Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 12, 2016, 08:38:03 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
92690 Posts in 2301 Topics by 1080 Members
Latest Member: Tedbo
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 59 60 [61] 62 63 ... 100
3001  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: May 24, 2011, 01:12:59 PM
"where do you start in negotiations with these people?"

Similar to the Roman general:

"You want peace we will give you peace."   (And I will add: we prefer this.)

"You want war we will give you war."  (And I add: we will wipe you out.)

As Morris said Obama is asking Jews to choose between:

the Democrat party or

another holocaust wherein 6.5 million Jews will be again murdered.

It really is this plain and simple.

3002  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / part 3 on: May 23, 2011, 12:12:00 PM
The Failure of the American Jewish EstablishmentJune 10, 2010Peter BeinartE-mail Single Page Print Share ← 1 2 3 
Mohammed Saber/epa/Corbis

Palestinian boys standing on the rubble of buildings demolished by the Israeli army near the Israeli settlement of Netzarim, Gaza Strip, July 2004. The settlement was the last to be emptied as part of Ariel Sharon’s disengagement plan in August 2005.
America’s Jewish leaders should think hard about that rally. Unless they change course, it portends the future: an American Zionist movement that does not even feign concern for Palestinian dignity and a broader American Jewish population that does not even feign concern for Israel. My own children, given their upbringing, could as easily end up among the booers as among Luntz’s focus group. Either prospect fills me with dread.


In 2004, in an effort to prevent weapons smuggling from Egypt, Israeli tanks and bulldozers demolished hundreds of houses in the Rafah refugee camp in the southern Gaza Strip. Watching television, a veteran Israeli commentator and politician named Tommy Lapid saw an elderly Palestinian woman crouched on all fours looking for her medicines amid the ruins of her home. He said she reminded him of his grandmother.

In that moment, Lapid captured the spirit that is suffocating within organized American Jewish life. To begin with, he watched. In my experience, there is an epidemic of not watching among American Zionists today. A Red Cross study on malnutrition in the Gaza Strip, a bill in the Knesset to allow Jewish neighborhoods to bar entry to Israeli Arabs, an Israeli human rights report on settlers burning Palestinian olive groves, three more Palestinian teenagers shot—it’s unpleasant. Rationalizing and minimizing Palestinian suffering has become a kind of game. In a more recent report on how to foster Zionism among America’s young, Luntz urges American Jewish groups to use the word “Arabs, not Palestinians,” since “the term ‘Palestinians’ evokes images of refugee camps, victims and oppression,” while “‘Arab’ says wealth, oil and Islam.”

Of course, Israel—like the United States—must sometimes take morally difficult actions in its own defense. But they are morally difficult only if you allow yourself some human connection to the other side. Otherwise, security justifies everything. The heads of AIPAC and the Presidents’ Conference should ask themselves what Israel’s leaders would have to do or say to make them scream “no.” After all, Lieberman is foreign minister; Effi Eitam is touring American universities; settlements are growing at triple the rate of the Israeli population; half of Israeli Jewish high school students want Arabs barred from the Knesset. If the line has not yet been crossed, where is the line?

 
Advertisement


What infuriated critics about Lapid’s comment was that his grandmother died at Auschwitz. How dare he defile the memory of the Holocaust? Of course, the Holocaust is immeasurably worse than anything Israel has done or ever will do. But at least Lapid used Jewish suffering to connect to the suffering of others. In the world of AIPAC, the Holocaust analogies never stop, and their message is always the same: Jews are licensed by their victimhood to worry only about themselves. Many of Israel’s founders believed that with statehood, Jews would rightly be judged on the way they treated the non-Jews living under their dominion. “For the first time we shall be the majority living with a minority,” Knesset member Pinchas Lavon declared in 1948, “and we shall be called upon to provide an example and prove how Jews live with a minority.”

But the message of the American Jewish establishment and its allies in the Netanyahu government is exactly the opposite: since Jews are history’s permanent victims, always on the knife-edge of extinction, moral responsibility is a luxury Israel does not have. Its only responsibility is to survive. As former Knesset speaker Avraham Burg writes in his remarkable 2008 book, The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From Its Ashes, “Victimhood sets you free.”

This obsession with victimhood lies at the heart of why Zionism is dying among America’s secular Jewish young. It simply bears no relationship to their lived experience, or what they have seen of Israel’s. Yes, Israel faces threats from Hezbollah and Hamas. Yes, Israelis understandably worry about a nuclear Iran. But the dilemmas you face when you possess dozens or hundreds of nuclear weapons, and your adversary, however despicable, may acquire one, are not the dilemmas of the Warsaw Ghetto. The year 2010 is not, as Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed, 1938. The drama of Jewish victimhood—a drama that feels natural to many Jews who lived through 1938, 1948, or even 1967—strikes most of today’s young American Jews as farce.

But there is a different Zionist calling, which has never been more desperately relevant. It has its roots in Israel’s Independence Proclamation, which promised that the Jewish state “will be based on the precepts of liberty, justice and peace taught by the Hebrew prophets,” and in the December 1948 letter from Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, and others to The New York Times, protesting right-wing Zionist leader Menachem Begin’s visit to the United States after his party’s militias massacred Arab civilians in the village of Deir Yassin. It is a call to recognize that in a world in which Jewish fortunes have radically changed, the best way to memorialize the history of Jewish suffering is through the ethical use of Jewish power.

For several months now, a group of Israeli students has been traveling every Friday to the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah, where a Palestinian family named the Ghawis lives on the street outside their home of fifty-three years, from which they were evicted to make room for Jewish settlers. Although repeatedly arrested for protesting without a permit, and called traitors and self-haters by the Israeli right, the students keep coming, their numbers now swelling into the thousands. What if American Jewish organizations brought these young people to speak at Hillel? What if this was the face of Zionism shown to America’s Jewish young? What if the students in Luntz’s focus group had been told that their generation faces a challenge as momentous as any in Jewish history: to save liberal democracy in the only Jewish state on earth?

“Too many years I lived in the warm embrace of institutionalized elusiveness and was a part of it,” writes Avraham Burg. “I was very comfortable there.” I know; I was comfortable there too. But comfortable Zionism has become a moral abdication. Let’s hope that Luntz’s students, in solidarity with their counterparts at Sheikh Jarrah, can foster an uncomfortable Zionism, a Zionism angry at what Israel risks becoming, and in love with what it still could be. Let’s hope they care enough to try.

—May 12, 2010

Peter Beinart is Associate Professor of Journalism and Political Science at the City University of New York, a Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation, and Senior Political Writer for The Daily Beast. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, will be published in June.


Letters
'The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment': An Exchange June 24, 2010

← 1 2 3 Also In This Issue
3003  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / pg2 on: May 23, 2011, 12:06:17 PM
The Failure of the American Jewish EstablishmentJune 10, 2010Peter BeinartE-mail Single Page Print Share ← 1 2 3 → 
Jim Hollander/epa/Corbis

The writer David Grossman, right, protesting with Palestinians and Israelis against the eviction of Palestinian families from the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah, April 9, 2010
You might think that such trends, and the sympathy for them expressed by some in Israel’s government, would occasion substantial public concern—even outrage—among the leaders of organized American Jewry. You would be wrong. In Israel itself, voices from the left, and even center, warn in increasingly urgent tones about threats to Israeli democracy. (Former Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak have both said that Israel risks becoming an “apartheid state” if it continues to hold the West Bank. This April, when settlers forced a large Israeli bookstore to stop selling a book critical of the occupation, Shulamit Aloni, former head of the dovish Meretz Party, declared that “Israel has not been democratic for some time now.”) But in the United States, groups like AIPAC and the Presidents’ Conference patrol public discourse, scolding people who contradict their vision of Israel as a state in which all leaders cherish democracy and yearn for peace.

The result is a terrible irony. In theory, mainstream American Jewish organizations still hew to a liberal vision of Zionism. On its website, AIPAC celebrates Israel’s commitment to “free speech and minority rights.” The Conference of Presidents declares that “Israel and the United States share political, moral and intellectual values including democracy, freedom, security and peace.” These groups would never say, as do some in Netanyahu’s coalition, that Israeli Arabs don’t deserve full citizenship and West Bank Palestinians don’t deserve human rights. But in practice, by defending virtually anything any Israeli government does, they make themselves intellectual bodyguards for Israeli leaders who threaten the very liberal values they profess to admire.

After Israel’s elections last February, for instance, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice-chairman of the Presidents’ Conference, explained that Avigdor Lieberman’s agenda was “far more moderate than the media has presented it.” Insisting that Lieberman bears no general animus toward Israeli Arabs, Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that “He’s not saying expel them. He’s not saying punish them.” (Permanently denying citizenship to their Arab spouses or jailing them if they publicly mourn on Israeli Independence Day evidently does not qualify as punishment.) The ADL has criticized anti-Arab bigotry in the past, and the American Jewish Committee, to its credit, warned that Lieberman’s proposed loyalty oath would “chill Israel’s democratic political debate.” But the Forward summed up the overall response of America’s communal Jewish leadership in its headline “Jewish Leaders Largely Silent on Lieberman’s Role in Government.”


 
Advertisement



Not only does the organized American Jewish community mostly avoid public criticism of the Israeli government, it tries to prevent others from leveling such criticism as well. In recent years, American Jewish organizations have waged a campaign to discredit the world’s most respected international human rights groups. In 2006, Foxman called an Amnesty International report on Israeli killing of Lebanese civilians “bigoted, biased, and borderline anti-Semitic.” The Conference of Presidents has announced that “biased NGOs include Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Christian Aid, [and] Save the Children.” Last summer, an AIPAC spokesman declared that Human Rights Watch “has repeatedly demonstrated its anti-Israel bias.” When the Obama administration awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, former UN high commissioner for human rights, the ADL and AIPAC both protested, citing the fact that she had presided over the 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa. (Early drafts of the conference report implicitly accused Israel of racism. Robinson helped expunge that defamatory charge, angering Syria and Iran.)

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are not infallible. But when groups like AIPAC and the Presidents’ Conference avoid virtually all public criticism of Israeli actions—directing their outrage solely at Israel’s neighbors—they leave themselves in a poor position to charge bias. Moreover, while American Jewish groups claim that they are simply defending Israel from its foes, they are actually taking sides in a struggle within Israel between radically different Zionist visions. At the very moment the Anti-Defamation League claimed that Robinson harbored an “animus toward Israel,” an alliance of seven Israeli human rights groups publicly congratulated her on her award. Many of those groups, like B’Tselem, which monitors Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories, and the Israeli branch of Physicians for Human Rights, have been at least as critical of Israel’s actions in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank as have Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

All of which raises an uncomfortable question. If American Jewish groups claim that Israel’s overseas human rights critics are motivated by anti- Israeli, if not anti-Semitic, bias, what does that say about Israel’s domestic human rights critics? The implication is clear: they must be guilty of self-hatred, if not treason. American Jewish leaders don’t generally say that, of course, but their allies in the Netanyahu government do. Last summer, Israel’s vice prime minister, Moshe Ya’alon, called the anti-occupation group Peace Now a “virus.” This January, a right-wing group called Im Tirtzu accused Israeli human rights organizations of having fed information to the Goldstone Commission that investigated Israel’s Gaza war. A Knesset member from Netanyahu’s Likud promptly charged Naomi Chazan, head of the New Israel Fund, which supports some of those human rights groups, with treason, and a member of Lieberman’s party launched an investigation aimed at curbing foreign funding of Israeli NGOs.

To their credit, Foxman and other American Jewish leaders opposed the move, which might have impaired their own work. But they are reaping what they sowed. If you suggest that mainstream human rights criticism of Israel’s government is motivated by animus toward the state, or toward Jews in general, you give aid and comfort to those in Israel who make the same charges against the human rights critics in their midst.


In the American Jewish establishment today, the language of liberal Zionism—with its idioms of human rights, equal citizenship, and territorial compromise—has been drained of meaning. It remains the lingua franca in part for generational reasons, because many older American Zionists still see themselves as liberals of a sort. They vote Democratic; they are unmoved by biblical claims to the West Bank; they see average Palestinians as decent people betrayed by bad leaders; and they are secular. They don’t want Jewish organizations to criticize Israel from the left, but neither do they want them to be agents of the Israeli right.

