Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Debbie Wasserman: A Gift Of Stupidity, That Keeps On Giving...

This blog is firmly in favor of new DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz keeping her liberal gums flapping from now until election day.  She's a walking soundbite...for future Republican attack ads in 2012. 

Last Friday I highlighted three individual acts of unbelievable stupidity by Wasserman, but hey - anyone can have a bad day, right?

But she sure seems to have a lot of them.  Right Wing News - which describes DWS as one of the most vitriolic, off base, half informed demagogues of the far left in America today - gives us the video and transcript below, where Debbie claims that Republicans want to make illegal immigration...illegal, showing clearly no understanding that, yes, to take up residence in a nation without explicit permission to do so is against the law:

We have 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy. And that, that is not only a reality but a necessity. And that it would be harmful if some — you know, the Republican solutions that I’ve seen in the last few years is that we should just pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries, and in fact it should be a crime and we should arrest them all. I mean that was in legislation that Jim Sensenbrenner advanced a couple of years ago.

They're the backbone of our economy?  Really?  What about hardworking, tax-paying, all-American workers - what are they, a freakin' drain?  And why, in a nation with millions upon millions unemployed, is the existence of 12 million illegals a "necessity"?    And Debbie , do you have any idea in the world that what you are describing - "undocumented" immigrants - is already a crime not only in America, but in virtually every single nation on the entire flipping planet?

It's hard, hard work to be this seriously stupid.  Give Debbie some props.  And when you start to worry about the 2012 elections, when the media tells you the Democrats have it all locked up, just think of Debbie, and the fact that this is the best the Democrats can offer America....

Religion of Peace stones beautiful teenager to death for...being a beautiful teenager

These guys hate their women almost - almost - as much as they hate Jews:

A teenage Muslim girl was stoned to death under 'Sharia law' after taking part in a beauty contest in Ukraine.

Katya Koren, 19, was found dead in a village in the Crimea region near her home.

Friends said she liked wearing fashionable clothes and had come seventh in a beauty contest.

Police have opened a murder investigation and are looking into claims that three Muslim youths killed her, claiming her death was justified under Islam.

One of the three - named as 16-year-old Bihal Gaziev - is under arrest and told police that Katya had 'violated the laws of Sharia'. Gaziev has said he has no regrets about her death.

No worries, Gaziev.  You've got a job waiting for you as the "Morality Minister" in the new government of Egypt, or perhaps in Greater Hamastan (formerly known as the West Bank)....if not, the Iranian "morality patrols" certainly have an entry-level position with you name on it...

Allen West, Meet Sarah Palin

This picture, folks, is what keeps Democratic strategists up at night, soaking the sheets with a cold, clammy sweat:

The only question is, who's on top of the ticket?

Via  Can I Just Finish My Waffle?

A Well-Deserved Smackdown for "J Street"

J Street, if you haven't heard, is an anti-Israeli lobbying group made of of useful (Jewish) idiots, funded by George Soros, which endorse every Palestinian atrocity and condemn every act of Israeli self-defense, while claiming that only by complete surrender can Israel ever find peace.  Masquerading as a "pro-Israel" group, they are primarily made of of self-loathing American Jews, who have abandoned their Judaism for the socially convenient religion of Liberalism.  Shoot, these guys are so far out of it, as far as their alleged religion is concerned, that they don't even offer Kosher food at their confabs. I'm sure, however, if you wanted a bacon cheeseburger...

In all honesty, J-Street does little to promote their key reason for being,  that there is a division in American Jewish thought, that "mainstream" American Jews are more J Street than APAIC.  But they do offer outstanding cover to Democratic politicians, who want to appear to be pro-Israel while doing everything they can to undermine the Jewish state and strengthen their enemies.  Like Keith Ellison, for one.

The media gives J Street more credit than they are due, simply because they dovetail more with their personal views.  But to get an idea of the revulsion many ordinary Americans and Israelis feel with this stealth pro-Palestinian stalking horse, one could do no better than to read the words of Daniel Gordis.

Who is Gordis?  An American-born rabbi and Columbia University graduate (cum laude) who moved to Israel in 1998, of whom liberal Jeff Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic has written, "If you asked me, 'of all the people you know, who cares the most about the physical, moral and spiritual health of Israel?' I would put the commentator and scholar Daniel Gordis at the top of the list."

So let's listen to Gordis take apart J Street.  From his remarks back in May, as he addressed J Street Leadership Mission to Israel and Palestine, I thought this was a classic smackdown of the arrogant liberalism that permeates J Street, as well as the editorial boards of the MSM and the current occupants of the White House:

As most of you know, I disagree strongly with much of what you do. But I think that we have an obligation to meet with people with whom we disagree.
...the vast majority of Israelis, if presented with a genuine opportunity to live side by side in a democratic, transparent, peaceful, demilitarized Palestine, would accept it.

So, assuming that’s what you also seek, I assume our disagreement is about how to get there. You believe that people who are not willing to make major territorial concessions to the Palestinians right now are not serious about a two-state solution. You think that those of us who claim that we favor a two-state solution but who are not willing to give up the store at this moment are bluffing. Or we’re liars. Or, at best, we’re well-intentioned but misguided. But bottom line, if we’re not willing now to make the concessions that you think are called for, then we’re not really pursuing peace.

But that is arrogance of the worst sort. Does your distance from the conflict give you some moral clarity that we don’t have? Are you smarter than we are? Are you less racist? Why do you assume with such certainty that you have a monopoly on the wisdom needed to get to the goal we both seek?

.... a perfect example of the certainty and arrogance of which I’m speaking....Reacting to the most recent Fatah-Hamas agreement, this is what J Street had to say: “In fact, many who oppose a two-state deal have, in recent years, done so by arguing that divisions among the Palestinians make peace impossible. Obviously, reconciliation [between Fatah and Hamas] reduces that obstacle – but now skeptics of a two state agreement have immediately stepped forward to say that a deal is impossible with a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas.”

“Obviously,” you say, reconciliation reduces the obstacle to a peace treaty.

