Thursday, March 21, 2013

Facebook targets another conservative...

Interesting development in the Facebook blocking nonsense. It seems that conservative reporter JOE NEWBY of the Examiner has now also been blocked by facebook. BTW, Joe has been covering this blogger's Facebook blocking story. 

Anyway, Joe was told by Facebook that they were removing a post of his and blocking him for 24 hours. Joe has no idea which post it is or why whatever post was taken down. Just more selective censorship of conservatives with no justification...just doing it to stop the conservative message from reaching the public.

Well guess what, we will NOT be stopped!
 
THE WASHINGTON POST HITS OBAMA!

Finally, the Washington Post speaks out on Obama! This is very brutal, timely though. As I'm sure you know, the Washington Post newspaper has a reputation for being extremely liberal. So the fact that its editor saw fit to print the following article about Obama in its newspaper makes this a truly amazing event and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his obvious socialist agenda are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him by our liberal media.

I too have become disillusioned
 
By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner) 
 
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job? Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.
 
He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
 
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. 
But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.
 
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
 
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
 
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.
 
And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
 
The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clich├ęs, and that's when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
 
And what about his character?
 
Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
 
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
 
Suddenly people are getting wise to this enemy of our USA.

Our Fruitless Quest for Missile Defense

Foreign policy is often a form of theater, with elaborate rituals and pretenses that no one takes too literally. But rarely have the gimmicks of stagecraft been as obvious as in the latest standoff between North Korea and the United States.

Lately, even more than usual, the Pyongyang regime has been a picture of belligerence, threatening to hit the U.S. with a nuclear strike. A foreign ministry spokesman announced that "we will be exercising our right to preemptive nuclear attack against the headquarters of the aggressor in order to protect our supreme interest."

Sure you will. Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear arms expert at the Ploughshares Fund, told CNN that North Korea is "years away from the ability to field a missile with a nuclear warhead that could hit the United States." But it's useful for the North Koreans to pretend they could obliterate Los Angeles or make Detroit even less livable.

Apparently President Obama is willing to play along, countering fiction with fiction. "I can tell you that the United States is fully capable of defending against any North Korean ballistic missile attack," said White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing the missile defense system arrayed on the Pacific Coast.

But in case anyone had doubts, the Pentagon announced last week it would spend $1 billion to add more interceptors. Never mind that the ones it has are of doubtful utility. In controlled tests against sitting ducks, these weapons miss their targets as often as they hit them.

It's tempting to think that we must have mastered missile defense, if only because we've been working on it for so long. This episode comes shortly before the 30th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" speech, in which he envisioned making "nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete."

It's also tempting because the idea is so darn agreeable. Who wouldn't want the U.S. military to be able to knock down incoming warheads like King Kong swatting away biplanes? Who wouldn't want to make sure no deranged dictator can vaporize Times Square?

Keep wishing. Over the past three decades, the Defense Department has burned through some $200 billion chasing this dream -- more, adjusted for inflation, than NASA needed to put all those men on the moon. While it took less than a decade for astronauts to plant the American flag in the lunar dust, we are still waiting for that missile shield.

The military-industrial complex was supposed to convert enemy missiles into giant, shiny museum pieces. Yet the rulers in Tehran and Pyongyang persist in thinking that nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles are worth their weight in gold.

The U.S. missile defense program has been an exercise in frustration. The undertaking is so difficult that the Pentagon no longer even dreams of being able to foil a massive attack by Russia or China. Its biggest ambition is to knock down a rocket or two from some rogue nation that is willing to risk being turned into a radioactive pile of gravel.

Even there, the technical requirements are several bridges too far. Last year, a report by the National Academy of Sciences noted the essential requirements of such a system and concluded the existing one is "deficient with respect to all of these principles."

To have any realistic hope of shooting down an intercontinental ballistic missile, you have to be able to track it while it's above the atmosphere ("mid-course"). But the enemy probably won't cooperate.

The CIA has said North Korea and Iran should be able to develop countermeasures by the time they have usable ICBMs. The simplest is to simultaneously release dozens of other objects that, in the vacuum of space, would travel at the same speed as the warhead and be extremely difficult to distinguish.

