Fire Hydrant of Freedom

Maybe this could get them off the opium poppy for income.

***David Nesenoff, the Long Island rabbi who triggered Thomas's resignation by asking for her thoughts on Israel, says he has received death threats and more than 25,000 e-mails, many of them obscene and hate-filled. One called him a "dirty Jew," saying: "Hittler [sic] was right! Time for you to go back in the oven!"

Nesenoff also says "there are individuals within the media" who are "pursuing an agenda," though he declines to identify them. (Critics have derided him for portraying a stereotypical Mexican with a bad accent in a video on his Web site, which the rabbi dismisses as a harmless Purim skit.) Had they called, Nesenoff says, he would have explained that he has founded an anti-bias task force, consulted for the Justice Department in the Denny's restaurant discrimination case and spoken with Mel Gibson about his drunken, anti-Semitic rant.***

The other very interesting (to me) part of seeing Nesenoff of cable (I think it was Kurtz though maybe another program) was how he essentially questioned his affilition with the Democratic party.  He so much as said he will be reviewing his party affiliation.  See my post in the "media thread".

Finally a liberal Jew who is seeing the liberal Jews who would even sell out Israel to support their liberal agenda which is a more socialist (progressive, liberal whatever label you want to put on it) world order. Does the yiddish word mazzoltov apply?  It's about time some of them wake up and stop worrying about who nice, and humanitarian they need to portray themselves out of guilt or hypocracy.  One can be a good person, a good citizen without having to be masochistic dope.

correction:made.eom

"Why should the great eco-Gulliver be ensnared by some Lilliputian oil spill lapping round his boots? He flew in to Cairo to give one of the most historically historic speeches in history to the Muslim world. Why should such a colossus lower his visionary gaze to contemplate some no-account nickel-’n’-dime racket like the Iranian nuclear program?"

LOL.
If the trend continues and republicans take back at least one house I predict the colossus of the world (not Rhodes-in his own megalomanic mind) will fold like one of those basement fold up bridge table chairs.

2)  Secure Our Borders!Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof
What “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” Really Means
By P.A. Madison

I have been bombarded lately with requests to revisit the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendments “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language. Some desire confirmation whether the language simply implies temporary obedience to laws, while others want to confirm whether it requires something more direct and substantial. I’ll spare the reader a lengthy treatise by making this short and to the point.

Perhaps the first most important thing to understand about national birthright is that there was no national birthright rule until the year 1866. One will look in vain to find any national law on the subject prior to this year, or even any mention of the right to citizenship by birth under the United States Constitution.

One reason for the absence of an early-defined national birthright rule is that States had decided for themselves who were its citizens by virtue of being born within the limits of the State. Prior to the 14th amendment citizens of the United States were strictly defined as citizens of the States.

After the Revolution, States retained only those portions of common law that were applicable to their local circumstances. The practice of England at the time was every person born within the realm of the King was a natural born subject by virtue of birth alone. In the United States, such a rule was not strictly followed as children born to black slaves, transient aliens, or Indians, followed the condition of their father.

Virginia for example, enacted an early birthright law sponsored by Thomas Jefferson in May of 1779 that specifically required the father to be a citizen: “[A]ll infants, whenever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth…shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth…”

Conceivably, Congress could had from the beginning attempted to include a defined birthright rule under the laws of naturalization – whether due to place of birth or parentage – but would have found, just as the Thirty-Ninth Congress had discovered, to be no simple matter as individual States had differing opinions over who should, or should not, be its citizens.As a rule, the nation considered only those patriotic immigrants who came here for the exclusive purpose to settling amongst us, bringing with them wealth, like habits and customs as those worthy to become part of our society. More importantly, those willing to renounce all prior allegiances to their country of origin and swear fidelity to this one. Paupers, vagabonds and imperialist were universally despised.Imagine for a moment Congress debating during the constitutional convention, or even years following the adoption of the Constitution, a national criterion for establishing citizenship by birth of all persons as practiced under English common law. Firstly, that would have been rejected by a number of States as placing men of color on an equal footing with the Anglo-Saxon race. This in return forcing perhaps an attempt to compromise using the words “free white men,” with that in return being rejected by some northern States as repugnant of the Declaration’s “all men are created equal.”Moreover, there undoubtly would been terrible disputes over the fact the nation was attempting to adopt common law as general law, something more than a few considered derogatory. James Madison succinctly illustrates such dilemma to George Washington:

What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & anti-republican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law.

So what was to be the premise behind America’s first and only constitutional birthright declaration in the year 1866? Simply all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States, that is to say, not only must a child be born within the limits of the United States, but born within the complete allegiance of the United States as a nation – not merely its laws only.

In other words, there is no such thing as American citizenship without allegiance to the nation. Why make citizens of those who owe no allegiance to the country, who might join the forces of another country against you? This goes to the core of American allegiance.

Many make the silly mistake of confusing temporary allegiance to a countries laws under the law of nations with that of allegiance to a nation. In school we pledge allegiance to the flag and the “Republic for which it stands,” not pledge our allegiance to local traffic laws. No one during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries confused owing allegiance to the laws with that of owing allegiance to a nation.

If anyone needs any confirmation of the above conclusion, need only to view Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress had adopted as national law in the year 1866: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.”