But I would caution you against ever using the word “obviously” when it comes to the Middle East. Nothing here is obvious. If you think that something is obvious, then you simply haven’t thought enough....
Perfect.  But I doubt it penetrated the ideologues that populate J Street.  Their goal - the subjugation of Israel to the Palestinians - is impervious to logic and reason...

Monday, May 30, 2011

Memorial Day 2011

For love of country they accepted death... ~James A. Garfield

The brave die never, though they sleep in dust: Their courage nerves a thousand living men.~Minot J. Savage

It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.General George S. Patton

Lord, we pray for the souls of our dear brothers, called to duty and lost forever on foreign shores. Grant them eternal rest in your arms, these servants of our country, honor and freedom.

Grant that they be remembered...Grant that their sacrifice be understood, and grant them a place at your side in Heaven. "Greater love hath no man than this: that he lay down his life for his friends."

Sunday, May 29, 2011

...Life On One Leg (Part 2): Chicks & Bus Drivers Still The Worst

I wrote a little bit (well, a lot, honestly) last week on my torn left calf, and  the response that people in New York City have to someone on crutches trying to make their way through some sort of minimalistic daily routine.  I just thought, rather than write about Anthony Weiner's wiener, I'd update my (already extensive) thoughts, perceptions, and theories a week later.

..and this, two weeks later, is "healing".  Sigh...

First and foremost: The whole women/men thing has changed one iota, in fact, my perception of men as supportive and thoughtful brothers and women as self-involved, unfeeling cads has only been reinforced this week.  Women have let doors slam in my face (while looking me in the eye, albeit blankly), have rushed ahead of me to grab subway seats (while men have offered theirs to me), and once again have ran up the block to steal my cabs.  Much more detail here, as mentioned above.  I'm disillusioned, to be honest.  I've always loved women and shared little of by biological  bretheren's casual disdain towards them.  However, as I mentioned to a shocked crowd the other day, I'm beginning to understand the maxim "Bro's before ho's" much better than I ever did.

Incidentally, most guys I asked about this behavior often agreed with this explanation (without hearing it from me first) I offered last week:

Are men sympathetic to another guy, who may be "just like them" in many respects - working, athletic, wearing a boot that can be perceived as the result of a sports-related injury? 

When I asked women the explanation for their behavior, I got a lot of laughs (occasionally nervous ones) and a similar explanation virtually every time:  "Women are such bitches".

As I said, I am sorely disillusioned.

That being said, I thought I would comment on the response of some of the "professions" I interact with on a daily basis to a man hobbling through the mean streets on one leg:

Doorman:  The best.  Running over to offer help, offering special elevators, and in the case of my home office making sure they knew what floor I worked on so I could be rescued in an emergency.

Cabbies: Pretty good.  Will occasionally even get out of their cabs to open the door.  One guy shooed away a French couple who tried to take my cab; at least they were properly chagrined.

Food Service: Also pretty good.  I am doing take-out most days, but I am constantly being offered extra large bags, help with the door, and in the one or two occasions I went fast-food, employees told me to sit down and had my food brought to my table. Note here, though: New York much better than New Jersey, where the checker at the local Wawa asked me if I wanted a bag for my breakfast.  Really?

Bus drivers: By far the worst.  My stories are legion.  Commuting into the city in the morning, getting picked up on the side of a busy Jersey highway, not once in eight days did a driver wait for me to take my seat before zooming off at merge speed into traffic, usually sending me lurching down the aisle or into some poor passenger's lap, crutches and all.  My trip home has been a bit more civilized, as I wait on line for a bus in the Port Authority and board in an orderly fashion. However, I can't forget the day I was second on line for a bus (with a pregnant women in front of me), and the bus pulled up a few minutes early.  Rather than open his doors, he sat inside and read the paper (fully aware of our presence three feet away), while the pregnant women and I, already waiting for 15-20 minutes, practically leaned on each other for support until the driver yawned, stretched, and finally open the doors some additional 5-7 minutes later.

You should be proud, New Jersey Transit.  Your drivers suck balls, up and down.  No wonder we private citizens loath your pathetic, fat union asses.

Anyway, hopefully no more than another week on crutches, then I should be back on three feet, if not two.  How will "life with a cane" work out?  Should be interesting....

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Obama Gets Humiliated By...Canada

I love our northern neighbors (they're quiet, clean, respectful enough, and for the most part mind their own business) dearly, but to get your ass kicked by a Canadian is like...well, unless you're getting your ass kicked by Bobby Clarke, it's like getting kicked in the shins by a little girl and staying down for the count, curled into the fetal position..

The Canadians dealt such an ass-kicking to Barack Obama the other day.  It was a moral ass-kicking, but it is proof positive that the moral beacon that has long since shined from Washington DC has been snuffed by the president, and replaced with cravenness, cowardice, and the insatiable urge to appease evil rather than protect good.

Perhaps now the beacon emanates from Toronto:

Group of Eight leaders had to soften a statement urging Israel and the Palestinians to return to negotiations because Canada objected to a specific mention of 1967 borders, diplomats said on Friday.

Canada's right-leaning Conservative government has adopted a staunchly pro-Israel position in international negotiations since coming to power in 2006, with Prime Minister Stephen Harper saying Canada will back Israel whatever the cost. ...

"The Canadians were really very adamant, even though Obama expressly referred to 1967 borders in his speech last week," one European diplomat said.

Stephen Harper is my new hero:

Harper has made is position on Israel very clear, saying last year: "When Israel, the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack, is consistently and conspicuously singled out for condemnation, I believe we are morally obligated to take a stand."

A stand that Barack Obama refuses to take, despite the demands from the American people that he do so. Europe wants Israel dead to mollify the restive Muslim populations in their cities (fat chance), and to somehow legitimize their enthusiastic participation in the Nazi Holocaust. Barack Obama is joining the rape-gang because everyone in his faculty lounge always said that Israel was the real bad guy, and besides, he really, really, wants the Europeans and Muslims to like him (fat chance).

Who would have thought, as clouds once again begin to appear over Western Civilization, and the words "never again" are forgotten as quickly as a Barack Obama promise, that it would be the Canadians that would stand tall?

Oh, Canada...

