Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Netanyahu: “I have no intention of evacuating any settlement or uprooting any Israelis”

  / Jihad Watch
 
netanyahu_120813
He should stand firm on this. The evacuation of Gaza was supposed to bring peace, but brought only more jihad, as I predicted it would. The Israelis have nothing to apologize for in building houses on land that belongs to them historically, by UN declaration, by British government action, and by the otherwise universally recognized right of conquest (after the Six Day War).

“Netanyahu: I won’t evacuate settlements,” by Tovah Lazaroff in the Jerusalem Post, January 26 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has promised not to evacuate West Bank settlements. He made the comments Friday in Davos, Switzerland, amid three separate meetings he held there with US Secretary of State John Kerry on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
“I have no intention of evacuating any settlement or uprooting any Israelis,” Netanyahu said in Hebrew during a briefing for Israeli journalists on the nine-month negotiating cycle, which ends in April.
His statement, which runs counter to the assumption that a final-status agreement would involve the evacuation of settlements, was not republished by the Prime Minister’s Office.
An Israeli official cautioned on Saturday night not to equate territorial concessions Israel might make to the Palestinians with statements about settlement evacuations.
Netanyahu is “against uprooting settlements, but irrespective of where the final borders are going to be.
He thinks Jews should be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state,” the official said….
The “Palestinians” have said that that is not going to happen, and even if it did, these people would be persecuted, harassed, endangered and ultimately driven out, like the Hindus who remained in Pakistan (and what became Bangladesh) after 1948.
The most intriguing question about the latest GOP push on immigration is one that no one seems to be asking: Why does the Republican Party seem so determined to push immigration reform this year?

At first glance, it makes no sense whatsoever.

After all, because of Obamacare the electoral landscape is so tilted towards the GOP that it looks likely we'll add seats in the House and take the Senate back. With the filibuster as good as dead, why wouldn't Republicans want to write a tough immigration bill on their terms in 2015 and force Obama to either sign on to it or veto a bill that the public supports?

Furthermore, Obama is illegally giving out work permits, refusing to deport most captured illegals and he has illegitimately created a DREAM ACT by fiat. This is a man who has made absolutely clear that he has no intention of enforcing immigration law; so how do you make any kind of deal that relies on his implementing even tougher rules? Realistically, you don't. Until the immigration laws that are already on the books are being enforced, talking about making new, tougher laws in exchange for the carrot of legalized status or citizenship is a farce.

In addition, the Democrats’ policy on illegal immigration is driven by one overriding goal: they want as many illegal immigrants as possible in the United States so they can eventually turn them into voters. If they can transform 10 million, 20 million, or 50 million illegal immigrants into citizens, they'd be happy to do it because they correctly believe the vast majority of them will be Democrat voters. How could we possibly negotiate a good deal when the people who control the White House AND the Senate think like that?

Of course, some Republicans claim that passing this deal would help the GOP with Hispanics. However, there's very little evidence to support that assertion.
Ronald Reagan received 37% of the Hispanic vote in 1984, signed an amnesty in 1986, and then in 1988, George H.W. Bush got 30% of the Hispanic vote. Chances are, we wouldn’t even do that well in 2016 since Presidents tend to get the credit for legislation that’s signed on their watch. Who got credit for welfare reform and balancing the budget in the nineties? Bill Clinton or the Republicans in Congress who forced him to do it? Bill Clinton. Here’s an even better example: Who got credit for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? LBJ, who was known to drop the N-word from time to time or the Republicans in Congress who voted for it in greater numbers percentage-wise than the Democrats? Lyndon Johnson got all the credit.
If you don't believe me, take it from the biggest Republican advocate of amnesty in the Senate, John McCain.
"Let's say we enact it, comprehensive immigration reform, I don't think it gains a single Hispanic voter." -- John McCain
Worse yet, if the GOP signs on to a legalization bill that falls short of giving illegals citizenship, it's entirely possible that it would work against us politically with Hispanics. The Democrats would call it "racist," an "apartheid," and claim we are making illegals into "second class citizens." In other words, passing the bill could hurt the GOP in the short term with Hispanic voters and demographically flood conservatism out of existence over the long term if the Republicans cave yet again and give those illegals citizenship.

