Tuesday, January 8, 2013

No truer words ever said...

Peace in our time: Obama, Afghan authorities release hundreds of jihadists from prison

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

What could go wrong? No reason to be concerned. They're Islamic jihadists. That means they just will be working to build friendships across the aisle. What's that? They may try to wage violent jihad against the U.S. and other non-Muslim states again? Are you kidding? This is a gesture of good will, to which the Taliban are absolutely certain to respond in kind! What are you, some kind of Islamophobe?

"Afghanistan Frees Hundreds of Militants," from the Associated Press, January 4 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
KABUL, Afghanistan -- Some 250 prisoners formerly held by the U.S. have been released by Afghan authorities in hopes that this will lead to reconciliation in the 11-year conflict, a Defense Ministry spokesman said Friday. 
Police Maj. Jalal Uddin said that 80 were freed from prisons across the country that day, the latest batch of a total of 400 to be released this week. The released prisoners had been captured in operations against the Taliban and other groups.
"We are certain they can help to bring peace in Afghanistan and will support the government," he said. Uddin said that members of the Afghan High Peace Council as well as relatives were at the Kabul prison for the release. The council is tasked with seeking a peace agreement with the Taliban and other militant groups before NATO, including the United States, withdraws most of its forces by the end of 2014.
The council also hopes that the release of 26 Taliban prisoners by Pakistan over the past two months will help end the conflict, with the freed serving as intermediaries between Kabul and the Taliban leadership.
The U.S. military held thousands of prisoners at a facility on its base in Bagram near Kabul but, since an agreement with the Afghan government last March, more than 3,000 were transferred to Afghan control. President Hamid Karzai has criticized U.S. forces for still keeping some prisoners under custody....

The Role of 'Educators'

The Role of 'Educators'                        
Many years ago, as a young man, I read a very interesting book about the rise of the Communists to power in China. In the last chapter, the author tried to explain why and how this had happened.

Among the factors he cited were the country's educators. That struck me as odd, and not very plausible, at the time. But the passing years have made that seem less and less odd, and more and more plausible. Today, I see our own educators playing a similar role in creating a mindset that undermines American society.

Schools were once thought of as places where a society's knowledge and experience were passed on to the younger generation. But, about a hundred years ago, Professor John Dewey of Columbia University came up with a very different conception of education -- one that has spread through American schools of education, and even influenced education in countries overseas.

John Dewey saw the role of the teacher, not as a transmitter of a society's culture to the young, but as an agent of change -- someone strategically placed, with an opportunity to condition students to want a different kind of society.

A century later, we are seeing schools across America indoctrinating students to believe in all sorts of politically correct notions. The history that is taught in too many of our schools is a history that emphasizes everything that has gone bad, or can be made to look bad, in America -- and that gives little, if any, attention to the great achievements of this country.

If you think that is an exaggeration, get a copy of "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn and read it. As someone who used to read translations of official Communist newspapers in the days of the Soviet Union, I know that those papers' attempts to degrade the United States did not sink quite as low as Howard Zinn's book.

That book has sold millions of copies, poisoning the minds of millions of students in schools and colleges against their own country. But this book is one of many things that enable teachers to think of themselves as "agents of change," without having the slightest accountability for whether that change turns out to be for the better or for the worse -- or, indeed, utterly catastrophic.

This misuse of schools to undermine one's own society is not something confined to the United States or even to our own time. It is common in Western countries for educators, the media and the intelligentsia in general, to single out Western civilization for special condemnation for sins that have been common to the human race, in all parts of the world, for thousands of years.

Meanwhile, all sorts of fictitious virtues are attributed to non-Western societies, and their worst crimes are often passed over in silence, or at least shrugged off by saying some such thing as "Who are we to judge?"

Even in the face of mortal dangers, political correctness forbids us to use words like "terrorist" when the approved euphemism is "militant." Milder terms such as "illegal alien" likewise cannot pass the political correctness test, so it must be replaced by another euphemism, "undocumented worker."

Some think that we must tiptoe around in our own country, lest some foreigners living here or visiting here be offended by the sight of an American flag or a Christmas tree in some institutions.

