do any of his top advisors. Without a clear mandate from the top, needed efforts to salvage the situation are repeatedly stymied by well meaning bureaucrats strictly following the letter of their agency policy and federal law. The result, ironically, of their determined efforts to protect the environment has been the greatest environmental disaster in history. But some turtles are OK!

Open Thread: Robert Byrd, the KKK, the Second Amendment Ruling and What the MSM Doesn’t Want You To Know About Guns

Posted by Michael Walsh Jun 28th 2010 at 10:04 am in Justice/Legal

By some ironic twist of fate, the Senator from the Ku Klux Klan has died on the same day the Supreme Court — by a distressingly narrow 5-4 ruling — affirmed that the Second Amendment is incorporated, via the 14th Amendment, to the states, and that Chicago’s gun ban is therefore unconstitutional. In part, the ruling rested on the historical fact that African Americans were denied gun ownership in many places following Reconstruction, and thus were not fully free:

Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, who has written extensively on the Second Amendment, has just posted his reactions:

OKAY, having quickly skimmed the McDonald opinion, a few thoughts…
… it really is interesting how much emphasis the majority, and Justice Thomas’s concurrence, put on the racist roots of gun control. See this article and this one by Bob Cottrol and Ray Diamond for more background. And isn’t it interesting that this is happening on the same day the Senate’s last Klansman went to his reward?

… personally, I’d like to note that a lot of “respectable” commentators were, just a few years ago, calling the individual-rights theory of the Second Amendment absurd, ridiculous, and something that only (probably paid) shills for the NRA would espouse. (I’m talking to you, Garry Wills and Robert Spitzer, among others). Yet it is impossible to read this opinion, and the Heller opinion, and conclude that the individual right is really just a “fraud” concocted by the NRA. So were those who were saying so until quite recently being dishonest, or merely inexcusably ignorant?

Ironic as well that Justice Thomas, having survived his own “high-tech lynching,” wrote an impassioned concurrence and that his vote was, in essence, the only vote that mattered.
Somewhere this man is not smiling:

That’s Big Tim Sullivan on the right, architect of New York City’s draconian 1911 Sullivan Law, which effectively outlawed handguns by banning concealed weapons. Will it be next to fall?

Big Journalism

‘This May Be Going Over the Top’ – Press Says Beck At Lincoln Memorial Like Al Qaeda Rally At Ground Zero

Get a Load of this Liberal Idiot

Posted by Frank Ross Jun 29th 2010 at 4:07 am in Radio

We’ve always known that the Left is essentially fascist in both outlook and temperament — censor it! burn it! ban it! — and here’s the odious Bill Press to illustrate the truth of the proposition once again.




Does this mean he’s against the mosque at Ground Zero?


Big Journalism

Rolling the Conservative Movement: Seduction on the Right

June 28, 2010 

By Jay Valentine
There are "movement conservatives," and there are politicians who change their stripes for every occasion. Right now, the conservative movement is getting rolled by the latter.

Let us remember another day. Health care was all the rage (at least in the press), and leading "conservatives" were leading the third way. Newt Gingrich was working with Hillary Clinton on a more gradual route to universal health care, according to the New York Times and other sources.

"Conservative" Mitt Romney was building the Massachusetts universal health care along "business" principles fresh from saving the Olympics.

Now what? Well, Obama, the Tea Party, and Sarah Palin have lit a fire in the country, and every politician of every stripe has taken notice. And guess what: Newt Gingrich is all about repealing universal health care. Mitt Romney is all about anything other than what happened in Massachusetts.

Another example? Take Karl Rove. We now hear him every week on Fox News talking about the minutiae of how Obama has overreached. His book is titled Courage and Consequence. Again, let us hearken back a few years.

Karl Rove and George Bush gave us Obama and Democratic majorities in both houses. They rolled the conservatives by touting George Bush as a "compassionate conservative." Has anyone forgotten the greatest spending spree until Obama? Has anyone forgotten the prescription drug benefit -- pushed through Congress with muscle foretelling what was later to come from Rahm and Obama? 

What courage? Just look at the consequences -- and conservatives are buying that book?

Remember the "no new taxes" George Bush, sold as the "conservative" successor to President Reagan. One recalls "a kinder, gentler" conservative. Conservatives got rolled again.

Conservatives always get rolled with modifiers.

Well, here we are again. 