These American Zionists are largely the product of a particular era. Many were shaped by the terrifying days leading up to the Six-Day War, when it appeared that Israel might be overrun, and by the bitter aftermath of the Yom Kippur War, when much of the world seemed to turn against the Jewish state. In that crucible, Israel became their Jewish identity, often in conjunction with the Holocaust, which the 1967 and 1973 wars helped make central to American Jewish life. These Jews embraced Zionism before the settler movement became a major force in Israeli politics, before the 1982 Lebanon war, before the first intifada. They fell in love with an Israel that was more secular, less divided, and less shaped by the culture, politics, and theology of occupation. And by downplaying the significance of Avigdor Lieberman, the settlers, and Shas, American Jewish groups allow these older Zionists to continue to identify with that more internally cohesive, more innocent Israel of their youth, an Israel that now only exists in their memories.

But these secular Zionists aren’t reproducing themselves. Their children have no memory of Arab armies massed on Israel’s border and of Israel surviving in part thanks to urgent military assistance from the United States. Instead, they have grown up viewing Israel as a regional hegemon and an occupying power. As a result, they are more conscious than their parents of the degree to which Israeli behavior violates liberal ideals, and less willing to grant Israel an exemption because its survival seems in peril. Because they have inherited their parents’ liberalism, they cannot embrace their uncritical Zionism. Because their liberalism is real, they can see that the liberalism of the American Jewish establishment is fake.

To sustain their uncritical brand of Zionism, therefore, America’s Jewish organizations will need to look elsewhere to replenish their ranks. They will need to find young American Jews who have come of age during the West Bank occupation but are not troubled by it. And those young American Jews will come disproportionately from the Orthodox world.


Because they marry earlier, intermarry less, and have more children, Orthodox Jews are growing rapidly as a share of the American Jewish population. According to a 2006 American Jewish Committee (AJC) survey, while Orthodox Jews make up only 12 percent of American Jewry over the age of sixty, they constitute 34 percent between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four. For America’s Zionist organizations, these Orthodox youngsters are a potential bonanza. In their yeshivas they learn devotion to Israel from an early age; they generally spend a year of religious study there after high school, and often know friends or relatives who have immigrated to Israel. The same AJC study found that while only 16 percent of non-Orthodox adult Jews under the age of forty feel “very close to Israel,” among the Orthodox the figure is 79 percent. As secular Jews drift away from America’s Zionist institutions, their Orthodox counterparts will likely step into the breach. The Orthodox “are still interested in parochial Jewish concerns,” explains Samuel Heilman, a sociologist at the City University of New York. “They are among the last ones who stayed in the Jewish house, so they now control the lights.”

But it is this very parochialism—a deep commitment to Jewish concerns, which often outweighs more universal ones—that gives Orthodox Jewish Zionism a distinctly illiberal cast. The 2006 AJC poll found that while 60 percent of non-Orthodox American Jews under the age of forty support a Palestinian state, that figure drops to 25 percent among the Orthodox. In 2009, when Brandeis University’s Theodore Sasson asked American Jewish focus groups about Israel, he found Orthodox participants much less supportive of dismantling settlements as part of a peace deal. Even more tellingly, Reform, Conservative, and unaffiliated Jews tended to believe that average Palestinians wanted peace, but had been ill-served by their leaders. Orthodox Jews, by contrast, were more likely to see the Palestinian people as the enemy, and to deny that ordinary Palestinians shared any common interests or values with ordinary Israelis or Jews.

Orthodox Judaism has great virtues, including a communal warmth and a commitment to Jewish learning unmatched in the American Jewish world. (I’m biased, since my family attends an Orthodox synagogue.) But if current trends continue, the growing influence of Orthodox Jews in America’s Jewish communal institutions will erode even the liberal-democratic veneer that today covers American Zionism. In 2002, America’s major Jewish organizations sponsored a large Israel solidarity rally on the Washington Mall. Up and down the east coast, yeshivas shut down for the day, swelling the estimated Orthodox share of the crowd to close to 70 percent. When the then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told the rally that “innocent Palestinians are suffering and dying as well,” he was booed.

← 1 2 3 → Also In This Issue
3004  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: May 23, 2011, 11:50:18 AM
 The Failure of the American Jewish EstablishmentJune 10, 2010Peter BeinartE-mail Single Page Print Share 1 2 3 → 
Benjamin Netanyahu; drawing by John Springs
In 2003, several prominent Jewish philanthropists hired Republican pollster Frank Luntz to explain why American Jewish college students were not more vigorously rebutting campus criticism of Israel. In response, he unwittingly produced the most damning indictment of the organized American Jewish community that I have ever seen.

The philanthropists wanted to know what Jewish students thought about Israel. Luntz found that they mostly didn’t. “Six times we have brought Jewish youth together as a group to talk about their Jewishness and connection to Israel,” he reported. “Six times the topic of Israel did not come up until it was prompted. Six times these Jewish youth used the word ‘they‘ rather than ‘us‘ to describe the situation.”

That Luntz encountered indifference was not surprising. In recent years, several studies have revealed, in the words of Steven Cohen of Hebrew Union College and Ari Kelman of the University of California at Davis, that “non-Orthodox younger Jews, on the whole, feel much less attached to Israel than their elders,” with many professing “a near-total absence of positive feelings.” In 2008, the student senate at Brandeis, the only nonsectarian Jewish-sponsored university in America, rejected a resolution commemorating the sixtieth anniversary of the Jewish state.

Luntz’s task was to figure out what had gone wrong. When he probed the students’ views of Israel, he hit up against some firm beliefs. First, “they reserve the right to question the Israeli position.” These young Jews, Luntz explained, “resist anything they see as ‘group think.’” They want an “open and frank” discussion of Israel and its flaws. Second, “young Jews desperately want peace.” When Luntz showed them a series of ads, one of the most popular was entitled “Proof that Israel Wants Peace,” and listed offers by various Israeli governments to withdraw from conquered land. Third, “some empathize with the plight of the Palestinians.” When Luntz displayed ads depicting Palestinians as violent and hateful, several focus group participants criticized them as stereotypical and unfair, citing their own Muslim friends.

 
Advertisement


Most of the students, in other words, were liberals, broadly defined. They had imbibed some of the defining values of American Jewish political culture: a belief in open debate, a skepticism about military force, a commitment to human rights. And in their innocence, they did not realize that they were supposed to shed those values when it came to Israel. The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was a Zionism that recognized Palestinians as deserving of dignity and capable of peace, and they were quite willing to condemn an Israeli government that did not share those beliefs. Luntz did not grasp the irony. The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was the kind that the American Jewish establishment has been working against for most of their lives.


Among American Jews today, there are a great many Zionists, especially in the Orthodox world, people deeply devoted to the State of Israel. And there are a great many liberals, especially in the secular Jewish world, people deeply devoted to human rights for all people, Palestinians included. But the two groups are increasingly distinct. Particularly in the younger generations, fewer and fewer American Jewish liberals are Zionists; fewer and fewer American Jewish Zionists are liberal. One reason is that the leading institutions of American Jewry have refused to foster—indeed, have actively opposed—a Zionism that challenges Israel’s behavior in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and toward its own Arab citizens. For several decades, the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism’s door, and now, to their horror, they are finding that many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead.

Morally, American Zionism is in a downward spiral. If the leaders of groups like AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations do not change course, they will wake up one day to find a younger, Orthodox-dominated, Zionist leadership whose naked hostility to Arabs and Palestinians scares even them, and a mass of secular American Jews who range from apathetic to appalled. Saving liberal Zionism in the United States—so that American Jews can help save liberal Zionism in Israel—is the great American Jewish challenge of our age. And it starts where Luntz’s students wanted it to start: by talking frankly about Israel’s current government, by no longer averting our eyes.


Since the 1990s, journalists and scholars have been describing a bifurcation in Israeli society. In the words of Hebrew University political scientist Yaron Ezrahi, “After decades of what came to be called a national consensus, the Zionist narrative of liberation [has] dissolved into openly contesting versions.” One version, “founded on a long memory of persecution, genocide, and a bitter struggle for survival, is pessimistic, distrustful of non-Jews, and believing only in Jewish power and solidarity.” Another, “nourished by secularized versions of messianism as well as the Enlightenment idea of progress,” articulates “a deep sense of the limits of military force, and a commitment to liberal-democratic values.” Every country manifests some kind of ideological divide. But in contemporary Israel, the gulf is among the widest on earth.

As Ezrahi and others have noted, this latter, liberal-democratic Zionism has grown alongside a new individualism, particularly among secular Israelis, a greater demand for free expression, and a greater skepticism of coercive authority. You can see this spirit in “new historians” like Tom Segev who have fearlessly excavated the darker corners of the Zionist past and in jurists like former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak who have overturned Knesset laws that violate the human rights guarantees in Israel’s “Basic Laws.” You can also see it in former Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s apparent willingness to relinquish much of the West Bank in 2000 and early 2001.

But in Israel today, this humane, universalistic Zionism does not wield power. To the contrary, it is gasping for air. To understand how deeply antithetical its values are to those of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, it’s worth considering the case of Effi Eitam. Eitam, a charismatic ex–cabinet minister and war hero, has proposed ethnically cleansing Palestinians from the West Bank. “We’ll have to expel the overwhelming majority of West Bank Arabs from here and remove Israeli Arabs from [the] political system,” he declared in 2006. In 2008, Eitam merged his small Ahi Party into Netanyahu’s Likud. And for the 2009–2010 academic year, he is Netanyahu’s special emissary for overseas “campus engagement.” In that capacity, he visited a dozen American high schools and colleges last fall on the Israeli government’s behalf. The group that organized his tour was called “Caravan for Democracy.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman once shared Eitam’s views. In his youth, he briefly joined Meir Kahane’s now banned Kach Party, which also advocated the expulsion of Arabs from Israeli soil. Now Lieberman’s position might be called “pre-expulsion.” He wants to revoke the citizenship of Israeli Arabs who won’t swear a loyalty oath to the Jewish state. He tried to prevent two Arab parties that opposed Israel’s 2008–2009 Gaza war from running candidates for the Knesset. He said Arab Knesset members who met with representatives of Hamas should be executed. He wants to jail Arabs who publicly mourn on Israeli Independence Day, and he hopes to permanently deny citizenship to Arabs from other countries who marry Arab citizens of Israel.

You don’t have to be paranoid to see the connection between Lieberman’s current views and his former ones. The more you strip Israeli Arabs of legal protection, and the more you accuse them of treason, the more thinkable a policy of expulsion becomes. Lieberman’s American defenders often note that in theory he supports a Palestinian state. What they usually fail to mention is that for him, a two-state solution means redrawing Israel’s border so that a large chunk of Israeli Arabs find themselves exiled to another country, without their consent.

Lieberman served as chief of staff during Netanyahu’s first term as prime minister. And when it comes to the West Bank, Netanyahu’s own record is in its way even more extreme than his protégé’s. In his 1993 book, A Place among the Nations, Netanyahu not only rejects the idea of a Palestinian state, he denies that there is such a thing as a Palestinian. In fact, he repeatedly equates the Palestinian bid for statehood with Nazism. An Israel that withdraws from the West Bank, he has declared, would be a “ghetto-state” with “Auschwitz borders.” And the effort “to gouge Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] out of Israel” resembles Hitler’s bid to wrench the German-speaking “Sudeten district” from Czechoslovakia in 1938. It is unfair, Netanyahu insists, to ask Israel to concede more territory since it has already made vast, gut-wrenching concessions. What kind of concessions? It has abandoned its claim to Jordan, which by rights should be part of the Jewish state.

On the left of Netanyahu’s coalition sits Ehud Barak’s emasculated Labor Party, but whatever moderating potential it may have is counterbalanced by what is, in some ways, the most illiberal coalition partner of all, Shas, the ultra-Orthodox party representing Jews of North African and Middle Eastern descent. At one point, Shas—like some of its Ashkenazi ultra-Orthodox counterparts—was open to dismantling settlements. In recent years, however, ultra-Orthodox Israelis, anxious to find housing for their large families, have increasingly moved to the West Bank, where thanks to government subsidies it is far cheaper to live. Not coincidentally, their political parties have swung hard against territorial compromise. And they have done so with a virulence that reflects ultra-Orthodox Judaism’s profound hostility to liberal values. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Shas’s immensely powerful spiritual leader, has called Arabs “vipers,” “snakes,” and “ants.” In 2005, after Prime Minister Ariel Sharon proposed dismantling settlements in the Gaza Strip, Yosef urged that “God strike him down.” The official Shas newspaper recently called President Obama “an Islamic extremist.”

Hebrew University Professor Ze’ev Sternhell is an expert on fascism and a winner of the prestigious Israel Prize. Commenting on Lieberman and the leaders of Shas in a recent Op-Ed in Haaretz, he wrote, “The last time politicians holding views similar to theirs were in power in post–World War II Western Europe was in Franco’s Spain.” With their blessing, “a crude and multifaceted campaign is being waged against the foundations of the democratic and liberal order.” Sternhell should know. In September 2008, he was injured when a settler set off a pipe bomb at his house.