Italy Descends Into Intellectual Barbarism

Granted, I haven't paid much attention to the going-ons in Italy lately - most of the news seems to be about Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's predilection for barely-legal girls.  So I don't know if they've been sliding down an intellectual slope for a while now, or this is just the dip one would expect to see when the cast of Jersey Shore comes to town.  Still, I had to read this story twice to make sure it wasn't parody.

Alas, it is not:

Italian government officials have accused the country's top seismologist of manslaughter, after failing to predict a natural disaster that struck Italy in 2009, a massive devastating earthquake that killed 308 people.

A shocked spokesman for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) likened the accusations to a witch hunt.

"It has a medieval flavor to it -- like witches are being put on trial," the stunned spokesman told FoxNews.com.

Enzo Boschi, the president of Italy's National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology (INGV), will face trial along with six other scientists and technicians, after failing to predict the future and the impending disaster.

Earthquakes are, of course, nearly impossible to predict, seismologists say. In fact, according to the website for the USGS, no major quake has ever been predicted successfully.

"Neither the USGS nor Caltech nor any other scientists have ever predicted a major earthquake," reads a statement posted on the USGS website. "They do not know how, and they do not expect to know how any time in the foreseeable future

It's a witch hunt, all right. By politicians looking for someone to blame for a natural disaster. Maybe Italian officials are taking an example out of the Democratic playbook, when our own leftists used Hurricane Katrina as a cudgel to beat George W. Bush, despite the fact that if one could blame anything outside of natural forces for the devastation there, it would be the local (Democratic) officials who sat back and did nothing.

Regardless, another wall that separated Western Civilization from barbarism has fallen. And in the homeland of the Renaissance, no less. Alas, there is no trusting the Europeans, who seems simultaneously ready to become socialist Jew-killers (again) as well as resigning themselves to be overthrown by barbarians (again). Maybe, with that forethought, they are trying to beat the clock, and jump-start the race (back) to the bottom.

Somewhere, Galileo weeps.

...don't blame these guys....

Friday, May 27, 2011

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: The Worst Thing That Could Happen To Jewish Women?

Man, it just keeps getting tougher for the Jews.  First we have Bernie Madoff, the crooked investor who ruined lives and lost billions, while making a specialty out of preying on his own kind.  We have Barack Obama, who volunteers to surrender most of Israel to the folks who want to kill them as a "first step" towards peace. 

And now we have Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla), the new chairwoman of the DNC.  She a high-pitched, nasal, hypocritical know-nothing, who makes her leack of gravitas clear every time she opens her mouth - usually with the volume turned up to 11.  Some of today's(!) gaffes:

The chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) appears to drive a foreign car, despite criticizing Republican presidential candidates for supposedly favoring foreign auto manufacturers.

"If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side, we would be driving foreign cars; they would have let the auto industry in America go down the tubes," she said at a breakfast for reporters organized by The Christian Science Monitor.

But according to Florida motor vehicle records, the Wasserman Schultz household owns a 2010 Infiniti FX35, a Japanese car whose parent company is Nissan, another Japanese company. The car appears to be hers, since its license plate includes her initials.

Stupid?  Wait, it gets worse:

In an emotional assault on the Republicans, new Democratic Party Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz today called the GOP agenda "anti-women" and "a war on women" that will backfire on Republicans in the 2012 election and provide a cushion for President Obama's re-election bid.

"It's just so hard for me to grasp how they could be so anti-women as they are," she said at a breakfast roundtable with reporters.

An emotional assault, indeed.  And Republican women did not like it one bit.  Maybe Debbie's doing a bit of proejction here; after all, the Democrats are the party of rape...

And of course, Debbie is the only one allowed to speak for the Jews.  In fact, no matter how openly her president attempts to destroy Israel, she doesn't even want you to talk about it.  Otherwise, she'll...screech:

Wasserman Schultz said the Democratic Party remains politically the “natural home” for the Jewish community, noting that Obama won 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008 despite “dire predictions” he would receive much less.

“I think the Republicans are certainly going to attempt to make it an issue” in the 2012 campaign, she said. “We will address the unfounded characterizations of his record and outright lies,” she added.

In meeting Monday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Republican and Democratic Jewish groups, Schultz reportedly urged both parties not the politicize Israel in the 2012 election -– comments that drew an accusation from some Republicans that she was proposing a “gag order.”

“What I think is unfortunate is… that we need to make sure… that Israel never becomes a partisan issue,” Schultz said today. “When it comes to Israel we need to erase the ire.”

By marching them into the sea, I suppose. Well, Debbie - like many American Jews - has chosen the religion of liberalism over the religion of Judaism. Good for her, I suppose, but doesn't that discredit her as a self-appointed national director of Jewish political alliances?

The media will love Debbie, because she is a human sound-bite machine, saying all the things they secretly believe about Republicans. So she'll get plenty of airtime, and her Jewish heritage will be pointed to quite often as she pontificates on Israel.

I feel for the single Jewish women out there. Once a guy hears your surname, sees the twinkle of your Star of David, or sees you drive up in Daddy's BMW, he's going to think of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and her emotional outbursts, her intellectual depravity, and her tendency to screech in outrage. And he'll run, run for the hills, before you hit his wallet and steal his health insurance.

And this may just as well equally apply to Jewish boys, FYI...

Sorry, ladies. Next time you're wondering why you can't get a date, thank the older generation for enslaving themselves to the Democratic party.

And incidentally - if this were, say, Sarah Palin who was the author of all the chaos above, what word would you they be using to describe her?

Shocker: New York Times Lies About Israeli Reaction To Netanyahu's Trip

A Friday full of "surprises"...first, we uncover Obama's terrorist pals boarding a ship to attack Israel, and now we find the house organ of the Obama Administration (that's the New York Times) engaged in bald-faced lying to their dwindling readership about the Israeli reaction to Netanayhu's tumultuous trip to the States. Via Yid with Lid, here's the money shots...first, from the aforementioned Times:

"Israelis See Netanyahu Trip as Diplomatic Failure."

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel returned from Washington on Wednesday to a nearly unanimous assessment among Israelis that despite his forceful defense of Israel's security interests, hopes were dashed that his visit might advance peace negotiations with the Palestinians.”