Sen. Trumbull felt the words, “That all persons born in the United States and owing allegiance thereto are hereby declared to be citizens” would be more than sufficient to fulfill this goal. However, after investigation it was found the United States had no authority to make citizens of those temporarily residing in the United States who owed only a “temporary allegiance.”

This is why it was later demanded that a complete and immediate allegiance – that is, “not owing allegiance to anyone else” – be established under a constitutional amendment and not merely a temporary allegiance.

Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said this language meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” As applied to aliens, this meant those aliens who first declared their intent to become citizens of the United States, and who had renounced their allegiance to some other sovereignty as required under U.S. naturalization laws.

During the debates of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, both its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull listened to concerns of including such persons as Chinese, Mongolians, and Gypsies to citizenship. Additionally, Sen. Fessenden raised the question of persons born of parents from abroad temporarily in this country, and of course, the question of Indians. Chinese, if one remembers their history, where a major concern on the part of citizens on the pacific coast and occupied a great deal of the news of the time (mostly all negative).

Sen. Trumbull attempted to assure Senators that Indians were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Sen. Johnson argued that Sen. Trumbull was in error in regards to the Indian’s not being under the jurisdiction of the United States. This must have raised concerns with Howard because he strongly made it known that he had no intention whatsoever to confer citizenship upon the Indians under his amendment, no matter if born within or outside of their tribal lands.

Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard then settled upon a construction for “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” with Trumbull declaring:

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Sen. Trumbull further added, “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’” Sen. Jacob Howard agreed:

concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

The above statements by Howard and Trumbull give us a good idea of what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment means: Absence of owing any allegiance to any other foreign power, which in return allows the United States to exercise full and complete jurisdiction over the person.

To understand how an alien might not owe allegiance to some other sovereignty upon arrival to this country, one need to look no further then the naturalization laws of the United States. Under United States law, an alien was required to make a declaration of his intention to become a citizen, and renounce all allegiance to his former government two years before he could make a final application.

Therefore, it does not require a leap of faith to understand what persons, other than citizens themselves, under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of the United States by birth: Those aliens who have come with the intent to become U.S. citizens, who had first compiled with the laws of naturalization in declaring their intent and renounce all prior allegiances.

Sen. Trumbull further restates the the goal of the language: “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens…” He could only be referring to the laws of naturalization and consent to expatriation by the immigrant in order for him to come completely within the jurisdiction of the United States and its laws, i.e., he cannot be a subject of another nation.

On July 18, 1868 Sen. Howard explained expatriation to mean “the emigration of the foreigner from his native land to some other land non animo revertendi; that is, with the intention of changing his domicile and making his permanent home in the country to which he emigrates.” Sen. Howard explained that expatriation could only be complete through law alone, and not through any act of the immigrant acting on his own outside of the law.

A citizen owes the same quality of allegiance to their nation of origin as does their country’s ambassador and foreign ministers while within the limits of another nation unless they freely decide to renounce their allegiance in accordance to law. In other words, it would be preposterous to consider under the meaning given to “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” that a French subject visiting the United States was not a subject of France, but completely subject to the will of the United States while within the limits of the nation without first consenting to expatriation.

The United States has always, as a matter of law, considered new arrivals subjects of the country from which they owed their allegiance. As a matter of law, new arrivals were recognized as bearing the allegiance of the country of their origin. No more is this evident then with the recording of the certificate of intent to become a citizen of the United States:

James Spratt, a native of Ireland, aged about twenty-six years, bearing allegiance to the king of Great Britain and Ireland, who emigrated from Ireland and arrived in the United States on the 1st of June 1812, and intends to reside within the jurisdiction and under the government of the United States, makes report of himself for naturalization according to the acts of congress in that case made and provided, the 14th of April anno domini 1817, in the clerk’s office of the circuit court of the district of Columbia, for the county of Washington: and on the 14th of May 1817, the said James Spratt personally appeared in open court, and declared on oath, that it is his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, &c.

James Spratt would be considered completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States with owing no other nation his allegiance under the Fourteenth Amendment. Children born to him would under the Fourteenth Amendment, be citizens of the United States even though he might not yet been awarded citizenship himself. It should be pointed out that woman were not naturalized individually, but only became naturalized by virtue of marriage to a male who became naturalized himself.

Those who were not qualified under naturalization laws of the United States to become citizens of the United States would be unable to renounce their prior allegiances and consent to the full jurisdiction of the United States as needed to become a citizen. This is how children born to Indian’s and Asians were prevented from becoming citizens themselves under the language chosen.

What changed after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment? Not much really. States adopted laws that excluded either “transient aliens” or those not resident of the State. New York had already a 1857 code that read, “All persons born in this state, and resident within it, except the children of transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls…”

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, California, Montana and South Dakota adopted identical language as New York.

In 1898, some thirty years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States argued a Chinese man born to Chinese parents in San Francisco could not be a citizen of the United States because his parents were not subjects of the United States at the time of his birth, but the subjects of the emperor of China. (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark)

The Government had it right and the Supreme Court got it all wrong (deliberately) by deciding the language under old English common law, something the adopted national rule departed sharply from. Additionally, Howard made no reference to citizenship as having anything to do with common law, but virtue of “natural law” and “national law.”

