Saturday, December 8, 2012

Wishing all my blog followers of the Jewish faith a very Happy Hanukkah. May the Festival of Lights bring the Light of Peace to the great nation of Israel.

We all knew this was coming...

UN demands nuclear inspections in Israel 

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

The UN is increasingly a tool of the global jihad. With cynical and brazen hypocrisy, it has been relentlessly criticizing Israel for years, while turning a blind eye to the human rights abuses that are sanctioned by Islamic law and common in Muslim states. The U.S. and all free countries should have left it long, long ago.

"UN Demands Nuclear Inspections in Israel," by William Bigelow for Breitbart, December 6 (thanks to Choi):
The UN General Assembly approved a resolution on Monday by a vote of 174-6 that would require Israel to open its nuclear program to inspection “without further delay.” The only countries voting against it were the U.S., Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. 
And the animus toward Israel doesn’t stop there; the UN also wants to convene a meeting to ban nuclear weapons from the Middle East, which would leave Israel vastly outnumbered and essentially helpless against the Islamic hordes wishing to eradicate it.
There was supposed to be a similar meeting this month in Helsinki, Finland, with all the Arab states and Iran in attendance, but the U.S. turned it down, supposedly because of the trouble in the Middle East and Iran’s intransigence on nuclear weaponry. Israel has never confirmed that it possesses nuclear weapons and has never joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), but then, neither have India, Pakistan, and North Korea, all of which possess nuclear weapons.
Iranian diplomat Khodadad Seifi hissed, “The truth is that the Israeli regime is the only party which rejected to conditions for a conference.” He vented that there should be "strong pressure on that regime to participate in the conference without any preconditions."
Israeli diplomat Isi Yanouka defended Israel, noting that Iran and Syria are not exactly friendly neighbors: "All these cases challenge Israel's security and cast a dark shadow at the prospect of embarking on a meaningful regional security process. The fact that the sponsors include in this anti-Israeli resolution language referring to the 2012 conference proves above all the ill-intent of the Arab states with regard to this conference."
In a stunning display of the moral equivalence at the UN, Syrian diplomat Abdullah Hallak told the UN that Syria was furious that the Helsinki conference was postponed because of "the whim of just one party, a party with nuclear warheads. We call on the international community to put pressure on Israel to accept the NPT, get rid of its arsenal and delivery systems, in order to allow for peace and stability in our region.”
Although the Obama Administration voted against the resolution as a whole, they voted for two paragraphs stipulating that all nations on earth adhere to the NPT and assert that countries that don’t adhere to it ratify the NPT at “the earliest date.” Only Israel and India objected. Guess which two countries are the most threatened by Islamic neighbors?...

Time to Remove Boehner as Speaker?

By: Rachel Alexander / Townhall Columnist
Time to Remove Boehner as Speaker?
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) may have finally gone too far betraying conservatives. This past week, he removed three conservative Republican Congressmen from their committee positions in retaliation for not voting for his compromises on the budget with Democrats – compromises that led us to the current “fiscal cliff.” Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) was removed from the Financial Services Committee, and Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) were removed from the Budget Committee. All three were elected with strong Tea Party support.

An aide to GOP leadership said they were removed for “not being team players.” Anther aide admittedto Roll Call that it was done out of retaliation, “You want good things in Congress and to have a good career? Better play along nicely.” After removing the Congressmen, Boehner warned other members of Congress that he will be watching how they vote.

The three Congressmen opposed the Budget Control Act last year, which capitulated to the Democrats on big spending. The Act increased the debt ceiling by $400 billion, with the ability to increase it another $500 million to $1.5 trillion. 66 Republicans voted against it. A fourth Republican, Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), who voted against the Budget Control Act, was also removed from the Financial Services Committee in retaliation.

Removing Amash and Huelskamp from the Budget Committee will make it easier for the committee to work out an agreement compromising with the Democrats on the fiscal cliff. Boehner proposed a counter-offer to the Democrats' $1.6 trillion tax increase proposal that increases taxes by $800 billion and does nothing to reduce the $16 trillion deficit. It has been widely denounced by conservative groups and leaders, including Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), who is leaving the Senate to head up the Heritage Foundation.