Israeli governments come and go, but the Netanyahu coalition is the product of frightening, long-term trends in Israeli society: an ultra-Orthodox population that is increasing dramatically, a settler movement that is growing more radical and more entrenched in the Israeli bureaucracy and army, and a Russian immigrant community that is particularly prone to anti-Arab racism. In 2009, a poll by the Israel Democracy Institute found that 53 percent of Jewish Israelis (and 77 percent of recent immigrants from the former USSR) support encouraging Arabs to leave the country. Attitudes are worst among Israel’s young. When Israeli high schools held mock elections last year, Lieberman won. This March, a poll found that 56 percent of Jewish Israeli high school students—and more than 80 percent of religious Jewish high school students—would deny Israeli Arabs the right to be elected to the Knesset. An education ministry official called the survey “a huge warning signal in light of the strengthening trends of extremist views among the youth.”

1 2 3 → Also In This Issue
3005  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: May 21, 2011, 12:05:29 PM
"They will be supporting leftism over color"

Exactly.  We must not conclude the Blacks are so overwhelmingly supporting Bama because he is black but because he is for liberalism and confiscation/redistribution of wealth. 

Evidence speaking to this is their previous support for Clinton throughout the 90's.

Further evidence is their relative silence for any Black who happens to be conservative - Colin Powell (in the past), West, Cain, Condolezza Rice, etc.  It is remarkable to see the adoration of Michelle Bama from the hoards of minorities yet we/I (at least) do not recall ever seeing one picture of them ever adulating any conservative Black with incredible achievements.

To them conservative Blacks are Uncle Toms.  IMO they shoot themselves in the head by doing this.  The progressive movement is destroying America JUST when the Blacks are finally achieving their due.  Their support of illegals because illegals and their kids tend to support Democratic party issues is definitely suicidal.  The people from overseas are not interested in American Blacks.  Indeed they just want the money and the pie and many clearly are not interested in American values at all that I can see.

 

It is the money (economy) stupid. 
3006  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: May 20, 2011, 04:21:44 PM
"I don't have that word jumping out at me when I see her speak"

My thought exactly.  cheesy

Perhaps there is some sort of analogy with Nancy Pelosi here?

Everytime I ever heard Nancy Pelosi speak all I could think of is how in the world could this idiot become speaker of the House of Representatives.  ONe could only conclude she has some genious talent to get things done behind the scenes that is not reflected in her public personna. huh

Perhaps Bachman is a real talent behind the scenes that we don't see.  Morris points out SHE is the one running the Tea party movement in Congress.  If she is really the genius he describes her as, we should, I think expect her to get better and better.

I hope he is right.
3007  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Morris on Bachman on: May 20, 2011, 02:45:48 PM
I listened with astonishment to hear Morris call Bachman "brilliant" on O'Reilly yesterday.  Even Bill asked, "brilliant?"
Perhaps Morris sees more than I do.  I certainly hope he is right.  Perhaps she has more potential than I have see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWgTUIcY2Dk

OTOH is Morris just bucking for a job?
3008  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Newt Gingrich on: May 20, 2011, 10:33:30 AM
"Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it"

Good point.  There is no easy answer to this.

Some claim health care is a right.  Laws mandate Emergency departments treat people no matter what their coverage or  lack thereof or ability to pay.

So in the end we pay for those who do not buy their health care and end of with an acute illness that could cost huge amounts.  Unless they find the way to pay for it.  And we all know how that works.

The only other way is we do go after people to pay their bills and it remains their repsonsibility to get the money.  If they declare bankruptcy the rest of us are screwed.

People don't get insurance because they can't pay for it, can't get it (preexisting condition), or take a chance.

But all these groups know they can show up in an ER and they will get treated.

As a society the MSM will have us believe that "we all agree" that we must help people without insurance or not.  Indeed, they act as though we are all for covering even illegals.  I am not so sure that most people do feel this way but maybe.  Then again there are far more people of the "rich should pay crowd" than the latter.
3009  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: May 20, 2011, 09:48:15 AM
It will be interesting to see MSLSD spin the story in a way that shows Bmaster is commited to Israel.
I assume they will have Tom Freidman on giving us a  lecture.  Of course Zakaria on CNN who it was revealed gives advice to the Bamster, the one who "looks like me", stated Zakaria will of course rationalize the brilliance of his Harvard buddy's handling of all foreign policy issues.

Soros of course is probably ecstatic over this.  He clearly blames Israel for the middle east mess. 

Again I am not afraid to say he is one Jew who makes me disgusted.

Like an Italian who feels the mafia gives their people a bad name.
3010  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: May 19, 2011, 08:32:36 PM
"I blame the Justices on the court who fail to recognize liberty and oppose tyranny."

Thanks for clarifying.  It has been more a travesty of the judicial branch. I see what you mean.

"VP Biden was head of the Judiciary Committee that invented the process called 'Borking'"

I didn't remember that.  Don't hear that much from the VP gaf in chief.  I guess they told him to stay shut and out of the news.

" People say conservatives need to compromise more and reach to the middle to win."

I no longer believe in this.  I realize there essentially *is no* compromise with the liberals.  No matter what, they relentlessly continue on their quest to control every aspect of the lives of the world's peoples.  Compromise and they simply take credit for the compromise and begin shoving more of their agenda down our throats the next day.  That is why I like Dick Morris better than Karl Rove.  The former seems more willing to fight for principles and convince people they are right where the latter seems to find ways for the Republicans to pander.  Just my impression.  I would kind of like to see if Morris could hook up with Gingrich.  I know most on this board don't like the Newt but want to give him a chance.   I think Morris could help him along with others who would protect him - from himself.  However, I don't know if Newt has the ego for constructive "management" so to speak.

FWIW my thinking is we don't compromise on principles.  But the principles and rules  are level for all - rich and poor.  I am not against the rich.  But I am against a system that allows famous wealthy celebrities paying 1/50th of the real estate tax in NJ than I pay for a property that is probably 1/100 the size of theirs.  I think if Republicans can highlight this they may be able to shed the image of being just for the rich.  They are for all of us.  They are the gardians of the people - not a class.
3011  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Dershowitz on Bamster and Israel on: May 19, 2011, 08:13:15 PM
President Obama’s mistake
05/20/2011 03:00   By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
The US President was wrong to insist that Israel give up its card of occupying most of the West Bank without demanding that the Palestinians give up theirs, the so called right of return.
 
Photo by: REUTERS
President Barack Obama should be commended for his emphasis on Israel’s security and his concern about Hamas joining the Palestinian Authority without renouncing its violent charter. But he made one serious mistake that tilts the balance against Israel in any future negotiations. Without insisting that the Palestinians give up their absurd claim to have millions of supposed refugees “return” to Israel as a matter of right, he insisted that Israel must surrender all of the areas captured in its defensive war of 1967, subject only to land swaps.
state should be based on '67 lines

This formulation undercuts Security Council Resolution 242 (which I played a very small role in helping to draft). Resolution 242, passed unanimously by the Security Council in the wake of Israel’s 1967 victory, contemplated some territorial adjustments necessary to assure Israel’s security against future attacks. It also contemplated that Israel would hold onto the Western Wall, the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and the access roads to Hebrew University, without the need for any land swaps. Land swaps would only be required to make up for any areas beyond those contemplated by Resolution 242. The Obama formulation would seem to require land swaps even for the Western Wall.

Any proposed peace agreement will require the Palestinians to give up the so-called right of return, which is designed not for family reunification, but rather to turn Israel into another Palestinian state with an Arab majority. As all reasonable people know, the right of return is a non-starter. It is used as a “card” by the Palestinian leadership who fully understand that they will have to give it up if they want real peace. The Israelis also know that they will have to end their occupation of most of the West Bank (as they ended their occupation of Gaza) if they want real peace. Obama’s mistake was to insist that Israel give up its card without demanding that the Palestinians give up theirs.

Obama’s mistake is a continuation of a serious mistake he made early in his administration. That first mistake was to demand that Israel freeze all settlements. The Palestinian Authority had not demanded that as a condition to negotiations. But once the President of the United States issued such a demand, the Palestinian leadership could not be seen by its followers as being less Palestinian than the President. In other words, President Obama made it more difficult for the Palestinian leadership to be reasonable. Most objective observers now recognize Obama’s serious mistake in this regard. What is shocking is that he has done it again. By demanding that Israel surrender all the territories it captured in the 1967 war (subject only to land swaps) without insisting that the Palestinians surrender their right of return, the President has gone further than Palestinian negotiators had during various prior negotiations. This makes it more difficult for the Palestinian leadership to be reasonable in their negotiations with the Israelis.

It is not too late for the President to “clarify” his remarks so that all sides understand that there must be quid for quo - that the Palestinians must surrender any right to return if the Israelis are expected to seriously consider going back to the 1967 lines (which Abba Eban called “the Auschwitz lines” because they denied Israel real security).

If President Obama is to play a positive role in bringing the Palestinians and the Israelis to the negotiating table, he should insist that there be no preconditions to negotiation. This would mean the Palestinians no longer insisting on a settlement freeze before they will even sit down to try to negotiate realistic borders. The President did not even ask the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table. Nor did he ask them to drop the condition that he, in effect, made them adopt when he earlier insisted on the freeze.

The President missed an important opportunity in delivering his highly anticipated speech. We are no closer to negotiations now than we were before the speech. My fear is that we may be a bit further away as a result of the President’s one-sided insistence that Israel surrender territories without the Palestinians giving up the right of return. I hope that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to Washington may increase the chances of meaningful negotiations. I wish I could be more optimistic but the President’s speech gave no cause for optimism. I wish it had been different because I strongly support a two-state solution based on a willingness by Israel to surrender territories captured in 1967 coupled with a willingness of the Palestinians to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, to renounce the use of violence and terrorism and to give up any right of return.

The writer's latest novel is The Trials of Zion
   
 
3012  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Rest in Peace on: May 19, 2011, 06:53:43 PM
"Pretty amazing for a little kid, to sit some 400 feet away and have your favorite player hit it right into your glove."

Wow.  The closest I ever got to getting a ball was at Yankee stadium when after a foul ball was hit and fell somewhere well behind me I looked down at the ground in front of my chair only to see the ball roll right between my feet and down the rows of seats in front of me.  Probaly twenty people didn't realize it was rolling down to the front row between their legs.
3013  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: May 19, 2011, 06:08:07 PM
Alan Dershowitz was on cable defending the value of "enhanced interrogation".

More or less he said that if "we" as a nation are going to prohibit this under any circumstances than we should accept the FACT that we may not be getting information that will help save lives and thus an increased risk.  When he was pushed he ultimately came out and (unlike in the past) said he is against it but he states it is niave and frankly lying when people claim this does not get information that is helpful.

He was clearly saying liberals are being very dishonest when they say torture doesn't work.

Finally one liberal who is honest.

Of course torture works!  If the person really knows anything they will give it up.  If they don't yes they will offer false information.
Common sense.  Only in the movies do we see the hero get tortured fro days and not give in.  No one in their right mind thinks this is reality.
3014  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: May 19, 2011, 03:16:23 PM
"But what are the Republican answers? And who will offer them?"

Well we have gigantic centralized government with confiscation and wealth transfer on the Dem side and on the Republican side with strict Reaganism we have the theory that we need just open the spigits and let the wealth concentrate at the top and trickle down.  I know the wealthy pay the bulk of taxes already but I think most people think the game is too rigged in their favor.
(As a victim of organized crime I see first hand how it can work)

Now we can argue about how well Reaganomics works, and please don't get me wrong, I voted and loved Reagan but I fear and recognize there are a lot of people in the middle who are struggling more and more to pay bills, education, taxes etc. and skeptical that either the Dem or the Rep. theory is going to help them.

I really think if Republicans offer a philosophy that all classes get equal justice (I know this may be more idealistic more than realistic) and an equal playing field than maybe, just maybe, the Repubs can finally get that undecided group of voters to buy in rather than waffle back and forth from one party to the other with whatever sounds/feels good on a given day.

Doug, you rightly point out the disgrace that wealthy people can have bribing local governments  to literally force people off their property  for business deals.  Well this is a local issue I guess but this has got to stop.  This is one example of unfairness due to economic class. 
3015  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Write off Newt and we shoot ourselves in the foot on: May 18, 2011, 02:51:46 PM
FWIW I don't think we should write off Newt.  He needs handlers just like the Bamster.  He is far more a visionary than Obama ever was.  Has anyone ever heard any original thinking out of Bamster???

