Friday, December 2, 2011

Another One Bites the Dust - Cain's Campaign Is Over

Is Herman Cain a womanizer? It's not likely. Did he cheat on his wife? I suppose that depends on how low or high you set the bar for what is considered infidelity. Is Herman Cain a good business executive? I think his 35+ year career in the business arena has proven him to be a man of great business accomplishment. Is Herman Cain a viable presidential candidate? After this latest revelation of a 13 year long "casual relationship" with another woman in which monies were given by him to her as gifts, probably not. Was Herman Cain unfaithful to his lovely wife? That is something the two of them will have to decide in the privacy of their own lives together, not in the view of the media.

Should Herman Cain continue his bid for the White House? That is another matter altogether. While I have been a avid supporter of Mr. Cain's rights when it came to how the press treated the accusations levied against him over these past two months, I have always been a supporter of Newt Gingrich for that center seat of executive power in D.C. as I believe him to be the better candidate to beat Obama next November, however, I think it may now be time for Herman Cain to walk away, get out of the media spotlight, release his supporters to another candidate, or allow them to move to a candidate of their second choice. It is now time for Mr. Cain to begin healing the wounds inflicted by himself (by not revealing beforehand this 13 year relationship to his wife), and the wounds inflicted on him and his family by the ravenous media in search of any salacious bit of info they can find that will sell a paper, get a rating or an internet hit count.

The damage to Mr. Cain's campaign has been done, and short of a miracle, he too is done in the world of politics. Hopefully, he isn't done in the world of his family life because they, and he, deserve better then that kind of finish to an otherwise successful and happy life.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

The Court of Bad Editorials

The author of an editorial in The Jewish Forward declares that Mr. Herman Cain is both arrogant and playing the victim with his efforts to clear his name and reputation as a result of the allegations brought forth in recent days by several different women, all but one choosing to remain annonymous.

What the author of the TJF piece fails to respect is the fact that if Herman Cain is innocent of the allegations then he IS the victim here. One cannot automatically assume, as the author appears to do, that just because a person is adamant in their defense of innocence that makes them arrogant or someone playing the victim card. To take that kind of position would assume that every woman making such a charge against a man is telling the truth. I think we know that certainly isn't true. So, if you don't mind, unlike the person writing TJF editorial, I will wait until all the evidence is out in the open and, like our founding principals proclaim, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not the court of public opinion or the court of biased journalism.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

You Got Paid So Shut Up

One of the unnamed women who is responsible for the allegations against Herman Cain which accused him of an ill-defined sexual abuse charge toward her says, through her opportunistic lawyer, that she now wants free from her 15 year old confidentially agreement so she can speak up. Anyone even remotely familiar with how the ole' political game is played is aware of how timely this is. Her ex-boss is running for President of the United States, is the leading Republican hopeful in the current primary race and by now she must be running low on funds from her first settlement. Must be time for a book deal to be able to make more money off an innocent person - again. Hey! - you signed a confidentiality agreement, got your payday and was willing to shut the hell up for over a decade - so, SHUT the HELL UP ALREADY! Got news for you, anybody who knows Mr. Cain also knows his character and that the women are likely lying or misconstrued an innocent remark or gesture for a sexual advancement. That is quite possible in what has become one of the most uptight business environments in the history of any nation.

Also, as someone who is very aware of the dirty little tricks played in politics this has all the earmarks and smell of a Karl Rovian-type press-leak written all over it. The last thing the Republican establishment elite want is a strong, confident, capable conservative black person in the center seat of this nation. Don't believe it? Just ask Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice how the game is played in the upper tiers of power.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

King Obama

I will make this blog posting short and to the point.

Obama steps over an impotent Congress & uses the hellish executive order to help those with mortgage problems.

Thank you Mr. President for using the executive order to override the constitutional responsibility of the Congress

Thank you Congress for, again, allowing a President to usurp your constitutional mandate, law and duty to perform as a separation of powers

If our founders had wanted a king they wouldn't have created a new country with its own constitutional 3-tiered governmental body

All of you - Executive, Congressional & Judicial - disgust me.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Three Decades Later - What's Different?

In the late 1970's and early 1980's times were pretty tough. Economically the United States was hip deep in double digit inflation and smack in the middle of one of America's worst recessionary periods. Unemployment percentages were in the teens, interest rates on home purchases was around 12% and credit card interest rates were about 22%. OPEC was putting the squeeze on the West causing severe auto fuel shortages making for lines at the pumps that went on for blocks. Jimmy Carter, the President at the time, was elected in 1976 as the person who would bring change to the D.C. status quo and break the gridlock that had stifled Congress causing our elected leaders to be unable to get anything substantial done to help move the country out of its economic and moral quagmire. Carter failed miserably on all fronts. He failed with the economy, he caused more gridlock in Congress, morale fell to an all time low, he sparked some of the worst class warfare rhetoric in the country's history, de-budgeted and demoralized the military to the point that the nation's ability to protect itself was at its worse since the days of its founding. Things looked pretty bleak and many were crying the doom and gloom and end of the great American experiment.

Sound familiar? Here it is three decades later and we find ourselves in a very similar situation. The majority of the American people, nearly 78%, believe this country is headed in the wrong direction and many have lost all hope of a decent future for their kids and grandchildren, something that hasn't been the case in over 100 years.

There are some differences between thirty years ago and now. First, we are no longer under the suffocating umbrella of a global nuclear threat from the Soviet Union, that great evil empire many in my generation grew up with as a constant threat. Today the threat is more frightening because the Western world is on guard against an enemy that isn't as clearly defined, has no particular home country or leader and can strike anywhere from something as simple as an everyday bus drive to a packaged-sized nuclear device hidden under the grandstands of a sporting stadium or a lethal white powder in an envelop coming through the reliable postal service.