On top of all that, the bill that 14 Republicans signed onto in the Senate would have been an absolute disaster if it had been passed by the House. The bill legalized illegals on day one, put them on a path to citizenship and gave the same Obama Administration that isn't enforcing our laws today plenty of discretion in deciding how the law would be enforced in the future. Even the CBO, which is constrained by unrealistic rules in projecting the impact of laws said that the bill would "only reduce illegal immigration by about 25 percent a year." Since enforcing the laws that are already on the books would do that, there was absolutely no reason to believe the law would succeed. If Republicans and Democrats collaborating together came up with a law that bad, what makes anyone think the Republicans in the House could do any better? John Boehner does two things well: cry and give in. Negotiation isn't his strong suit.

So if politically it makes more sense for the GOP to wait until 2015 to take up immigration, we know the bill won't help the GOP with Hispanics and we know the Democrats have no intention of honoring any security provisions, then why bother? It's almost as if the House Leadership in the GOP is willing to pay a big price to pass a bill, even though they know it has no chance of working...and there's the big secret.

There are a lot of businesses out there that want an endless supply of cheap labor, which would be fine, except that they want everyone else to pay for it. An illegal alien with no car insurance, no health insurance, who claims he has 14 kids so he can get an earned income tax credit can work cheaper than a law abiding American. So, when the illegal crashes his car, you pay for it. When he gets sick, you pay for it. Your taxes put his kids through school. Your taxes pay the bills if he goes to jail. Your tax dollars go into his pocket when he cheats on his taxes -- meanwhile, the Chamber of Commerce crowd makes so much money off of these illegals that they can afford to donate some of it to politicians like John Boehner, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Lindsey Graham and John McCain in order to get them to keep the gravy train going.

Ironically, the reason they're so desperate to ram the bill through this year is because the political landscape looks so favorable to Republicans right now. Since the filibuster is essentially dead, if the GOP adds seats in the House and takes over the Senate, suddenly the GOP wouldn't be able to use, "It was the best deal Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would sign off on" as an excuse for signing on to a terrible bill. Additionally, both John McCain and Marco Rubio are up for reelection in 2016 and could face strong primary challenges. That means the two biggest advocates of amnesty in the Senate would both have to at least pretend that they want to "build the dang fence." and stop illegal immigration in 2015. Moreover, no legitimate contender for President on the Republican side is going to back an amnesty bill. All of them would oppose a terrible bill because the primary voters would insist on it. That means the GOP would either have to legitimately deal with the issue in 2015, which Boehner, Ryan, Rubio, McCain, Graham, etc. have no intention of doing, or they'd have to wait to see what the landscape looks like in 2017.

In other words, this whole immigration push that the GOP leadership in the House is embracing is a scam. It doesn't matter what they tell you, what they promise or how good they make it sound; immigration reform this year would be about as legitimate as a letter from a Nigerian prince.

The Inequality Bogeyman

Thomas Sowell / Townhall Columnist


During a recent lunch in a restaurant, someone complimented my wife on the perfume she was wearing. But I was wholly unaware that she was wearing perfume, even though we had been in a car together for about half an hour, driving to the restaurant.

My sense of smell is very poor. But there is one thing I can smell far better than most people -- gas escaping. During my years of living on the Stanford University campus, and walking back and forth to work at my office, I more than once passed a faculty house and smelled gas escaping. When there was nobody home, I would leave a note, warning them.

When walking past the same house again a few days later, I could see where the utility company had been digging in the yard -- and, after that, there was no more smell of gas escaping. But apparently the people who lived in these homes had not smelled anything.

These little episodes have much wider implications. Most of us are much better at some things than at others, and what we are good at can vary enormously from one person to another. Despite the preoccupation -- if not obsession -- of intellectuals with equality, we are all very unequal in what we do well and what we do badly.

It may not be innate, like a sense of smell, but differences in capabilities are inescapable, and they make a big difference in what and how much we can contribute to each other's economic and other well-being. If we all had the same capabilities and the same limitations, one individual's limitations would be the same as the limitations of the entire human species.

We are lucky that we are so different, so that the capabilities of many other people can cover our limitations.