Under old English common law, neither expressed allegiance or, the lack of it, was a requirement for birthright. The Thirty-Ninth congress by contrast, made the lack of owing allegiance to some other sovereignty an advance prerequisite, and by doing so, departed from the common law rule.

If there is one inescapable truth to the text and debates, it is this: When Congress decided to require potential citizens to first be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States they by default excluded all citizens of other nations temporarily residing in the U.S. who had no intention of becoming citizens themselves or, disqualified of doing so under naturalization laws. This was no oversight because it was too simple to declare the common law rule of jus soli if indeed that was truly the desired goal by these very competent lawyers (both Howard and Trumbull were lawyers). Instead, there were classes of persons no one desired to make citizens, while also being classes of persons national law prohibited from becoming citizens.

Aaron Sargent, a Representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates said the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. No one came forward to dispute this conclusion.

Perhaps because he was absolutely correct.

My personal opinion the only one doomed is Ahmadinejad.  Israel will have to try to bomb out all their nuclear sites.  If they can't do it with conventional weapons they will have to use nucs.  I know this means an eternity of revenge in the region but as it stands now Jews should not go to the gas chambers without a fight this time.  I wish I was in more of a position to personally help.  Obama has made the decision not to intervene except with ridiculous sanctions.  We can argue all day back and forth what the US should/should not do but it clear what Israelis have to do.  Again the only other hope is some miraculous regime change in Iran.
Calling in an army of liberal or greedy lawyers is not going to fix this.

***Iran's Ahmadinejad says Israel is 'doomed'
By D'Arcy Doran (AFP) – 4 hours ago

SHANGHAI — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Friday Israel was "doomed" and singled out US President Barack Obama for scorn, blaming Washington for orchestrating new nuclear sanctions against Tehran.

Speaking during a visit to the World Expo in Shanghai, Ahmadinejad denounced the UN Security Council's sanctions resolution adopted Wednesday with Chinese and Russian backing as "worthless paper".

The firebrand leader accused global nuclear powers of "monopolising" atomic technology and said the new sanctions would "have no effect" -- reserving most of his tough rhetoric for the United States, not his ally Beijing.

Swatting aside the US leader's offers of dialogue and rapprochement if Iran relents on its nuclear ambitions, Ahmadinejad said: "I think President Obama has made a big mistake... he knows the resolution will have no effect.

"Very soon he will come to understand he has not made the right choice and he has blocked the way to having friendly ties with the Iranian people."

Ahmadinejad chose a visit to his country's national pavilion during "Iran Day" at the Shanghai Expo over an appearance at a regional security summit in Uzbekistan attended by the Chinese and Russian leaders.

Chinese President Hu Jintao and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev are in Tashkent for the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).

The SCO on Friday snubbed Iran's membership bid, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the group's new guidelines did not allow countries under UN sanctions to join, leaving Tehran increasingly isolated over its refusal to renounce uranium enrichment.

Ahmadinejad's visit to the Expo comes at a delicate time in Tehran's relations with China, one of the Council's five permanent veto-wielding members.

His government had earlier reacted furiously to China's decision to fall into line with the United States and other powers that accuse Iran of covertly trying to build nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad nevertheless shied away from criticising Beijing, which has emerged as Iran's closest trading partner.

"The main problem is the US administration, and we have no problem with others," he told reporters, accusing the United States of seeking to "swallow" the Middle East.

"Not only China but others also announced the resolution is going to open a way for diplomacy."

The UN resolution expands an arms embargo and bars Iran from sensitive activities such as uranium mining.

It also authorises states to conduct high-seas inspections of vessels believed to be ferrying banned items for Iran and adds 40 entities to a list of people and groups subject to travel restrictions and financial sanctions.

Not for the first time, Ahmadinejad reserved his harshest rhetoric for Israel.

"It is clear the United States is not against nuclear bombs because they have a Zionist regime with nuclear bombs in the region," he said.

"They are trying to save the Zionist regime, but the Zionist regime will not survive. It is doomed."

Israel, which has the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear arsenal, regards Iran as its principal threat after repeated predictions by Ahmadinejad of the Jewish state's demise.

Israeli leaders have refused to rule out a resort to military action to prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapons capability.

Ahmadinejad said the entire architecture of global power was built to keep out smaller states.

"We have always said the Security Council is a tool in the hands of the United States. It is not democratic, it is a tool of dictatorship," he said.

"Five powers have the veto right and the nuclear bombs and the monopoly and they want to monopolise nuclear energy for themselves," he added.

Russia appears to be taking a tougher line with Iran. Officials said Friday that Moscow would comply strictly with the new UN sanctions, and signalled that a deal to supply Iran with air-defence missiles was now off.

China has kept up a more emollient line on Iran. Foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said Thursday that China "highly values relations with Iran and feels they are conducive to regional peace, stability and development."

An aide to Ahmadinejad told AFP he would leave Shanghai later Friday.***

Unions and Dems.  Yes it seems like a viscous cycle.  People are forced to join unions, give dues, and invariably every union I am aware of spends money getting Democrats elected who in turn are obliged to cow-tow to the unions and probably willingly do so to keep the cash and other support coming.
In NJ the teachers union do this and *always* support the Democrat.


 

***Back to 1980, the most prominent Democrat in the Senate did not wait for a second term to end to challenge the failed sitting President in his own party.***

Doug,  You may be right.  If Bamster keeps up the cluelessness some Dems may very well want to challenge him in 2012.

