Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Obama Throws Israel to the Wolves

“Accepting defeat after eight days means that the Zionist regime is becoming increasingly weak." — Saeed Jalili, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.
by Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch

Barack Obama pressured Israel to accept the current ceasefire agreement with Hamas that was devised by Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi, and Israel’s worst enemies are thrilled.

Hamas declared November 22, the day the truce went into effect, a “national holiday of victory.” Israel National News reported that “mosques in Gaza City blared through their loudspeakers: ‘Allahu Akbar (G-d is great), dear people of Gaza, you won. You have broken the arrogance of the Jews.’”

A Hamas sheikh, preaching at the funeral of one of those killed in Gaza, declared that Hamas had just won a great victory, one that would prove to be “the first nail in the coffin of Israel.” The Financial Times noted that “on Friday, the midday prayers were dominated by declarations of victory, with some preachers drawing a line between the latest conflict and the Prophet Mohammed’s victory over the infidels.”

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad crowed: “Zionists have reached the dead point and have no other alternative but officially recognizing and bowing to the absolute right of the Palestinian nation.” The speaker of Iran’s Parliament, Ali Larijani, agreed, saying: “The victory of Gaza highlights the necessity to continue resistance and Jihad against the Zionist regime. With their patience and perseverance, the people of Gaza showed that the only way to confront the Zionist regime is Jihad and resistance.” The secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Saeed Jalili, said that “accepting defeat after eight days means that the
Zionist regime is becoming increasingly weak,” and that the “counter-resistance is getting stronger.”

Meanwhile, Moussa Abu Marzouk, Hamas chief Khaled Mashaal’s deputy, has already stated obliquely that Hamas has no intention of keeping to the terms of the ceasefire anyway. Marzouk rejected calls for Hamas to stop amassing weapons, saying: “These weapons protected us and there is no way to stop obtaining and manufacturing them.”

Yet the truce terms require, according to the Voice of America, “‘all Palestinian factions’ to stop all hostilities toward Israel from Gaza, including rocket fire and attacks along the Gaza-Israel border.” So if the truce forbids them to fire upon Israel, what is Hamas going to do with all these weapons? Or is Marzouk signaling that Hamas has no intention of keeping the truce at all?

For its part, Islamic Jihad was eager to emphasize that the jihad against Israel would go on. “The battle with the enemy has not ended,” a masked jihadist from the group maintained. “Our choice in fighting and getting weapons to defend our people is going on.”

Another indication that the jihad against Israel will flare up again soon enough came from the imprisoned Saudi Sheikh Nasser bin Hamad Al-Fahd, who praised the jihad bombings in Riyadh in 2003 and was jailed shortly thereafter. In a fatwa posted last week on a jihadi website, al-Fahd declared, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, that “the Jews are the leaders of the infidels and the greatest enemies of Islam and the Muslims in the present age,” and that therefore Muslims who waged jihad warfare against Jews everywhere would be discharging “one of the most important duties and greatest virtues.” Al-Fahd added that “any guarantees of protection granted them by tyrannical and infidel governments are meaningless, especially when the Jews are attacking Muslims as they please.”

Al-Fahd may be in prison, but his view of the jihad against Israel as a religious obligation incumbent on every Muslim is not by any means restricted to him alone. So many Muslims worldwide share it that even in far-off Indonesia, a Muslim group last week began offering “jihad registration forms” to those believers who wished to wage jihad against Israel.

Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad Badie, meanwhile, reminded the world that “jihad is obligatory” for Muslims, and dubbed truces with Israel a “game of grand deception.”

All that may be an elaborate exercise in false bravado and self-delusion. It may be that the ceasefire is not the victory for the forces of jihad that those forces are claiming. But the signals are unmistakable: over the past year Israel wrote no fewer than twenty messages to the United Nations, asking for support in defending itself against rocket attacks from Gaza. The UN didn’t acknowledge any of those letters, but was stirred into action almost immediately when Israel began to defend itself – not to declare support for the Israeli defensive actions against the relentless rocket attacks, but to compel Israel to stop.

And after just eight days, they succeeded, courtesy of Barack Obama. When Israel’s defensive actions began, Obama declared clearly his support for the Jewish state’s right to defend itself, but now he has made another declaration – one that is just as clear, albeit tacit: that when Israel does defend itself, he will move heaven and earth to stop it from doing so, before the damage to the jihad war machine gets too extensive.

The jihadis got the message loud and clear.
Saving Free Elections

Saving Free Elections 

By: Robert Knight  / Townhall Columnist

Pawing through the ashes of the Romney defeat, it’s clear that if the Republican Party wants to compete nationally, it has to do several things, such as re-message timeless traditional values, attract more young and minority voters, particularly Hispanics, and do a better job of getting out the vote. 
But this will be moot if the integrity of the voting process is not restored.