We movement conservatives and the Tea Party are about to get rolled. We are going to get sucked in by candidates like Huckabee, who just realized the error of his ways in pardoning a criminal who murdered four Seattle police officers; Romney, who is a perfect reflection of whatever is going on in the body politic; and Gingrich, who uses every technical buzzword to convince people he is some kind of new idea machine.

Yet each, when the winds came in from the west, was quite different. Moderate, perhaps? Or nonpartisan? Or just a reflection of what they thought might get them elected.

Critical thinking demands that we remember these people in their milieu -- what were they in different times? When times were liberal, they were, well, less conservative. When the press said people demanded less partisanship, Newt and Hillary traveled and spoke together, almost holding hands.

It is time we realize that there are "movement conservatives" and there are opportunistic conservatives. Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and a host of emerging new candidates are movement conservatives.

What is different about them is they are conservative in their core, not in their clothing. When times get tough for conservatives, nothing changes. So when times get better, they aren't likely to compromise.

People amazingly recall Reagan today as a "great president." Not Bush, not Nixon, just Reagan. Well, let us recall why -- he was the only movement conservative elected in the last fifty years. Reagan was great because he was a movement conservative; he never did anything just to get along or get elected.

The changes needed in America today are not a matter of degree; they are a matter of kind. The entire American mindset must fundamentally change away from democratic socialism and toward individual self-reliance.

That mindset is changing. The political class, however, is not.

The changes needed in America require saying "no" in a big way and being vilified in the press. Our leaders need to be able to stand up to massive left-wing media resistance and not compromise the core. 

This can be done only by a movement conservative.

Repeal ObamaCare, not reduce it. Stop long-term welfare dependency, not alleviate it. Change the tax system so everyone participates, not just reduce top rates. Embrace free enterprise, not just regulate it less. End the dominance of the NEA. Vouchers everywhere, not just in Cleveland. Get rid of the Departments of Energy, Education, and Commerce, and then get started reducing government.

Gingrich, Romney, Rove, and Huckabee are trying to seduce the conservative movement into another dance with a newly found conservatism. If any of their ilk get elected, we will have "socialism, more slowly."

We will lose the greatest opportunity in a political lifetime to change the direction of the country.

Palin, the Tea Party, Bachmann are the real deal.

We must always remember how we got here -- looking at national bankruptcy. It was with "compassionate," "kinder, gentler" modifier conservatives who found conservatism when the wind blew that way.

Jay Valentine was the Field Director for the Jim Buckley for Senate campaign in Connecticut in the 1980s and ran the primary against U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson in the Connecticut 6^th District. Johnson was a RINO.

American Thinker

On the Obama cybersecurity bill

Posted by Neil Stevens (Profile)

Monday, June 28th at 2:00PM EDT

 

So, the Cybersecurity bill is back, fully formed as the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PCNAA). When I first highlighted the bill in August of 2009, I summarized it like so:

S. 773, a bill by West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Democrat, would create new “emergency” powers for the President, a ‘cybersecurity’ Enabling Act of sorts, that would give the President the authority broad powers over any “non-governmental” computer networks, whether public or private, that are declared by the President to be “critical.”
These powers extend beyond declared emergencies, however. Rockefeller’s bill would immediately grant the ability of the government to control hiring and firing of jobs related to these so-called critical networks, because the President could unilaterally declare that jobs related to those networks would be required to be filled by people certified to the task by the government. And much like with the car dealerships, the Obama administration is fully expected to use its power to favor political allies for these jobs by granting or denying certification depending on your level of donations to Obama for America or the Democratic National Committee.

Yeah, so it’s back. Some parts of it may seem harmless, or even beneficial, such as the part highlighted by the good people at Bayshore Networks that seems to amount to an online Real ID act. But such things, if we want them, can and should be achieved without all the baggage associated with them.
Because you see: the emergency powers sought by the Democrats and the White House not only amount to a huge power grab over private computers that is unprecedented online, but the purported goal still won’t be achieved. The bill is as overbearing in its means as it is impractical in its ends.