Well, the assessment was "nearly unanimous"...except in the opposite direction that the Times is pointing. Israeli left-wing newspaaper Ha'aretz reports:

"Ha'aretz Poll: Netanyahu's Popularity Soaring Following Washington Trip"

A new poll conducted by Dialog, under the supervision of Prof. Camil Fuchs of the Tel Aviv University Statistics Department, showed that 47% of the Israeli public believes Netanyahu's U.S. trip was a success, while only 10% viewed it as a failure...

While in a Haaretz poll five weeks ago Netanyahu seemed to be in hot water with the public, with 38 percent expressing satisfaction with his performance and 53 percent disappointed with it, in yesterday's poll the results were essentially reversed: 51 percent were satisfied, while 36 percent were not.

Not only did Obama empower his arch-rival with his "smart diplomacy", his attack on the prime minister helped strengthen Netanyahu's conservative coalition going into the Israeli election season:

A Telesker poll published in Ma’ariv on Wednesday found that the Likud had strengthened against Kadima. The poll predicted that the Likud would rise from 27 to 30 Knesset seats, while Kadima would fall from 28 to 27.

Asked who was more fit to be prime minister, 36.9% said Netanyahu; 28.3% said Kadima leader Tzipi Livni....

I understand the desire at the NYT to do whatever possible to support their dream administration, especially given that they threw out any journalistic consideration of parity well over a decade ago.  But are they not ill-serving their customer base by providing them with deliberately false information?  Sure, it makes them feel good for the moment, but in the end, they'll be shocked that their worldview - taken from the pages of the Times - has no real relation to...well, the world's view.

Expect the Times to become a local, Upper West Side-only paper, by....2012.  Latest.

Shocker: Obama's Best Friends Hate Israel Too

There is a new "blockade-busting" flotilla heading towards Gaza, and the ships are manned by...all the president's men.  And women. And terrorists:

A U.S. boat, The Audacity of Home, will join the Mavi Marmara flotilla. As Gretzinger notes, “Two of the valiant activists on board will be the president’s favorite domestic terrorists, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.” And Rashid Khalidi, a Columbia University professor and former PLO spokesman in Beirut who has also been President Obama’s mentor on the Arab-Israeli conflict, is directly involved in fundraising for the flotilla.

Ayers and Dohrn are domestic terrorists, who - were they allied with a Republican - would have immediately ended any pretense he or she had towards the presidency.  They are animals.

Khalidi is perhaps one of the greatest skeletons in Obama's closet. The LA Times, as we know, has a videotape of a speech Obama gave in honor of Khalidi ( a hard-core Palestinian activist disguising his terrorist fundraising under the auspices of scholarship) which they refuse to release. Exactly how does one pay tribute to a defender of terrorism? Only Barack and the LA Times know, and they ain't talking. One clue: It isn't by defending Israel.

Coincidentally, Salon printed a piece this morning by Khalidi - again, Obama's "mentor" on Israeli-Palestinian relations - in which he criticizes Obama's speech demanding an Israeli retreat to the 1967 borders as being  unfair to the Palestinians, since it insisted on "no involvement of Hamas in the process unless it accepts preconditions such as renunciation of violence and recognition of Israel prior to negotiations....this in effect rules out negotiations."

Any wonder why Obama was so shocked by the response to his "1967 borders" speech? In his mind, and in comparison to his friends, he truly is being moderate. Unbelievable.

Let us pray.  Pray that the Israelis sink every f*cking ship in this Flotilla of Hate. Tie Barack Obama in knots, either forcing him to come out as a defender of American and Islamic terrorists, or as a defender of a nation's sovereignty    Show the world you won't be bullied by thuggish academics with delusions of grandeur.  And make sure that Ayers and Dohrn end up in a deep, watery grave, not unlike their soul-mate, Osama bin Ladan.

Besides helping themselves, they would be doing the United States a tremendous favor as well....

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Chris Christie Eliminates "Cap and Trade" in New Jersey!

Brushing up his conservative bona fides for a presidential run?  Or just enacting smart policy?

New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie announced Thursday he will withdrawal his state’s membership from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) by the end of the year.

“It’s a failure,” said Christie. “RGGI has not changed behavior and it does not reduce emissions.”

The goal of RGGI — a ten-state cap and trade program — is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 10 percent by 2018. When utilities purchase their emission permits, the proceeds are supposed to go to investments for developing alternative energy sources.

He stayed in it a little too long, and here's why:

Last year, however, Christie took $64 million from RGGI and put it in the state’s general fund to help get New Jersey’s fiscal house in order. And while Christie has floated a plan in the past to stay in RGGI simply to use the funds to pay down the debt, it apparently didn’t get very far.

It was a revenue-generator for the state, and Christie was loath to give it up as a budget-balancing tool. One has to think that his "belief" in global warming was based on his need for RGGI revenue. But as apparently he wasn't able to strike a deal to make this hidden tax do his bidding, he eliminated it entirely.

And there's no doubt it was a tax - RGGI's own proposal estimated an cost increase of approximately $36/year per household (a conservative figure, no doubt), with "savings" incurred over time as high prices forced people to use less electricity and invest thousands in new appliances that would take decades to pay back (and pay off):

But ultimately, Christie did the right thing, even if it was for the wrong reason. The utilities were spreading the cost to the consumers, who couldn't afford "green technology", and likely the New Jersey kitty of RGGI money actually spent on renewable energy was either wasted or used as political collateral. The state spent $22M of this money in 2009, can anyone tell me where the hell it all went?

Kudos go to Americans for Prosperity, which has been pressuring Christie on this since Day 1 of his administration. The turning point may have been in late April, when they got a key Democratic  lawmaker to sign on to repeal.  For a giggle, see how the whiny liberals at Blue Jersey react - ignoring the bipartisan consensus, they blame "Christie alone", the Koch brothers, and the "dummy chunk" of the governor's "base". Sheesh.

If that's the best argument the Jersey Left can make, well....it's a shame Christie didn't pull out of this state-sanctioned consumer scam a long, long time ago...