That was the unsolved problem in 1983, and it's the unsolved problem today. David Wright, co-director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told me, "None of the tests conducted so far of any of the exoatmospheric missile defenses have been realistic tests against realistic countermeasures like you might expect from North Korea." We haven't found an answer, and we may never.

So if and when North Korea or Iran obtains the means to hit us with an ICBM, we will have to prevent it the old-fashioned way: by assuring them they will be destroyed, immediately and utterly. It's not the most satisfying option. Unlike national missile defense, though, it's actually worked.

Republicans Must Show Support for Hispanic Dreams

By: Michael Barone / Townhall Columnist
Republicans Must Show Support for Hispanic Dreams
Rarely does a political party issue a document so scathingly critical of itself and its most recent presidential nominee as the report of the five-member Growth and Opportunity Project of the Republican National Committee. 

It refers to Mitt Romney on occasion as "our presidential nominee" and notes disapprovingly of his reference, in the debate about immigration, to "self-deportation."

And while the report states modestly, "We are not a policy committee," it does call for a policy -- "comprehensive immigration reform" -- that many, perhaps most, Republican members of Congress oppose.

I think there's some risk here for the Republican National Committee. But there also may be some reward for Republicans generally.

The risk is of turning off officeholders and voters Republicans need to win elections and prevail on issues. The reward is Republicans might be able to win some elections they'd otherwise lose.

"If Hispanic Americans perceive that a GOP nominee or candidate does not want them in the United States (i.e., self-deportation), they will not pay attention to our next sentence," the report says.

"It does not matter what we say about education, jobs or the economy; if Hispanics think we do not want them here, they will close their ears to our advice."

To this they contrast George W. Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaign refrain: "Family values don't stop at the Rio Grande, and a hungry mother is going to feed her child."

Let me put it another way. To win someone's vote, you need to be friendly to them and those they identify with.

My observation in travel over the years is that Hispanics are treated very differently by Anglos in Texas than in California.

In Texas, white Anglos see people with Hispanic features as fellow Texans. They smile and say howdy.

They know, because they have to take Texas history in high school, that Hispanics have been living in Texas for more than 200 years and that some fought for Texas independence against Mexico.

In California, white Anglos, liberal or conservative, treat people with Hispanic features as landscape workers or parking valet attendants. They look past them without speaking or hand them their car keys.

George W. Bush's words about family values were very Texan, down to the reference to the Rio Grande.

That enabled him to win about 40 percent of Hispanic votes in 2004 (examination of county returns suggests that the exit poll number of 44 percent is a little high).

As for Romney, when he said "self-deportation," he was actually describing something real.

The folks at the Pew Hispanic Center have concluded, I think with some reluctance, that net migration from Mexico to the United States fell to around zero in the recession year 2007. There may have been more reverse migration than inward migration since then.

But "self-deportation" and "reverse migration" are cold, abstract terms. Politicians (and pundits) need to look beneath unfeeling statistics for the effect on the lives of actual human beings.

And when you look at the RealtyTrac numbers of foreclosures in the peak years of 2007 and 2010, you find that a majority were in four states -- California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida.

When you look at the counties with high foreclosure rates, you're looking at the Central Valley, the Inland Empire east of Los Angeles, metro Las Vegas and metro Phoenix.

You're looking at tens of thousands of Hispanic homebuyers who were granted mortgages with little or no money down and that proved to be far beyond their capacity to service when housing crashed and the construction industry shut down.

Many such mortgages were issued because of government policy favoring minority homeownership and because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pushed this policy hard.

This was bad public policy that shattered people's dreams. Homebuyers had assumed they would amass wealth through supposedly inevitable housing price gains.

Instead, many -- and others who witnessed this tragedy -- gave up on the United States and moved back to Mexico.

Republicans can perhaps gain entree with Hispanic voters by supporting comprehensive immigration reform. At the very least, they need to avoid approaching this issue with the angry hostility you hear from too many callers on talk radio.

But they also need to show an understanding of the realities these people are facing. They need to show the how their policies can help them achieve their dreams.