From Republican Rep. Allen West’s improbable recount loss in South Florida, to reports of voting machine irregularities, to the hundreds of precincts in Ohio and Pennsylvania that reported a virtual 100 percent vote for Barack Obama and zero for Mitt Romney, something is clearly wrong.

“It’s kind of a weird coincidence that, in Philadelphia, where more than 50 precincts reported no votes for Romney, that Democratic officials kicked GOP poll watchers out of the polls,” Heritage Foundation scholar Hans von Spakovsky told me in a phone interview. “They went to court, and that took a couple of hours, so what happened while they were gone?”

One of the biggest problems is the increase in early voting and mail-in ballots without a photo ID requirement. As the leftwing Brennan Center points out, there are relatively few examples of vote fraud reported on Election Day itself. That’s partly because the media are not interested, and because it’s far easier to cheat during extended periods of mail-in balloting.

Ohio’s Wood County, in the northwestern part of the state, has a population of 126,355, with an estimated 21 percent younger than 18 who can’t vote. That means that only about 100,000 residents can legally vote. Yet the secretary of state reports that 104,461 people are registered to vote. To make a long mystery short, consider that Wood County is home to Bowling Green University, which has 20,000 students.

“When those students graduate or leave school, many don’t cancel their voter registration, which leaves the Wood County Board of Elections facing a bit of a conundrum: How can you tell when a voter is no longer a voter?” the Columbus Dispatch asks in an article, “Vote Fraud in Wood County?”

The director of the Wood County Board of Elections told the paper that the operating policy is to wait two national election cycles and then try to contact the voter to see whether they still live in the county. This means that students who voted in 2004 and 2008 and left campus long ago could have voted there anyway in 2012 as well as wherever they went.

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires states to purge their voter rolls, but not to remove names until two national election cycles have passed. Moreover, the states are not required to compare their lists against those of other states. This leaves a lot of room for fraud.

In the next two years, expect the Left to sponsor legislation to introduce early voting in the 18 states that don’t have it. They also will try to have more photo ID laws blocked by the U.S. Justice Department and weaken laws that require even minimal IDs for mail-in ballots.

At the same time, conservatives will make the case for requiring photo IDs for voting and for mail-in absentee ballots, expanding citizenship requirements, and ending or at least reducing early voting.

One of the main arguments for early voting is that it’s supposed to increase turnout. It doesn’t. With more states allowing it, turnout was significantly down, with about 5 million fewer people voting in 2012 than in 2008. In the 10 battleground states – Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin, turnout percentage decreased in all but one state, Iowa, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Early voting undermines the secret ballot, reduces the importance of the national election day, costs taxpayers far more than a single voting day, forces campaigns to spend more over a longer period of time, and, finally, prevents voters from exercising a change of heart if more information surfaces before Election Day (Benghazi, anyone?). “We don’t let jurors decide in a trial before all the evidence is heard,” says conservative activist attorney Andy Schlafly. “Elections are just as important.”

Help may be on the horizon. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case in which Arizona is challenging the Ninth Circuit’s ruling overturning that state’s proof of U.S. citizenship requirement for voting. Only three states – Arizona, Georgia and Kansas – have enacted proof of citizenship laws, with the Kansas law taking effect in 2013, and Arizona’s in limbo until the Court rules.

In another important voting case, on Nov. 9, the Court agreed to revisit Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by hearing Shelby County, Ala. vs. Holder, Department of Justice, et al. The law requires the U.S. Justice Department or a three-judge federal panel in the District of Columbia to approve any changes in election laws or districting in nine Southern states and some local jurisdictions around the nation. Congress enacted the law to prevent racially-motivated voting violations.

In 1966, in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, the Court upheld the Act, citing the clear history of racial discrimination. But the Court also indicated that if conditions change, the constitutionality of the Act might be revisited.

That would be a good thing. Citing the Voting Rights Act, the U.S. Justice Department under Eric H. Holder, Jr. blocked perfectly good photo ID voter laws in South Carolina and Texas despite a 2008 Supreme Court decision upholding a similar law in Indiana.

There’s no evidence that voter ID laws “suppress the minority vote.” There is evidence, however, that in some places where such laws have been neutralized (Pennsylvania), vote fraud occurred.

Did vote fraud make the crucial difference in the 2012 election? Maybe, maybe not. It’s difficult to account accurately for millions of ballots.

And that’s just the way the Left likes it.