Consider the premise of the bill: we have to defend ourselves against a hypothetical attack by a foreign power on this country’s computers over the Internet. It sounds just so reasonable that we should just be able to “shut off the pipe” to country X until the threat passes, doesn’t it? The problem is, there is no one pipe. The Internet is not like the system of roads, centralized and government owned. The Internet is a tangled web of private networks, any or all of the biggest of which (”the Backbone”) might have their own connections to private networks in other countries. Take a look at this diagram of the Internet backbone made by the Opte Project:

See the colors, and how they weave together in so many different places? They aren’t for show. Red is east Asia and Oceania, Green is Europe, the rest of Asia, and Africa, Blue is North America, Yellow is Latin America and the Caribbean, and nobody can say for sure what the White ones are. It’s all connected, all of it, in many different ways.
See also CAIDA’s diagram of the backbone which shows in pink the connections between the continents, all redundant and robust. That’s just it: the Internet is designed to resist a line being cut here or there, because the kind of deliberate shutdown the Obama administration wants is the kind of thing that can and does happen by accident!
So what would it take for the Democrats even to try this? Take a look at the diagrams again. Anywhere a North America dot connects with another country, let alone another continent, Government is going to demand to know who works at that dot, what computers are there, and insist on being able to give orders to the people at that dot whenever the President decides to say it’s an emergency.
We’re not just talking about the traditional Constitutional emergencies here, after all. The Constitution recognizes “cases of Rebellion or Invasion” as well as Congressionally declared War as special times, but this Cybersecurity bill is not limited to such specifically grave situations. As Bruce Henderson writes at The New Ledger:

S773 makes no attempt to outline and describe what form of emergency would trigger the use of these broad new powers to limit communication, nor any means by which it could be reviewed by anyone outside the executive branch. The bill also proscribes that the executive branch will perform periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government.

But again, remember those diagrams before: How are you going to close off the US from, say, China or Iran? The only way, given the Internet’s robust interconnectivity, is to close off the US from the entire world, which would mean the government taking dictatorial control over every major Internet provider in the country, isolating us, and without a doubt creating a greater disruption on the lives and businesses of Americans than any one attack could create. We, like North Korea, would end up a dark spot on a well-lit world.
So where are we left with the Cybersecurity bill? The problem the Obama administration wants to solve is impractical to solve. The power they want is vast. The solution they end up with is worse than the problem. So it’s time to make some noise. The bill has made it out of Senate committee. We have to get loud and get loud quickly if we want to stop the Internet Blackout Czar from becoming a reality.
In particular, let’s ask cosponsor Susan Collins to drop her support, and turn from the side of control and censorship, to the side that is less like Communist-controlled China. We expect huge expansions of government power from Democrats like Joe Lieberman or Jay Rockefeller, but Republicans should know better than to support more progressive crisis mongering. We need all hands on deck, and every Republican pulling for our side in order to ensure this bill goes down to a well-deserved defeat. The PCNAA is worse than snake oil: it’d kill the patient.

Redstate

Keynsianism is dead in Europe

Posted by Soren Dayton (Profile)

Monday, June 28th at 1:05PM EDT

The G-8 and G-20 meetings in Canada were remarkable in historic terms. European governments criticized the United States for being spendthrift. Brazil provided political cover to the US on behalf of the developing countries. This has been a consequence of something truly remarkable happening in Europe. Keynsianism has lost in Europe. There is no political support for it. And Barack Obama got hit in the face with this reality.
Since the beginning of the financial crisis, conservative and liberal parties have defeated socialist parties in nearly every election in the European Union. They won the European elections and elections in the UK, Italy, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Hungary, etc. A reformist, pro-market right has beaten a traditionalist right in Poland. There is no credible political voice for more spending in Europe. The Greek and Portuguese financial crises have destroyed a political argument for deficit-funded stimulus packages. (note that this opportunity is not being wasted: European countries are raising retirement ages and trying all sorts of other strategies to cut their extensive entitlement systems)
Furthermore, the only European Union members with Socialist governments are Portugal, Greece, and Spain. (note that Austria has a “Grand Coalition” where the right and the left share power) You will note that this is three of the four “PIGS” countries that are the weakest economic performers in Europe. Furthermore, the Greek Prime Minister is the leader of the Socialist International, which coordinates policy and political positions internationally across all the parties of the left. How is that working out?
It is pretty astonishing that Barack Obama went to this crowd to demand that they spend more. It was both tone deaf about the epochal changes in European politics and indicative of a broader incompetence in our foreign policy.