Chris Christie Tells New Jersey Taxpayers "You Are Not The Money Tree!"

...regardless of what liberal Democrats keep trying to tell you....

God, does America need this man right now:

Can Somebody Tell Jennifer Granholm That It's Just Liberal Women Who Are Unattractive?

Jennifer Granholm, former Democratic governor of Michigan, tries to explain why female politicans don't (or can't?) get as much action as the guys:

According to Granholm, women do not have as many underlings drooling over them as men do.

“For women in power there just aren’t the opportunities,” she said, asserting that her comment was just a generalization.

“We aren’t getting interns coming up to us, putting their phone numbers in their pockets, where as men in power get a lot more of that than women do.”

She added that powerful women also might not be as alluring to men as powerful men are to women.

Well, gee, Jennifer, maybe it's just a certain type of female politician who gets no love. I can thing of a few ladies right now that have many a man wishing they could slip something into their pockets. Problem is, they're all Republicans:

Now here's a lineup of liberal "lovlies"

I dunno - maybe men love women who are strong, independent, and seek power not for the ability to impose their world view upon others, but seek it so that they and their children can grow up in the very same freedom-loving America that they did.

I've talked in  the past about how liberal women are just so god-damned ugly, to quote Dr. Zira.  And why is that so?

Because external ugly always has it's roots on the inside.  And the socialists, totalitarian soul is not just ugly,. but repulsive, especially to men.

Want to get a little something, Governer Granholm?  Lay off the socialism for a while, it'll do a lot for your looks...

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

The Revolt of the Jews? Big Barack Donor Says Bye-Bye

Alana Goodman over at Contentions reports:

One of the most important Democratic donors in the past two decades, whose generous contributions helped pay for the DNC headquarters in Washington, D.C., has indicated that he will not contribute to President Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012, because of the administration’s stance on Israel.

Billionaire financier Haim Saban told CNBC last night that Obama hasn’t done enough to show support for Israel. He also said that he has no plans to contribute to the president’s campaign.

“President Obama has raised so much money and will raise so much money through the Internet, more than anybody before him. And he frankly doesn’t, I believe, need any of my donations,” said Saban.

“I’m very perplexed as to why the president, who’s been to Cairo, to Saudi Arabia, to Turkey, has not made a stop in Israel and spoken to the Israeli people,” he continued

I dunno....maybe he hates Jews? Or maybe he just hates, you know, "Zionists". Certainly acts that way...

Saban, like most American Jews, has battered wife syndrome, and begs Obama for a sign, any sign, that he still loves him:

“I believe that the president can clarify to the Israeli people what his positions are on Israel and calm them down. Because they are not calm right now.”

What's important here is that Saban didn't say he would withold his millions from Democratic Congressional and Senatorial races.  So he's still got the party's back, and likely the rent check for the DNC headquarters as well. All those Democrats who are standing up to support Israel are doing so to save their own skins, they need Saban's money much more than Barack does (as Saban points out).

Which means that if Obama gets re-elected, it will be despite the lack of Big Fat Jew Cash.  And we know how Obama punishes his enemies....

Overall affect of Saban's temporary restraining (of his wallet) order? Nill, except to garner more frantic Congressional support of Israel. Not a bad thing, but until the rank and file Jews - also known as "voters" - stop pulling the Democratic lever with blind regularity, it is meaningless.

FYI - as an alternate title of this post, I was considering using the one employed today by Norway's biggest newspaper, Aftenposten:

‘Rich Jews Threaten Obama’

Al Gore, "C" Student In Science, Declares Science Is Settled

It's no wonder some of our politicians hide their college GPAs. It's nice to go to an Ivy League school, but if you can't be more than a mediocrity in a supportive academic environment, why should your degree be considered as any type of a qualification for governing?

Or, for that matter, changing the entire way that society distributes its energy, and its income?

In his commencement speech at Hamilton College on Sunday, former Vice President Al Gore told the graduates that global warming is “the most serious challenge our civilization has ever faced.” But as an undergraduate at Harvard University in the late 1960s, Gore--one of the most prominent spokesmen on climate change today--earned a “D” in Natural Sciences.

Gore’s transcript documents that during his sophomore year at Harvard he earned a "D" in Natural Sciences 6 (Man’s Place in Nature). Also, as a senior at Harvard, he earned a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118.

Like all "C" students, Gore's work and theories should be taken as coming from such.

One might surmise that Barack Obama was no star pupil either, or else we'd be hearing a lot more about his stellar GPA (as proof of his greatness), as opposed to the mere waving of the old Harvard flag.

Should not then his governing suggestions - on taxation, international boundaries, and health care - be taken with the same "gravity" as we take Al Gore's?

With a less compliant media, Obama would have been "exposed" long ago...and Gore would either be on trial for fraud, or submitting paperwork for a nonprofit's tax exemption for being the leader of a bizarre and somewhat laughable cult...

Bibi vs. Barack: Postmortem

We said, a long time ago, this wasn't a fair fight.  But Obama, like a punch-drunk pugalist who can't fathom that his best years are behind him, forced Bibi into the ring for another match.  And there should have been no surprise at the final result.

The headlines tell the story:

Obama left to choke on Bibi's dust

John Podhoretz scored the bout a bit differently:

Israel's old pro has O's number
The score: Bibi 3, Barack 0.
In a demonstration of political and policy haplessness almost without precedent, the president of the United States decided last week for the third time in three years to go after a beloved ally of the United States with no practical goal and for no practical purpose.
And for the third time, he has had his hat handed to him.

More, from Aaron Miller:

To pick a fight with the Israelis on the eve of the visit of an Israeli prime minister with whom you don't have a relationship (but who you need if you want to get anywhere on the peace process) is dumb; to put out June 1967 lines without any backgrounding after the speech is dumb; to take a position in non-existent negotiations and identify your position as a would-be mediator is dumb; and to send a message to the Palestinians that "you really have me scared about your virtual statehood initiative so maybe I'll identify my position on Jerusalem next" is dumb.

The smarter play would have been running silent and deep now, not loud and noisy.

But all the president has is oration....and the ability to conduct "smart" diplomacy.  Oh, wait....