One of the problems with so many discussions of income and wealth is that the intelligentsia are so obsessed with the money that people receive that they give little or no attention to what causes money to be paid to them, in the first place.

The money itself is not wealth. Otherwise the government could make us all rich just by printing more of it. From the standpoint of a society as a whole, money is just an artificial device to give us incentives to produce real things -- goods and services.

Those goods and services are the real "wealth of nations," as Adam Smith titled his treatise on economics in the 18th century.

Yet when the intelligentsia discuss such things as the historic fortunes of people like John D. Rockefeller, they usually pay little -- if any -- attention to what it was that caused so many millions of people to voluntarily turn their individually modest sums of money over to Rockefeller, adding up to his vast fortune.

What Rockefeller did first to earn their money was find ways to bring down the cost of producing and distributing kerosene to a fraction of what it had been before his innovations. This profoundly changed the lives of millions of working people.

Before Rockefeller came along in the 19th century, the ancient saying, "The night cometh when no man can work" still applied. There were not yet electric lights, and burning kerosene for hours every night was not something that ordinary working people could afford. For many millions of people, there was little to do after dark, except go to bed.

Too many discussions of large fortunes attribute them to "greed" -- as if wanting a lot of money is enough to cause other people to hand it over to you. It is a childish idea, when you stop and think about it -- but who stops and thinks these days?

The transfer of money was a zero-sum process. What increased the wealth of society was Rockefeller's cheap kerosene that added hundreds of hours of light to people's lives annually.

Edison, Ford, the Wright brothers, and innumerable others also created unprecedented expansions of the lives of ordinary people. The individual fortunes represented a fraction of the wealth created.

Even those of us who create goods and services in more mundane ways receive income that may be very important to us, but it is what we create for others, with our widely varying capabilities, that is the real wealth of nations.

Intellectuals' obsession with income statistics -- calling envy "social justice" -- ignores vast differences in productivity that are far more fundamental to everyone's well-being. Killing the goose that lays the golden egg has ruined many economies.


Op-ed:  
A persona built upon anger and hate
By: Diane Sori 

Yesterday, my friend, fellow conservative political blogger, and radio co-host Craig Andresen wrote in his blog 'The National Patriot' (http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/2014/01/27/the-real-obama-an-indonesian-muslim-socialist-puppet/) an article about whom he believes is Obama's true daddy. He and I discussed this in detail and I must concur that I too believe that R.M. Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwidjojo...the founder of the international spiritual movement begun in Indonesia in the 1920s...is the true father of Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

Now you all know I am NO conspiracy theorist...I poo-poo most of them as either the rantings of vivid imaginations or plants by the far left to make we conservatives look foolish, but when there are documented pictures to back up what one is saying it does have to give you pause to think...and when I was sent the pictures of Sudah even before Craig put his fingers to the computer keys, it did start the wheels turning for me as well.

Craig has laid out the case for Sudah being Obama's daddy quite well but I want to expand on it a bit just for additional clarification and to lay the case NOT for proving Sudah is his father but for Obama and his people having to prove that he is NOT.

To start, at this point where Obama was born does NOT really matter as both sides for and against his having been born in Hawaii have some validity...by the way I now personally believe he was indeed born in Indonesia...what is important is his lineage as to was he born of American citizen parents. Which by the way he was NOT as the man listed on his birth certificate was NEVER an American citizen and his American citizen mother was under the age of citizenship transfer when baby Barry was born. And the man we now believe to be Obama's father was Indonesian and also NEVER an American citizen.

Next, we all must accept the fact that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is NOT black. The four scientific racial classifications are Caucasian, Negroid, Asian/Oriental, and bi-racial/mixed race...and that is fact. And while Obama, NO matter who his daddy is, does have some Negroid blood (black) in him...his mother while white did have one very distant black family relation...this still makes him bi/racial/mixed race NO matter how much he screams of being a black man...simple fact, he is NOT. I can claim that lily-white me is black until the cows come home but the racial percentages of my genetic make-up speak the truth about what my race is...and the same goes for Obama.