Redstate

Missouri Is The Concord Bridge For Obamacare Repeal

Posted by 24thstate (Profile)

Monday, June 28th at 2:45PM EDT

 

On August 3, 2010, the Missouri electorate will vote on Proposition C, the Missouri Health Care Freedom Act (MHCFA).  Have no doubt - this is the first shot fired against the power grab known as Obamacare.  If successful, if we beat back this overreach of federal power in Missouri, other states will move forward.  Should we fail - especially with low voter turnout, the media,the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats will gain a second wind.  I can think of few things more disastrous leading into November than giving the Democrats hope.
Josie Wales, a lawyer from Missouri writing at Big Government, calls August 3 “the most important day in America“.” Missouri will be the first state to allow the public at large to voice its opinion on Obamacare.  Most of us know that the majority of Americans view Obamacare with disgust; disgust at the process by which it was passed and disgust by the burden it will impose.  We’ve been forced to speak through rallies and a diminished Republican party, until now.  Now there is an opportunity for the average voter to act upon that disgust.
Why should you care?  What does a Missouri proposition have to do with the other 49 states?  MHCFA represents the first battle in the war against the bureaucratic, tax-happy nightmare that has saddled Americans over the last century.  Just as the Supreme Court gun cases are changing the debate on the Second Amendment back to gun ownershig being a fundamental right, states signalling their refusal to go along with individual and employer mandates will alter the debate on the proper role of the federal government.  At issue is a single idea - can the government compel you to purchase a product they design simply because you’re a US citizen?

MHCFA is a call to arms for all freedom loving Americans, but even in our state there is complacency.  Polling looks good, so the Republican establishment is taking it easy.  They’re crossing their fingers and hoping no last minute barrage of ads derails the proposition, as has been done every time the Left wants something.  From direct mail to phone banks to television ads by outside groups, the Left will carpetbomb Missouri in the week before the vote, and conservatives will have no time to react.
So we need your help.   Not with money.  Not with volunteers.  Though both would be nice, what we really need is the collective voice of conservative America.
Support MHCFA.

Supporting MHCFA is as simple as linking to the effort on the internets, posting an article about the effort on your blog, leaving a comment about the effort on a website, and mentioning the effort in any other social medium: Twitter, Facebook, church, work, bars, sporting events, airplanes, bank lines, family dinners….
We need national recognition.  Recognition of the effort in Missouri will lend to its success.  If we succeed by large margins in Missouri, you can be sure that success will follow in other states across this great nation.
Don’t get me wrong.  We’re not sitting idle.  Tea Party groups, conservative candidates, and conservative bloggers are out writing and knocking on doors and calling our connections to generate press.  But we need the folks at Red State to help.
Please support the MHCFA in whatever method you choose, and visit the website:
http://www.mohealthfreedom.org/
If you’re writing about healthcare, link to something on Missouri.  If you’re reading about Healthcare in Missouri, link to that story, and leave a comment.  If you’re writing about The Healthcare Freedom Act, please send a note to Benjamin at rivercitytea@gmail.com and he will link back. If you’re writing about a healthcare lawsuit in your own state, send him a note and we’ll tie it back into the larger fight.
We need noise on the issue more than anything else.  Anyone care to raise their voice?

Redstate

Gun Prohibition, R.I.P.

The Supreme Court’s new Second Amendment decision is the end of an era.

By David Rittgers June 28, 2010 12:00 P.M.


 The Supreme Court’s rejection of Chicago’s handgun ban in McDonald v. City of Chicago is more than a recognition that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government. The McDonald decision is a harbinger for the end of gun prohibition as an idea. The simple, undeniable truth is that gun control does not work.

McDonald brings the law up to speed with reality, where advocates of gun control have been wrong since the issue became a national discussion.

Strict gun-control policies have failed to deliver on their essential promise: that denying law-abiding citizens access to the means of self-defense will somehow make them safer. This should come as no surprise, since gun control has always been about control, not guns.

Racism created gun control in America. Confronted with the prospect of armed freedmen who could stand up for their rights, states across the South instituted gun-control regimes that took away the ability of blacks to defend themselves against the depravity of the Klan.

Fast forward to the 1960s, when a century of institutionalized racism began to come to an end. While racism was no longer the driving force, social change, the drug trade, and the assassination of several national figures turned gun control into an article of faith among progressive politicians. They saw the elimination of guns as the only way to counter the rapid increase of crime in inner cities. 

Truly onerous gun control came to fruition only in a minority of jurisdictions, predominantly those run by Democrat machines. The District of Columbia enacted a registration requirement for all handguns in 1976, then closed the registry so that all guns not on the books could never be lawfully owned in the District. Chicago followed suit in 1983. With each failure of gun control, the rejoinder was to do it again, this time with feeling.

