http://michaelcutler.net/ Hi Gang: Here is my most recent commentary for the CAPS (Californians for Population Stabilization) website. As you likely know, I have been intimately involved in the immigration issue for more than four decades. I entered on duty with the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) in October 1971 as an Immigration Inspector. Four years […]
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/18/obama-israel-reform-iran/
As I noted earlier, President Obama’s pitch for the Jewish vote has more to do with his appeal to knee-jerk liberalism on a host of non-Jewish issues than it does with concern for Israel’s welfare. Nevertheless, it is a misnomer to think liberal Jews such as those who cheered Obama Friday at the Reform biennial, don’t care about the Jewish state.
However, their willingness to accept Obama’s claims on the topic says more about their desire not to turn on a Democrat than it says about his virtues. One must ignore much of what has transpired in the last three years in order to believe the president’s claims.
The main element of Obama’s claim is that he has done more for Israel’s security than any of his predecessors. It is true he has done nothing to interfere with the security alliance that has grown since it was initiated during the Reagan administration. Military aid has flowed in large amounts, and for that Obama deserves some credit. But to speak, as he does, as if this relationship was invented by him, is absurd. On Friday, he alluded, as his defenders often do, to the Iron Dome missile defense system the two nations have created. But that project was initiated and funded by the Bush administration. The most we can say of Obama’s involvement is that he chose not to prevent it from being deployed.
http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1980/Please-Sign-1Lt-Michael-Behennas-Petition-for-Clemency.aspx A November update from Scott and Vicki Behenna (which I missed it when it arrived in my inbox last month): To the thousands of supporters of 1Lt Michael Behenna, It has been awhile since we sent out an update. Michael’s lawyers have filed the petition to the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces […]
http://www.edmontonsun.com/2011/12/16/newts-unpopular-truth-palestine-wasnt-even-a-country-100-years-ago
Newt’s unpopular truth: Palestine wasn’t even a country 100 years ago
Newt Gingrich got into all sorts of trouble a few days ago when he claimed: “There was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. We’ve had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and who were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places.”
Newt, you’re completely correct, and this is one of the bravest and most intellectually informed things any of the Republican candidates have said so far.
Contrary to what you might hear from leftists, labour leaders, students and manipulative Arab activists carefully pulling on the emotional heart-strings of gullible westerners, the Palestinians as an identified group trace their ancestry not — as with the Jews — back thousands of years, but to 1920.
Until then, Arabs living in what we now know as Israel regarded themselves as Muslim or Christians, and not as Palestinians.
For centuries they had been subjects of the Ottoman Empire, and as Arabs did not recognize any particular national boundaries, and felt commonality with Muslims in Algeria or Yemen rather than Christians who lived in the next village.
Ottoman maps and records, and the writings of foreign travellers, do not speak of Palestine or Palestinians.
http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2011/12/16/who-wrote-the-ron-paul-newsletters-ron-paul-wrote-them-clear-proof/
***I grant permission to anyone to take the content in this entry and redistribute it. The truth needs to get out.***
People wonder who wrote the Ron Paul newsletters.
First, if you’re new to this topic, it’s important because for around two decades, he had newsletters written that contained much racist content. He financially profited off of the newsletters. You can read about it more in depth here .
The purpose of this entry is to answer a simple question.
Who wrote the Ron Paul newsletters?
In a 1996 interview with the Dallas Morning News, Ron Paul was asked about his newsletters. In that interview he defended them. You can read a copy of the interview here. You can purchase a hard copy of that interview here.
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.
He also said the comment about black men in the nation’s capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100013758/europes-blithering-idiots-and-their-flim-flam-treaty/
Europe’s blithering idiots and their flim-flam treaty
What remarkable petulance and stupidity.
The leaders of France and Germany have more or less bulldozed Britain out of the European Union for the sake of a treaty that offers absolutely no solution to the crisis at hand, or indeed any future crisis. It is EU institutional chair shuffling at its worst, with venom for good measure.
It is risky to reach instant conclusions on a fast-moving story but it looks as if the EU may soon be reduced to a shell, with a new union forming among the core.
Much has been said about whether David Cameron handled this well or badly. I leave that debate to my colleagues. What strikes me as a former EU correspondent is how threatening this is to the EU Project itself.