The Republican National Committee report is not a bad start.
Op-ed:
Guess who made a quick jaunt to Israel...for the photo-ops of course
By: Diane Sori    
                                                                                                                                  
Well well...looky who finally made an official visit to Israel...Barack Hussein Obama...the very man who sees Israel as the dreaded Jewish thorn in the side of peace with his muslim brethren.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama...the man whose goal is to divvy up Israel, especially Jerusalem, to cater to and appease Hamas, Hezbollah and of course the Iranian regime (hey Obama, did you forget that ALL are terrorists and the US doesn't deal or negotiate with terrorists)...all who want nothing better than to wipe Israel off the map. 
 
That's the man who landed in Israel yesterday, and all I can say is Heaven help Israel. Mr. Photo-Op himself being there (and rest assured his face being in Israel will be plastered all over by the msm) is NOT something Israel needs or particularly wants as they have serious issues to deal with like Iran's accelerating of its nuclear program despite Obama's and the U(seless) N(ations) sanctions.
 
Diplomacy and action so far have not stopped Iran’s nuclear program”...“a clear and credible threat of military action is crucial” said Benjamin Netanyahu, while The Jerusalem Post reported that as the leader of the Jewish people, who have been threatened with destruction by Iran’s leaders, Netanyahu wants assurances that the US will launch a military strike if necessary to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, and that is something Obama is NOT willing to give him as he still wants to give diplomacy a chance.

Diplomacy my eye...he wants to give Iran time to finish their bomb...who does he think he's kidding.

And lets NOT forget that Syria’s civil war is spreading beyond its borders (and the fact that it appears they've already deployed some chemical weapons against their own people), and Egypt’s political transition into being nothing but a Muslim Brotherhood takeover. NO, Israel does NOT need Obama's 'it's all about me' visit and bloviations about making peace with those out to kill them. 
 
Obama's visit will NOT make one iota of a difference in easing tensions in the Middle East. 
 
In fact, everything Barack HUSSEIN Obama touches or has a hand in in that region blows up to bite the United States and Israel BIG time.

And lets tell it like it is...Barack HUSSEIN Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu do NOT like each other, and this personal atomicity between the two will have a direct impact on any possible policy dealings in the making. And all this falls squarely on the shoulders of Barack 'muslim-in-disguise-as-a-Christian' Obama...after all Obama refused to meet with Netanyahu while he was in New York to attend the UN General Assembly last year (remember, he went on The View instead), Obama treated BiBi like a second class citizen while he was on an official state visit to DC...making him enter and leave the White House through the 'back door' while welcoming with open arms representatives from the terrorist organization the Muslim Brotherhood through the front door. And most importantly, let's NOT forget Obama stating that the 1967 borders must be the basis for any and all future negotiations with the Palestinians.

Like that will ever happen. 
 
Obama simply does NOT understand that the armistice lines (they were never borders per se) of 1967 cannot be successfully defended with today's weapons technology that are in the hands of the Arabs. Also, and this is paramount, Israel cannot and will NOT negotiate peace with an enemy who refuses to recognize their right to exist as a Jewish state. Without that, NO part of any peace process will move forward NO matter how much Obama stamps his feet and whines. 
 
And Obama better wake up and accept the fact that Israel will NEVER divide Jerusalem for Jerusalem belongs to the Jews and the Jews alone...and the Western Wall, Judaism's most holy of sites is in East Jerusalem which will remain under Israel's control whether Obama likes it or not. And Israel will NOT grant the so-called 'right of return' to the so-called Palestinians for Israel was NEVER theirs to begin with, and there is NO such thing as Palestinians anyway...Yasasir Arafat made them up in the 1960s to further the ambitions of his militant PLO. And remember, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin offered them almost everything they demanded and Arafat rejected the offer because peace with Israel was NEVER their objective...and Obama knows this as well as Netanyahu does.

And isn't it odd that even on this supposed fence mending trip that Obama still expects Israel to make all the concessions and sacrifices while Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas continues to publicly state that NO Jew will ever be allowed to set foot in a new Palestinian state. 
 
NO...this trip by Obama does NOT serve Israel well for Barack HUSSEIN Obama is NOT their friend...and while he will bloviate and make nice-nice to BiBi before the cameras about the enduring bonds between the two countries and the United States' unwavering commitment to Israel's security (Israel has "no greater friend than the United States"), he will do so with one hand's fingers crossed behind his back and with a knife ready to stab Israel in the back with the other.