I guess the only good thing about Bamster's pursuit of a fantastic social life while the world (gently) weeps is that it keeps him from focusing on destroying this country further.  I think Schumer could live without an endorsement from Paul McCartney.

This morning while watching him give a lecture on the greatness of gigantic government made me realize who the next in line Democratic Presidential candidate will be (probably as Crafty thinks - not 2012 but 2016).
Another NE liberal lawyer.  Chuck Schumer.  This is the guy the Republicans better start studying and getting their answers to.
He is IMHO FAR more formidable than Bamster who doesn't have a clue.

He is the guy who is going to bring the fight right back at us.  He is in line to be the Senate Dem leader after Reid falls this fall.
Next will be the Presidential bid.  I don't think he will want to be Bamster's second fiddle for 2012 though it is possible.

Beng a physician is no longer a "profession".
We are controlled, regulated, villified, debased, and guilty to we prove our innocence.

My accountant and of course my lawer makes twice what I make despite my having far more training, education, legal risk, regulation to deal with, and stress.

I have to fight to get paid, I have to go through a quagmire of regs, mazes, fee collectors, billers, chase after pateints for even a few dollars, pay all of these people a cut just to get paid.  I have to pay my accountant a much higher hourly rate just to get my tax refund due me from the government even though all she does is sit on her ass and write a letter, add and subtract, and fill out a form.

I could go on.

There are some doctors who abuse the system and while I don't condone that at least some of them justify doing it because of all the suffering we are made to go through.

All the while I go through this I see Bamster protecting lawyers.  Not a peep about their corruption.  Not one peep.

Katherine and I have gone what I have ad nauseum noted hear.  And of course I am still expected to be a saint who loves medicine and just lives to provide the most humane best medical care to my patients and all the while agree with another scumbag lawyer named Chuck Schumer state all doctors should make no more than 80K a year.  If that is what he wants there will be no one left in medicine other than nurses and Asians and Middle Easterners dying to come here and work for 100 hrs a week for ten cents.  Then they will smarten up, realize this is not what they came here for and stop coming and many will go back to where they are from because it aint' worth it here.

I used the phrase F* Jews.  Charles is nicer about it and uses the term "troublesome".

****Krauthammer: Those troublesome Jews
Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 4, 2010

The world is outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.

This Story
Krauthammer: Those troublesome Jews
Nudging Israel toward a Gaza fix
Cairo's unmet promise
But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel -- a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.

In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded ("quarantined") Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.

Oh, but weren't the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel's offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza -- as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.

Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel's inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.


Israel has already twice intercepted ships laden with Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?

But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and active defense.

(1) Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century, adopted forward defense -- fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the Sinai and Golan Heights) rather than its own.

Where possible (Sinai, for example) Israel has traded territory for peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel. And it took many losses in Gaza, rather than expose Israeli border towns to Palestinian terror attacks. It is for the same reason America wages a grinding war in Afghanistan: You fight them there, so you don't have to fight them here.

But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. The Israelis were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the anti-Israel insurgencies -- and therefore withdrawal, by removing the cause, would bring peace.

Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land -- evacuating South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack.

(2) Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense -- military action to disrupt, dismantle and defeat (to borrow President Obama's description of our campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon and Gaza after Israel withdrew.

The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and Gaza operation of 2008-09. They were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace Israeli withdrawals in the first place. Worse, the U.N. Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized Israel's defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the casus belli -- the preceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war -- effectively de-legitimized any active Israeli defense against its self-declared terror enemies.

(3) Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses -- a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now moving toward having it abolished.

But, if none of these is permissible, what's left?

Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem.

What's left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. Why, just last week, the Obama administration joined the jackals, and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by signing onto a consensus document that singles out Israel's possession of nuclear weapons -- thus de-legitimizing Israel's very last line of defense: deterrence.

The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution.****

Another example of the dissonance of immigration debate.  We have huge unempolyment yet we also have at the same time 20 million people here illegally because they need the work.

Using the phrase I am hearing from more and more people (friends, patients, talk shows, blogs etc.)
"this country is upside down".

At least Newt on Greta a night or two ago admitted the Right seems to like the cheap labor and thus has also not been going after the other half of the immigration problem - the employers.

"But it was a fiasco.  I deeply respect Israel; but they can/could/should have done better."

Everyone keeps repeating this.  It was not a fiasco.  It was a confrontation.  Israelis tried to do it peacefully by gently boarding the ship.

They asked to be able to transfer the haul to Gaza themselves.

I don't see what else all the talking heads think would have been better.  They could have shot a missle accross the bow. When the antagonists would not stop they could have sunk the ships.  Then the national "community" could have even had more to gang up on Israel about.

They could have had a small army board the ships perhaps with submachine guns.  Those on board would have then been screaming that this was a disproportionate response to a "peace" ship.

No matter what they did, if they did not let the ships pass, they would be condemned.  This was not botched at all.  It is the medias way of a mea culpa to the Muslims who are for this sort of thing.

To have talking heads speaking of "big nets" in the water, and on and on.  Give me a break.

"but he alone in the world has not condemned Israel for this debacle." 

Obama has hardly come out in support of Israel.  Indeed, his lack of support for Israel may have inspired this sort of thing.