In France between the two World Wars, the teachers' union decided that schools should replace patriotism with internationalism and pacifism. Books that told the story of the heroic defense of French soldiers against the German invaders at Verdun in 1916, despite suffering massive casualties, were replaced by books that spoke impartially about the suffering of all soldiers -- both French and German -- at Verdun.

Germany invaded France again in 1940, and this time the world was shocked when the French surrendered after just 6 weeks of fighting -- especially since military experts expected France to win. But two decades of undermining French patriotism and morale had done their work.

American schools today are similarly undermining American society as one unworthy of defending, either domestically or internationally. If there were nuclear attacks on American cities, how long would it take for us to surrender, even if we had nuclear superiority -- but were not as willing to die as our enemies were?

On Revenues, Obama Has Just Begun To Fight

By: David Limbaugh / Townhall Columnist
On Revenues, Obama Has Just Begun To Fight
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell tells us the tax issue is behind us and that we can now move on to spending. Really? What makes him think the GOP will succeed this time when it couldn't last time?

The just-concluded fiscal cliff deal included no material spending cuts, which the GOP justified by saying it had achieved locked-in rates for most of Bush's tax cuts, which would force Obama to seriously discuss spending cuts and entitlement reform as part of the upcoming debt ceiling negotiations.

But a White House memo announcing the deal said that postponing the sequester for two months "will give Congress time to work on a balanced plan to end the sequester permanently through a combination of additional revenue and spending cuts in a balanced manner."

Does that sound as if the White House has satisfied its appetite for further "revenues"?

The memo is not the only evidence of Obama's intention to further punish producers. After the deal, he said, "Cutting spending has to go hand in hand with further reforms to our tax code so that the wealthiest corporations and individuals can't take advantage of loopholes and deductions that aren't available to most Americans."

We should be concerned because this deal didn't just raise income taxes on the wealthy. It raised capital gains, dividends and estate tax rates, as well as phasing out the personal exemption and deductions for individuals making $250,000 and couples making $300,000, which can add up to serious dollars. What further squeezes does Obama intend to impose?

It wasn't just Obama making threats of additional taxes, by the way. On CBS' "Face the Nation," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said, "In this legislation, we had $620 billion ... but that is not enough on the revenue side." She said we must rid the tax code of unnecessary loopholes and "unfair" benefits that help those who don't need it.

So much for the Democrats' new attitude toward taxes. How about spending? Should we be any more optimistic that Obama will finally be willing to cooperate on spending and entitlement reform?

Though the last page of the post-deal memo casually mentions entitlement reform as an afterthought, the very first paragraph includes this sentence: "And this agreement ensures that we can continue to make investments in education, clean energy, and manufacturing that create jobs and strengthen the middle class."

In Obama's mind, tax rate hikes on the "rich" will provide him extra spending money to further tinker with the economy, redistribute wealth through spending allocations, waste billions more on green energy programs that private enterprise won't support, and increase the federal government's control over education. Obama has no interest in balancing the budget, even with tax hikes. He only views new revenues as a license to spend more.

So why do McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner think they're now in a better bargaining position to achieve spending cuts and entitlement reform? Well, that's just the question George Stephanopoulos asked McConnell on ABC's "This Week." "Are you prepared ... to see the country default if the president won't sign the spending cuts you demand?" asked Stephanopoulos.

McConnell replied that it shouldn't get to that point -- that the parties could begin working now and get a deal. He said: "It's time to confront (our spending addiction). The president surely knows that."

Seriously? Obama's known this for years, so what has changed? Is McConnell saying that Obama will now be serious about cutting spending because he's already achieved tax hikes on the rich, which we've already seen is a woefully unwarranted assumption? Or is he saying the GOP can finally expose Obama as a charlatan if he won't agree to cut entitlements?

If it's the latter, McConnell never said so, nor did he demonstrate how the GOP would be in any better position to make its case to the public than it has so far -- which is to say, not at all.

I don't grasp the thought process leading GOP leaders to believe either that Obama will now come to the table on spending and entitlements or that they would now be in a better position to expose his unreasonableness to the public if he were not to.

But maybe we're making progress if they finally believe they have some leverage and will be willing to use it.