Since the Heller case invalidated the District of Columbia’s handgun ban two years ago, Chicago has served as the gun-control capital of the United States. Not coincidentally, Chicago is a dangerous place to live. Two weekends ago, 52 people were shot, eight fatally. Local politicians frequently ponder calling out the National Guard to patrol Chicago’s streets.

Three times in the last month, Chicago residents have defended their homes or businesses with “illegal” guns. In the first, an 80-year-old Navy veteran killed a felon who broke into his home. In the second, a man shot and wounded a fugitive who burst into the man’s home while running from the police. In the third, the owner of a pawn shop killed one of three robbers in self-defense, sending the other two running.

The Illinois legislature, confronted with clearly justified shootings like these before, created an affirmative defense for those who violate local gun bans when unregistered guns are used in self-defense. Then–state senator Barack Obama voted against this law, which passed by an overwhelming majority and over then-governor Rod Blagojevich’s veto.

In passing this exception, Illinois recognized the basic injustice of the Chicago gun ban. Otherwise law-abiding citizens are victimized at a high rate. Chicagoans cannot depend on the police to defend them, cannot sue the city because the law protects officials from liability for failure to protect them, and are barred from effective means of self-defense.
Now that the Supreme Court has spoken, the de facto ban against self-defense will be overturned and Chicagoans will not have to rely on the discretion of prosecutors and the benevolence of legislators to affirm their inalienable right to self-defense.

Advocates of gun control will not be swayed by the Supreme Court’s holding in McDonald. No matter the evidence, the rallying cry will continue: If gun control “saves just one life” it will be worth it. This plea ignores the irony of crusading for individual safety by disarming all of society. That logic can now be squarely turned on the advocates of gun control. If it saves just one life — or many, since jurisdictions with more legally owned (and carried) guns tend to have less violent crime — we should create a sensible legal framework for gun ownership that does not hamper the right of individuals to exercise self-defense.

A generation from now, legal and policy discussions will look back and see gun control for the sham that it has always been. The real shame is that it took decades of political action, millions of dollars in litigation, and thousands of lives lost to end the preposterous idea that governments can reduce the number of victims of violent crime by first taking away their means of resistance.


NRO

Call for Obama's resignation cites 'deceit, fraud, dishonesty'

'We can wait no longer for a traditional change of power and new government'