But Barack does have one ace in the hole: NPR.  Since he decides whether or not they get to exist, they pander and flatter him the way the scared ancients franctically offered sacrifices to their stone gods when they saw the skies darken and heard the thunder rumble...via the PJ Tatler:

NPR – you remember them, the “public” radio network that got caught fund-raising with the Muslim Brotherhood – is at it again in response to Israeli PM Netanyahu’s speech in front of Congress. Who do they choose to respond? Israel’s perpetual enemy John Mearsheimer. Then they wrap up with ultra-liberal Aaron David Miller. No defender of Israel in sight.

That’s National PUBLIC Radio, folks. Not Tass or Izvestia. Your dollars at work.

Well, not really ours. Obama's....

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Scotland Uses "The Nazi Model" To Persecute Its Jews

But first,a little history lesson from the first days of Nazi Germany:

The first wave of legislation, from 1933 to 1934, focused largely on limiting the participation of Jews in German public life. The first major law to curtail the rights of Jewish citizens was the "Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service" of April 7, 1933, according to which Jewish and "politically unreliable" civil servants and employees were to be excluded from state service

Subsequent laws and decrees restricted reimbursement of Jewish doctors from public (state) health insurance funds. The city of Berlin forbade Jewish lawyers and notaries to work on legal matters, the mayor of Munich disallowed Jewish doctors from treating non-Jewish patients, and the Bavarian Interior Ministry denied admission of Jewish students to medical school.

Local governments also issued regulations that affected other spheres of Jewish life: in Saxony, Jews could no longer slaughter animals according to ritual purity requirements, effectively preventing them from obeying Jewish dietary laws

"'Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose"...from Nazi Germany to Scotland, 2011.  Alana Goodman in Contentions:

...a regional council in Scotland has approved a disturbing law that will ban newly published Israeli books from public libraries in West Dunbartonshire. These include books written by Israeli authors, as well as translations of novels produced in Israel.

The large Scottish city of Dundee also joined West Dunbartonshire (though to avoid potential lawsuits, the city won’t technically enforce the boycott). Instead, Dundee officials will hang posters throughout the city, asking residents to refrain from purchasing Israeli products. According to Ynet, the city will also “apply a special mark on Israeli products, in order to make them easily identifiable.”

By banning books, the boycott movement reveals itself for what it actually is. It’s not a campaign to pressure the Israeli government economically. It’s a campaign to isolate and dehumanize the Israeli people, including its artists, writers, and intellectuals. This is aimed at ultimately creating a culture of resentment and hatred for the Jewish state, and all of its citizens.

As in Nazi Germany, the oppression of the Jews began at the local level.  The Scots, late to the great global game of Jew-baiting, have entered with a gusto, bringing back the bad old days of yellow badges, boycotts, and swastikas.  Well, maybe not the swastikas.  Yet.

.... as the German writer Heinrich Heine presciently noted a century before the Holocaust, “where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people also.”

"Never again" can be translated in Euro-speak to, "expect to be persecuted every 50 years or so."  Which has been the pattern in Europe since the Middle Ages, I suppose.
May the Scots of Dundee and West Dunbartonshire rot in hell.
Maybe it's a time for a boycott of my own.  Death to the distilleries of Scotland, for me, it's about American whiskey - Bourbon:
Take that, you filthy Nazi Scots...

ObamaCare Waivers: Biden Plays "Hide The Football"

True legitimacy never has anything to hide. But corruption, collusion, and connivers must stay in the shadows in order to retain the illusion of being licit. Once dishonesty hits the sunshine, its protective coating disintegrates, allowing its stench to permeate the public consciousness and thus hastening its demise.

Joe Biden knows this is the case with the ObamaCare waivers the administration has been handing out like candy to favored constituencies. Thus, he shirks his duties as Vice President in order to keep this shady game away from the eyes of the public:

President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul “transparency” and “openness” took another turn for the worst at the beginning of this week as it’s recently come to light that Vice President Joe Biden has failed to deliver certain necessary information on rules and regulations to the Senate.

Specifically, the new regulations Biden dropped the ball with were, according to a GOP Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee staffer, “the entire final HHS rule for Health Insurance Issuers Implementing Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) Requirements Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” Biden was supposed to deliver the regulations last fall.

Another major part of this rule, according to the GOP Senate HELP Committee staffer, is that a large portion of Obamacare waivers, including three of the seven statewide waivers the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has handed out, have been exemptions from the MLR requirements. The MLR waiver numbers pale in comparison to annual limit requirement waivers, though.

Even so, this Obamacare stipulation’s fans and foes can agree on one thing: Biden’s job as Senate President is to deliver the rule from HHS to the Senate Parliamentarian so Senators can debate the rule and offer resolutions of disapproval.

As Sen. Mike Enzi, Wyoming Republican and Ranking Member on the Senate HELP Committee, has pointed out, Biden’s failed to do the job....

Question to ponder:

At what point does the rule of law begin to disintegrate in the United States?

Is this an irrevocable process? Or can it be turned around with new leadership, using the example of Rudy Giuliani and New York City circa 1992?

Is our economic decline causing us - for the first time in our nation's history - to devolve into banana-republic status, or is this decline the responsibility of current leadership, and its stewardship of the economy and the law?

Given certain answers to these questions, one might come to realize there is only one man who can stem our moral, economic, and legal decline into third-worldism.

Unfortunately, he seems intent on staying in New Jersey...

Monday, May 23, 2011

The Jews and Barack Obama: Battered Wife Syndrome


Battered wife syndrome is a recognised psychological condition to describe a woman who, because of constant and severe physical abuse by a male partner, becomes depressed and unable to take any independent action that would allow her to escape the abuse. The condition explains why abused women often do not seek assistance from others, fight their abuser, or leave the abusive situation. Sufferers have low self-esteem, and often believe that the abuse is their fault. Such women usually refuse to press charges against their abuser, and refuse all offers of help, often becoming aggressive or abusive to others who attempt to offer assistance.

