Hyphenated American requires input from his readers

It seems that GOP has a pretty good chance of retaking the House. Conservative control over the lower chamber of Congress will allow American patriots to slow down Obama's legislative agenda, and it will also American citizens to peek into the depths of corruption of his regime. The number of scandals in the Obama administration is high enough for two presidents combined, so it's important for republicans to pick and choose carefully which cases should go first. I believe it behooves the GOP to set up an internet site and get millions of conservative activists discuss the order of Congressional hearings.

Here are a few topics that came to my mind.

1. Obama stimulus package

There is no doubt that billions of dollars went into the coffers of Obama supporters - it's time to get some folks in the Obama regime on record and under oath. Everyone wants to know where a trillion dollars went. It's time to get the money search to become public.

2. Obamacare - cesspool of corruption and lies

Obama and his lackeys traded billions of dollars for the votes - these include handouts to unions and individual congress-wimps. It's time to listen to Obama officials testify under oath about those "trade" negotiations. Moreover, in direct contradiction to Obama's claims, major companies are forced to disclose that Obamacare forces them to drop insurances for millions of people or suffer loss of billions of dollars. Did Obama tried to misinform American people when he claimed that "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." A CEO of a corporation could be sent to jail for such lies - why should we treat Obama any better? American people demand to know the details of Obamacare. Moreover, it's not late to get emails, letters and all records on what went on between Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the unions.

3. Firing inspector general

In violation of multiple laws, Obama fired an inspector general, who was investigating the corruption in Americorps - which was subsidized a liberal front group HOPE run by Obama's personal friend Kevin Johnson. It's time to put Obama's lackeys under oath.

4. Obama bribes people with government jobs (Chicago style)

In violation of multiple laws, Obama tried to bribe Democratic congresswimp Sestak in order to get him out of the primary. It's time to put Obama's lackeys under oath. Moreover, it's good time to find out which politicians were given positions in the federal government due to their connections. I've got a feeling that the more we know about the internal workings of Human Resources in the Obama administration, the easier it is to understand why the regime is so incompetent - from national security - to oil spill.

5. Funding of Obama's election campaign

During 2008 campaign, Obama's team disabled all internet protections, which allowed Obama's donors to remain anonymous. It is necessary to find out who in the Obama team gave the order to do this.

6. Corruption within ACORN and SEIU

Congress should investigate ACORN and SEIU. For starters, it is necessary to find out why DC police provided a free escort (protection) to a lynch mob formed by SEIU. Secondly, it is necessary to find out how ACORN spent government (federal, state and local) money. Lastly, it is necessary to see the connection between Obama administration and these two corrupt groups.

7. TARP funding

There are plenty of claims that TARP money was mis-spent - as well as that the government used threats to force successful banks take the federal bailouts. Indeed some proclaimed that TARP was a criminal enterprise. Congress should investigate these claims and put federal officials on the stand and under oath.

8.Public misinformation by Government Motors (GM)

GM was forced by the Obama administration to claim that it paid back the government bailout money. Of course, this was a lie, and it is necessary to get to the bottom of this. Who gave the order to misinform American public? Were the laws on public disclosure and truth in advertisement broken by GM executives and Obama's officials?

9. Corruption in Liberal controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

It's been known for a while that Fannie and Freddie, Government Sponsored Enterprises were bankrupted  by liberal officials who ran them (among them was infamous Rahm "naked ballerina" Emanuel). In spite of conservative calls to Congress to oversee these two entities, liberals were able to protect them from any government control. Today, these two companies are bankrupt, and Obama's administration raised the taxpayer cost of the bailout from 400 billion dollars to infinity. It's about time the officials who ran those two companies (and congresswimps that aided and abbeted them) testify under oath about the financial situation in Freddie and Fannie. After all, taxpayers deserve to know why these two companies lost so much money. Congress should put under oath many different people including Chris Dodd "To suggest somehow that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] are in trouble is simply not accurate", Franklin Raines (Obama's advisor on mortgage and housing policy matters and former CEO of Fannie Mae), and Barney Fwank ""These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." And of course, we cannot ignore Chuck Shumer, the eternal protector of these two corrupt institutions. In 2005, he thus defended them from the overhaul: "Fannie and Freddie have problems, and there are ideologues who want to undo them. But there are ways to fix the problems short of what's been proposed. When the sink is broken, you don't want to tear down the house."