Matt Kibbe, president of Freedomworks, denounced the vindictive move, saying, “This is a clear attempt on the part of Republican leadership to punish those in Washington who vote the way they promised their constituents they would -- on principle -- instead of mindlessly rubber-stamping trillion-dollar deficits and the bankrupting of America.” In a letter to Boehner, Freedomworks asked that Boehner restore the three members of Congress to their committee positions.

The three Congressman are far more principled conservatives than Boehner. Schweikert's rating from the American Conservative Union (ACU) last year was 96; Huelskamp scored 92, and Amash scored 91.67.
Their ratings from the conservative organization Freedomworks were equally as high or higher. In contrast, Boehner's lifetime ACU rating is only 89.81, and if he hadn't been Speaker last year, which shielded him from most votes, his rating would have tanked even further.

Huelskamp denounced the retaliation at a Heritage Foundation luncheon on Tuesday, “It’s petty, its vindictive, and if you have any conservative principles you will be punished for articulating those.” Heasked for a list of the votes that were used to reward or punish members, but was met with “stony silence” from leadership.

This maneuver by Boehner was just the latest of several betrayals of conservatives. In September 2011, Boehner tried to force House Republicans to vote in favor of a continuing resolution to fund government that included funding for Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, the United Nations Population Fund and the Palestinian Authority. 48 House conservatives joined 182 Democrats to defeat it. Boehner's record in the House includes many votes hostile to taxpayers and conservatives, including voting for the TARP bailout of 2008.

The targeting of Schweikert is especially peculiar, since his voting was only a little out of line with leadership. During Schweikert's first year in Congress, 2011, he voted with GOP leadership 93% of the time. Huelskamp voted with leadership 91% of the time and Amash 76% of the time. Huelskamp and Amash were the only GOP House members to vote against Paul Ryan's budget plan this year, asserting that it didn't cut spending enough. They also voted against the current continuing resolution that is funding the government through March.

Why weren't other Congressmen who voted against House leadership as often as Schweikert removed from their committees? Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) voted with GOP leadership this past year93% of the time, the same percentage as Schweikert, yet Franks wasn't removed from the Armed Forces Committee. There is speculation that Schweikert was targeted because he defeated Boehner loyalist Ben Quayle (R-AZ) earlier this year when they were forced to run against each other in the same district due to redistricting. Unlike Schweikert, Quayle made sure to vote with leadership, or abstain from voting as instructed by leadership on big-spending bills.

Congressman Schweikert is one of the brightest and most articulate new members of Congress. He isn't prone to making silly gaffes, nor has he been caught in some awkward incident. All three Congressmen were backed by the Club for Growth, a well-respected fiscal watchdog organization. If House leadership is going to target the most solid, stable conservatives in Congress, they have gone too far. It is difficult to find a principled, conservative Republican who hasn't been damaged and rendered somewhat ineffective by the liberal media. Members of Congress like Schweikert represent the last hope for conservatives.

Members of Congress are elected to represent their districts, not the party establishment. The Republican Party may not be in complete lockstep agreement on every issue. But if it cannot agree on fiscal restraint, then it has lost its core ideology.

The Club for Growth warned that this could cost Boehner the speakership. The conservative blog Red State is calling to replace him, noting that only 16 House members are needed to abstain from voting for Boehner as speaker in order to oust him in January. American Majority Action started the hashtag #fireboehner on Twitter, labeling the purge of conservatives “the nail in the coffin.”

Boehner would be wise to remember the last time a Speaker of the House tangled with a conservative member of Congress from Arizona over compromising with Democrats. It didn't work out so well for Newt Gingrich. That Arizona Congressman, Matt Salmon, is now returning to Congress, and together with Schweikert they might just pull off another coup.

The Time For Meaningful Immigration Reform Is Now

America has lived with a broken immigration system for at least two decades. It’s wreaked havoc in our border states and created a frustrating lawlessness that is untenable.

It's true that our country embarked on a discussion of civil rights from the late fifties through the early seventies, but for 20 years we have failed to pass any meaningful immigration reform legislation.