Newt needs people to keep a leash on him and probably should have a telepromter like the progressive's spokesperson. 

IMO Newt is right.  I think Rush is somewhat off in his thinking.  Reagan is over.  Conservatism is not.  The two are not incapatable.
We can build on Reagan but lets not simply rehash it.

You know.  The closest one to my thinking is get ready ----  John Stossel.  This guy who may be too libertarian for me overall is the ONLY one I see who goes after the freeloaders who are both rich AND poor.   THAT is what I am talking about.  We need a level playing field.  One in which we don't get people cheating from whatever socioeconomic class they are from.

NO ONE is speaking to this.  I know I am right.  Most Republicans still don't get it.  Neither do Democrats.  The former care the latter don't give a crap IMO.
3016  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Bill James abstract on Harmon Killebrew on: May 17, 2011, 01:52:37 PM
http://books.google.com/books?id=3uSbqUm8hSAC&pg=PA435&lpg=PA435&dq=bill+james+on+harmon+killebrew&source=bl&ots=1lk6na7Dxf&sig=ue-_isECEfNP0J4AogKaFUfqgl0&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
3017  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: May 16, 2011, 12:07:55 PM
"Good Presidents persuade the middle and bad ones dupe them"

Well, I haven't heard anyone yet who seems to be convincing the middle class or those in the middle - yet.
I haven't even heard a Republican even trying.  That's the problem.
3018  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: May 16, 2011, 10:43:50 AM
"the poll dumped on Trump"

It seems Trump has become the whipping boy for the left and the right.

David Gregory asking Newt if he thinks Trump is a serious candidate.  I wonder if ever asked a Dem candidate if he/she thought Al Sharpton a serious candidate?
3019  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: May 16, 2011, 10:13:29 AM
JDN,
Your source is Politico?  They are totally biased.  Any poll from them means little. 
Yet your point is well taken.  There is a segment of swing voters who will change their minds on a dime.  Unfortunately, every election winds up being determined by this "cannot make up their minds" group.

The people who can be fooled all of the time are the ones who determine who our presidents are cry
3020  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Huckabee - middle class on: May 16, 2011, 10:09:47 AM
Well, I don't subscribe to the notion that Huckabee was such a champion of the middle class.  Yet this article highlights what I see as the mainstream Republicans gigantic gap in the failure to explain how their politicies will help the middle class.  They ignore this  at their own peril.  Without addressing this issue in a DIRECT way I continue to contend they will likely lose swing voters and the election.  Big mistake.  Rove's answer is to cave and pander.  Wrong.

www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/16/frum.huckabee.gop/index.html
3021  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Newt bucks the trendy right on this issue on: May 16, 2011, 09:58:51 AM
By LAURA MECKLER
White House hopeful Newt Gingrich called the House Republican plan for Medicare "right-wing social engineering," injecting a discordant GOP voice into the party's efforts to reshape both entitlements and the broader budget debate.

More on Politics from WSJ
The New Speed of Politics in 2012 Fiscal Health Hinges on Containing Costs of Care Huckabee Declines to Endorse Anyone Rep. Ryan Weighs Run for the Senate Kyl May Be Open to Revenue Increases Medicare Stirs Fray Over Debt Full coverage at Washington Wire blog In the same interview Sunday, on NBC's "Meet the Press," Mr. Gingrich backed a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance, complicating a Republican line of attack on President Barack Obama's health law.

The former House speaker's decision to stick with his previous support for an individual mandate comes days after former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney defended the health revamp he championed as governor, which includes a mandate.

The moves suggest the Republican primary contest, which will include both men, could feature a robust debate on health care, with GOP candidates challenging the Democratic law while defending their own variations.

On the List for 2012?
Read about the potential Republican presidential contenders.

View Interactive

More photos and interactive graphics Later Sunday, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he also acknowledged that many Republicans are uncomfortable with requiring insurance coverage but challenged them to offer an alternative solution. "Most Republican voters agree with the principle that people have some responsibility to pay for their costs," he said.

View Full Image

NBC / Associated Press
 
As Mike Huckabee exits, Newt Gingrich takes a shot at Paul Ryan's plan, and like Mitt Romney, supports the concept of a mandate to buy insurance.
Mr. Gingrich also said he would like to see the mandate implemented at the state level, with states experimenting with alternative approaches. But he said he should apply to all Americans.

The Republican presidential field is beginning to take shape after an unusually long delay, with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee saying he would skip the 2012 race and the other candidates beginning to engage in substantive policy debates.

Mr. Huckabee declined to endorse any of the remaining candidates. His decision opens the door for other Republicans to court the Christian conservatives who fueled the former Baptist minister's 2008 campaign.

Mr. Gingrich, who has fashioned himself as a policy wonk in recent years, instantly roiled an already controversial debate over the U.S.'s long-term budget picture. He said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that seniors should not be required to use a new Medicare program, as envisioned by the House GOP, but should be persuaded to voluntarily migrate to a better system.

View Full Image

Associated Press
 
Paul Ryan
"I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering," he said when asked about a Medicare plan championed by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) as an element of the party's 2012 budget proposal. He said he was against "radical change" on the right and the left.

The House GOP budget would privatize Medicare for Americans under age 55. When they reach retirement age, they would receive a government subsidy to buy a private insurance policy instead of participating in the existing government-run system. The subsidies' value likely would not rise as quickly as health care costs are expected to rise.

Ryan spokesman Conor Sweeney said in response to Mr. Gingrich that Mr. Ryan's plan is the only serious proposal for Medicare, which faces long-term financial crisis as health costs rise and Baby Boomers join the program's ranks. "The most 'radical' course of action on Medicare is to continue to cling to the unsustainable status quo," he said.

View Full Image

Associated Press
 
Mike Huckabee
The GOP budget cleared the House as part of a budget outline without a single Democratic vote, and Democrats have sought to use the policy as a line of political attack with voters.

Republican leaders have said they do not plan to write legislation that would flesh out details of the concept. But they also say the Ryan plan remains their position in budget talks with the White House and the Senate.

Other Republican candidates for president, including Mr. Romney and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, have applauded Mr. Ryan for showing leadership in putting together a budget plan, but have declined to endorse its elements.

In the interview with the Journal, Mr. Gingrich also said that in advocating for big changes to Medicare, House Republicans have failed to both come up with the right policy, and to properly sell it to the country. He said bad salesmanship was part of President Obama's problem in pushing his own health care plan. "Republicans should learn. There's a big lesson there," he told the Journal.

Mr. Gingrich also stuck with his past support for the central plank of the Obama health plan—the mandate to buy insurance.

In 1993, Mr. Gingrich said Americans should be required to have health insurance just as they are required to have automobile insurance. Back then, he endorsed the use of vouchers to help everyone buy insurance. He also endorsed the use of income-based vouchers to help everyone buy insurance.

3022  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Boddy Roemer on: May 16, 2011, 09:36:55 AM
Saw him over the weekend.  I saw only a partial interview but he sounded great.  This guy may very well be another one to watch if he can raise money.   Agriculture and ethanol subsidies have to go.  *F* Iowa if they don't like.  I am not paying taxes up the wazoo so people who farm can get benefits.  Additionally, there is a whole cottage industry of others taking advantage of the farm subsidies to get out of paying taxes.

****FILE: Former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer speaks at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition on March 7 at the Point of Grace Church in Waukee, Iowa.
WASHINGTON -- Former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer is running for president, but the challenge of getting Republican primary voters to recognize his name is harder for him than most since he can't campaign in Iowa.

"Iowa is a problem for me. I'd love to go," Roemer said.

The problem, Roemer told editorial staff during a 50-minute interview with Fox News on Monday, is he wants to get rid of ethanol subsidies -- and that doesn't play well in the Hawkeye State, where he had visited last month for the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition event.

In fact, the former congressman, who served seven years as a House Democrat during the Reagan administration, says he also wants to get rid of oil company subsidies and the recent bank overhaul law and the new health insurance law and most of the tax code, not to mention the influence of money in politics.

The long-shot candidate who's been out of elected office for nearly 20 years, says he's a "special kind of Republican" -- one who had to become a Republican in order to break one-party rule in his home state.

He rails against President Obama, calling him an "embarrassment" for starting his presidential campaign while still trying to develop an annual budget two years before the start of a would-be second term. But he doesn't question Obama's constitutional authority to serve.

"All the evidence I've seen is that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii," he said.

He's "not a fan" of the repeal of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy that allows gays to serve openly, but the "generals say that they thought they would make it work," and so he'll wait and see.

He would increase Social Security's solvency by raising the retirement age by one month per year over 24 years -- in other words, raise the age by two years over the next 24.

As a diabetic, he said he has a very real interest in health care reform, but blasts the new law because it does not include tort reform, offers no negotiating with pharmaceutical companies and doesn't allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.

He fought for the reduction of air pollution while governor of Louisiana, balanced the budget and increased teachers' pay by 30 percent in three years, "if they could teach."

Roemer said he will win people over by cutting through the corruption cash causes and getting back to relying on the free market.

That includes getting rid of oil subsidies and ethanol subsidies. Roemer called them "a gift" that the Big 3 oil companies, Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland don't need.

At the same time, Roemer said he wants a tariff on oil from overseas. That does not include Mexico and Canada, which he would consider domestic oil production sources, but it definitely targets Russia, Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East.

"Venezuela's history," he added, though Brazil is a neighbor that could get an exception from a tariff.

Roemer said he will set a deadline to get off foreign oil by the end of the decade from the time he's inaugurated -- hypothetically, January 2013.

He said he would be interested in more oil drilling in North America, both onshore and offshore; favors new nuclear plant construction, especially those that count on gravity and not electricity for water supplies; clean coal, if it's actually a product; and alternative fuel sources.

"The market will determine the price of gas, but the tariff will determine the price of Middle East gas," he said, adding, "Natural gas is the big winner."

On taxes, Roemer said he'd like to slim down the 6,500-page tax code and lower the marginal rate. He would minimize deductions but leave in charitable and medical exemptions and widen the middle class and reduce the government's share of domestic product to 18.5 percent.

"That means everyone's paying a little, but the wealthy are paying a little more," Roemer said. And the tax code will be written so the "average, plain person can actually master" the system.

A banker himself, Roemer said he wants to get rid of "too big to fail" banks, which he claims brought this country to the brink once and are now positioning to do so again.

Roemer argued that the 19 banks on Wall Street all had a hand in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform legislation. It's obvious, he said, since according to the law, the larger the bank, the smaller the amount of capital is required.

"The next financial collapse is already in writing," said Roemer, who owns a bank that in the last five years has gone from zero to $688 million in earnings "one good loan at a time."

He's a long shot, to say the least, but Roemer says he has a plan to up his name ID, and it doesn't look like Newt Gingrich's or Mitt Romney's or former President George W. Bush's or Obama's, all whom he called out by name as being beholden to special interests.

His exploratory committee is betting on a retail campaign that targets New Hampshire, South Carolina and yes, Iowa, and thinks he can grab national headlines by asking one in every 100 Americans to give him $100.

That's $300 billion just for the primary. After that, if he gets the nomination, he'll ask two out of every 100 Americans to give him $100. That's $600 billion to compete for the presidency.

"It's about the money. I'm going to spend more money than any candidate but Barack Obama," he said.

The strategy, which Roemer says will enable him to avoid special interests like unions, corporations, political action committees, the Chamber of Commerce or any other group that wants to influence politics, means winning more than 3 million people during the primary, and another 6 million in the general election.****

 
3023  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / another internet gold rush; bubble? on: May 16, 2011, 09:28:44 AM
economist:

 Print edition Internet businesses
Another digital gold rush
Internet companies are booming again. Does that mean it is time to buy or to sell?
May 12th 2011 | BEIJING AND SAN FRANCISCO | from the print edition
 
PIER 38 is a vast, hangar-like structure, perched on San Francisco’s waterfront. Once a place where Chinese immigrants landed with picks and shovels, ready to build railways during California’s Gold Rush, the pier is now home to a host of entrepreneurs with smartphones and computers engaged in a race for internet riches. From their open-plan offices, the young people running start-ups with fashionably odd names such as NoiseToys, Adility and Trazzler can gaze at the fancy yachts moored nearby when they aren’t furiously tapping out lines of code.

“The speed of innovation is unlike anything we’ve seen before,” says Ryan Spoon, who runs Dogpatch Labs, an arm of a venture-capital firm that rents space to young companies at Pier 38. Like many other entrepreneurs, the tenants would love to follow firms such as Facebook and Zynga, a maker of hugely popular online games including Farmville, that have been thrust into the internet limelight in the space of a few short years.