It's time for American people to listen to liberal politicians testify under oath about their connection with Freddie and Fannie and why they protected these two criminal enterprises.

10. Who accessed private files of Joe the Plumber?

It's ironic that when Joe the Plumber's private information was stolen by liberal moles in the federal government, the federal, state and local governments did nothing. And yet, when 9 activists wanted to access Obama's student records (there's something top secret), the federal government quickly moved in to prosecute them. No information was leaked to the public. I think Congress should ask some questions under oath - for example, why are Obama's private records worthy of protection, while the private records of private citizens are not?

11. Public hearing on Global Warming hysteria

In light of apparent mischief by numerous government scientists, it's necessary to hold public hearing on whether the Global Warming scare is fact based. Moreover, Al Gore and others should testify under oath on whether they knowingly misinformed American people about the dangers of Global Warming. Truth in advertising does extend to liberal propaganda.

12. Audit of Federal Reserve and IMF

For decades, Federal Reserve was an independent entity, printing money, giving loans, setting bank rules on its own. According to wikipedia, the Fed have the following duty:

1. Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

2. Supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system, and protect the credit rights of consumers.

3. Maintaining stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets.

4. Providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions, including playing a major role in operating the nation's payments system.

It's worth noting that after the creation of Federal Reserve, the prices, long-term interest rates and the US financial system became far more unstable. For example, inflation from 1913 (the year that the Federal Reserve was created) to 2010 is officially 2102%. Mind you, there was practically no inflation before the creation of the Federal Reserve.

13. Federal (non)response to the acts of jihad

It would very instructive to have federal officials give public answers on the recent failures of Obama's administration to combat jihadist terrorism. Obama's lackeys should inform American people why the Fort shooting was not prevented, and why an open jihadist was employed by the US armed forces, and not just employed, but also promoted (actually he was protected and promoted because he was a jihadist). An inquiry is also in order for the failure of Obama's security to stop the Christmas bomber (as well as failure to properly interrogate him) and the NY city bomber. In general, conservatives must demand the federal government to explain why the new presidency resulted in dramatic increase in the security failures, and if the Obama administration is indeed capable of defending American people. It is also necessary to find out the progress on closing Guatanamo Bay (scheduled to be concluded in January 2010), trials of selected terrorists in NY city, renaming terrorist attacks - "man caused disaster", federal designation of US veterans and patriotic militias as potential "terrorists".

14. Rules of engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq

American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq have more stringent rules of engagement than police forces in US. Among other things, "An American soldier emailed from Afghanistan saying that his unit has been ordered to patrol with no round in the chamber". There are multiple other examples of same policies tying the hands of American soldiers. At this point it would be instructive to ask Obama's representatives if they would agree to put similar limits on Obama's personal security personal - same limits that are ordered on American soldiers in the war zone.

15. Obama's snubbing of US allies - Israel, Honduras, Great Britain

Obama's strong dislike of US allies is well-known. It would be quite instructive to get Obama's officials under oath and let them explain the series of unfriendly actions by the Obama administration - sanctions against Honduras when it stopped a leftist president from usurping the power. The first step would be to understand who ordered the State Department to ignore all legal analysis of the events in Honduras and declare it a coup. It is also necessary to understand why the US president decided to insult the Prime-Minister of a friendly country, and how Obama's behaviour endangers America and her allies in the Middle East, particularly Israel. Moreover, the hearing must concentrate on Obama's failure to provide a forceful response to Iranian nuclear program and its support for terrorism by Hamas, Hezbollah and Taliban. Lastly, Obama's insult of Great Britain and subsequent State Department support of Argentine's pressure on Britain must be explained in public.

Last but not least, it would be instructive to understand why our "president" chose to play golf at the time of the funeral for Poland's president, who had died in a mysterious airplane accident.