"And it will cost America..."

How so in this case?  You are suggesting because he has publically tried to appear neutral this was not enough.  Thus are you saying he should be condeming Israel because that is in agreement with World opinion and that will keep us popular with the world and the Arabs?

"The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [Area of Responsibility of Cntcom] Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas."

Appeasement is easy when what you are giving up is the security of the lives of those from *another* country.  7 million Israelis against a billion plus Arabs?
With regards to Mr. Grossman who finds the Gaza policy a big mistake.  I suppose if the Israelis simply opened up Gaza the problem would go away???

He ignores the commitment of many Palestinians to the death of all Jews?

He ignores decades of attempts at two state solutions?

What is he talking about?

Appeasement is NOT going to work.  Unless of course the appeasement were for all Jews to vacate Israel and go somewhere other than Muslim territory.
Again may I suggest Antartica?

The silver lining is that Bamster will set the liberal/progressive agenda back to Woodrow Wilson.  The bad news this country is going to be hurt bad till we can climb our way out of this mess.  The people going around saying he is doing a good job are deniers.  Sorry assholes.  You are not going to get your reparations.  Maybe you as well as the rest of us will have to work our butts off to get out of this mess.

And yes.  He does call to mind Jimmy Carter - but like I said - on steroids.  It can't be just coincidence the world's hot spots are exploding into turmoil while the ONE sits at the helm.  Remember big mouth Biden said Bamster would be tested?  Well what is the One going to do now that Israel may go to war with Turkey, we are closer to war in Korea in my lifetime, Iran is almost with nuclear weapons?  I guess he can continue to blame the F* Jews which he all but come out and done (its their faults because of a few housing projects).  Or he can blame Bush again which he has continued (to this day) to do.  Or of course he blame corporate American or BP.  Or he can continue to travel around the world as our fearless leader apologizing to the world for all its problems all the while saying the US is at cause of them.  When willl the MSM come out of their delusional state?  They will have to. Kicking and screaming yes. But they will eventually have to.  But when?

***By Dick Morris 06.2.2010 Published on TheHill.com on June 1, 2010

Conservatives are so enraged at Obama’s socialism and radicalism that they are increasingly surprised to learn that he is incompetent as well. The sight of his blithering and blustering while the most massive oil spill in history moves closer to America’s beaches not only reminds one of Bush’s terrible performance during Katrina, but calls to mind Jimmy Carter’s incompetence in the face of the hostage crisis.

America is watching the president alternate between wringing his hands in helplessness and pointing his finger in blame when he should be solving the most pressing environmental problem America has faced in the past 50 years. We are watching generations of environmental protection swept away as marshes, fisheries, vacation spots, recreational beaches, wetlands, hatcheries and sanctuaries fall prey to the oil spill invasion. And, all the while, the president acts like a spectator, interrupting his basketball games only to excoriate BP for its failure to contain the spill.

The political fallout from the oil spill will, indeed, spill across party and ideological lines. The environmentalists of America cannot take heart from a president so obviously ignorant about how to protect our shores and so obstinately arrogant that he refuses to inform himself and take any responsibility.

All of this explains why the oil spill is seeping into his ratings among Democrats, dragging him down to levels we have not seen since Bush during the pit of the Iraq war. Conservatives may dislike Obama because he is a leftist. But liberals are coming to dislike him because he is not a competent progressive.

Meanwhile, the nation watches nervously as the same policies Obama has brought to our nation are failing badly and publicly in Europe. When Moody’s announces that it is considering downgrading bonds issued by the government of the United States of America, we find ourselves, suddenly, in deep trouble. We have had deficits before. But never have they so freaked investors that a ratings agency considered lowering its opinion of our solvency. Not since Alexander Hamilton assumed the states’ Revolutionary War debt has America’s willingness and ability to meet its financial obligations been as seriously questioned.

And the truth begins to dawn on all of us: Obama has no more idea how to work his way out of the economic mess into which his policies have plunged us than he does about how to clean up the oil spill that is destroying our southern coastline.

Both the financial crisis and the oil come ever closer to our shores — one from the east and the other from the south — and, between them, they loom as a testament to the incompetence of our government and of its president.

And, oddly, to his passivity as well. After pursuing a remarkably activist, if misguided and foolhardy, agenda, Obama seems not to know what to do and finds himself consigned to the roles of observer and critic.

America is getting the point that its president doesn’t have a clue.

He doesn’t know how to stop the oil from spilling. He is bereft of ideas about how to create jobs in the aftermath of the recession. He has no idea how to keep the European financial crisis contained. He has no program for repaying the massive debt hole into which he has dug our nation without tax increases he must know will only deepen the pit.

Some presidents have failed because of their stubbornness (Johnson and Bush-43). Others because of their character flaws (Clinton and Nixon). Still others because of their insensitivity to domestic problems (Bush-41). But now we have a president who is failing because he is incompetent. It is Jimmy Carter all over again.

Who would have thought that this president, so anxious to lead us and so focused on his specific agenda and ideas, would turn out not to know what he is doing?***

Isn't interesting how we hear that the new leadership of Turkey has dreams of a new Ottoman Empire.  It is the same as their other big competitor for dominance in of the Arab world - Iran with their dreams of a new Persian Empire.  Both want to be the central power broker in the Middle East.