Some of the most prominent start-ups are preparing for stockmarket listings or are being bought by big firms with deep pockets. On May 9th LinkedIn, a social network for professionals that took in revenue of $243m last year, set the terms of its imminent initial public offering (IPO) on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), which value it at up to $3.3 billion. The next day Microsoft said it was buying Skype, an internet calling and video service, for $8.5 billion (see article).
Start-ups
New York Stock Exchange
Other firms such as Groupon, which provides online coupons to its subscribers, are likely to go public soon. The return of big internet IPOs, rarities since a bubble in telecoms and internet stocks burst in 2000, and the resurgence of large mergers and acquisitions among technology firms is dividing opinion in the industry. Some veterans see a new bubble forming in the valuations of start-ups and a handful of more mature firms such as Twitter, which is still hunting for a satisfactory business model five years after the first tweet. More sanguine voices retort that many young companies have exciting prospects and that there are plenty of corporate buyers, such as Microsoft, with the money and confidence to snap up older internet firms still in private hands.

Technology, finance and China

Yet both sides agree that the internet world is being transformed by a number of powerful forces, three of which stand out. First, technological progress has made it much simpler and cheaper to try out myriad bright ideas for online businesses. Second, a new breed of rich investors has been keen to back those ideas. And, third, this boom is much more global than the last one; Chinese internet firms are causing as much excitement as American ones.

Start with technology. Moore’s law, which holds that the number of transistors that can be put on a single computer chip doubles roughly every 18 months, has continued to work its magic, leading to the proliferation of ever more capable and affordable consumer devices. Some of today’s tablet computers and smartphones are more powerful than personal computers were a decade ago. IDC, a research firm, estimates that around 450m smartphones will be shipped worldwide this year, up from 303m in 2010.

Moore’s law also underpins the growth of “cloud” services, such as Apple’s iTunes music store, which can be reached from almost any device, almost anywhere. Such services are hosted in data centres, the factories of the cloud, which are crammed with hundreds of thousands of servers, whose price has plunged as their processing power has soared. Everything is connected ever faster, with ever fewer wires.

These technological trends have given rise to new “platforms”—computing bases on which other companies can build services. Examples include operating systems for smartphones and social networks such as Facebook and LinkedIn. Some of them are used by hundreds of millions of people. And the platforms are generating oceans of data from smartphones, sensors and other devices.

These platforms are vast spaces of digital opportunity. Perhaps the most striking example of the innovation they have sparked is the outpouring of downloadable software applications, or “apps”, for smartphones and computers. Apple’s App Store, a mere three years old, offers more than 300,000 of them. Users of Facebook are installing them at a rate of 20m a day. Services such as Skype have also benefited from the spread of smart devices and lightning-fast connectivity.

Some excited people have likened this technological upheaval to the Cambrian explosion 500m years ago, when evolution on Earth speeded up in part because the cell had been perfected and standardised. They may be exaggerating. Even so, creating a web firm has become much easier. By tapping into cheap cloud-computing capacity and by using platforms to reach millions of potential customers, a company can be up and running for thousands of dollars rather than the millions needed in the 1990s.

Guardian angels

Thanks to the boom’s second driving force, finance, these companies have no shortage of eager backers. Although too small to interest many venture-capital firms, they are being fought over by wealthy individual investors, or “angels” in the venture industry’s jargon. Many of these financiers made their fortunes during the 1990s bubble and are eager to put their know-how and cash behind today’s tiny companies.

Some “super angels”, such as Aydin Senkut, a former Google employee who runs Felicis Ventures, and Mike Maples, a software entrepreneur who oversees a firm called Floodgate, are occasionally making bets comparable to those of conventional venture funds, which gather and invest money from a wide range of institutional investors. Individual investments of up to $1m are not uncommon. Sometimes angels are clubbing together to provide young firms with even larger sums.

Their cumulative impact is staggering. According to the Centre for Venture Research at the University of New Hampshire, angel investors in America pumped about $20 billion into young firms last year, up from $17.6 billion in 2009. That is not far off the $22 billion that America’s National Venture Capital Association says its members invested in 2010. Much of the angels’ money has gone to consumer-internet firms and makers of software apps.

The financing of more mature tech start-ups has also changed. Elite venture-capital firms such as Andreessen Horowitz and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers have raised billions of dollars in new funds in the past year or so. Some of this money has been pumped into “late-stage” investments (eg, in Twitter and Skype), allowing companies to remain private and independent for longer than used to be the norm.

Venture firms are not the only ones with internet companies in their sights. Some would argue that it was DST, a Russian holding company now renamed Mail.ru, and a related investment fund, DST Global, that set off the boom. In 2009, when most investors in America were sitting on their hands, both poured hundreds of millions of dollars into fast-growing prospects there such as Facebook and Groupon. Those investments seem likely to pay off handsomely.

American hedge funds, private-equity firms and even some mutual funds have followed, falling over one another in pursuit of the shares of popular internet companies. Investment banks including Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase have also set up funds to help rich clients buy stakes.

Their task has been made easier by the advent of secondary markets in America, such as SharesPost and SecondMarket, that allow professional investors to trade the equity of private companies more efficiently. They have also made it simpler for employees and angel investors to offload some shares—and have enabled the world at large to observe a remarkable rise in valuations (see chart 1).

American consumer-internet companies have not been the only beneficiaries of this flood of cash. The boom’s third driving force is the rapid globalisation of the industry. Europe, which has at long last developed an entrepreneurial ecosystem worthy of the name, is home to several impressive firms. These include Spotify, an Anglo-Swedish music-streaming service with more than 10m registered users, and Vente Privée, a French clothing discounter with annual revenue of some $1 billion.

Much more striking, however, is that the latest round of euphoria involves emerging markets that were mere spectators during the last one, above all China. The country boasts not only the world’s biggest online population, but also its fastest-growing. The number of internet users there will rise from 457m last year to more than 700m in 2015, according to the Boston Consulting Group (BCG). And the Chinese are no longer mostly playing games, but are diving into lots of other online activities, notably shopping. Between 2010 and 2015, predicts BCG, China’s e-commerce market will more than quadruple, from $71 billion to $305 billion—which could make it the world’s largest.

Such forecasts have stimulated plenty of venture capital, both foreign and domestic. Albeit with a dip in 2009, the amount raised by Chinese venture funds has grown sharply, rising from nearly $4 billion in 2006 to more than $11 billion in 2010 according to Zero2IPO, a research firm. The sum invested increased from $1.8 billion to nearly $5.4 billion. Much of this went into internet start-ups.

Investors have also been desperate for shares in Chinese companies listed on American stock exchanges (see table). Since the start of the year the share prices of the biggest of these firms have risen by more than a third, according to iChina Stock, a website. Baidu, China’s largest search engine, has seen its share price climb from about $60 to $150 in the past 12 months, taking its market capitalisation to nearly $50 billion. Tencent, which makes most of its money from online games, is worth about the same. Both are among the world’s top five internet firms by stockmarket value. The ten biggest Chinese companies have a combined worth of $150 billion, not much less than Google’s.

They tend to sparkle on their debuts. When Youku, China’s largest online-video company, listed its shares on December 8th its stock jumped by 161%, the biggest gain by a newcomer to the NYSE for five years. The share price of Dangdang, an online retailer floated on the same day, almost doubled. And on May 4th Renren, a social network, saw its share price rise by 29% on the first day of trading, though it has fallen back almost to where it started.

The experience of Chinese firms in America has encouraged other emerging-market internet companies to consider IPOs there. On the day LinkedIn revealed the terms of its offering, Yandex, a Russian search engine, said it would soon raise $1.1 billion by listing its shares on the tech-heavy NASDAQ stockmarket.

Those who think that talk of a new tech bubble is misleading point out that firms such as LinkedIn and Renren have proven business models and healthy revenues. Many internet firms that went public in the late 1990s could not say the same. Moreover, the price-earnings multiples at which other public companies in the technology sector are trading are nowhere near as frothy as they were before the last bubble burst in 2000. That should limit excesses in valuing private firms.

Bubble in the making?

This has led some venture capitalists to argue that 2011 may be more like 1995 than 1999: if a bubble is inflating, it is a long way from popping. So investors who shun internet firms now may be missing a great chance to mint money. Jeffrey Bussgang of Flybridge Capital Partners, a venture firm, notes that venture funds raised between 1995 and 1997 enjoyed stellar returns.

Others point to signs of bubbliness. For instance, some start-up firms are dangling multi-million-dollar pay packages in order to tempt star programmers from Google, Microsoft and other big companies. They are chasing scarce skills when the broader technology industry is on a roll. The NASDAQ index may be far below the heights of March 2000, but it has bounced back from the global downturn; and the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco’s Tech Pulse Index, which measures the vibrancy of America’s tech industry, is near its peak of 11 years ago (see chart 2).

There are also signs of irrational exuberance among some investors. Color, a photo-sharing and social-networking start-up, has been reportedly valued at around $100m by venture firms, even though it has an untested product in a crowded market. Competition among angel investors has helped drive up valuations of social-media start-ups by more than 50% in the past 12 months. Financiers are sometimes skimping on due diligence in the scramble to win deals. In China, too, the purported worth of young firms has risen breathtakingly fast—to an average of $15m-20m in first-round venture financings, which is expensive even by Silicon Valley’s standards.

The danger in all this is that investors lose sight of the risks to the value of internet companies. These are greatest in China. Competition there is intense and users are fickle. Moreover, Chinese firms must wrestle with thorny regulatory and political issues. The government has yet to shut down a listed web company and firms are usually masters of self-censorship. But any move against them could have broad repercussions for all Chinese internet stocks.

European and American internet start-ups do not face a similar threat. But they are still vulnerable to inflated expectations. “Every bubble is a game of musical chairs,” says Steve Blank, a former serial entrepreneur who teaches at Stanford. The trick is to sell or float companies just before the music stops and the bubble bursts. If some of the hopefuls of Pier 38 can do just that, they may one day be able to afford a yacht or two of their own.

from the print edition | Briefings2

About The Economist online About The Economist Media directory Staff books Career opportunities Contact us Subscribe
  • Site feedback Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2011. All rights reserved. Advertising info Legal disclaimer Accessibility
3024  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Fed, Monetary Policy, Inflation, US Dollar, & Gold/Silver on: May 13, 2011, 01:36:47 PM
Silver manipulated.  Well just around the time of the crash was the word coming out that Soros had sold.  Naturally he than probably took a short position so he made money on the way up, sold, then let the word out *he* is selling then makes money on the way down.  He than adds to his billions pays for his liberal/business concerns and tells us how easy it is to make money.

So what else is new?  Puppet master?  No not him.  Just a general all around philantropist/humanitarian.  I just wish he wsn't Jewish.

***Silver Was 'manipulated' Down, Sprott Says
By Alistair Barr

Published May 12, 2011
|LAS VEGAS -- Silver has been manipulated down in recent weeks, Eric Sprott, head of Sprott Asset Management, said Thursday. Silver slumped by $6 in 13 minutes late on a recent Sunday, when the market was thinnest, Sprott noted during the SkyBridge Alternatives Conference in Las Vegas. That was followed by four margin increases, Sprott added. Sprott recently launched a silver fund and has been a gold bull for at least a decade. Despite the recent drop in precious metals, Sprott reckons they are a good way to protect against trouble in the banking system and a potential devaluation of the U.S. dollar and other paper currencies. "The market has judged the world's reserve currency as gold," he said on Thursday.

Copyright © 2011 MarketWatch, Inc.***
3025  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Gilder on Israel on: May 11, 2011, 08:48:29 PM
From Wikepedia:

***The Israel Test
Gilder's 2009 book The Israel Test is partly described as follows:

“ Gilder reveals Israel as a leader of human civilization, technological progress, and scientific advance. Tiny Israel stands behind only the United States in its contributions to the hi-tech economy. Israel has become the world's paramount example of the blessings of freedom. ”

—Amazon book description.

Founder of Neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, says about the book: "Everyone talks about 'free enterprise' but no one understands the entrepeneurial basics of growth better than George Gilder." While conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh says: "My friends, it would behoove you to study everything you can get your hands on by George Gilder, a true American genius."[26]

In an interview for National Review about the book, Gilder says the book is about "the cosmic law between success and envy". He further states Israel's role as:

“ Western civilization, in part, originated in Israel. Now Israel is a crucial source of invention, military intelligence, and entrepeneurial creativity that may yet save the West. I believe Netanyahu is a Churchillian figure emerging at the perfect time to confront the Jihad. ”

—George Gilder, National Review interview July 2009: "Choosing the Chosen People - Anti-Semitism is essentially hatred of capitalism and excellence."[27]***

3026  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Jim Rogers on: May 11, 2011, 08:36:13 PM


Jim Rogers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see James Rogers (disambiguation).
James Beeland Rogers, Jr.
 