Jen Rubin talked to some of the attendees at Obama's awkward AIPAC speech, and some fo the responses were interesting:

In interviews with about two dozen attendees of all ages, some observant Jews and some not, the reaction was evenly divided between those unimpressed if not dismayed and those willing to believe Obama cleared everything up. As two ladies from Georgia told me, “We thought it was great!” They were so very pleased that Obama “explained himself.”

I spoke to two young men from Maryland. One was a high school delegate, the other a kippah-wearing student from a Jewish school. The first young man ventured the view that Obama had done well clearing up any confusion.

In the same hallway two twenty-something men from Washington gushed. Because Obama reiterated the Quartet principles to get the Palestinians to the table, one of them was not bothered that on the substance of the negotiations only Israel’s concessions were mentioned....

Two men, one D.C. media representative for a Jewish group and one a teacher from a Jewish high school in New York, were seated together...The D.C. man was thrilled. “I voted for Obama last time. I’ll vote for him again.”

The most fascinating and informative reaction came from a middle-aged couple. These Democrats from the Rust Belt voted for Obama and will vote for him again. The wife said, “I think he intends well.” Nevertheless, both were candid. Both readily concurred that Obama has divided the Jewish community like no other president. “Say what you will,” but George W. Bush was solid on Israel, the wife commented....

So no matter how hard Obama beats up the Jews, regardless of how he abuses them and mocks them (and belittles the unusual cruelty the world has shown them) and insults them and rapes their land and leaves them battered and bruised, it appeared (at least to Jen Rubin) that at least half of Obaam's victims were going to give him another chance.
"I'm sorry I hurt you, honey" says the president as he clumsily applies a steak over the blackened eyes he has just inflicted. "I'll never do it again. Honest. it was all a misunderstanding. You know I love you, and you love me. So stop crying, and hold this over your eye while I reach into your pocketbook for a little loan I need to just get me through. You'll see, in 2012 it will be a completely different ballgame. I promise."

Jen Rubin again:

One member of the media joked, “If he nuked Tel Aviv, maybe the Jewish vote would go down to 60 percent.” He was kidding, but the ability of liberal Jews to reassure themselves that Obama really is devoted to Israel is impressive. Evidence to the contrary is dismissed or downplayed, and any hint of Obama’s positive attitude toward Israel is grasped tightly, with delight. It’s okay to vote for him. I can do this with a clear conscience. But in the quiet of the night, do they lose sleep over the prospect of a second Obama term, one without the restraint of an impending election?

Just curious - how many battered wives, who return for more of the same, wind up dead in a ditch when their husband, in the throes of yet another bender, goes just a little too far in expressing their displeasure ?

And who thinks that our president - who has shown himself to be immature, vain, purile, unintelligent, hostile, and anti-semitic - isn't capable of doing the same thing, if, one one day after his re-election, he has decided he has had enough of Benjamin Netanyahu and those pesky Jews denying him his rightful place in history?

Time to leave him, before he kills us, once and for all...

Young Obama vs. Young Bibi: Still No Contest

Is there a reason why Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu kicks Obama's ass, morally and intellectually, at every turn?  Maybe it's something about their upbringing, maybe it's something about their youth...

Clarice Feldman:

You need only compare pictures of Netanyahu and Obama as young men to see the difference. One is a serious person, the other a jive-ass.

Like Obama, Netanyahu has fine educational credentials, with degrees from Harvard and MIT, but Netanyahu has been personally tested in battle, where rash, unconsidered actions have immediate, fatal consequences. Obama until now has been pontificating and swanning about. His only real battles to date have been with straw men of his own making.

Yeah, but when you look at the two pictures above, who do you think Democratic politicians, MSM editorial writers, and garden-variety liberals identify with?  And thus, right or wrong, who do you think they are rooting for?  The man who resembles them as they were (or still are), or the man they were never brave enough or strong enough to be?

And how much of that fuels the anti-Israeli, anti-Bibi, pro-Obama sentiment that oozes out of every channel and every newspaper in the nation?

OK, OK, I know the answer...

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Rabbi Shmuley: Israel as Obama's "Obsession"

Over at the Huffington Post, the "Rabbi to the Stars", Shmuley Boteach, reports from AIPAC on Obama's speech to the influential Jewish group:

President Obama's speech at AIPAC straddled the line of Jackie Mason standup. It turns out that when the president said last Thursday that Israel should return to its '67 borders, it wasn't exactly what he meant. Who said I was referring to 1967. I meant 1867. And even 1867, I didn't mean CE, I meant BCE. And why did you assume I was talking about Israel's border. I was talking about French Guyana's borders.

This was the first time in my life that I ever felt sorry for Barack Obama, an incongruous sentiment for a man so talented and who also just happens to be the most powerful man in the world. Why did he elicit my sympathy? Because you could see in both his body language and utter absence of passion that he had been defeated. The president dithered, bobbed and weaved. He came into a room filled with 10,000 pro-Israel activists knowing that he blew it, not just with the American Jewish community but with history as well.

For months Arab democracy has been breaking out all over the world. President Obama had yet to give one major policy speech on this unprecedented uprising. Yet, when he finally chose to do so and thus recapture the traditional American president's epitaph as 'Leader of the Free World,' he could not help but insert a highly inflammatory line about Israel that was immediately seized upon by the world's media, thereby extinguishing the speech's other content. And even on the Israel front he was forced to so dilute the '67 border statement that it became utterly meaningless.

The president's explanation at AIPAC was that he had no idea that the '67 borders line was going to be so inflammatory.

"My position has been misrepresented... If there is a controversy, then, it's not based in substance.... What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately."

But the president's claims to naiveté are ridiculous. To his detractors, the president is many things. But he is no fool. He knew full well that being the first American president to publicly call for a return to the '67 lines was a bomb waiting to detonate.

So why did Obama say it? Why did he personally insist on including it?

I believe the answer to this question speaks directly to the growing mistrust that American Jewry, who gave the president 78% of its vote in 2008, has for Obama and why Democratic Jewish donor purses are closing.

Stated simply, this president has a strange obsession with Israel....

So the influential Shmuley seems to believe that Obama is a liar and a fool, with a strange (perhaps dangerous?) obsession with Israel. Harsh. Although if Shmuley read this blog, he would know that Obama's view towards the Middle East is a toxic brew of anti-semitism and a growing hatred of Benjamin Netanyahu.