And of course their *unifying theme - strategy* (as always seems to be with Arabs) is - kill all the F* Jews.  I think they wouldn't mind killing all Americans too and probably all Christians but since their are far fewer Jews they make for the age old easier target.

This strategy always seems to work too.  Now we have Egypt rallying to the cause and opening up "aid" to Gaza.

And the rest of the world too, as always, seems to be happy to get the F* Jews.

Bamster's heart is with the Arabs too.  Anyone who denies this, and those who love him are liars, denyers, or fools.
It will be interesting to see him try to weasel this one without offending Jews whom he has used for political support.  As I have pointed out on this board before this guy would NEVER have been President if it wasn't for the many Jews who helped him.  That is not to say he isn't smart or talented.  But all people getting to the Presidency have help.  And it is historical fact that there were/are many Jews around him who gave him much support, advise, money and the rest.

"Everyone is now on the same page.  The White House, Bill Clinton, and Joe Sestak all now state that at the bidding of Rahm Emanuel, Bill Clinton approached Congressman Joe Sestak and offered him an unpaid position as an adviser"

The author leaves out the most crucial entity also now on board the "same page".

And that is the MSM.  It is obnoxious to high heaven watching the Democrat media saying how there is NO scandal, this is business as usual  and on and on and on.

If I see that punk Jonathan Alder one more time.....

Everything is so dumbed down.  Everything is poltical.  Nothing is sacred anymore (or even the prestense of being so).
We can't even rely on media to be reasonable.  What is left?

After watching all this slime, the MMS in bed with the oil industry they are supposed to regulate.  It is just like Copyright Office in bed with the monied people in entertainment they deal with.  Some there take bribes, look the other way, say nothing, don't want scandals, don't want to risk their jobs, get their friends in trouble, or want to get jobs with the those in the biz with money.

It is all the same.

Even our highest government people commit felonies and lie and cover it up.  What was such a huge deal over Watergate?  A minor burglary of some political documents.  That was so much worse than this?  Oh it was the cover up.  I get it.  Yet Jonathan Alter doesn't see a cover up here.  Just takes the characters in the middle at their word.

I just wish I had enough money and could retire and go get a cabin in a quiet place somewhere and leave the garbage to the world.  Our government, our media, they all make me sick.
 

Well yes, but that isn't a defense.
Of course our politicians like everyone else are for sale.
Perhaps it is about time to put a (try at least) stop to this.
I dont' need Stanley Brand to state the obvious.

But this,"sometimes in reward for good service" is not a crime (I don't think).  Trying to offer a job (maybe Clinton did offer a blow job) to get  a person out of a Senate race is a crime.

'Obama said that every morning when he's shaving, his daughter comes in and asks, "Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?"'

Who here besides me is old enough to remember Jimmy Carter asking his daughter Amy what was the worst problem facing the world and then using that in a speech??

This guy is such a Jimmy Carter on steroids.

"I stand by my prediction that Obama won't be the D-nominee in 2012"

That leaves.......say it ain't so.....

And Rusmussan reports Bamster's (Rush's nickname for the phoney ONE) approval at 44% though this low level was reported before.

If only the Cans can get their act together!?

Doug, I hope you are right and there is some sort of "Contract with America" again. 

I am hoping they are saving coming out with a contract list till closer to crunch time rather than give away their eggs now.  Yet in this day and age and as I have learned from the music business it is impossible to keep people for finding out one's ideas anyway.

That aside if the cans can come up with something a contract I think they can run away to *crushing* victory in Nov and not just win by default.

I believe A Lame Duck Bamster without his adoring majority in both houses will fold in the face of the opposition.

As for Contract with America, Newt appears to be planning a run.  Can he overcome previously terrible ratings though?  I dunno.

He continues to hasten our decline.

By Michael D. Shear
Saturday, May 22, 2010; 11:45 AM

WEST POINT, N.Y. -- President Obama on Saturday pledged to shape a new "international order" as part of a national security strategy that emphasizes his belief in global institutions and America's role in promoting Democratic values around the world.

Speaking to the graduating class at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point -- the ninth wartime commencement in a row, he said -- the commander in chief who is leading two foreign wars expressed his faith in cooperation and partnerships to confront the economic, military and environmental challenges of the future.

"The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times,'" he said in prepared remarks. "Countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing its wounds."

The administration is set to officially release the president's first national security strategy next week, and Obama's preview on Saturday suggests it will be far different than the first one offered by his predecessor in 2002. In that prior document, President George W. Bush formally called for a policy of preemptive war and a "distinctly American internationalism."

Obama has spoken frequently about shaping new alliances with the world, and of attempts to repair the U.S. image abroad after nearly a decade in which Bush's approach was viewed with suspicion in many quarters. In his commencement speech to the graduates, the president emphasized his beliefs in those alliances.

"Yes, we are clear-eyed about the shortfalls of our international system. But America has not succeeded by stepping outside the currents of international cooperation," he said. "We have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice -- so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities, and face consequences when they don't."


 Obama said the United States will pursue a strategy of "national renewal and global leadership."

And yet, even as he calls for global cooperation, Obama has intensified America's own war in Afghanistan. And his administration has repeatedly confronted the dangers of Islamic terrorism on U.S. soil, including unsuccessful attempts to down a Detroit-bound airliner and to explode a car bomb in New York's Times Square.