Born October 19, 1942 (1942-10-19) (age 68)
Baltimore, Maryland, USA[1]
Alma mater Balliol College, Oxford
Yale University
Occupation Financial investor, author
Website
www.jimrogers.com
James Beeland Rogers, Jr. (born October 19, 1942) is an American investor and author based in Singapore. He is chairman of Rogers Holdings and Beeland Interests, Inc. He was the co-founder of the Quantum Fund with George Soros and creator of the Rogers International Commodities Index (RICI).

Rogers is an outspoken proponent of the free market, but he does not consider himself a member of any school of thought. Rogers acknowledges, however, that his views best fit the label of Austrian School of economics.[2]

Rogers was born in Baltimore, Maryland and raised in Demopolis, Alabama.[1][3] He started in business at the age of five by selling peanuts and by picking up empty bottles that fans left behind at baseball games. He got his first job on Wall Street, at Dominick & Dominick, after graduating with a bachelor's degree from Yale University in 1964. Rogers then acquired a second BA degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Balliol College, Oxford University in 1966.

In 1970, Rogers joined Arnhold and S. Bleichroder. In 1973, Rogers co-founded the Quantum Fund with George Soros. During the following 10 years, the portfolio gained 4200% while the S&P advanced about 47%.[4] The Quantum Fund was one of the first truly international funds.

In 1980, Rogers decided to "retire", and spent some of his time traveling on a motorcycle around the world. Since then, he has been a guest professor of finance at the Columbia University Graduate School of Business.[citation needed]

In 1989 and 1990, Rogers was the moderator of WCBS' The Dreyfus Roundtable and FNN's The Profit Motive with Jim Rogers. From 1990 to 1992, he traveled through China again, as well as around the world, on motorcycle, over 100,000 miles (160,000 km) across six continents, which was picked up in the Guinness Book of World Records. He tells of his adventures and worldwide investments in Investment Biker, a bestselling investment book.

In 1998, Rogers founded the Rogers International Commodity Index. In 2007, the index and its three sub-indices were linked to exchange-traded notes under the banner ELEMENTS. The notes track the total return of the indices as an accessible way to invest in the index. Rogers is an outspoken advocate of agriculture investments and, in addition to the Rogers Commodity Index, is involved with two direct, farmland investment funds - Agrifirma,[5] based in Brazil, and Agcapita Farmland Investment Partnership,[6] based in Canada.

Between January 1, 1999 and January 5, 2002, Rogers did another Guinness World Record journey through 116 countries, covering 245,000 kilometers with his wife, Paige Parker, in a custom-made Mercedes. The trip began in Iceland, which was about to celebrate the 1000th anniversary of Leif Eriksson's first trip to America. On January 5, 2002, they were back in New York City and their home on Riverside Drive. His route around the world can be viewed on his website, jimrogers.com. He wrote Adventure Capitalist following this around-the-world adventure. It is currently his bestselling book.

On his return in 2002, Rogers became a regular guest on Fox News' Cavuto on Business which airs every Saturday.[7] In 2005, Rogers wrote Hot Commodities: How Anyone Can Invest Profitably in the World's Best Market. In this book, Rogers quotes a Financial Analysts Journal academic paper co-authored by Yale School of Management professor, Geert Rouwenhorst, entitled Facts and Fantasies about Commodity Futures. Rogers contends this paper shows that commodities investment is one of the best investments over time, which is a concept somewhat at odds with conventional investment thinking.

In December 2007, Rogers sold his mansion in New York City for about 16 million USD and moved to Singapore. Rogers claimed that he moved because now is a ground-breaking time for investment potential in Asian markets. Rogers's first daughter is now being tutored in Mandarin to prepare her for the future. He is quoted as saying: "If you were smart in 1807 you moved to London, if you were smart in 1907 you moved to New York City, and if you are smart in 2007 you move to Asia." In a CNBC interview with Maria Bartiromo broadcast on May 5, 2008, Rogers said that people in China are extremely motivated and driven, and he wants to be in that type of environment, so his daughters are motivated and driven. He also stated that this is how America and Europe used to be. He chose not to move to Chinese cities like Hong Kong or Shanghai due to the high levels of pollution causing potential health problems for his family; hence, he chose Singapore. He has also advocated investing in certain smaller Asian frontier markets such as Sri Lanka and Cambodia, and currently serves as an Advisor to Leopard Capital’s Leopard Sri Lanka Fund.[8] However, he is not fully bullish on all Asian nations, as he remains skeptical of India's future - "India as we know it will not survive another 30 or 40 years".[9] In 2008 Rogers endorsed Ron Paul.[10]

Rogers has two daughters with Paige Parker. Hilton Augusta(nicknamed Happy) was born in 2003, and their second daughter Beeland Anderson in 2008. His latest book, A Gift To My Children, contains lessons in life for his daughters as well as investment advice and was published in 2009.

On November 4, 2010, at Oxford University’s Balliol College, he urged students to scrap career plans for Wall Street or the City, London’s financial district, and to study agriculture and mining instead. “The power is shifting again from the financial centers to the producers of real goods. The place to be is in commodities, raw materials, natural resources."[11]

In February 2011 Rogers announced that he has started a new index fund which focuses on "the top companies in agriculture, mining, metals and energy sectors as well as those in the alternative energy space including solar, wind and hydro."[12] The index is called The Rogers Global Resources Equity Index and the best and most liquid companies, according to Rogers, go into the index.

[edit] Books
1995: Investment Biker: Around the World with Jim Rogers. - ISBN 1-55850-529-6
2003: Adventure Capitalist: The Ultimate Road Trip. - ISBN 0375509127
2004: Hot Commodities: How Anyone Can Invest Profitably in the World's Best Market. - ISBN 140006337X
2007: A Bull in China: Investing Profitably in the World's Greatest Market. - ISBN 1400066166
2009: A Gift to My Children: A Father's Lessons For Life And Investing. - ISBN 1400067545
[
3027  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / "Allahu Akbar!" translation, "I need to piss" on: May 10, 2011, 03:01:44 PM
"Allahu Akbar!"

 It is my understanding that Islamic tradition holds one should scream, "God is great" when one tries to go potty.

****Lead StoryNothing to see here, move along
By Michelle Malkin  •  May 10, 2011 09:29 AM
Photo taken by passenger Andrew Wai

Look, up in the air: Classic symptoms of what Daniel Pipes calls “Sudden Jihad Syndrome”.

If you see something, say something — and do something. Fortunately, the crew and passengers of AA Flight 1561 did — tackling a nutball Yemeni Muslim shouting “Allahu Akbar” as he beat on the cockpit door of their plane.

Now, watch law enforcement authorities downplay the incident as nothing-burger:

The passengers sat stunned as they watched a man walk quickly toward the front of American Airlines Flight 1561 as it was descending toward San Francisco. He was screaming and then began pounding on the cockpit door.

“I kept saying to myself: ‘What’s he doing? Does he have a bomb? Is he armed?’” passenger Angelina Marty said.

Within moments Sunday, a flight attendant tackled Rageh Almurisi. Authorities do not yet have a motive.

While authorities said that Almurisi, 28, of Vallejo, Calif., has no clear or known ties to terrorism, the incident underscored fears that extremists may try to mount attacks to retaliate for the death of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden last week.

Federal agents are investigating Almurisi’s background. He was carrying a Yemeni passport and a California identification card, authorities said.

…Marty, 35, recalled that she and other passengers on the plane were stunned when they saw Almurisi walking down the aisle. She said a woman in a row across from her who speaks Arabic translated that Almurisi said “God is Great!” in Arabic.

Andrew Wai, another passenger, told KGO-TV on Monday that the wife of one of the men who took Almurisi down later said Almurisi was yelling “Allahu Akbar.”

“There was no question in everybody’s mind that he was going to do something,” Marty said.

A male flight attendant tackled Almurisi, and other crew members and passengers, including a retired Secret Service agent and a retired San Mateo police officer, helped subdue him as he banged on the door, police said. The flight attendant put plastic handcuffs on him.
Funny how you can scream “Allahu Akbar” at the top of your lungs and still have authorities proclaim your motives unknown.

It’s not the first time.

3028  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: May 10, 2011, 02:29:49 PM
  I didn't see it, did anyone?

I saw parts of it.  Pawlenty sounded good and Cain also did.

Both Pawlenty and Cain were very good to me.

Cain is so articulate and does indeed have the charisma.

Pawlenty to me sounded good.  One of the interviewers tried to trap him on his early support for cap and trade.
I believe he answered that well.  The interviewer kind of did rightfully say that he may as well ask it because it will certainly be a knock against him later in the campaign.

If Tim is a good learner and practices and works at it I think he has a good shot at being a very good candidate.  He doesn't have to show all his cards now but if he can take on the Phoney One like trump he will win.

This race is the Republicans race to lose.  Obama has a dismal record and has done his best to worsen this country.  I don't see how he could win other than by default.


I still think a key to winning is addressing middle class concerns.  Repubs can ignore the squeeze on the middle class at their own peril.  The libs are already turning this into one of their big issues. 
3029  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Shania Twain to find her voice- actually waiting till the middle men steal.... on: May 10, 2011, 11:12:17 AM
...her the material.. She really isn't doing new songs because she doesn't have any or any that she has obtained without evidence that someone else wrote them. IF she was such a creative talent - believe me - she would be singing and selling and promoting.

FWIW this story is total BS.  Of course the niave American public will believe it.  The reason that Twain is not coming out with any new songs is that she has not been able to buy any.   She can't write to save her life.  Katherine has not left our house in years guarding what would certainly be some lyrics that professional thieves would steal and sell of to Twain.  It has nothing to do about "finding her voice".  It is amazing the phoney stories and excuses these people will come up with to give to the naive public.

Katherine and I are watched 24/7.  There is so much money involved it is no problem to pay people round the clock to watch us.  They move into the neighborhood and appear to go about regular lives while all the time they are watching.  I know who some are but there is really not a thing I can do about it.

We almost put down one of our three dogs last week.  Around two days later on squak box on CSNBC which Katherine watches most days Aaron Burnett read something off the teleprompter to the effect that lets take a poll if you would get another dog if yours dies.  They do this all the time to us.  Occasionally it is likely coincidence but much of the time it is someone contacting whoever controls what these news people say over the teleprompter.  Someone even commented when she said this something to the effect that it must be an "inside joke".  I read how everyone everywhere will have everything about them monitored because of the electronic devices.   I promise everyone you do not want to ever become a target.  You will live in a suffering tortuous world like we do.  Like OBL lived in hiding in a house is like Katherine lives trying to ptrotect her lyrics.  We committed no crimes.  The crimes are against us.

****Shania Twain Desperate To Find Her Voice Through Tv Show
           
Country music star Shania Twain's vocal problems became so bad following the break-up of her marriage to producer Mutt Lange, she couldn't even sing in the shower.

The You're The One hitmaker admits she lost the ability to express herself after discovering her husband was romancing her best friend the day after he served her with divorce papers.

In the debut of her new TV series Why Not?, which aired in America on Sunday night (08May11), she says, "I came to the realisation that I had lost my ability to express myself and my ability to sing.

"It physically will not come out of my voice... I couldn't even sing to myself, I couldn't sing in the shower.

"It wasn't one crisis that did it; it's just been a very progressive thing... What if I can never sing again?"

The new show chronicled Twain's efforts to get her singing voice back. The programme's blurb reads: "In the summer of 2010, Shania started a journey to heal herself, inspire others, and find her voice."

