The Abandoment of Israel

I think it is despicable the way Obama has treated Israel since deceiving his way into his office. I don't for the life of me, understand why or how he can treat the one true ally we have over there the way he has. There is no justification or excuse. Time and time again he has sided with the Palestinians when he should have stood by Israel.
Israel is absolutely JUSTIFIED in its current blockade and according to international law equally as legal. When Israel has bombs constantly lobbed into them they have the right to defend themselves by any means necessary.
We should standing behind them, not chastising them as Obama has done repeatedly. Even some congressional Democrats are beginning to balk and become quick to step up to the mike in support of Israels right to stand up for themselves-finally. They are seeing the potential political fallout coming perhaps belatedly trying to do the right thing.
Of all the countries in the part of the world, Israel is the most like us. They respect a persons right to practice other religions, women work and drive, even be a respected part of the military. Name ANY other country over there that treats its women so well or respects other faiths as they do. You cant because there aren't any.
Israel also is the only true democracy in the Middle East. Why would we not stand up for the one and only capitalist ally we have in that region? We side with countries that not only in some cases support terrorism-outright or subtly, but we take every opportunity to defend them. We are isolating ourselves and allying ourselves with our and their enemies. This cannot be allowed to stand, because when Israel goes down to the Palestinian terrorists we will be truly isolated and the whole Middle East region will be in dire danger of falling.

IBD editorial describing exactly why I think Obama is a socialist

Obama's Salary Cap

Posted 04/29/2010 07:05 PM ET


Freedom: In voicing his feelings Wednesday about earned wealth, President Obama shone a bright light into the thought recesses of the far left. And what a dark and ugly place it can be.

During a two-day swing through Illinois, Missouri and Iowa, the president went off teleprompter and blundered into another Joe the Plumber moment, that unguarded instant during the 2008 campaign in which he told a potential small-business owner that he planned to spread the wealth around.

"Now, what we're doing, I want to be clear, we're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned," Obama said in Quincy, Ill. "I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."
Remarks prepared for the occasion reportedly don't include the president's thoughts about how much money he'd let Americans make. But without the help of a teleprompter to carefully steer him away from his gut feelings, he wandered into a Marxist bramble.

It takes a certain kind of person to think he or she has — or should have — the moral authority to cap other people's incomes. Especially when that person and his wife somehow made $5.5 million in the first year of his presidency, a job that pays $400,000 a year.

In a free society, it's not the president or any other government official or branch that decides when someone has "made enough money," even if liberties are being lost in that free society. Incomes, with the exception of labor contracts won through coercion and union-favorable federal law, are decided by voluntary agreements between employer and employee. To limit what someone can legally earn is morally corrupt and economically foolish.

Envy, the urge to exercise authority over others and pandering to both of those baser instincts are staples of the political left and drive its agenda. Unfortunately, emotions tend to have consequences, and these feelings blind democratic-socialist eyes to the value of economic incentives.

What the left doesn't understand is that capping salaries through government policy destroys the motivation for Americans to develop products and services that enrich lives and expand our economy.
If the president is eager to regulate salaries, he might begin — and end — with the federal work force. Commerce Department data show that average federal worker compensation of $119,982 in 2008 was twice that of average private-sector pay ($59,909).

If he can't bring himself to spread federal workers' wealth around, he and the rest of Washington need to stay away from everyone else's income.

This is the land of liberty and opportunity, where state interference in private affairs is supposed to be intolerable.

Response to an AP article that says Majority lacks trust in government

I love how "nonpartisian" this story is.It's pathetic. Yes the republican party has made mistakes, no denying that, however at the present time we are the only ones trying to say hey the federal gov is getting to big and too powerful. So if saying that makes them the party of No then SO BE IT ! I say no and H** NO to Obama and his czars, his crazy a** speaker of the house, and his notion that we are all too stupid to know whats good for us so he is going to shove it down our throats. Really in the end he is going to A) destroy this country B) possibly get us all killed. Say what you want about Bush (and yes he wasnt perfect), but you could never accuse him of (and be thinking str8) some of the things Obama is clearly guilty of. Clearly the country is falling into three catagories of people: those that want to be taken care of and expect the federal gov to do so hence their fanatical and irrational support of Obama. Those who prefer to take care of themselves with limited government interference and control and those who for whatever reason, simply dont give a rats behind and have their heads buried in the sand like the perverbial Ostrich.
I want a government that supports LESS government control . Less taxes and more incentives for people to acutally work and not fear being punished for it by the IRS. I want a government that doesnt do everything in it's power to destroy the private sector like this one seems h** bent on doing and to some extent even the one before it( much ,much smaller extent however). I want a government that respect the Constitution and its founding fathers not scorn them and their crazy Freemarket capitalist ideas. I want a government that truly hears the voices of its people and not just the unions and special interest groups (of all kinds). I want politicans thats actually give a d*** about doing the right thing and not just paying back their donors and saving their own hides. I want a leader who inspires the same kind of respect as Regean did from the world.And those that didnt respect him feared him because he backed up his words with his actions. Where is that leader now? It sure as H** isn't Obama. I think I probably just want too much though. One can always dream I guess

Tea Parties Vs. Hard-Left Protests

By L. BRENT BOZELL



This article seemed worth passing on becaue it says in words exactly how I feel the extreme fustration I feel with the media as a whole and with the idiots that believe them.