The other thing that is different is how we receive our information or news. Thirty years ago we were totally dependent on the half-hour nightly news from ABC, CBS or NBC. We leaned on folks like Walter Cronkite, Huntley/Brinkley or a very young Tom Brokaw to tell us what we needed to know. Since the news segment was only thirty minutes long there wasn't time for fluff or opinion, only the hard news. These reporters simply told us what was happening and moved on. Over the last three decades we have seen the birth of 24-hr cable news outlets and the internet, none of which ever sleep or shut down. The public is inundated with what is now passed off as news, but is almost entirely op-ed pieces, confrontational dialogue and entertainment fluff. To garner ratings, which is now the sole drive of these so-called news outlets, most of the stories presented as real news are chosen to illicit the greatest amount of shock, gore and emotional stimulation as possible. Truth in journalism has been replaced with awe and the public is blasted with this schmaltz 24/7. We have raised an entire generation who cannot distinguish between real news from information received from a Lifetime movie of the week.

This gravitation to the negative has become epidemic. There are economists who make fortunes by selling books about the end of America's financial future, politicians and talking heads showing up on the tube touting their latest tome of how America's better days are behind it and its future is all doom and gloom, and the news agencies plastering this sorry state of affairs at every opportunity. "Buy gold now to ensure your future after the fall of the great American empire," "The great reckoning is just around the corner," "Housing cannot rebound in the foreseeable future," and the list just goes on and on and on. Every time I turn on the television, go to the internet or look at the latest list of best sellers I feel like I'm walking down a street in which tattered folks in sole-less shoes are carrying those old signs and placards that say "The End Is Near!."

I'm here to tell you that most of this is just hype. That's right - HYPE! I'm also here to tell you not to fall for it. Are times bad? Yes, but can you really show me a time when it hasn't been bad on some level? Has there really ever been a good-ole-days? Do you truly believe this nation is about to collapse? If yes, then for you it is. I say that because the actions we take are always based on what we assume to be the truth. If you think or assume the hype is true then you create a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you believe the economic and housing situation will only get worse then you will take the required actions to make it happen. It is as simple as that.

Let me tell you what is different between thirty years ago and today. In 1978 one man rose and began telling the American people that "America's best days were still ahead of her," "Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have," " Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit," " I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life," and If you're afraid of the future, then get out of the way, stand aside. The people of this country are ready to move again."

That man was candidate Ronald Reagan, who was overwhelmingly voted to the presidency of the United States and set this country on an economic footing that lasted for over twenty years through three presidential administrations.

However, it wasn't Reagan, it was the American people who took his words to heart, believed in them and put those words into action. Those actions of the American people set into motion a strong, respected, prosperous and confident nation that stood tall for over two decades.

In reality nothing on the world or home front has changed much. The players on the field may have different faces, certain minutiae are variant but the world has changed very little. What has changed is the confidence, courage and faith of the average American. Find a way to tap into the heart and soul of the American people like Reagan was able to do and watch the greatness of this nation rise to the fore. It has happened before, it can happen again because at the center of it all the American people; not its elected officials, not its news media, not its industry; are completely responsible for the destiny of this nation and their individual lives.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

What Are They Protesting About? Really?

I get it. Many in America are frustrated, angry, confused and just plain pissed-off. I understand that when this happens people want to lash-out at those perceived to be the haves because they perceive themselves as the have-nots; and hey, everyone wants a piece of the American pie, a share in the American dream.

What I don't get is why 'they' are marching and protesting on Wall Street, or what could eventually be Main Street. Is it because Wall Street is the symbol of a free capitalist society? Could it be that because they see those gigantic numbers roll by the digital ticker-tap on CNBC, Fox Business or Bloomberg they think this must be where all the fat cats keep their vast wealth and won't share with the 'little people'? I got news for most of you sleeping in tents on the streets, poised for days now in front of the Wall Street houses of glass (instead of out looking for gainful employment); most of the investors on Wall Street are the 'little people,' those hard working Americans who contribute a small percentage of their hard-earned income to a 401K retirement plan that is invested on Wall Street. Nearly 75% of all investments in the market are small working-class people buying a few dollars of stocks at a time from their paychecks in hopes of having something for retirement when that day for them arrives. Just thought I'd share that little eye-opener with the ignorant in the crowd of protesters.

When asked why they are protesting an assortment of answers have been given by those participating in the 'event,' however most can be summed up in the remark of one average fellow attending, "We're here because we want the big dudes to start paying." I'm not sure who these "big dudes" are that he is referring to, I doubt if he even knows, but that seems to be the general concensus. Someone a bit more educated might gives us a better insight into the why of these protests. Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers (of course you knew they and other union leaders would get in on this media blitz) stated it this way to a CBS reporter, "They are basically sending us a message that says, 'Don't create a society where one percent basically has all the wealth." I find that interesting since it's about that same one percent that bears almost eighty-five percent of the burden of holding up America's welfare state in the guise of the myriad of taxes they already pay. Perhaps Mr. Weingarten and the "they" he refers to are not aware of that fact, or more likely, they just want more of other people's money distributed to those who would rather spend their days protesting the wrong group then going out there and either looking for a job or creating new jobs for a weak economy.