To the men and women in the hall, many of whom are headed to Afghanistan because of the expansion of the war he announced here six months ago, Obama pledged "the full support of a proud and grateful nation."

The president expressed confidence in the military's ability to succeed in Afghanistan, but warned of a "tough fight" ahead as the United States helps the Afghan people to rebuild its civil institutions and its security system so they can battle the Taliban and other extremists on their own.

"We have brought hope to the Afghan people; now we must see that their country does not fall prey to our common enemies," he said. "There will be difficult days ahead. But we will adapt, we will persist, and I have no doubt that together with our Afghan and international partners, we will succeed in Afghanistan."

In Iraq, he said, the United States is "poised" to end its combat operations this summer, leaving behind "an Iraq that provides no safe haven to terrorists; a democratic Iraq that is sovereign, stable and self-reliant."

"You, and all who wear America's uniform, remain the cornerstone of our national defense and the anchor of global security," he said. "And through a period when too many of our institutions have acted irresponsibly, the American military has set a standard of service and sacrifice that is as great as any in this nation's history."

But he said civilians must answer the call of service as well, by securing America's economic future, educating its children and confronting the challenges of poverty and climate change. He said the country must always pursue what he called the "universal rights" rooted in the Constitution.

"We will promote these values above all by living them -- through our fidelity to the rule of law and our Constitution, even when it's hard; and through our commitment to forever pursue a more perfect union," he said.

To the cadets themselves, he praised their pursuit of being "soldier-scholars" and lauded the records of academic excellence the Class of 2010 has set. He also took note of the fact that the class's top two graduates this year are both women, reflecting, he said, the "indispensable role" that women play in the modern military.

As they become commissioned officers in the Army, Obama told the graduates of West Point that the country owes them a debt of gratitude.

"Here in the quiet of these hills, you have come together to prepare for the most difficult tests of our time'" Obama said. "You signed up knowing your service would send you into harm's way, and did so long after the first drums of war were sounded. In you we see the commitment of our country, and timeless virtues that have served our nation well."

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 21, 2010

It is perfectly obvious that Iran's latest uranium maneuver, brokered by Brazil and Turkey, is a ruse. Iran retains more than enough enriched uranium to make a bomb. And it continues enriching at an accelerated pace and to a greater purity (20 percent). Which is why the French foreign ministry immediately declared that the trumpeted temporary shipping of some Iranian uranium to Turkey will do nothing to halt Iran's nuclear program.

It will, however, make meaningful sanctions more difficult. America's proposed Security Council resolution is already laughably weak -- no blacklisting of Iran's central bank, no sanctions against Iran's oil and gas industry, no nonconsensual inspections on the high seas. Yet Turkey and Brazil -- both current members of the Security Council -- are so opposed to sanctions that they will not even discuss the resolution. And China will now have a new excuse to weaken it further.

But the deeper meaning of the uranium-export stunt is the brazenness with which Brazil and Turkey gave cover to the mullahs' nuclear ambitions and deliberately undermined U.S. efforts to curb Iran's program.

The real news is that already notorious photo: the president of Brazil, our largest ally in Latin America, and the prime minister of Turkey, for more than half a century the Muslim anchor of NATO, raising hands together with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the most virulently anti-American leader in the world.

That picture -- a defiant, triumphant take-that-Uncle-Sam -- is a crushing verdict on the Obama foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched this administration in action, have decided that there's no cost in lining up with America's enemies and no profit in lining up with a U.S. president given to apologies and appeasement.

They've watched President Obama's humiliating attempts to appease Iran, as every rejected overture is met with abjectly renewed U.S. negotiating offers. American acquiescence reached such a point that the president was late, hesitant and flaccid in expressing even rhetorical support for democracy demonstrators who were being brutally suppressed and whose call for regime change offered the potential for the most significant U.S. strategic advance in the region in 30 years.


 They've watched America acquiesce to Russia's re-exerting sway over Eastern Europe, over Ukraine (pressured by Russia last month into extending for 25 years its lease of the Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol) and over Georgia (Russia's de facto annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is no longer an issue under the Obama "reset" policy).

They've watched our appeasement of Syria, Iran's agent in the Arab Levant -- sending our ambassador back to Syria even as it tightens its grip on Lebanon, supplies Hezbollah with Scuds and intensifies its role as the pivot of the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance. The price for this ostentatious flouting of the United States and its interests? Ever more eager U.S. "engagement."

They've observed the administration's gratuitous slap at Britain over the Falklands, its contemptuous treatment of Israel, its undercutting of the Czech Republic and Poland, and its indifference to Lebanon and Georgia. And in Latin America, they see not just U.S. passivity as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez organizes his anti-American "Bolivarian" coalition while deepening military and commercial ties with Iran and Russia. They saw active U.S. support in Honduras for a pro-Chávez would-be dictator seeking unconstitutional powers in defiance of the democratic institutions of that country.

This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat -- accepting, ratifying and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum.

Nor is this retreat by inadvertence. This is retreat by design and, indeed, on principle. It's the perfect fulfillment of Obama's adopted Third World narrative of American misdeeds, disrespect and domination from which he has come to redeem us and the world. Hence his foundational declaration at the U.N. General Assembly last September that "No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation" (guess who's been the dominant nation for the last two decades?) and his dismissal of any "world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another." (NATO? The West?)