US-China Trade at Recession Levels

In a article, we indicated that the U.S. Census' data on the value of U.S.-China international trade was overstating the growth in the value of that trade because of the falling value of the U.S. dollar with respect to China's currency, the renminbi (or as its often referred to in foreign exchange, the yuan):

Here, we see that the growth of China's exports to the United States is continuing its trend of slow growth, while following its typical seasonal pattern. Typically, China's exports to the U.S. peak each year in the period from August to October, in advance of the U.S.' holiday shopping season.
In reality, because the value of the U.S. dollar has been falling with respect to the value of China's currency since early 2010, the value of trade shown in the chart above represents a lower quantity of actual goods and services traded today than what similar values in 2010 would indicate.

Today we're going to show that's exactly the case. In our first chart, we're showing the value of goods and services imported by the United States from China priced in both U.S. dollars, as reported by the U.S. Census, and priced in Chinese yuan, going by the official exchange rate recorded by the U.S. Federal Reserve.

Value of U.S. Imports from China, January 1985 - Present

In the chart, we've tweaked the vertical scale for the Chinese yuan so that it corresponds to that currency's minimum value with respect to the U.S. dollar from January 1994, when the value of the yuan was set to be worth just 11.46 cents (or 0.1146 U.S. dollars). As of October 2012, the relative value of the dollar has fallen so that one yuan is now worth 15.96 cents (or 0.1596 U.S. dollars).

With that visual adjustment made, we discover that from the Chinese perspective, there has been almost no increase in the value of China's exports to the United States since 2010, and very little growth since 2007.

Our second chart shows how U.S. exports to China have fared in terms of both U.S. dollars and Chinese yuan:

Value of U.S. Exports to China, January 1985 - Present

Measured in terms of China's currency, we find that the value of U.S. exports to China has actually been declining since they peaked in January 2010, which coincides with the peak of that nation's economic stimulus spending, which it had earlier specified on 6 March 2009. (The announcement of how the Chinese government would implement its massive stimulus program is the economic event that finally arrested and reversed the steep decline of the U.S. stock market at the time following the U.S. fiscal crisis of 2008.)

Our final chart shows the year-over-year growth rates for the U.S. imports from China calculated in terms of the U.S. dollar-based data and for U.S. exports to China calculated in terms of Chinese yuan-based figures, since these units are how each nation's economy would actually see the value of trade imported from the other nation:

Year Over Year Growth Rate of U.S.-China Trade, January 1986 - Present

Through September 2012, we find the year-over-year growth rate of trade between the two nations is at near-zero levels of growth, indicating near recessionary conditions if we take this measure as an indication of the relative health of the economies of both nations. But perhaps the real news is what factoring in the falling dollar does for our impression of the health of China's economy.

Previously, using just the U.S. dollar-based growth rate of U.S. exports to China, we found that China's economy had entered into recession in December 2011.

But after factoring in the falling value of the dollar over time, which results in the growth rate of trade between the two nations being overstated on the Chinese side of the trade balance, we find that China's economy really slipped into recession some two months earlier, in October 2011. This month coincides with the beginning of a period of contraction for China's manufacturing industries.

Going forward, we'll be using this improved version of our trade growth rate chart in our analysis of the relative economic health of both the United States and China.

Democrat operatives launch class-warfare website

'More of our elections going forward will feature' divisive tactic was launched last week by the Campaign for America’s Future, or CAF.

CAF’s co-director, Robert Borosage, explained the need for such a website.

“America’s growing diversity and its increasingly socially liberal attitudes played a big role in this election. But looking back, we are likely to see this as the first of the class warfare elections of our new Gilded Age of extreme inequality,” he wrote in a statement.

“More and more of our elections going forward will feature class warfare – only this time with the middle class fighting back. And candidates are going to have to be clear about which side they are on,” he wrote.

Continued Borosage: “In 2012, candidates who supported the economic interests of the many over the few won their elections. Populism was the voice, but economic opportunity was the message. The pundits may wring their hands, but in the future it won’t be values voters, angry white men or soccer moms that win elections. It will be class war.”

The website does not feature a mission statement and is unclear about exactly how the group will go about attempting to wage class warfare.

The site explains how Obama’s 2012 campaign utilized class warfare and set the stage for the deployment of such tactics in future elections.

“Obama’s campaign built its message on class war battles that broke out in the Republican primary, as challengers sought to bring down ‘the main from Bain,’ Mitt Romney,” notes the site.

“In the end, the keys to Obama’s reelection were his calls for raising the taxes of the wealthy and his support for reinvesting those revenues in education and jobs to rebuild the middle class and to protect programs like Medicare from cuts.”

The site hails how Obama repeatedly portrayed Romney as a “walking example of the out-of-touch elite, an opponent of the auto industry bailout that saved an entire manufacturing sector, and a 1 percenter who would jeopardize social programs, education, and Medicare in order to cut taxes on his rich friends.”