I am certainly not one of those one-percenters that has tons of money. Hell, I'm not even one of the fifty percent but I do have a brain and from time to time I use it. Eighty-Five percent of the budget of the United States goes to entitlement programs that they claim are near bankruptcy. One percent of the rich in this nation (of course that could depend on how you define rich) pay for nearly all that eighty-five percent government spending (evidently that doesn't include Warren Buffett - has the IRS contacted him yet?). Nearly fifty-percent of working individuals that are not rich (earning under $250,000/year) pay no taxes or a very limited amount (less than 5 percent). Then there is about forty-five percent who pay absolutely no taxes and live entirely off the government teat or by illegal means. Of that forty-five, it has been estimated that approximately twenty percent really do need the help because for various reason they cannot gain employment of any kind. That leaves about five percent of the so-called rich and truly wealthy picking up nearly all the tax tab, and these protesters want to squeeze that turnip even more.

If these folks in New York protesting Wall Street were truly serious about going after the right group then they would all hop on busses (at tax-payers expense of course) and get their free ticket to Washington DC, meet up in front of the White House and Capital Building and let their voices be heard there because it was those "dudes" that bailed out the investment banks and certain companies that trade on Wall Street (GM/Chrysler anybody). Yes, those companies took the money, got out of the jam they were in and the CBO claims that every cent the bankers took has been paid back with interest and GM is starting to recover but has yet to pay back the full amount. Now, aren't these protesters actually asking for the same deal the banks and auto dealers got? "Hey government, bail us out!" The only difference is the banks and auto dealers can pay back their debt to us taxpayers with interest but the likes of those now sleepbagging on Wall Street want a free handout. Wake up! There is no such thing as a freebie! What you take in money or security the government always asks for more of your liberty in return.

Which is more important to you? You have to decide that question for yourself. As for me and my house, we'll get a job doing something - even slinging burgers if necessary.

Monday, September 19, 2011

Obama-Buffett - Economic Odd Couple

If you listen to or read the pundits and spin doctors you will be left believing that President Obama really wants to create private sector jobs and get a real handle on the deficit. You may even be one of those wishful thinkers who believe the President's newly announced so-called deficit plan and "Buffett Tax" will force Republicans and a miniscule number of Democrats in the House and Senate into a corner where it will look like they are siding with those "power-hungry" corporations and the "fat-cat" wealthy over the middle and low income earners. That is exactly what those on the Obama MSNBC Network, CNN, Politico, Huffington, the LA & NY Times and Current TV want and hope you will believe. Each of these "news" outlets touted headlines in towering letters exalting the President's $3 Trillion Deficit Plan, while only a few, including Fox News, shared the ugly truth that this so-called deficit reducing plan will add another half a trillion dollars to the already bloated, obesity driven $14 Trillion debt and will raise taxes on both rich and middle class Americans by the tune of $1.5 Trillion.

Wall Street responded immediately to the President's "deficit reducing" package by plummeting over 200 points within minutes of Mr. Obama's announcement. To those use to living off the government teet this is no big deal, but fortunately for the rest of what I like to call the normal, free society - those who really do create jobs in this country, those who want to work and pay their way, you know, the rich and middle class, the small business owners and even the struggling who don't like a handout, there is hope from the Congress that this ridiculous piece of crap won't get far. House Speaker John Boehner and Representative Paul Ryan have indicated that this plan is "dead-on-arrival" when it reaches the House floor.

Instead of making those "nasty" Republicans and the scarce brave Democrats who see the foolishness of this plan look like greedy bastards in the pocket of the ultra rich, the person not afraid of a little more than surface thought will realize the class warfare being speechified by the President and his brainless newsie crews versus the rational understanding of finances and what keeps the economic ship-of-State afloat that is being revealed by Mr. Ryan and others.

We out here in the huddled masses can only hope that saner minds will prevail on Capital Hill and they will get the votes needed on both floors to bury this deadly plan of the President's and make sure it never again sees daylight.

I do have one suggestion for Mr. Warren Buffett, the multi-billionare throughly in Mr. Obama's pocket and corner -- If you are so excited to hand over your money to the greedy, insatiable bureaucracy in Washington D.C. then feel free to open your check book and help pay down the debt. My only question to you is, Why has it taken you so long? Ah, yes. You've been too busy over the last 40 years taking advantage of every loophole possible so you could amass your great fortune in the very industry you now lambast. Now with an aging false guilty conscious you, once again, want to force your newly found salvation on everyone else. I'll pass for now. Thanks Warren, but no thanks.

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Is the Press Blinded to Israel's Recent Problems With It's Neighbors?

I have become thoroughly convinced that the United States and European press is either blind, stupid, errant, ignorant or deliberately keeping a closed eye on what is really happening in Israel. We hear more than we need to know when it comes to Libya or the so-called "Arab Spring" in Egypt and Syria, but we hear very little, or it gets buried on page 10 of the newspaper or far down the bottom of a news site's webpage when it comes to some of the foul activity being foisted on Israel from its neighbors, such as Egypt, Gaza and Iran.

Here are just a few examples of some of the atrocities being leveled against Israel that the U.S. and European press either choose to ignore or play down significantly.

Back in August 2011 Israel was bombarded with more than 200 mortar and rocket attacks. These attacks came directly from and with the sanction of Hamas in Gaza. Eight Israelis were killed during a similar attack from pro-Palestinians within the Sinai Peninsula. This is Egyptian territory and even with all the recent turmoil in that country it seems highly unlikely that the leadership there was unaware of what was taking place. Perhaps it's time for Israel to take back the Sinai for protection of its southern border. If that occurred I can guarantee that the story would make the frontpage of every news paper in America, as well as be an unceasing topic of discussion on all the major cable news channels. Yet, these rocket attacks got little or no press in the United States or Europe.

September 3, 2011 the U.N. admitted publicly that it has grave concerns over Iran's obvious continued development of its nuclear program and with Russia's support of Iran's desire to get nuclear weapons. Why wasn't this a front page story on CNN or the New York Times? I guess learning about the death of a reality show persona or what is happening with Kate Plus 8 is priority news.