Given Obama's policies and principles, Turkey and Brazil are acting rationally. Why not give cover to Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions? As the United States retreats in the face of Iran, China, Russia and Venezuela, why not hedge your bets? There's nothing to fear from Obama, and everything to gain by ingratiating yourself with America's rising adversaries. After all, they actually believe in helping one's friends and punishing one's enemies.

 By Dick Morris 05.19.2010 The message of the May 18th primaries is that it is open season on incumbents. In Pennsylvania, Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa) lost decisively to Congressman Joe Sestak (D-Pa)in his primary contest while Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) limped into the runoff in the Democratic primary by 44-42 over Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. There can be little doubt that Lincoln will lose the runoff having scored so far under 50% of the vote. The fact is that 56% of the Democrats in Arkansas decided to vote against Lincoln.

Both Specter and Lincoln are now reaping the harvest of their votes for health care, a fate soon to be shared by Senators Harry Reid (D-NV), Barbara Boxer (D-Cal.), Michael Bennet (D Col.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). And the liability of incumbency was also vividly on display a week ago when long time Democratic incumbent Congressman Alan Mollohan (D-W Va.) was upended in his primary contest.


Lest the Democrats take comfort in their new standard bearers in Pennsylvania and Arkansas, it is obvious that Sestak and Halter will be easier to defeat than their far better known incumbent rivals would have been. The new Senator from Pennsylvania will be Republican nominee Pat Toomey and from Arkansas it will be Congressman John Boozman (R-Ark.).

With the defeat of Specter, the likely demise of Lincoln, and the recent loss of Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah), the new Senate class of 2011 will have at least 14 new members…with more to come.

Democrats are taking satisfaction from their victory in Pennsylvania 12 where they held onto the seat of deceased Congressman John Murtha. But the obvious reason for their success is that Democratic turnout was boosted by a ferocious statewide Senate primary which drew out 1,050,000 voters while the Republican contest — never seriously contested 00 brought a paltry 800,000 to the polls. With no statewide reason to vote, local PA-12 Republicans stayed home while their Democratic neighbors flocked to the polls to vote against Specter (a joy not to be missed).

The Democratic victory in PA-12 also underscores a more fundamental point which is that incumbency is a huge liability in 2010. It is simply better to come from nowhere to run this year than to seek to keep a seat in this totally discredited Congress.

Rand Paul´s success in Kentucky in toppling establishment Senate candidate Trey Grayson in the Republican primary — along with the Bennett defeat in Utah — shows that this anti-politician sentiment cuts across party lines.

The harsh verdict on incumbents stems not so much from party preferences as from revulsion at the legislative process itself. The by-product of violating Bismark´s maxim that the public should never see sausage being made or a law being passed is that those who do the latter in full public view are doomed to end their legislative careers in defeat. The unseemly bargaining, machinations, and overt buying and selling of votes that characterized the health care debate of 2009-2010 has left so sour a taste in voter mouths that they understandably dismiss those incumbents from office whenever they can.

The fact that President Obama let the Congress write the two thousand page bill in public and that Reid and Pelosi negotiated for votes in front of the media, has amplified voter anger at Congress. Watching the deals being hatched and votes switching proved too much for the electorate to stomach. Now it is expressing its discontent with the legislative shenanigans it has had to watch.

This year is not just an anti-Democrat year. It is an anti-incumbent year.

Remember how the left mocked and derided Reagan's quest for an anti-missle defense capability and came up with the name "star wars"?

Here is the guy who the Bamster has as his weapons aquisitions Czar mocking Reagan in 1984.  Of course the Bamster is now expecting Israeli's to put their lives on the line by relying on technology all started by Reagan in 2010.

Now Bamster and his crew are in charge and now it is a good thing.


****Obama "weapons Czar" said Reagan's Star Wars a pipe dream
PA Times | 9/4/09 | Pissant

Posted on Friday, September 04, 2009 6:12:30 PM by pissant

In a Tom Wicker NY Times story reprinted in the St Petersberg Times on May 12, 1984 (1), Obama's pencil necked Weapons Czar, Ashton Carter, is quoted as declaring that Reagan's "Star Wars" (SDI) was nothing but a pipe dream. Apparently, Mr. Carter - the man with the oh so appropriate last name - was the author of a report during his stint at MIT that sought to put the kabosh on Reagan's plans for missile defenses.

The Democrats in the house cooked up a group called the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment that issued a scathing report denouncing the efficacy of missile defenses, basing their conclusions on Carter's work.

In his report, Carter stated: "A consensus of the informed members of the defense technical community that the prospect of a successful missile defense was so remote that it should not serve as the basis for public expectation or national policy".

Of course, unlike Reagan, idiots like Ashton Carter did not know that Reagan intended to bankrupt the USSR in a race for missile defenses as well as lay the groundwork for fully functional systems.

But surely Mr. Carter was fully cured of his naivete by the time he was hired on as under secretary of Defense by Slick Willie? Well it turns out that he also was one of the prime architects for the deal with the North Korean commies to halt their nuclear programs in 1994 (2).

So it looks like Obama's czar is batting .000.

At laest one positive thing came from Mr. Carter's supposed expertise. It convinced Walter Mondale to run on a platform opposing SDI (3). ROFL.****