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely

A retired U.S. military leader who now is a presence on the Internet with his Stand Up For America and Veterans Defenders websites has issued a call for President Obama's resignation and a new election to replace him. The call comes from Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, who served in Vietnam and retired in 1991 from the U.S. Army as deputy commanding general for the Pacific. "We now must call for the immediate resignation of Barry Soetero (AKA President Barack Hussein Obama) … based on incompetence, deceit, fraud, corruption, dishonesty and violation of the U.S. oath of office and the Constitution," he said in remarks delivered to a Lincoln Reagan dinner in Virginia City, Mont., last week and published today on the Stand Up America website. "And a call for a national petition for new elections to select the next president of the United States of America must be initiated," he continued. "We can wait no longer for a traditional change of power and new government." A number of retired military members have sought the removal of Obama from office. They mostly have tried to utilize the courts to challenge his eligibility based on claims he fails to meet the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen." Few have asserted Obama needs to walk away from the Oval Office for the best of the nation. "The Declaration of Independence states: 'To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness,'" Vallely said in his remarks. "We cannot permit the current leaders in the White House and halls of Congress to continue in their efforts to lead us down the road of progressive socialism and destruction of America. This is the current battle that we constitutionalists face, and we must be aggressive in our efforts," he said. He pointed out that the oath of office for the president is basic, stating, "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." "Sadly, we have seen them violate their oath. Fraud, lying, and corruption are rampant and some have engaged in treasonous activities, and they effectively thumb their noses at us and have sold you to the highest bidder," he said. "Lincoln issued this warning in his inaugural address, 'Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one. This is a most valuable and sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world,'" Vallely said. "Being a representative republic, not a democracy, 'rising up' means other than revolution by means of arms. The people must 'rise up' from the grass roots across this great country as we think of the greater good of this and future generations. We are limited in the peaceful transfer of power…resignation, death, elections, and impeachment," he said. "'We the People' have had enough. Enough is enough. The Obama White House and identifiable members of Congress are now on a progressive socialist, treasonous death march and are bankrupting and weakening the country. We have watched them violate their sacred oath of office. 'We, the People' cannot wait for and solely rely on the next round of elections in November of this year. It is now and each day that these public servants must put the citizen's interests above self-interest by resigning immediately," he said. Vallely graduated from West Point and was commissioned in the Army in 1961. He served 32 years before retiring, including in theaters in Europe and the Pacific Rim. He saw two tours of combat duty in Vietnam. He's of late been a military analyst for the Fox News Channel and a lecturer on counter-terrorism. From 1982 to 1986 he commanded the 351st Civil Affairs Command that included all special forces, psychological warfare and civil military units in the Western United States and Hawaii. He told WND he is speaking as an American citizen who wants to see the nation restored to a role of world leadership peacefully. Vallely said Obama's record is of failure at just about everything, from the massive buckets of cash handed out in his bailout programs to his instability on foreign policy and his "lack of resolve" on military issues. He said while he doesn't call himself a "birther," even the issue of Obama's eligibility remains unresolved. "Certainly as a citizen I don't buy off on his eligibility," he said. But more significant than Obama's record, history, qualifications or even presidency is the nation's future, he said. "We cannot continue to self-destruct here." He said he's calling for the resignation of the president because that's what responsible citizens should be doing. Congress, certainly, is not going to take responsibility and get the job done, he said. "I want the people to stand up and take government back, peacefully," he told WND. On Vallely's website, forum participants were in lock-step: "As a Vietnam veteran and believer in the Constitution I am in full support of these observations and comments," said Ralph Kennedy. "It seems that even the military forces have been in decline along with the political culture in our country since Mr. Obama has been in place. … I applaud the courage and the common sense exhibited by Mr. Vallely in his statement." Added Ronald Hei, "As a Vietnam veteran and retired military officer, I fully support Gen. Vallely's call for the resignation of Obama. Failing resignation, I call for the petition of the U.S. Congress (existing) for his impeachment for ALL of the transgressions listed above and some not listed." David J. Austin said, "Our government under the current president has demonstrated moral corruptness in nearly all aspects of its performance. Our country and flag have been disgraced by the actions of Obama. … I would like to see the new Congress, after the 2010 elections, demand his immediate resignation or begin impeachment proceedings." The topic of Vallely's work also was scheduled to be on the Patriots Heart Network online report tonight. Peter Ferrara, on the American Spectator website, also has predicted Obama's resignation. "I am now ready to predict that President Obama will not even make it [to 2012]," he wrote. "I predict that he will resign in discredited disgrace before the fall of 2012," Ferrera said. There's a new strategy to get answers to Obama's eligibility questions. See how you can help. In his Spectator piece, which came only days before Vallely's remarks, Ferrera said, "What leads me to predict President Obama's early political demise are his numerous, enormous vulnerabilities to further adverse developments, threatening a geometrically accelerating downward spiral, for him politically, and for America substantively." Ferrara cited Obama's controversies over the Rep. Joe Sestak scandal, his lack of management of the Gulf oil spill, more and more taxes for Americans, a "blind" energy policy and others. "The president himself has laid the foundation for his biggest political vulnerability of all," he said. "He won our votes and the election in 2008 with 'the firm pledge' not to raise taxes 'in any form' on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. Now he has already backed away from that pledge," he said. A voter backlash against Democrats expected in November will result in Democrats themselves having "limited tolerance for the above described political pressures and chaos," he said. "With the very survival of their party at stake, the Democrats will buckle and desert President Obama, joining the calls for his resignation. "At that point, with zero prospects for re-election, and unable to govern effectively, he will resign," Ferrara said. Other military officers have taken a more direct approach to challenging Obama's presidency. WND has reported the case of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, a career physician who has refused Army orders because of the lack of documentation for Obama's eligibility. Lakin invited his own court action in a video: Lakin was not the first officer to raise questions. Others have included Army doctor Capt. Connie Rhodes and Army reservist Maj. Stefan Cook. The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." WND has covered a multitude of challenges and lawsuits over the issue. Some have alleged that he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he has written, or that the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama's father was a subject of the British crown at Obama's birth – from being eligible for the office. Besides Obama's actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard helps light up the night at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip.

Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?" The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 500,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question. A new effort now asks those in authority regarding the nation's elections to demand the full proof. The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny. If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND. World Net Daily