How serious are the Palestinians when it comes to having a real lasting peace with its neighbor Israel? On September 4, 2011 the Palestinian leadership turned down an appeal from the U.S. State Department to resume its talks with Prime Minister Netanyahu, talks that the Prime Minister is ready and willing to engage in. Why did they refuse to resume the talks with Israel? Because they continue to insist on Israel returning to the pre-1967 borders and return Jerusalem as a non-Jewish capital. Thank you President Obama for stirring up that pot of contention once again. Every sane person knows Israel can never resign itself to that condition as it would give it a indefensible border that is only 11 miles wide. Unthinkable on any rational level. Is there a reason why this wasn't important enough for the media to at least include it in a small blurb?

One of the biggest events to happened began on September 8, 2011 in which the Turkish Prime Minister threatened war with its former ally Israel by declaring he would send warships to escort another Gaza flotilla (these flotillas have been declared illegal by the U.N. and Israel has been exonerated for using force against them in the past). Turkey has stated it will protect the flotilla against Israel's blockade. These flotillas have proven to be nothing more than a means to get illegal weapons, rockets and mortars into the hands of Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists from places like Iran and Syria. While the Palestinians claim they are full of humanitarian supplies, the truth during past Israeli raids on them have proven them to be liars. This Turkish event has garnered some attention from a few media outlets such as Fox News and even a nod from the Obama Network known as MSNBC. This, only because Turkey is a known strong ally of the United States, however, that diplomatic stance has been weakening over the past decade.

Finally, one event that has peaked the interest of some of the U.S. news media has been the September 9, 2011 mob attack on the Israeli Embassy in Cairo. Perhaps the seriousness of the embassy attack was enough to wake up some members of the 4th estate since it was so familiar and sparked a time back when the American embassy in Iran was mobbed and many of its staff were taken hostage back in the 1970's. Fortunately Israel was able to evacuate its entire diplomatic staff and get them home safely. I'm afraid the same may not be said for the decades long Sadat-Begin peace initiative. With this "Arab Spring" taking place in Egypt those days of a shaky peace may be coming to a close, just as I predicted soon after the fall of Mubarak.

The Arab world is starting to feel very confident these days of its ability to begin forcing Israel back into a corner. Even the relatively peaceful King of Jordan only a few days ago said that the strength of Israel in the region is waning and the rise of the Arab populations will eventually force the Israelis to make certain concessions it wouldn't normally ever consider, such as the aforementioned border withdrawal and either the sharing or giving up entirely of Jerusalem. What is even more worrisome is the cry from certain members of left-winged liberal Jewish quarters to do just that very thing as suggested by Jordan's king.

I agree that I think we are in the birth pangs of a very dangerous and serious time for Israel. If the current U.S. President and his administration get reelected those dangers for America's greatest ally and friend will only increase and Israel will feel the knot only tighten about its neck. Yet, I also see this as a good thing because it will awaken Israel to a fact that they have always existed independently, a fact that sometime is clouded by America's past generosity. The facts are Israel doesn't need anyone's help to succeed in keeping itself safe and free. The tiny nation of Jews proved that in the early 1950's, in 1967, again in 1973, and they will do so now if the need should arise. America is a friend of Israel, but it has always been a fair-weather friend. With this current administration in office I'm not so sure we can even call it that. But, Israel will survive in tact even as those surrounding her crumble, fall and disappear.

When the dust settles one thing will be remaining, Israel and the Jews who inhabit the Land.

Monday, August 22, 2011

Who Can Beat Obama?

No matter how much time goes by everything seems to remain the same. This is certainly the case with this new batch of Presidential hopefuls running for the big office in 2012. I have to say I'm not holding out much hope that things will improve in the D.C. scene regardless who gets elected next year. I won't bother with periphery characters in the race but will limit my comments to the perceived front-runners. For the Republicans that would be Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann. I have not included either Ron Paul or John Huntsman as I believe their campaigns will run out of steam before the winter is out, however, hoping against hope Paul will likely hang in there til near the end.

Mitt Romney is your classic middle-of-the road Eastern Elite politician willing to say and do whatever the moment dictates in order to win a vote. Pretty much the status quo and what we have all come to expect from an established politico and whether many want to admit, are comfortable with because of the old adage, "the devil you know." However, in the era of economic, political and social unrest, or at least stirred-up malaise, Romney may not be able to attract the kind of voters he will need from all sides of the aisle. He will continue to be the establishment-elite favorite unless Rep. Paul Ryan jumps into the fray. If that happens then the Washington establishment will jump Romney's sinking ship like drowning rats. Romney will succeed however where both Perry and Bachman will fail miserably, gaining that much sought after moderate and blue-dog democratic vote and the independent voters. If he were to get the Republican nomination then adding a Michelle Bachmann-like candidate to the ticket would garner the Tea Party and ultra-right vote that would normally stay home without a strong right-leaning VP nominee.

Rick Perry comes with very good executive leader credentials having served as Texas governor longer than any of his predecessors. He is strong on conservative fiscal policy, family values, an advocate of enforcing federal border law. He isn't a compromiser and while that may seem like a wonderful trait in Texas State and local politics it simply doesn't work well in D.C. where you have to deal with representatives from all 50 States, the largest two being on the other end of the political spectrum of what you are generally use to dealing with, not to mention 60 Senators who all believe they can do your job better than you and your cabinet. And, lest we forget the left-leaning press gnawing at your ankles like a pestering wounded dog. The frustration level will be extremely remarkable for a man like Perry, not to mention the headaches it will give Bachmann were she to gain the nomination. Rick Perry is no Ronald Reagan. Our past President came from a State that required him as governor to learn the art of compromise in such a way that your opponent got some and you got much while making the other side walk away thinking they got more than they actually did. Reagan was a master at that, just ask Mr. Gorbachev. Perry is not such a man and what the Republican Party and this nation needs is less a person like Perry and more a man like Reagan. However, none of the candidates have much Reagan in them even though they like to think of themselves as mini-Reagans.