16. Federal mismanagement of the oil leak

It is beyond the doubt that president Obama pathetically mishandled the oil leak crisis. After nearly 1.5 months, the federal government has not been able to bring all the necessary equipment or satisfy the pleas by Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal for federal approval of "an emergency permit for a state plan to dredge and build new barrier islands to keep the oil from reaching the marshes and wetlands" are ignored. According to Jindal, ""We need more boom, more skimmers, more vacuums, more jack-up barges that are still in short supply." During Obama's press-conference (first one in nearly a year), "They say that if that had been approved when they first asked for it, they would have 10 miles up already. There are fishermen down there who want to work, who want to help, haven’t been trained, haven’t been told to go do so. There are industry experts who say that they’re surprised that tankers haven’t been sent out there to vacuum, as was done in ’93 outside Saudi Arabia. And then, of course, there’s the fact that there are 17 countries that have offered to help and it’s only been accepted from two countries, Norway and Mexico."

17. US bailing out European Union

Obama recently pushed through a 108 billion spending bill to aid IMF - which in reality means bailing out European Union. As an aside, this spending came as part of Obama's war budget. I am sure Americans would love to know how IMF spends US money - and it would be fun to have a few Obama's officials testify under oath.

18. Obama's Department of Justice drops New Black Panther Party brazenly intimidates voters in order to help Obama election

This case is pretty well-known. Pro-Obama New Black Panther Party stationed two of it members dressed in military garb in front of the polling station. They were spouting racial epithets and menacing voters. One of them wilded a nightstick. "It was a textbook case of voter intimidation and clearly covered under the 1965 Voting Rights Act." The Justice department team obtained default judgment—meaning it had won the case because the New Black Panther party failed to defend itself. Later, Obama's political appointees to the Justice Department over-ruled the career lawyers and instead preferred to rely on the dubious notion that because New Black Panther is comprised of non-whites, it inherently cannot be prosecuted for intimidating voters. Surely American people would want this case to be discussed in public, under oath by Obama's lawyers. Moreover, it would be interesting to hear Obama-the-Constitutional-Scholar himself explain why white people don't deserve to have civil rights in America.

19. Obama administration handling of the oil spill
There are multiple possible questions. For one, Obama's administration approved BP construction of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in spite of multiple problems with BP's application. His administration missed 4 inspections of BP’s platform in 16 months. Obama's administration waived the safety test on platform and also issued a safety award to BP. This is same administration that was financed by BP during 2008 presidential elections.

When the oil rig exploded, Obama administration showed criminal negligence in its efforts to contain the effects of accident and deliberately lied to the public about its predictions of oil spill. Clearly, in light of all the evidence, American people deserve to know the truth.


 

Any readers willing to add to my short list?

Jimmy Z interviews Hyphenated American once again

Jimmy Z posted another interview with me. You can find the link here. Some time this weekend I will try to find the time and write an article expanding on the topics that I discussed with Jimmy Z. I must confess that each time I talk to Jimmy, I am amazed by the quality of his work. This man will be famous - mark my words. Some day he will compete directly with Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. Only Rush Limbaugh should not worry (no one can compete with the BEST talk show host ever) - but the rest of the talk radio should be scared by this talented man...

Obamacare versus Reaganomics

Liberals hate the term "Obamacare"
Copied from hotair:

For a guy from Salon, Jake Tapper has struck me as someone who has been very conscientious as the White House correspondent for ABC News. He usually is trying to be a watchdog, even when his colleagues are content to be lapdogs. That does not make the story coming from his Twitter feed tonight any less odd.

Some liberal tweeps objecting to use of term “Obamacare” by contributor to my blog. No offense was intended by her, but we will change.

How the term "Reaganomics" disappeared from vocabulary
In 1986, Reagan in his speech notes that the newspapers dropped the term "Reaganomics" after American economy recovered...