American Jews are in a pickle. If they close their pocketbooks, as Shmuley intimates may be the case, then they have no protection at all against the wrath of Barack Hussein Obama. The anti-Semitic instinct can run wild, and with Samantha Power whispering in his ear and Hillary Clinton willing to sell out any and all for five more minutes of access to power, Israel (and American Jews) can find themselves in a dangerous place.

And what if the Jews fall for Obama's clumsy love sonnets, like the one Shmuley saw through at AIPAC? (like many an Arab, Obama speaks out of both sides of his mouth - offering reassurances to Israel, while plotting her destruction with Hamas). Jen Rubin offers a stark warning:

But there is a reality that can’t be avoided. This president once again has proved an apt negotiator on behalf of the Palestinians and a thorn in Israel’s side. Now is a time of choosing for the American Jewish community, for Israel and for Congress. And if Obama should be reelected in 2012 one can only imagine how hostile he will become toward the Jewish state.

Will American Jews sacrifice their homeland in order to abide by their political allegiances?

Based on what I see at synagogue, alas, the answer will be yes. But if that support drops from 78% to closer to 50%, not only will Obama lose Florida, but he will wind up on the defensive in many Blue States as well, costing him precious resources, regardless of how many billions he gets from unions and Big Pharma.

Let's see if there are enough "smart Jews" in America to save Israel....

Gender Wars, Human Kindness, And One Leg....

So I've been on the DL for just over a week now, with what has been describes as a "strained calf muscle", which is actually more of a tear than a strain.  Mine is of the more severe variety, so I've been on crutches the entire time, and looking at about another 7-10 days of the same before I transition off.

But being the dogged conservative that I am, after taking two days off to rest up I returned to work in New York, with my primary challenge being an arduous commute involving buses and subways.  Being a dogged libertarian, I ask for no help, as I can usually maneuver my way just fine.  My key problem is opening doors, whether they need to be pulled or pushed.  Didn't realize how many of them I encountered on a daily basis, and of course I can get through them myself, but only with pain and difficulty.  Still, I'm too much of a proud jerk to ask for help.

But what has been really interesting is the response people in New York have to someone on crutches trying to make their way through some sort of minimalistic daily routine.  A pattern emerged quickly, and has stayed pretty constant for the entire week:

-Men of all ages are extremely helpful.  They will hold doors, will ask me proactively if I need help, and go out of their way to give me space and time.  Even younger men - teenagers - will hold doors unbidden; even in one or two cases racing ahead of me to grab a door.

-Women are the worst.  Unhelpful to the point of sadism.  I can divide this up a little bit:

*black and Hispanic women are slightly better that the rest.  An occasional holding of a door, sometimes a cluck of sympathy.  Not that I'm asking, I'm just noticing.

**White women are the bottom of the barrel.  And again, I can subdivide this as well:

-married white women are slightly less horrible, only in that they will occasional make a sympathetic remark, or will at least have a guilty expression on their face when they let a door slam in my face

***Single white woman are the worst.  I exist simply as a barrier to them.. They will shoulder right through me on the subway, shove me aside as I am trying to get through a tight doorway, or in one memorable case, leaped ahead of me to steal a cab I was flagging one down with a waved crutch. Older single women are worse than the younger ones - the younger ones are indifferent, the older ones are openly hostile to me.

(and incidentally, yes, I can tell the difference without even seeing the ring finger, who is a married women and who is single in NYC.  I've worked as a salesman in New York for two decades, and almost all of my buyers are women 25-50, and I can tell their marital status within ten seconds.  It's not hard, once you notice the cues...)

So why the gender difference?  Are men sympathetic to another guy, who may be "just like them" in many respects - working, athletic, wearing a boot that can be perceived as the result of a sports-related injury?  Are they used to being chivalrous, and are these acts of kindness reflex rather than thought out?  Or are men evolving into "better people" than women?

And what's up with single white females?  City-dwelling women who have passed 30 and have no prospects tend to give up a little bit inside and fill their lives with other pursuits - and the city offers a myriad of them from career to dinners to plays to arts to shopping to the gym.  It is usually the first two and last of the list which single New York women seem to avail themselves to - the gym is a 4-7x/wk routine in their lives, and most of them are thin and fairly physical fit (Thomas Wolfe referred to them as "social X-rays").  And most of their non-gym downtime (after a psychotic day at the office) is spent with similar friends over dinner in one of a thousand New York restaurants, where they all talk about how they can't believe that guys won't marry them, or even ask them out.  "They're intimidated by women of accomplishment", they'll sniff...

Maybe. First, lest I come off as misogynist, let me tell you that I love women, and have more "girl (space) friends" than any guys I know ("why do you need girl - friends?", my buds have asked me, "if you have a girlfriend?"  Because I love girls...).

Maybe.  But maybe you ladies are single because you have become so self-absorbed and self centered, so concerned about yourself and your own needs in the emotional vacuum that NYC can be, that you have forgotten about the needs of everyone around you, including the guy on crutches whom you looked at blankly before letting go of the door that slammed in their face (and about that blank look....like the woman whole stole my cab.  Sneer at me with triumphant victory, fine.  You beat a crippled guy, good for you.  But the blank look, an attempt to wipe my presence out of  their consciousness, or trying to negate their own nastiness out of existence, is almost scary). Maybe men are looking for someone who will care for them as much as they will care for you.  And if that's the case....why in the world would they touch you with a ten-foot pole, skinny body or not?

And the younger single ladies - they haven't a clue.  Maybe a lifetime of having courtesies done for them has made them oblivious to the need to extend courtesies to others as well.  But they are morally helpless and socially hopeless.  They are the next generation of the unmarried 30+ that will knock me down to get on a subway train before the doors close.

Fascinating stuff.  And I hope I don't sound too angry here (I'm not), I'm just...stunned, and a bit appalled.  I thought women were supposed to be the sensitive and nurturing ones...and it turns out that that's a man's job, as well.

God, I can't wait to get better.

 Moralizing on one leg sucks.