Michelle Bachmann has one thing in her favor..grit! But, that won't be enough to get her elected in November 2012. It could get her a party nomination but I'm afraid that would spell defeat for the Republicans in their bid to regain the White House. No matter how unappealing Mr. Obama is to most (except for the fanatically devoted), he is still preferred by the independent and moderate over someone like a Michelle Bachmann. If Republicans hope to get back the White House and make Obama a one-term President they will need to get a huge chunk of that independent vote. Sadly, Bachmann will never be able to deliver what is needed to win ultimate victory.

Currently Perry is the anti-darling of the press and the supposed new candidate to beat having taken over that front-runner spot from Romney the minute he announced his run a few weeks ago in South Carolina. That could all change with one name - Sarah Palin. Politics is spotlight and nobody knows how to steal that gem any more than the former governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. She has learned the art of expectation, how to steal the scene just by showing up and say a mouthful without uttering one word. Will she run? I have no idea. If she does could she win the nomination? It's possible. Could she win the general election? Possibly, if she ran a smart campaign which concentrated entirely on Obama policy and his failed handling of the economy, war in Afghanistan and the U.S. border situation. Will the press allow her to do that? Probably not, but this will be a measure of just how well she works under that kind of pressure. Would she keep her eye on the issue of Obama or allow the press to sidetrack her. If past history is any indication, were Palin to get the nomination America will see another four years of Obama.

Who listed above could actually beat Obama at this stage of the game? My bet is on Romney, although the thought of another politico-elitist in the White House turns my stomach. If Romney wins the nomination it will be a very tight race between him and Obama but I believe he would win by a narrow margin due to those disaffected independent voters.

All of this is making the assumption incumbent President Obama will be the Democratic nominee. If the economy continues to slide with a rising uptick in unemployment, inflation, a collapse in the debt, dollar and government bubble, then he could be seriously challenged. If that were to occur and some other candidate gets the Democratic Party nod then everything said above goes right out the window and we start all over from square one.

Saturday, July 30, 2011

The D.C. Hidden Immigration Policy

Who knew that all along President Obama, the Congress and Senate had an immigration policy? I sure didn't but now that it has been revealed it should get a special look-see.

The Sacramento Bee City News reported today that illegal immigrants are returning south of the border to Mexico because of the better economic picture now being presented in that country.

The unemployment rate in Mexico is around 4.9% while the U.S. is averaging about 9.4% unemployment while California, the State with the most illegals, followed by Arizona, is even higher than the national average.

Here we have been giving the Obama administration and both houses of Congress a hard time for not coming up with a successful immigration program to meet the overwhelming influx of illegal aliens across our southern border and those sly-dogs have been hard at work all this time perfecting their strategy for dealing with the problem - and best of all it's working.

The article goes on to say that while there still remains approximately 2.6 million illegals in California, that is down 300,000 since 2008 and those leaving are increasing daily with America's stagnant economy showing no signs of a quick fix.

We can't give Obama and the current Congress full credit for this outcome, some of that credit has to fall on G.W. Bush and the Congress during his tenure in the White House. They actually began the economic policies that made the U.S. start to sour in the illegal stomach while Obama and the current Congress have run-amuck.

When you look at the subtlety of the plan you have to applaud all those involved. Who could have thought that destroying this nation's economy and making every other nation look more inviting would work so well? Absolute GENIUS. Let's re-elect all these guys for another term.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Nebraska Keeps Unemployment Down to Less Than Half the Nation

Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman gives the basics for the secret to keeping a State economically sound. The Fed needs to sit up and take notice. This stuff can work anywhere.

[Video courtesy of Fox Business]

Monday, July 4, 2011

Happy 4th of July 2011

I will keep this posting short and sweet in celebration of America's most important day.

Those idiots at Time "Rag"azine asked if the Constitution is still relevant. What a bunch of rhetorical bullshit. Is Time even relevant anymore. As long as there are Americans & world citizens who love the idea of personal freedom, the U.S. Constitution will always be the most relevant man-made document ever produced.

Happy Independence Day!

Monday, May 30, 2011

Cantor Called Heartless For Telling the Truth

On CBS's "Face the Nation", House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) stated that tornado victims in Missouri and Alabama would be getting the federal monies needed to try and piece back the threads of their lives but those disaster relief funds will come at the cost of less important government projects. He stated that "it will be offset, however, "Congress will find the money."

The liberal left media grabbed on to his statements and tried to play political football with his words by making him and other Republicans who shared his view into those terrible three-piece suited men out to kill grandma and steal your last morsel of bread. The Huffington Post's internet wing - "Politics Daily", headlined the Congressman's words with a huge caption that read "HEARTLESS".

I watched Cantor's interview and even read the transcript several times to try and find his "heartless" comments and for the life of me cannot seem to find what it is that Ms. Huffington and her crew over at the PD found so offensive and heartless about his statements. Perhaps it was the sheer dread and loathing at the thought of any government-sponsored and less important program even being considered for cuts in order to make funds available for those most in need. God forbid we cut the cost of some research grant that studies the mating habits of the Fungus Gnat or deprive dollars from some artist who expresses his disdain for what 85% of the American public consider sacred just so we can rebuild the lives of those ravaged by Mother Nature'wrath. I ask this question, who is really the heartless one here? Mr. Cantor who reiterated more than once that those much needed funds would be made available to those who need them the most, even at the cost of lesser government expenditures, or Ms. Huffington and her left-winged ilk?