CAF writes that Obama’s reelection now sets the stage “for class warfare as a potent and necessary tool to promote rebuilding the economy from the bottom up, rather than perpetuate the right wing’s failed trickle-down policies.”

Occupy, Soros, Democratic Party

WND previously reported how CAF has partnered with Occupy.

CAF is funded by Soros’ Open Society Institute as well as by the Soros-funded Tides Center, which channels funding to hundreds of progressive and far-left groups.

Tides has been connected to the Occupy movement since its beginning.

Another grantee of Tides is Adbusters magazine, which is reported to have come up with the Occupy Wall Street idea after “Arab Spring” protests toppled governments in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. The Adbusters website serves as a central hub for Occupy’s planning., which has joined Occupy, is funded by Tides. CAF’s board of directors includes President Eli Pariser.

CAF’s co-founder and director Roger Hickey, who also co-founded the Soros-funded Economic Policy Institute, was reportedly heavily involved in crafting the foundations for President Obama’s health-care law.

CAF campaigns for universal health care, immigration reform and progressive education initiatives.

CAF is deeply tied to progressive politicians from the Democratic Party, many of whom routinely are featured at CAF events.

Just last year, Nancy Pelosi was the featured speaker at CAF’s “America’s Future Now” conference in Washington, D.C.

In 2008, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., was honored at CAF’s annual dinner for her “advocacy in Congress,” noted Discover the Networks.
Benghazi...word games vs the truth
By: Diane Sori

Benghazi...just the word reeks of cover-ups and lies.

Benghazi should have brought down this president...should have exposed the truth about what Ambassador Stevens discovered...should have given new meaning to aiding and abetting the enemy...

Benghazi should have done all this but sadly did none of it because those in power are still arguing over the words, 'terrorism' vs 'video.'

You know what...who cares what word is used to describe the nightmare known as Benghazi...'We the People' care about the four American deaths...'We the People' care about the cover-up of those deaths...and 'We the People' care about what Ambassador Stevens found out and why he had to be murdered to keep him quiet.

Those are the things 'We the People' care about NOT about what word is used to describe the 'supposed' why it happened...'We the People' want to know the truth...'We the People' demand to know the truth!

And enter center stage into the mix Obama's willing sacrificial lamb, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who became the queen of the talk show circuit who did Obama's dirty work for him...the woman who filled the airways with lies about a video knowing it was anything but a video...knowing the truth but hiding it well.

That is until yesterday.

Susan Rice, testifying behind closed doors before Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte, gave an oh so obviously rehearsed testimony and issued a written statement, and when you filter out all the flowery words used to divert blame and attention off herself it comes down to to one of two things..she either bold faced lied on her own accord to cover for Obama knowing full well that she was on his short list for the coveted Secretary of State position she so desperately wanted or she was deliberately given erroneous information from higher ups to keep Obama's culpability in the four deaths out of the limelight through the election.

And that she did in either scenario aided by a media who have been in Obama's pocket since he first appeared on the national scene.

At the meeting Rice continued to insist that the statements she made on the Sunday, September 16th, talk shows were based on 'talking points' provided by the intelligence community, but she did acknowledge that she had been wrong to say Benghazi was caused by a video but that she never intended to deceive the American public.
Yeah right (insert sarcasm here).

And even while continuing to blame the CIA for providing her with that information, Rice would NOT acknowledge that the Obama administration had known for days that the attack on our consulate was a terrorist attack. So, once again someone in this administration refuses to take blame for their own actions. 
After her testimony the three Senators said they were more confused than ever before. In fact, Senator Grahm said he was 'more disturbed' after Rice's testimony...'more disturbed' goes way beyond mere confusion.

"It is clear the information she gave the American people was incorrect when she said that it was a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video," McCain said after the meeting with Rice. "We are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get concerning evidence that was leading up to the attack on the consulate," continued McCain.

And again all this is well and fine but even with this Senator McCain is still arguing over word semantics instead of getting to the truth as to why Benghazi happened. 
And I believe the truth to be that Ambassador Stevens discovered that the Obama administration was running guns and weapons to the Muslim Brotherhood (and maybe even to al-Qaeda) both in Syria and in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood, the very group coming to power all across the Middle East...the Muslim Brotherhood, on the US terrorist list...the Muslim Brotherhood is who Barack HUSSEIN Obama sides with, deals with, and negotiates with...and this is what Ambassador Stevens found out and this is why he had to be silenced....and this is why all the lies and all the coverups had to be done.

All in my humble opinion of course.

So stop with the arguing over what started the attack and get to the why it happened...and hold those involved accountable for it.

"We the People' demand no less.