In the mind's eye of the conservative movement, the Tea Party phenomenon right now is maybe the crucial factor in slowing socialism in Washington, on everything from the federal health care takeover to the hidden taxes of cap-and-trade legislation.

It's also a fascinating visual. When was the last time you saw such a spontaneous eruption of conservative grassroots anger, coast to coast? On both counts, the Tea Party movement should be cause for massive television coverage. Except for one thing. It's a conservative uprising, so it gets different treatment.
It's ignored as long as possible, and when it's no longer possible to be ignored, it's savaged.

The movement was launched in February 2009, when CNBC's Rick Santelli suggested throwing a "tea party" to protest government takeovers. A new study by Rich Noyes of the Media Research Center found only 19 news stories on the Tea Party movement for the entire year on ABC, CBS and NBC. The Obama family dog received more attention.

How anemic is this? Compare those 19 stories in all of 2009 with 41 stories the networks gave the "Million Mom March" against gun rights in 2000 -- and all before the math-challenged protest even happened. Consider racist and anti-Semitic Rev. Louis Farrakhan's "Million Man March." On Oct. 16, 1995, ABC, CBS and NBC together aired 21 stories just on one night.

The difference in tone was just as dramatic. Amazingly, the Tea Parties were assumed to be racist, but Farrakhan's event was not. ABC anchor Peter Jennings devoted all but 75 seconds of his newscast to promotional goo for the Nation of Islam.

Jennings sanitized the gathering. "For most of the hundreds of thousands who came here today, the event far overshadowed the man who organized it," Jennings claimed. He concluded the show on Farrakhan's behalf, that "it would be a terrible mistake not to recognize that here today he inspired many people, and in a broader sense, as one participant here after another has reaffirmed, this day, at this time and at this place, really did mean unity over division."

Jennings defied logic, and his own ears. The event meant "unity over division" even as speakers angrily attacked whites for "rolling toxic waste" into black communities, and screamed about the "growing racism and incipient fascism of white America." A young poet called blacks "God's divine race." (and that isnt hateful or racist? my words)

Compare that to the Tea Party stories. The victory of Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts spurred heavier network TV attention, another 42 stories in 2010. But now that they had to cover the Tea Party, the tone turned negative: Overall, 27 of 61 stories (44%) openly suggested the movement was fringy or extremist.
Contrast ABC's Peter Jennings then with ABC's Dan Harris now. Farrakhan was somehow a uniter, not a divider. But Harris warned Tea Party protesters "waved signs likening Obama to Hitler and the devil. ... Some prominent Obama supporters are now saying that it paints a picture of an opposition driven, in part, by a refusal to accept a black president." (which for the majority of us is a stinking pile of crap- my words) And with that, everyone associated with the Tea Party movement, and everyone in sympathy with the Tea Party movement, had just been neatly tarred with the racism brush. What dramatic selectivity of "news judgment"! At left-wing rallies, reporters consistently and easily ignored hateful and extremist podium speeches from protest organizers. They paid no attention to objectionable signs. "Bush Lied, Thousands Died!" Big deal! But at a conservative event, they go searching high and low for the kookiest, fringiest protester in a crowd of tens of thousands, so they can smear the entire crowd as a racist gathering.
The sanitize-the-left pattern happened at antiwar marches before the Iraq war in 2003. Signs at one January protest included "Bush Is a Terrorist," "USA Is #1 Terrorist" and "The NYPD Are Terrorists Too." Hateful? Objectionable? Not on your life!
ABC's Bill Blakemore ignored them, lauding the diversity of the marchers, "Democrats and Republicans, many middle-aged, from all walks of life." As one ABC producer admitted during the George H.W. Bush years, "We were looking for mainstream demonstrators."

The other networks echoed that approach. Take the issue of violence. On Feb. 15, 2003, "peace" demonstrators in New York injured eight police officers, and several protesters were arrested. But CBS reporter Jim Acosta still referred to the event as peaceful: "Despite some arrests and clashes with police, it was, for the most part, a peaceful reminder to the powerful that there is a divide over whether the nation should go to war." (So we have NOONE arrested and we are violent? REALLY?)
Just weeks ago, when the Tea Party crowd came to Capitol Hill against ObamaCare, no one was arrested. But network anchors like NBC's Brian Williams were still lamenting that the health care debate had "veered into threats of violence."

This isn't "news" coverage. It's carpet-bombing.