Don't be fooled by the headlines. The liberal left hasn't, doesn't nor ever will care about the lives of real people, not unless they can make some political hay and monumental gain from their tragedy.

I'll take the truth from someone like Congressman Cantor over the aggrandizing and pandering of those who would politize something has horrific as what took place in Joplin, Missouri, Alabama, Oklahoma and Arkansas this past week.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Obama Back-peddles On 1967 Israeli Border Fiasco - Or Did He Really?

Remember in my last blog-posting I wrote how this particular President loves speaking out of both sides of his mouth? Well, it appears he has now risen to new heights of duplicity. Not even a full week after making that disastrous Middle East policy speech at the U.S. State Department where he signaled his stance for the need to have Israel retreat to its 1967 border situation he does what appears to be a public about-face. In a speech this past Sunday at the AIPAC 2011 Conference (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) he says he never actually meant to say that Israel should return to its pre-Six Day War borders, stating "Let me reaffirm what '1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps' means," Obama pontificated. "By definition, it means that the parties themselves—Israelis and Palestinians—will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967." This kind of reminded me of Bill Clinton's "It all depends on what the word 'Is' is." Is there any reason why this supposed intelligent man couldn't have simply said it clearly in his earlier address to the American people, the State Department and the world? Is this President so intelligent and aloof that he cannot speak in the open-tongue of understanding so that anyone of even the mediocre intellectual ability (like myself) might grasp the significance of what spills out of his majestic piehole?

Again the President tried to point out all the positives of the U.S. relationship with its number one ally in the world by praising Israel. Of course he did this in front of more than 10,000 AIPAC delegates. It would have actually meant something if he were to make the same kind of lauding in front of the Arab League or even the United Nations just to prove he really isn't simply pandering and being disingenuous.

I will give the President credit for publically calling Hamas a terror organization at the meeting, but then he was preaching to the choir. The President's speech writers threw in this tasting morsel to appease his audience, "No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction," Obama said. "We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel's right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements." I would feel more comfortable hearing him say that to a joint meeting of Arab Muf'tahs and Iranian Imans, then we would really know that he really believed what he was reading from the tele-prompter. Say what you will about the likes of G.W. Bush, Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, but they would have no problem calling Hamas a terror organization in any setting. Not so much Obama, he picks his crowd before making his uncommitted pronouncements.

I will reserve any praise I might have to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who stood his ground with the "leader" of the free world before an international press and slowly, delibertly and concisely spelled out to Mr. Obama why it would be impossible to turn Jerusalem over to the Palestinians and how indefensible a 9-mile 1967 border would be. Netanyahu looked like the elder statesman respectfully tutoring his younger, misinformed student on the art of Middle East affairs. While many in the American press thought Mr. Netanyahu overstepped himself by appearing to lecture -- God-forbid -- an American President (e.g. Juan Williams of Fox News), there are some of us who applaud the Prime Minister for throwing cold water on this hapless policy direction and standing firm on his committment to ensure the safety of Israeli borders, something this American President and Congress seem reluctant to do in our own country.

Did the President convince this American Jew of his sincerity as it concerns his committment to Israel? Not hardly!

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Obama Wants a Defenseless Israel

For those who may have missed today's State Department speech by President Obama and are supporters of Israel it may come as a shock to hear that he called for Israel to retire back to its 1967 defenseless border alignment as a step in the right direction for a lasting peace with the so-called Palestinians. I think, except for the self-hating American Jews with fat pocket books, the President won't be counting on much financial support from the common sense American Jewish voting sector for his reelection bid.

In his press released draft of the speech earlier in the day that particular sentence calling for Israel to its 1967 borders had been removed and many pundits felt it was done so to appease Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu who has plans to visit the White House this week. However, the President in his infinite stupidity, naivety or sly cunningness decided to include it in his live speech anyway causing an instant flurry of praise from his allies in the Arab and Palestinian quarter and shouts of anguish and disbelief from those allies in Israel, pro-Israel Americans and others across the globe who see this move as a sure-fire setup for a future indefensible Israel and all out war over Jerusalem.

I'm not too sure why anyone would be surprised by Mr. Obama's call for the 1967 border realignment. He has spouted this same nonsense in the past as a U.S. Senator so it should come as no surprise that feeling a bit of muscle-flexing after disposing of Osama Bin Laden he should feel he is in a strong enough position politically to gamble on exposing his true agenda for the Jewish State. I personally am not surprised by this position because it is one he has always held as a core belief in his heart and one he will try and make come to pass in his second term, should he get reelected. My only hope is that enough influential American Jews who have strongly supported Obama in the past (can you hear me Mr. Spielberg; Ms. Streisand) will finally brush the fairy dust from their bedazzled eyes and wake up to what this man is really all about when it comes to Israel.

I was heartened that Benjamin Netanyahu didn't hesitate to respond to Mr. Obama's ignorant stance but immediately stated that Israel would object to any withdrawal to indefensible borders. The Prime Minister also added that he expected Washington to allow it to keep major settlement blocs in any peace deal. He obviously has more faith in Obama than I do.