Now let's run through the list of daddy suspects...the one listed on his birth certificate...on all the phonies that we've seen that is, is Barack HUSSEIN Obama Sr., a Kenyan black man. But when you compare photographs of father and supposed son they look NOTHING alike...NOT one iota do they resemble each other. Some others have said Obama is the son of Frank Marshall, and while there is a fleeting resemblance there is NOT enough to prove he is his father by any means. And the same goes for Malcolm X who he resembles even more, but resembling someone is NOT proof of anything for those resembling others is a common occurrence. Think of all the people you know who look like other people you know or even look like so-called 'celebrities'...it's just NOT enough to prove anything...in fact without genetic proof ...without DNA proof...it's quite laughable.

Now when you look at the pictures of Sudah, the resemblance is uncanny...from the bone structure, to the skin color, to the facial features, to the ears (and Obama has 'distinctive' ears as does Sudah), to the freckles across the bridge of his nose and face, to the fold lines by his mouth, to his build...to everything. This resemblance is beyond superficial or fleeting...it borders on identical. And Craig has laid out the chain of events that did bring Ann Dunham and Sudah together quite well so I won't rehash that, but I will say that it lays out the very strong possibility that Sudah is indeed Barack HUSSEIN Obama's father.

And while some will say that Obama has kinky hair NOT the straight Indonesian hair Sudah has so how can he be Indonesian...well NO one has said either Obama or Sudah didn't have any black in them. Many Indonesians have black blood in the ancestry and being that Obama's mother had one very distant black relation, the black gene would be recessive but with the recessive gene determining the texture of one's hair, it still can show-up any time down the ancestral line...as was the case with Obama..

So with that settled, now let's fast forward to when Obama came back to America as a pre-teen to live with his grandparents in Hawaii. This time frame puts him right at the time when black pride was the movement dejour. It was cool to be black. LBJs 'Great Society' was in full force. Affirmative Action was opening doors to blacks that used to be closed. Blacks were getting into colleges once forbidden to them as well as starting to rise in corporate America. Motown was still going strong with black entertainers everywhere and certain sports were starting to be dominated by blacks. And in the middle of all this sits Barack HUSSEIN Obama...a boy becoming a teenager whose mother was white and whose father...or so he believed...was black.

Poor Barry...and he was still Barry back then...was torn...was he white...was he black...what was he...where did he fit in. And so formed his racist persona built upon his anger that he wasn't light enough to pass for white (an anger he still carries with him to this day) and knowing he really was NOT dark enough to pass unquestionably for being black in this new age of black pride. But he knew he could pass for being a light-skinned black and by being black of any shade he could 'cash-in,' so to speak, on all the perks now afforded to blacks....hmmm...

And so the persona of light-skinned black Barack HUSSEIN Obama was born. He went to college by being black...he started his career (if you call being a community organizer a career) by being black...and he got involved with white radicals (like Bill Ayers) who fed on and used the collective black guilt trip to their advantage to push their socialist/communist beliefs. And Barack was ripe for molding, especially coming from a family who already embraced the communist ideology.

As laid out in Craig's article, Barack HUSSEIN Obama was indeed born in Indonesia and his Indonesian muslim background and life...a life he lived as a young boy which included going to madras schools (which you had to be muslim and an Indonesian citizen to attend)...was deep-rooted in him and remains so to this day for NO true Christian...as he claims to be....would dare to sit in Jeremiah Wright's G-D America church for 20 years. And NO true Christian would ever say, "the most beautiful sound in the world was the Muslim call to prayer."

And when you add in the fact that Barack HUSSEIN Obama never renounced his Indonesian citizenship (and his traveling on an Indonesian passport is proof of said citizenship) nor has he ever became a naturalized American...at least NO papers that we know of exist to that effect...and he would need those papers as his mother age at the time of his birth would NOT allow her to pass citizenship onto him. The only thing that would settle this conundrum once and for all would be a DNA test...and that is something we know Obama will NOT do for he dares NOT have the truth come out about his true lineage or citizenship.

So while Sudah is long dead, some of his children and grandchildren are very much alive and even getting DNA from one side helps get to the truth. And then it's up to Obama to prove that truth is wrong.

And so for now these pictures will have speak the truth for sometimes pictures do indeed speak louder than any words ever can...and more and more people are now finding that out.