On the show, Twain assembles a group made up of family and friends to help inspire her as she plucks up the courage to get back onstage. The group includes her cousin Kenny, who taught the singer to play guitar, her sister Carrie-Ann and her longtime bandmate Cory Churko.****

3030  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Newt-net savvy on: May 10, 2011, 10:27:43 AM
 grin   I am glad he is running as per recent rumours. 

http://newtexplore2012.com/
3031  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / nations of origin on: May 10, 2011, 10:22:35 AM
http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845
3032  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / illegals by state 2000 census; real number prob. almost double or more on: May 10, 2011, 10:16:16 AM
Showing latest available data. Rank   States    Amount   
# 1    California: 2,209,000   
# 2    Texas: 1,041,000   
# 3    New York: 489,000   
# 4    Illinois: 432,000   
# 5    Florida: 337,000   
# 6    Arizona: 283,000   
# 7    Georgia: 228,000   
# 8    New Jersey: 221,000   
# 9    North Carolina: 206,000   
# 10    Colorado: 144,000   
# 11    Washington: 136,000   
# 12    Virginia: 103,000   
# 13    Nevada: 101,000   
# 14    Oregon: 90,000   
# 15    Massachusetts: 87,000   
# 16    Michigan: 70,000   
# 17    Utah: 65,000   
# 18    Minnesota: 60,000   
# 19    Maryland: 56,000   
# 20    Pennsylvania: 49,000   
# 21    Kansas: 47,000   
= 22    Tennessee: 46,000   
= 22    Oklahoma: 46,000   
# 24    Indiana: 45,000   
# 25    Wisconsin: 41,000   
# 26    Ohio: 40,000   
= 27    Connecticut: 39,000   
= 27    New Mexico: 39,000   
# 29    South Carolina: 36,000   
# 30    Arkansas: 27,000   
= 31    Alabama: 24,000   
= 31    Iowa: 24,000   
= 31    Nebraska: 24,000   
# 34    Missouri: 22,000   
# 35    Idaho: 19,000   
# 36    Rhode Island: 16,000   
# 37    Kentucky: 15,000   
# 38    Delaware: 10,000   
# 39    Mississippi: 8,000   
# 40    District of Columbia: 7,000   
= 41    Louisiana: 5,000   
= 41    Alaska: 5,000   
# 43    Hawaii: 2,000   
 Total: 6,994,000   
 Weighted average: 162,651.2   

DEFINITION: Estimated number of Illegal Immigrants. Latest available data - 2000 Census. Eight other States --Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming --each had fewer than 2,500 estimated unauthorized residents in 1990 and 2000. The US Citizenship ad Immigration Services also highlights that the illegal immigrant population in America grows by approximatley a half a million each year. Taken into account, the current illegal immigrant population is between 9 and 11 million people.

SOURCE: US Citizenship and Immigration Services, field report, 2000.
3033  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / SF not cooperating with illegal immigratin enforcement on: May 10, 2011, 09:26:54 AM
Remarkable how the liberals have their heads on backwards.  The liberal media will go after ARizona for trying to enforce the borders when the Feds will not.  Yet when San Fran refuses to cooperate with the Feds in *enforcing* illegal immigration not a peep from the MSM.  No doubt if illegals were predominantly potential Republicans we would hear the outrage broadcasted coast to coast.  And of course here it comes.  The phoney One, is now going to Texas for his "reform" immigration tour to garner more votes.  Without Fox would any of us ever heard of this.  "Immigration reform" = code for secrue more Democrat voters:

***San Francisco to Stop Detaining Arrested Immigrants for Deportation

Published May 07, 2011
| In this July 26, 2010 photo,Senior Deputy Jerry Anttila looks at a set of fingerprints for an unidentified suspect during the booking process at the Arapahoe County Justice Center in Centennial, Colo. (AP)
San Francisco, one of the first sanctuary cities in the nation, plans to end its cooperation with federal immigration officials and start releasing illegal immigrants arrested for minor offenses before they can be picked up for deportation.

The city's decision is the latest development in a tug of war between several communities and the federal government over its controversial national program that automatically checks the immigration status of arrestees.

Officials in jurisdictions including Providence, R.I., and Chicago have also challenged the program, which they say undermines trust that it has taken local law enforcement years to build in immigrant communities.

California and Illinois lawmakers are considering measures to let communities retreat from the so-called "Secure Communities" program, which links up the FBI's criminal database and the Department of Homeland Security's records so that every time someone is arrested their immigration status is automatically, electronically checked.

Washington state has deferred to local governments on whether they want to join program overseen by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

But their efforts could be thwarted as federal officials argue that states have no control over what information is shared among federal agencies.

In the absence of a nationwide fix on immigration, the tension between states and the federal government has been simmering in recent years. In the last four years, states have passed a flurry of bills and resolutions on issues ranging from employer verification to access to driver's licenses, most notably Arizona's tough local immigration enforcement law.

Immigrant advocates have lambasted ICE's fingerprint sharing program for sweeping up crime victims and witnesses who are arrested during an investigation in addition to those accused of committing a crime. About 29 percent of the 102,000 immigrants deported under the program since it began in 2008 have no criminal conviction, according to federal government statistics.

Between October 2008 and March 2011, more than 7 million people who have been arrested have had their fingerprints run through the ICE program. Roughly 197,000 were identified as suspected illegal immigrants, and nearly 40 percent of those were in California, according to statistics provided by ICE.

In San Francisco, Sheriff Michael Hennessey told the San Francisco Examiner he is making the change effective June 1 to comply with the city's sanctuary ordinance.

The law, which has caused tension between local and federal authorities, prohibits officials from assisting ICE in cases that do not involve felonies.

The city currently keeps low-level offenders ICE has identified as illegal immigrants through fingerprints until immigration officials collect them. The Examiner reports that 111 inmates were detained for deportation between last June and February.

ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice told the newspaper that Hennessey's decision was unfortunate.

Immigration attorney Francisco Hernandez told Fox News on Saturday that the city still has to hold suspects for 72 hours if federal immigration officials ask.

"That is the law," he said. "The question is whether they are going to be reporting people that are committing speeding tickets or small violations rather than the felonies or criminal people that should be deported under the criminal alien program."

Hernandez said that approach is the one being used across the country.

But Mike Cutter, a former senior special agent for the now defunct U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), sought to highlight the significance of the program by estimating that about half of the FBI's 10 most wanted get arrested for motor vehicle violations.

"If you have somebody in custody who is an illegal alien, it's important that immigration does get notified," he said, arguing that the debate is minimizing the reason for immigration laws in the first place. He said the law lists categories of illegal immigrants that cross the border because they know they couldn't get through the inspections process, including terrorists, drug dealers, pedophiles, human rights violators and war criminals.

"So if you have somebody who ran the border, somebody whose presence is illegal and you have them in custody, it's in everyone's best interest, including the people in the immigrant communities who very often fall victim to criminal aliens, to have ICE pick them and let ICE make a determination as to whether or not these folks are a priority to remove," he said.

But Hernandez said law enforcement does not have the resources to arrest everyone stopped for a speeding ticket.

"We have to focus our resources on things that are more serious and people that have actual criminal warrants for serious offenses," he said.

The debate over the ICE program is playing out across the country as federal authorities aim to achieve nationwide coverage in 2013. It currently is in effect in more than 1,200 jurisdictions in 42 states.

Immigration officials say the goal is to ensure illegal immigrants who commit crimes are flagged and deported. Nationwide, about 26 percent of those deported under program have been convicted of major drug offenses or violent crimes.

Some communities have welcomed the program as a cost savings measure and a way to ensure illegal immigrants who commit crimes are not released back into their neighborhoods. In Colorado, for example, lawmakers were considering a measure to withhold funding from localities that refused to participate, but it failed.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.***
3034  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: May 09, 2011, 02:38:58 PM
good video. grin
3035  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Afghanistan-Pakistan on: May 09, 2011, 11:46:45 AM
Will calls the war on terror a misnomer and it is more properly a law enforcement action.  I don't know what planet he is living on but I hardly think LAPD swat would have been able to carry off the raid of the OBL compound.  Actually the war on terror is a hybrid military-law enforcement endeavor: 

****The small footprint that eliminated bin Laden

By George Will

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Osama bin Laden’s death was announced by the president on May 1, a date that once had worldwide significance on the revolutionary calendar of communism, which was America’s absorbing national security preoccupation prior to Islamic terrorism. Times change.

Barack Obama, in his pitch-perfect address informing the nation that bin Laden is as dead as communism — never mind the cadaverous Cuban and North Korean regimes — rightly stressed that this is “the most significant achievement to date” against al-Qaeda, but that it “does not mark the end of” our effort to defeat that amorphous entity. Perhaps, however, America can use this occasion to draw a deep breath and some pertinent conclusions.

Many salient facts about the tracking of terrorism’s most prolific killer to his lair — some lair: not a remote cave but an urban compound — must remain shrouded in secrecy, for now. But one surmise seems reasonable: bin Laden was brought down by intelligence gathering that more resembles excellent police work than a military operation.

Granted, in nations as violent as Afghanistan and Pakistan, the line between military operations and police work is blurry, and military and other forms of intelligence gathering cannot be disentangled. Still, the enormous military footprint in Afghanistan, next door to bin Laden’s Pakistan refuge, seems especially disproportionate in the wake of his elimination by a small cadre of specialists.


 RECEIVE LIBERTY LOVING COLUMNISTS IN YOUR INBOX … FOR FREE!

  Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.
 
 




Jim Lacey of the Marine Corps War College notes that Gen. David Petraeus has said there are perhaps about 100 al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan. “Did anyone,” Lacey asks, “do the math?” There are, he says, more than 140,000 coalition soldiers in Afghanistan, or 1,400 for every al-Qaeda fighter. It costs about $1 million a year to deploy and support every soldier — or up to $140 billion, or close to $1.5 billion a year, for each al-Qaeda fighter. “In what universe do we find strategists to whom this makes sense?”

There remains much more to al-Qaeda than bin Laden, and there are many more tentacles to the terrorism threat than al-Qaeda and its affiliates. So “the long war” must go on. But perhaps such language is bewitching our minds, because this is not essentially war.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, John Kerry received much derision for his belief (as expressed in a Jan. 29 debate in South Carolina) that although the war on terror will be “occasionally military,” it is “primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world.” Kerry, as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, thought “many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror.” True then; even more obviously true now.

Again: Granted, the distinction between military and law enforcement facets is not a bright line. But neither is it a distinction without a difference. And the more we couch our thinking in military categories, the more we open ourselves to misadventures like the absurd and deepening one in Libya.

There, our policy — if what seem to be hourly improvisations can be dignified as a policy — began as a no-fly zone to protect civilians from wanton violence. Seven weeks later, our policy is to decapitate the government by long-distance assassination and to intensify a civil war in that tribal society, in the name of humanitarianism. What makes this particularly surreal is that it is being done by NATO.

Unpack the acronym: North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO was created in 1949 to protect Western Europe from the Red Army. Its purpose was, in Lord Ismay’s famous formulation, “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down.” NATO, which could long ago have unfurled a “mission accomplished” banner, has now become an instrument of addlepated mischief.

This is an episode of presidential malpractice. Obama has allowed NATO to be employed for the advancement of a half-baked doctrine (R2P — “responsibility to protect”), a quarter-baked rationalization (was it just in March that Hillary Clinton discovered that a vital U.S. national interest required the removal of Moammar Gaddafi because he “is a man who has no conscience”?) and an unworthy national agenda (France’s pursuit of grandeur on the cheap).

When this Libyan mistake is finished, America needs a national debate about whether NATO should be finished. Times change.****

3036  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / legitimate on: May 09, 2011, 09:43:45 AM
""I think the point of the editorial was that the Indian American governor of Louisiana should not be worried about people's origins and birthplaces. That's one of the great things about this country."

Bobby Jindal's parents were at least here legally. 

Now it is no longer legitimate to question someone's birth place?  At least Jindal didn't cynically withold the information.  He immediately released the birth certificate when the issue was brought up.  Unlike the coniver in chief.

****Louisiana governor Jindal caught in birther flap
 Sat May 7, 8:24 pm ET
NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) – A photo of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's birth certificate was published by a newspaper on Saturday even though there is no doubt the Indian American Republican was born in the United States.

Jindal, who is not running for president in 2012 but is mentioned as a possible vice presidential running mate, released the certificate to prove a newspaper editorial wrong.

Jindal was born in the United States to Indian immigrant parents who held green cards at the time.

The flap started when Jindal said last month that he would sign a state bill, if it reached his desk, that would require candidates for federal office on the Louisiana ballot to show proof of birth in the U.S.

The bill was a response to doubts about President Barack Obama's Hawaii birth raised by possible Republican presidential candidates such as businessman Donald Trump. Obama recently released his full birth certificate to squelch the doubts.

After Jindal endorsed the Louisiana "birther" bill, the Baton Rouge daily newspaper, The Advocate, on April 22 published a critical editorial.

"Piyush Amrit Jindal is the last man in America who should give his blessing to a birther bill," the editorial said.

Jindal's office angrily responded that the newspaper had got the governor's middle name wrong. "Amrit," was the name of an ancient Middle East city, Jindal's office said, and not his middle name.

Jindal offered to release his birth certificate to prove it. The Advocate received the birth certificate, apologized for use of an "incorrect middle name" and removed "Amrit" from the online version of the editorial.