I also agree with Netanyahu when he said, "the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel's existence". Cannot such an intelligent man such as our President see that as plainly as the Israeli Prime Minister and so many others throughout the world? If not, can he be as intelligent as we have been led to believe by the good folks over at MSNBC, or is it perhaps more of a true revelation of what Mr. Obama really thinks about our greatest Middle East ally? Remember in the same speech Obama, after declaring Israel needs to pull back to its indefensible 1967 borders, which would allow it to be completely surrounded by unfriendly Arabs, he then went on to say that Israel has the right to exist and to defend its borders "ALL BY ITSELF." Am I the only one who heard that little three word statement that is jam-packed with importance as it relates to Israel's right to exist? I love how this President says one thing out of the left side of his mouth and spews gasoline and matches out of the other.

If there was ever a time for my fellow Jewish Americans to wake up and smell the drone fumes it is now. Time to make this man a one-term President and let him join that other senseless anti-Israel past President building homes for Habitat for Humanity. At least there he can build something worthwhile without destroying an entire nation.

Friday, February 25, 2011

Middle East Uprisings - A Double-edged Sword?

For now I am remaining reserved as to the significant outcome of this momentous event in Egypt and the uprising it has sparked in various other Arab dictatorships throughout the Middle East.

While I am very happy for the every-man in Egypt, Libya, Iran, Jordan, Bahrain and Yemen I have to wonder if this could end up being a double-edged sword for the region instead of the hoped for insurgence of democracy Western nations would like to see.

Since 1973 there has been relative calm in the Middle East. I use the term relative because this region has never known what might be termed a real calm....EVER! However, since the failure of Egypt and several other Arab countries to destroy Israel "once and for all" during the infamous Yom Kippur War, and after the wisdom of Anwar Sadat to take up the banner of compromise with then Israeli leader Menachem Begin, the Camp David peace accord was signed and has been held to for nearly 33 years. Helping to keep that peace afloat has been the United State's pouring of billions of dollars into the region to both Egypt and Israel, as well as Jordan and Saudia Arabia. This, as well as the knowledge from seasoned leaders who have tried and failed on many occasions to wipe Israel off the map, have led to this nearly 4 decades of relative calm. Now that may all be coming to an end with the overthrow and fall of these seasoned leaders, horrific dictators though they may be.

There is a bigger picture here that many may be failing to see. As much as the free world may loathe the likes of a Gaddafi, Mubarak, Abdullah, Khamenei or Aziz, they have maintained a kind of status quo in the region. It is true that they have been the cause of much suffering, especially among their own peoples, and each of these terrible individuals have fostered terrorists groups that have been responsible for reprehensible activity ranging from self-inflicted martyr bombing to a scale as large as that of 9/11. However, these same dictators, under pressure from the United States, and the U.N. at large have been responsible for keeping this entire world from becoming entangled in a third world war that would lead to the end of civilization as we know it. It has been a sort of trade-off that the Big Four (The United States, Russia, China and European Union) have been willing to accept in place of the greater nightmare - a Middle East toe to toe in a nuclear conflagration.

In 1973 there were two nations on this planet with nuclear capability, the United States and The Soviet Union. These two superpowers were locked into a defensive posture that guaranteed the non-use of their destructive arsenal and the world stayed on that razors edge until the wall came down. Today the topology is quite different and one that is getting harder and harder for the Big Four to keep under control. The U.S. and Russia no longer have the nuclear market cornered. They now share that stage with far less stable countries like Pakistan, India, Israel and soon to be aboard are the extremely unstable North Korea and Iran. With Mubarak gone the Egyptian/Israeli peace accord may be shelved depending on who or what faction becomes the new leaders of that ancient country. What may happen in Libya, Jordan, Yemen, Bahrain and Iran is anybody's guess at this point. The whole world is in a wait-and-see posture. However, to me it looks like the chess pieces are beginning to line-up for an end game that doesn't bode well for the human race.

I hope I am wrong and would love for upcoming events to unfold in a way that makes me out to be a false political prophet, but here is how I see the not-to-distant future unfolding as a result of these current Arab dictators being overthrown. Each of these regiemes will be replaced by even more hardcore Islamic factions (such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt) and even worse in Saudi Arabia (which we haven't heard much from, but will very soon). One by one the leaders and their political adherents of the last 50 years in these Arab countries will be toppled and replaced by Jihadist. The only exception will be Iran who will continue on its current hardliner road and take up the lead, a lead once held and controlled by Egypt. This new alliance of Arab nations, led by younger fire-breathing Islamic radicals, not having learned the lessons of their past forefathers, will once again get it into their heads that now is the time to remove the stain of the Jews from the region and bring about that real final solution, even if it means the destruction of the neighboring Palestinian peoples, who were after all nothing more than pawns in the hands of their radical agenda. With Israel gone, those Palestinians have served their purpose and are no longer needed in the equation.

Taking advantage of the unrest in the lower Middle East, Pakistan will initiate its own final solution against India. Within days the entire world will be thrown into a massive nuclear war it thought it never wanted but has been building toward since the 1950's.

God forbid I am right in my assessment of the current situation and one of its likely outcomes.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

The U.S. Must Continue Economic Support For Israel's Defense

Congress will be busy this week finalizing our nation's fiscal year 2011 funding.

One of the most important pieces of budgetary line items is a request to both houses of Congress from President Obama to approve his asking for $3 billion in security assistance to Israel (first promised by President Bush in the U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding) and another $205 million to help Israel continue with its highly successful deployment of a rocket defense initiative, which is sorely needed with the recent uptick of rocket attacks coming from Hizbillah in the north and Hamas from the Gaza.