We will never convince the American public that Obama is bankrupting the country if Republican leaders don't start making their case to the people repeatedly, obsessively, with multiple megaphones.

So more power to them if they're going to be aggressive this time in articulating their case. We're quickly approaching the point that we have little to lose with a government shutdown, because if we don't cut spending and reform entitlements very soon, we'll run out of this Monopoly money, and the government will go broke.

Please let us finally have this debate in public -- a debate the liberal media will be forced to cover because it will happen in the context of a threatened government shutdown. Holding my breath.

And an anti-American cabinet is now complete
By: Diane Sori

First Obama nominates 'Swiftboat' John Kerry for Secretary of State to replace Hillary 'Benghazi' Clinton, and now he nominates the biggest anti-Israel person he could find for Secretary of Defense.

Out of all the possible people he could have chosen for this important position, Obama chooses RINO extraordinaire, former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, saying “he is the leader that our troops deserve."

NO...he is NOT...two Purple Hearts for service in Viet Nam do NOT a Secretary of Defense make.

And while I am in NO way diminishing his service in Viet Nam, I am seriously concerned how a former Republican Senator could fall so far from grace as to become the nominee of the most anti-military, anti-Israel, and anti-American president our country has ever seen.

As Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said this past weekend, "This is an in-your-face nomination of the president to all of us who are supportive of Israel.

And support Israel Hagel does NOT.

In a 2006 interview Hagel said, "The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here...I'm a United States senator. I'm not an Israeli senator."  This statement has led some to believe that Hagel believes Jewish lobbyists control our foreign policy.  In 2007, Hagel and two other Senators introduced a resolution calling for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Also, Hagel's positions regarding Hezbollah and Hamas are overly lenient and condoning while condemning Israel for the trouble in Gaza.  Yeah, he's real supportive of our closest ally and friend isn't he (insert sarcasm here).  And add to this that Hagel openly calls for direct talks with Iran, which knowingly antagonizes Israel, and you have one very anti-Israel, pro-Iran nominee.

In fact, the 'Emergency Committee for Israel' ran an ad about Hagel voting against designating Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization and that he voted against having unilateral sanctions be placed on Iran.  Hagel was also one of only two Senators to vote against the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, saying it would undercut efforts to talk with Tehran.  And, he was one of 12 Senators who refused to sign a letter to the European Union trying to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

And with statements, actions, and sentiments such as these, Hagel faces a tough confirmation process by a very pro-Israel Senate, and very rightly so. 

Senators in both parties have spoken out against his nomination but Senator John Cornyn (R-Tex.) sums it best, “I will not support Chuck Hagel's nomination...His record and past statements, particularly with respect to rogue nations like Iran, are extremely concerning to Israel.”

Also, Hagel does NOT have the support of many in the military, and why would he when he has given statements like he did in a 2011 interview with the Financial Times, when he said the Pentagon was 'bloated' and needed to be 'pared down.'

This from a man who has little if any business experience which is critically needed when dealing with monetary appropriations for our military budget.  Nor does Hagel have international relations experience, NOT a wise choice with the Middle East situation being what it is.

There are far more experienced people whom Obama could have picked...people who stand strong behind our military...who have NOT advocated deep cuts to our military budget...who have NOT gone against his fellow Republicans by opposing troop surges in Iraq and Afghanistan...who stand by our ally Israel...and who understand the threat a nuclear armed Iran poses to the world.

But wait...by picking Hagel, along with 'Swiftboat' Kerry, and John (muslin loving) Brennan to head the CIA, Obama has surrounded himself with people who think just like he does...people who do NOT have America's best interests at heart...people who would be happy to see Israel wiped off the map...people who turn a blind eye as Iran becomes a nuclear player...people who believe in one world government...as witnessed by Hagel's statement promising as Secretary of Defense to work to "strengthen our country's alliances and advance global freedom, decency and humanity" in the effort to "build a better world for all mankind."

Global...world...alliances...where are the words to protect the United States...to protect our interests against those out to kill us...to support our military as they fight to win...to honor and defend our Constitution above all else...sadly those words are missing.

Yeah, Obama picked the right man alright...a man to help him lead our country to defeat...heaven help us all.