Asked about the incident, The Advocate Executive Editor Carl Redman told Reuters, "I think the point of the editorial was that the Indian American governor of Louisiana should not be worried about people's origins and birthplaces. That's one of the great things about this country."

But the incident lived on when the New Orleans Times-Picayune on Saturday ran a photo of the birth certificate and a long article about the details of his parents' entry into the United States.

The birth certificate shows his name as only "Piyush Jindal" with no middle name. Jindal has long used the first name "Bobby."

Jindal's spokesman confirmed on Saturday the details in the article of his parents' arrival in the United States. They came on green cards secured by Jindal's engineer father, Amar Jindal, based on a 1965 law that allowed people with "exceptional ability in the sciences or arts" to enter the U.S. Jindal's mother Raj got a spouse green card.

Amar Jindal now works for a large engineering firm that has offices in Louisiana and around the country. Raj Jindal, who hold masters degrees in physics and nuclear engineering from Louisiana State University, is director of information technology in the Louisiana Department of Labor.

Bernie Pinsonat, a Baton Rouge political analyst and pollster, said the whole saga could confuse some people.

"I have no idea why he did this (release the certificate) except maybe he thinks he'll get some popularity points nationally," Pinsonat said. "Nobody in Louisiana doubts that he was born in the United States."

(Editing by Greg McCune)****


3037  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Colin Powell has lost me on: May 07, 2011, 12:12:07 PM
I still don't get it that Obama couldn't just release his birth certificate.  Questions absolutely were legitimate and he did not blow anyone away.  He again proved he put his own political agenda and cynicism and disdain for anyone who disagrees with him above the legitimate concerns of many Americans.  Powell who I have much less respect for is speaking to the choir here so I guess I expect too much...

Associated Press Susanne M. Schafer, Associated Press – Fri May 6, 10:32 pm ET
ORANGEBURG, S.C. – Colin Powell told graduates of South Carolina's premier historically black university that they were graduating during a tumultuous time that saw a royal wedding, a pope's beatification and a U.S. military assault that killed Osama bin Laden, "the worst person on earth."

But the former secretary of state and Joint Chiefs chairman told South Carolina State University's 400 graduates on Friday that he particularly enjoyed another recent event: "That was when President Obama took out his birth certificate and blew away Donald Trump and all the birthers!"

The stadium roared in approval of Powell's comments on the president's move last week to quell the doubts of those who don't believe he was born in Hawaii. The retired Army four-star general endorsed Obama's 2008 presidential bid.

Earlier Friday, Powell was made an honorary member of the school's ROTC hall of fame.

3038  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left on: May 05, 2011, 03:55:55 PM
Doug,

Well Lawrence of MSLSD played tapes of W saying roughly the same thing in 2002. 
I wonder if they were simply downplaying the embarrassment of not being able to find or catch him till now.

While it is certainly great to be rid of him I can't say I suddenly feel safe from Jihadists.
3039  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / moved to more appropraite thread on: May 04, 2011, 12:28:14 PM
Sorry.  this was supposed to the thread citizens defend themselves...  now moved there.
3040  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Kung fu for airline stewards? on: May 04, 2011, 12:27:07 PM
I took martial arts lessons in the early 80's and the insturctor who taught a modified ishinru style thought Kung Fu was not "effective" at stopping people.  He said he only knew one perhaps tow Kung Fu experts he would feel confident could handle themselves in a real life situation.  I am no expert.  Just wondering if this would be the best style for airline employees to train in for self defense:

http://www.11alive.com/News/Odd/189551/186/Flight-attendants-learn-kung-fu-to-deal-with-unruly-passengers
3041  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: May 04, 2011, 12:25:20 PM
"My teenage daughter (non-political) watched the Sunday night speech separately and commented to me the next day that he was very 'I' and 'me' oriented."

She has her father's brains.  She is in the group that Lincoln would have said cannot be fooled all of the time or even most of the time! grin

Rusmussan poll shows no bounce unlike the NYTimes.

"We should act like winning battles and wars is what we do when attacked, not gloat, taunt for more or act surprised."

Well said.
3042  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Afghanistan-Pakistan on: May 04, 2011, 11:10:25 AM
"Obliterating the compound also would have denied U.S. warriors whatever intel they now glean from bin Laden's gear. Here's hoping that gear — and not that carry-on corpse — proves to be the raiders' real terror coup."

good point.  another reason this was a "no brainer" using GM's accurate description.

Mark Levin also questioned the reason for publicizing the retrieval of the infornation and the broad headlines promoting it as a "trove" and even counting the number of thumb drives, hard drives, discs and everything else.

Oh the success of it all.  All due to the ONE who "taught" Bush how to fight terror as per Lawrence of MSLSD last night.

All I can say is thank God for the brave and courageous men and women of our military.  We are so lucky to have people volunteer for our country and for the rest of us. 

I have a nephew going to Iraq next month but hopefully only for a few months.  My sister is already a nervous wreck.
3043  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Kung fu for airline stewards? on: May 04, 2011, 10:30:52 AM
I took martial arts lessons in the early 80's and the insturctor who taught a modified ishinru style thought Kung Fu was not "effective" at stopping people.  He said he only knew one perhaps tow Kung Fu experts he would feel confident could handle themselves in a real life situation.  I am no expert.  Just wondering if this would be the best style for airline employees to train in for self defense:

http://www.11alive.com/News/Odd/189551/186/Flight-attendants-learn-kung-fu-to-deal-with-unruly-passengers
3044  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: May 04, 2011, 09:54:03 AM
Sorry, I should reread my comments before my post;
Correction
You can fool some of the people all of the time
3045  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A great moment it is but the rest is show designed for the ONE on: May 04, 2011, 09:50:51 AM
It really was a "no brainer".

First of all he didn't just decide.

The powers to be had TEN yrs to figure these moments out.

OK look at the choice:

Bomb the smithireens out of a compound and not know who is killed hurt or maimed.  Not know for sure if he is there, if he is killed and have no evidence or proof of anything vs the ground mission which could risk the lives of the Seals, backfire or fail.  But then one could get proof OBL is there and captured or killed.  As to the relations with Pakistan nothing different either way.

Isn't the choice really a no brainer?  If it isn't enough, the liberal media is making this out to be the great commander in chief decision of the new millineum - which it isn't - they are now:

1) this dispells all doubt that he is relentless about the war on terror and is a great commander in chief
2) he was right all along to pursue OBL wherein Bush is replayed to say it is not a top priority  (as thought the hunt of OBL started when he "directed Panetta to make this a priority" which by the way wasn't that well past the start of his reign as king?
3) of course if he is right about this he is right about the rest of his policies
4)  O'Donnel was shamelessly saying Bush put us all through this for "ten years" by not getting OBL at Tora Tora  - he conveninetly left out the next logical conclusion (since he is going that route) is that Clinton put us through 911 by not letting Sudan turn over OBL to us in the 90's when he had the chance. (BTW O'Donnel is definitely the new Oberman.)
5) shopping around those convenient pictures showing the tense Bamster biting his nails etc as something to behold.  I don't recall the immediate release ever before of such pictures of a President.
6) To prove the greatness of the one he will now speak at ground zero?  At least Bush has the class to decline cashing in on this and has gracefully declined to be present.  Probably because he knows it will be a set up.  Him sitting in the front row while the king towers above him on the podium.  We all know what that means - remember Trump, Ryan, Supreme Court.

Now they say he is up several percent in the polls.  Well as Lincoln pointed out - you can fool all of the people some of the time.  Clinton certainly proved that with one speech.

Now all that said Bamster deserves some credit but lets not turn this into a success akin to WW2 invasion of Europe.
Except for the military the planned and carried out the operation.
3046  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: May 03, 2011, 01:34:36 PM
"They was no political gain for compromising or selling out on principles."

Great post and on this point you are exactly correct.  I though compromise was a good idea vis avis Bush W and Rove etc.

But I now realize that there is no compromise with the left.  It is never enough.  Every compromise will be met with more of a fanatic progressive agenda.   There is no end to their agenda until they have destroyed the USA as we know it.  One world government, no carbon fuels, one class, no personal responsibility, complete control.

Compromise from the right is met with being taken advantage of and being one step closer toward their vision of nirvana.

I say no more compromise.
3047  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left on: May 03, 2011, 11:21:18 AM
“What distinguishes Obama particularly is the depth and carefulness of his thinking...” said Jonathan Haidt, a professor of social psychology at the University of Virginia. “He is a brilliant social and political analyst, which makes it harder for him to play hardball or to bluff.”  Obama’s strengths and weaknesses come from his high degree of “integrative complexity” — his ability to keep multiple variables and trade-offs in mind simultaneously."

Well this social psychologist needs his own head examined.

The BS is truly mind boggling and frustrating too.
3048  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: May 03, 2011, 11:16:06 AM
"Will Obama seize the advantage and press the war with the treasure trove of intel we now have?"

I dunno.  But he is already playing the lets use this moment to all get along card.  Like he did with Gabby.

Which is code for do what I want or you are not compromising.

A Bamster is a Bamster is a Bamster.

Did anyone notice the similarity of Bamster mocking Trump at the Press dinner (which is in itself and elitist joke) to how he had the Supreme Coutr Justices, and Ryan sitting in front of him will he towers on the podium and mock them.

Mock and belittle your oponents.  Isn't that the strategy when logic no longer works?
3049  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: May 03, 2011, 09:45:52 AM
"This will give Obama a short term pop in the polls."

Well no bounce short term grin

Comparing Bamster's "leadership" to WH Bushes as some liberal media are wont to do, is like comparing  Joe Biden to Winston Chruchill.

****Tuesday, May 03, 2011 The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-six percent (36%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10 (see trends).

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook

Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove.

Daily updates are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. As a result, two-thirds of the interviews for today’s update were conducted before news was released about the death of Osama bin Laden. Thursday will be the first update based entirely upon interviews conducted after that event. Results from the single night of data collected on Monday shows a modest improvement in the president’s Approval Index rating. However, there was no improvement in the president’s overall approval rating. Caution should always be used when interpreting a single night sample from a tracking poll.

The president’s job approval ratings have been remarkably stable over the past year-and-a-half when viewed on a month-by-month basis.

During the month of April, the number of voters unaffiliated with either major party grew for the fourth straight month.

Republicans continue to hold a modest advantage on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The Rasmussen Employment Index gained some ground last month but is still down from the start of 2011. Nineteen percent (19%) of workers report that the employers are hiring while 24% still see lay-offs. It has been nearly three years since the number reporting hiring topped the number with lay-offs.

Rasmussen Reports is pleased to announce that we now have more than 100,000 Twitter followers. Sign up at twitter.com/RasmussenPoll.

(More Below)

 

A Wall Street Journal   profile called Scott "America's Insurgent Pollster." The Washington Post calls him "a driving force in American politics." If you'd like Scott to speak at your conference or event, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. Follow Scott on Facebook.

In a book released last year, Scott observed that, "The gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th  century." He added that "The American people don't want to be governed from the left, the right, or the center. They want to govern themselves." In Search of Self-Governance  is available at Amazon.com.

MAD AS HELL: How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System,   by Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen, can be ordered atAmazon.com, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other outlets. It's also available in bookstores everywhere.

It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the president's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. It is also important to check the details of question wording when comparing approval ratings from different firms.*****

 
3050  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / some thoughts on: May 02, 2011, 12:39:27 PM
"You talking about Bush 41, 43 or both?"

Oops.  I said W but I meant HW (41).

My take was the read my lips no new taxes pledge was more a rallying point from the left than a real reason he lost.

Sort of like Dukakis lost because he was ambushed by the guy he released from prison who went out and commited another rape.
The MSM went out of their way to turn it into a racial thing by highlighting the guy was Black.  Most of us didn't know or care otherwise.  It was a rally cry from the liberal media more than a real issue.

Or that Kerry was "swift boated" aka a dirty low down Republican trick.  Another figment of the liberal media to deamonize the right.

As for 1991-2 -

My opinion is we were in a recession during the end of HW tenure and he just ignored it.  If only he showed he was paying attention to it and at least trying to fix it.  I think he would have won in '92. 

Then again in those days it was believed that the economy was more out of the President's control and it would right itself with the usual ebbs and flows of the economic cycle.  HW appeared to believe this and thought a laissez faire approach made sense, I guess.

I kind of think that was the beginning of the trend towards it is the job of the President to respond to every single crises and fix it immediately and if he doesn't respond to polls he is no good.

Now we have polls on everything several times a day and constant barrage of the politicians to respond immediately.
Pages: 1 ... 59 60 [61] 62 63 ... 100
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!