Running counter to the President's wise request is a naive and fatal amendment in the budget presented by Congressman Ron Paul which, if approved as written, would literally eliminate most of America's aid to Israel, our nation's only true ally and real democracy in the region. Why Rep. Paul of Texas would want to fiscally strangle such an ally is beyond comprehension. I would equate the Congressman's amendment to something equivalent to Roosevelt telling the Brits in WWII that, "Sorry chaps, you may be our friends, but those Nazi's aren't our problem at the moment. Good luck to you though!" Which did kind of happen at the beginning of Hitler's run and look at what it cost this nation, the Jews and the world by that kind of attitude from the leadership of this country then.

While the recent news out of Egypt appears, on the surface, to be a wonderful shot in the arm for democracy in the Arab Middle East that nation is still a big question mark where its future form of government is concerned. It is in the vested interest of the United States, and entire free world in general, to ensure a strong defensive Israel. That nation is still surrounded by millions and millions of enemies in Gaza, Jordan, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Iran, not to mention terrorist elements in all those countries that surround Israel, as well as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, the Sudan, Ethiopia and many more.

It is unconscionable for someone of Paul's stature to promote such a dangerous idea for un-funding Israel particularly at this time of continued instability in the Middle and Near East. It is more than unconscionable, it is utterly reckless. Now it is especially important that the United States and other democratic countries in the world continue living up to their commitments to Israel, not start cutting back. If anything, those nations should increase their financial and other support. To do so works for their own best interest, Israel's and ensures a better stability in the region by causing those who would wish to attack Israel to take a step back and reassess the wisdom of such an action.

It is true that these are fiscally tough times for almost every nation on Earth and the United States has not been immune to the economical down-turn that has been occurring since 2007. Asking the American people to shell out $3.25 billion to a tiny nation half a globe away may seem ludicrous, as it evidently does to those who think like Rep. Paul, however, to not stand by the nation of Israel, our one true ally and the only real successful democracy in the region, speaks volumes to the type of character we exhibit in the United States. To allow Israel to go un-aided in its own protection sends a message to those other allies of ours and particularly to the fledgling Arab countries flirting with the whole idea of a democracy, that the one nation in the world that was built from its foundation up on the concept and cornerstone of freedom and a democratic way of life is a sham, cannot be counted upon when the chips are down because its inhabitants value the almighty dollar more than being that shinning city on the hill, that beacon of hope, freedom and democracy for the rest of the world.

To quote a famous Star Trek fictional character, "the universe is replete with turning points" and we are once again faced with another turning point and it could mean the difference, over the next 5 years, what the world will look like. If Congress, and thereby the American people, support our commitment to Israel's security then the world in 5 years will be a safer place. If we follow Rep. Paul's lead in this matter and choose to ignore our friend and ally Israel, cut off the funds needed to help guarantee their security, then I fear what the world will be like in 5 years. I have no doubt that Israel will survive, but if we forget Israel, I'm yet to be convinced that the United States can survive intact as the great nation it was founded to be.

Monday, January 24, 2011

President Obama Praises the Memory of President Ronald Reagan

Reagan saw that 'we are all patriots'
Written by: Barack Obama

Ronald Wilson Reagan was a believer. As a husband, a father, an entertainer, a governor and a president, he recognized that each of us has the power — as individuals and as a nation — to shape our own destiny. He had faith in the American promise; in the importance of reaffirming values like hard work and personal responsibility; and in his own unique ability to inspire others to greatness.

No matter what political disagreements you may have had with President Reagan—and I certainly had my share—there is no denying his leadership in the world, or his gift for communicating his vision for America.

President Reagan recognized the American people's hunger for accountability and change — putting our nation on a bold new path toward both. And although he knew that conflicts between parties and political adversaries were inevitable, he also knew that they would never be strong enough to break the ties that bind us together. He understood that while we may see the world differently and hold different opinions about what's best for our country, the fact remains that we are all patriots who put the welfare of our fellow citizens above all else.

It was a philosophy that President Reagan took to heart — famously saying that he and Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill, with whom he sparred constantly, could be friends after 6 o'clock. It's what led him to compromise on issues as contentious as Social Security and tax cuts. And it's what allowed him to work with leaders of all political persuasions to advance the cause of freedom, democracy and security around the world, including reducing nuclear weapons and imagining a world, ultimately,
without nuclear weapons.

But perhaps even more important than any single accomplishment was the sense of confidence and optimism President Reagan never failed to communicate to the American people. It was a spirit that transcended the most heated political arguments, and one that called each of us to believe
that tomorrow will be better than today. At a time when our nation was going through an extremely difficult period, with economic hardship at home and very real threats beyond our borders, it was this positive outlook, this sense of pride, that the American people needed more than anything.

When the future looked darkest and the way ahead seemed uncertain, President Reagan understood both the hardships we faced and the hopes we held for the future. He understood that it is always "Morning in America." That was his gift, and we remain forever grateful.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

AZ Shooting Causes Crazies From All Sides to Come Out

The tragic shooting this week in Tuscon, Arizona of Representative Gabrielle Gifford and many others attending her townhall meeting has caused a flurry of comments from irresponsible political pundits and so-called news people calling to task and blaming several on the political right for the actions of a crazed gunman.

This maniac didn't need an excuse for shooting those people? He was mentally unstable and that is all the excuse he needed to do what he did. He had a long history of vitriolic political venom spewing from his lips, was a leftist (so why did he shoot a Democrat and those attending her rally?) - Perhaps Gifford was too Blue Dog for Mr. Jared Lee Loughner, a radically motivated and crazed thinker. The only excuse he needed to kill was his own skewed view of the world and the will to do it.

For political opportunist from any side of the aisle to take advantage of this situation for some kind of gain will only lead to some kind of future legislation that will trample all over this nation's Constitution and it should cease NOW!

Presidential Qualifers

Since the day that Donald J. Trump officially announced his candidacy for the Office of United States President back in 2015 his qualificati...