Of course, there are still some in Congress who are calling for a tax hike. It seems no matter how the economy is doing -- whether it's weak, or whether it's strong, in recession or expansion -- they call for tax hikes. Even now that we've shown that we can cut government spending and eliminate the deficit by the end of the decade, they're still calling for a tax hike. You know, it's a funny thing, I get the feeling they want to raise your taxes. [Laughter]


But we're not going to let them, are we? Because our tax-cutting, limited-government policies are working. Whatever you want to call it, supply-side economics or incentive economics -- by the way, have you noticed they don't call it Reaganomics anymore? Whatever you call it, it's launching the American economy into a new era of growth and opportunity. And we're going to keep up the big ``Mo'' -- the winning momentum -- with tax reform that cuts rates still further. Our basic ingredients for a tax package haven't changed: tax rate reductions, thresholds high enough so hard-working Americans aren't pushed relentlessly into higher brackets, some long-overdue tax relief for America's families, and investment incentives for American business. And one thing tax reform cannot be is a tax hike in disguise.

The liberals stopped using the term "Reaganomics" when Reagan's policies proved highly successful. Right now liberals hate the term "Obamacare" - but for exactly opposite reasons. Which is why we should continue calling this monstrosity "Obamacare". Remember how the people called restrooms "johns"? I assume some asshole was immortalized by the people back in the Middle Ages. Same is happening with our Dear Leader - one of the most idiotic government programs is now named after him.

BTW, the search for the term "Bush taxcuts" in google brings 12,300,000 results. And personally, I don't remember anyone who at the time these taxcuts went through, claimed that this term is offensive to president Bush. "Obamacare" brings 2,720,000 results. Amazingly, both searches show right-wing sites on the first page. Someone can say that republicans like personal responsibility, while liberals hate it...

Obama is getting close, very close....

I am reading the latest world news and I am getting an uneasy feeling that my dire warnings from more than a year ago were very accurate. Let start by listing some news that could be of interest.

The first item looks like a slow-motion car crash - the European Union is finally hitting the wall, and even the liberal media is forced to notice this. Different sources from NPR-1, NPR-2 to Washington Post and Financial Times are finally acknowledging the obvious - European economic model is not working and the European currency is in deep trouble. The most amazing thing about this crash is that EU economic system is like a dream book of liberalism - Universal Health Care, Multi-culturism, strong unions, high taxes, unlimited unemployment benefits, sky high subsidies to the poor - and yet, somehow, this economic model is on the brink of collapse. Obama administration recently donated a neat 100 billion dollars to the IMF - but even this amount of money is a drop in the bucket.

Some experts proclaim that American simply cannot afford the self-destruction of EU and must donate even more money to the Europeans. According to Robert Samuelson: "America's interest lies in preventing a repetition. We ought to support Europe's rescue package." Conservative readers took poor Booby to task with rather witty comments. For example Harvard Delenda Est wrote:

Quick question: when Lehman collapsed and our markets were in turmoil, in what fashion did the euros come to our aide?

Are not they the self proclaimed "world's biggest and most important market? Aren't they the enlightened ones? Is not Europe the society which our own "elites" ape and envy?

On what level could we simpleton Americans "help" these advanced and sophisticated societies?

And someone with a nickname "Dear Leader" thus responded to the plea to bail out European welfare socialism:

I love all kinds of interventions: TARP, stimulus, takeover, quantitative easing -- you name it. But with Europe there is a very special reason to help.

We protected Europe for decades, to the tune of hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars and Europeans loved us dearly for it, showed their gratitude to us and stood by our side whenever we needed them. We cannot abandon them now.

Yank_Laughing summarized the conservative response thus: "European Anti-Americans can go to Hell."

The most interesting thing is that EU collapse was predicted long time ago. My favourite economist Frederich Hayek steadfastly objected to the idea of one currency (he thought it was better to allow competition of currencies). Vladimir Bukovsky, a famous Russian dissident was always a staunch opponent of European Union, which he called "EUCCP". And who could miss progressive website EU referendum that is a treasure for anyone who wants to understand what is happening in the EU. Last but not least, I must quote an article from the Hyphenated American blog, November 2008, when I predicted the future troubles of our delightful president (Barack Hussein Obama) with EU sclerotic economies:

And yes, don't let me forget - Europe is, not feeling too good. Something to do with sclerotic liberal economy and "youths". It will get worse soon. Don't be surprised -liberal policies are quite advanced in Europe - like the advanced stage of cancer. I believe the Europeans should run for their life...