While there are myriad proposals floating through Washington, D.C., with regard to immigration reform, they fall into three general categories:
* Those who rant and pledge to oppose all proposals because they stand for “the rule of law.” Sadly, they prefer to live with the reality of a broken system: 12 million undocumented individuals in our midst and a President refusing to enforce existing laws by executive fiat rather than to do what is right. Doing nothing and maintaining the status quo is actually the most liberal of all positions to take in this debate. 
* Those who prefer to tackle these challenges on a piecemeal basis. They want to break down the immigration debate into a number of separate components, starting out with those ideas with the strongest chance of passage -- such as the DREAM Act or the STEM Jobs Act.
* Those who are willing to put on the table multiple ideas for discussion and push for passage of one final reform package. This group is far from homogeneous – including their policy prescriptions for the 12 million undocumented aliens.
There is no chance of passage of any measure unless leaders come to an agreement on whether they will be for piecemeal or comprehensive immigration reform. I prefer the latter but agree that either/or is better than stalemate.

I do believe that Republicans and conservatives can muster enough support within our ranks if presented with a bill which would include the major “rule of law” provisions: border security, E-Verify, stronger penalties for illegal entry or overstay in our country and mandatory, tamper-proof, photo IDs for everyone.

Let me be clear – I do not support “amnesty.” There should be no path to citizenship for those already illegally here, other than a modified version of the Dream Act proposal and the STEM graduates. But, I do support a reasonable assimilation program combined with strict laws barring access to our generous safety net programs.

Any legislation up for final passage must ultimately meet a simple test: does this proposal put America’s interests first? Currently only 5% of our immigrants are selected on the basis of the skills and education that they bring to America. That is not fair to our country -- nor smart policy -- and it needs to change.

And while we rightfully discern which policies are in our best interests, we must keep in mind at all times that we are debating the fate of human beings -- not chattel. Appropriate respect, empathy and transparency must be assured to all who will be impacted by this process.

America needs to grow its population and do so in a thoughtful manner. We currently have a declining population of white, and frankly, of all, Americans. Left to our current trajectory, sans immigration, we could be facing the fate of Japan and most European countries: an aging and shrinking population resulting in lower GDP projections, higher per capita social costs, lower productivity, and a permanently sluggish economy.

Politics has kept Congress and the President from getting the job done on immigration reform. Most Americans, as evidenced consistently by polling data, want to see reform pass and a solution to the 12 million undocumented aliens in our country.

But consensus for passage will be more difficult for Democrats than for Republicans in spite of pundits' opinions to the contrary. Far too many Democrat campaign strategists want to continue to hammer Republicans on the subject and convince Latinos that the GOP is hostile to them and their concerns. They need to please organized labor which opposes most immigration reform proposals. And they want to avoid at all costs the optics of dissention and disagreement in their ranks by Latinos, African Americans, labor union bosses and environmental radicals.

After all, the only party which benefits from the current broken down system are the Democrats.

Prove me wrong. Where is the President in all of this? Where is his proposal? Why hasn’t the White House proposed legislation to Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid? It’s been five years and counting since the President made his first promise; and he had two full years of a Democrat House and Senate.

Therefore, it is up to conservatives in Congress to expose the real problem and to help come up with a solution. It’s the only chance we have at meaningful immigration reform in 2013.

The Muslim Brotherhood in America

Great series to learn about the cowards who hide behind the scarfs and what they're doing to our country.

Muslim Brotherhood in America
- by Frank Gaffney

The Overview

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 1: The Threat Doctrine of Shariah & the Muslim Brotherhood

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 2: 'Civilization Jihad' in America

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 3: Influence Operations Against Conservatives & the GOP

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 4: Suhail Khan, A Case Study in Influence Operations

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 5: The Organizations Islamists Are Using to Subvert the Right

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 6: Electing Islamist Republicans

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 7: Advancing the Islamists' Agendas

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 8: Team Obama & the Islamists

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 9: Team Obama & the Islamist Agenda

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 10: What's To Be Done?