A country – and a large one – may start to disengage for the first time. The aura of historical inevitability that has swept Europe towards ever closer union for half a century has been punctured. Yes, Croatia will soon join, as Sarkozy chirped triumphantly, but that is not quite the same thing (no offence meant to the South Slavs).
Utter confusion will ensue over the legal structures of the EU. For whom will the European Commission work? For whom the European Court? It will be chaos for a while. This is the nightmare that fonctionnaires have always feared.
And what for? All this upheaval for a mess of pottage, a flim-flam treaty? The deal is not a “lousy compromise”, said Angela Merkel. Well, actually that is exactly what it is for eurozone politicians searching for a breakthrough.
It tarts up the old Stability Pact without changing the substance (although there will be prior vetting of budgets). This “fiscal compact” is not going to make to make the slightest impression on global markets, and they are the judges who matter in this trial by fire.
It is definitely dispiriting for a conservative to watch the circular firing squad now known as the GOP Presidential Debate.
The President and his cohorts must be chuckling now as the sneering grandees are out to trash ABR….anyone but Romney.
“Hume”ongous egos at Fox just sneer and and Kraut “hammer” and invite everybody to dump on the front runner, and Mme. Bachmann and National Review are their cheerleaders. And, nasty and cranky Ron Paul gets a pass.
The establishment GOP…..gall over principle…
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
THE LOWE’S JIHAD
For the first time in weeks All-American Muslim is back in the news, not for anything on the show, but over the commercials. A number of sponsors have stopped advertising on the show, including Lowe’s. Muslim groups and their supporters have taken this development in stride by trying to blackmail the home improvement chain into advertising on the failing TLC series.
Is blackmail the right word? California State Senator Ted Lieu threatened boycotts and more disturbingly “legislative remedies” if Lowe’s doesn’t submit. Lieu, who clearly doesn’t believe in the separation of mosque and state, is shamelessly pandering to his Muslim constituents but his thuggery is fundamentally un-American and dangerous. No advertiser should be compelled to sponsor any television show.
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
The Republican race is more muddled than ever as Gingrich’s numbers fade a little without anyone to take his place. Either Gingrich recovers, Perry surges or it’s Romney all the way. The establishment backing Romney had to damage Gingrich to limit the fallout from their backing of Romney. This way they chose between two evils, rather than choosing the man that they were always going to choose.
Congressional deadlocks continue as neither side can really move their agenda forward. But Obama can still abuse executive orders and he benefits from the appearance of a do-nothing congress. Meanwhile the NJDC has dumped a sputtering press release condemning Congressman West for his “shocking” Goebbels comment about the Democratic Party, complete with an ADL press release.
The comment may be a bit much, but is the party most associated with breaking Godwin’s Law really pretending to be outraged by a Goebbels analogy? Let’s just have a skip and a hop back to January when a Democratic congressman said that Republican criticism of ObamaCare was “a big lie just like (Nazi propagandist Joseph) Goebbels.”
There’s also a difference between a Nazi analogy and a Holocaust analogy. A Nazi analogy is about how totalitarian populism works. A Holocaust analogy is about the mass murder of millions. In some cases it is valid to make Nazi analogies, but not Holocaust analogies. Goebbels’ Big Lie is an obvious example because it addresses the mechanics of propaganda, which is a valid point even when applied to people who are not mass murderers.
Gingrich’s Virtues It is too early to rule out candidates.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/286053
I respectfully dissent from National Review’s Wednesday-evening editorial, which derided Newt Gingrich as not merely flawed but unfit for consideration as the GOP presidential nominee. The Editors further gave the back of the hand to the bids of two other prominent conservatives, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann — a judgment that is simply inexplicable in light of the frivolousness of its reasoning and of the Editors’ embrace of Jon Huntsman, a moderate former Obama-administration official, as a serious contender.
The editorial surprised me, as it did many readers. I am now advised that the timing was driven by the editorial’s inclusion in the last edition of the magazine to be published this year, which went to press on Wednesday. The Editors believe, unwisely in my view, that before the first caucuses and primaries begin in early January, it is important to make known their insights — not merely views about the relative merits of the candidates but conclusions that some candidates are no longer worthy of having their merits considered. Like many other voters, I haven’t settled on a candidate. What I want at this very early stage is information about the candidates so I can consider them, not a presumptuous and premature pronouncement that good conservatives do not even rate consideration.