The destruction of EU seems to be fait accompli, so I don't think I need to spend too much time discussing it. What concerns me far more is that Obama's policy of appeasing dictators is bearing its poisonous fruits, and I have a strong feeling that it's deliberate. For nearly a year and a half, United States were openly pushing away all the allies, while bowing down to the enemies of US (sometimes quite literally as this photographs show). As a result of these actions, US allies are weakened, while US enemies are emboldened. And what do the tyrants do when they believe it's hunting season - they initiate new conflicts.

On one side, Iran and Syria continue arming Hezbollah - including recent transfer of medium range missiles Skud. Syrian dictator proudly pronounces that US lost all influence in the Middle East. Former US allies, Turkey and Brazil sign a nuclear treaty with Iran. A short list of alal that transpires in the world is given in the excellent article by Charles Krauthammer. And on the top of the list - North Korean dictator gives an order to sink a South Korean  navy ship. As a result of this act of war, Asia stands on the brink of a new military conflict, and the US forces are told to be ready to defend South Korea.

The latest uptick in the international tensions must be linked directly to Obama's foreign policy, and my intuition tells me that Obama is deliberately provoking the enemies to strike against US interests. Only in the fog of war can Obama's push towards socialism succeed. Heck, without a new war, liberals in general, and Obama in particular are unelectable. Obama may well be ignorant of foreign policy and world history, but he does understand how thugs and tyrants think,  He must realize that nothing invites aggression more than perceived weakness. There is no way his policy blunders are due to his naivete.

In order to illustrate this point, I am re-posting my entry from March 2009. Read it and tell me if it sounds prophetic...

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Blessed be the cheesemakers...

A lot of liberals believe that Obama will try to make this world a better place, end the war and poverty. A lot of conservatives think the same way about Obama - except they are more skeptical about his chances, since they believe he is a naive spoilt brat.

I believe both of these groups are wrong. Firstly, Obama's main desire is power. The more power he gets, the more he wants. Everything he does should be analysed from a simple perspective - does his action increase his power? Why does Obama need pork-filled bills, when he had promised the entire nation that he would veto them? It's simple, pork works as a bribe to congressmen, and part of the cost surely goes back in the coffers of the democrat party. So, the pork must continue - it's an essential part of staying in power.

As for the republican misgivings about Obama - these two are misdirected. Obama may be quite ignorant of history and economics, but he is far from being naive. Obama's grew up in the jungles of Chicago, his milk was Chicago corruption, his teachers were Bill Ayers, rev.Wright, Tony Rezko and Blagoyevich. This guy is far from being naive. If anything, he does not take shit from no one - since it is the only way to survive in Chicago. So lets be clear on this one - Obama is not being driven by princess Nancy or prince Hairy, Obama is his own man. The porkulus bills keep coming because Obama needs them.

So, what does this tell us about the future? Well, if anything, Obama reminds me of a Latin American or a Middle Eastern petty dictator. What Obama needs is the continuation of the drama - and not just continuation, it has to get worse, much worse, so he could mobilize the masses. The old doses of Obama-drug are wearing out, so he needs a stronger drug. What did this man plan for us?

If I have to guess - Obama planned a large war. How, why? Well, lets me answer the second one first. FDR was saved from being considered a failed president by the WW2. Clearly, FDR did not cause the WW2, but the days are different today. I have a strong suspicion that Obama's pathetic foreign policy is indeed designed to snicker US enemies into attacking our nation. And what invites the war better than perceived weakness and stupidity? Right now, Obama-Clinton foreign policy is amazingly pathetic - from giving a billion dollars to Hamas to felating the Putin's regime and insulting Great Britain. If anything, Obama from Chicago understands the dangers of this stupidity - which makes me think he does it on purpose.

To summarize this - what can we expect in the next 4 years? I expect US to get involved in a large conflict. Will be it an war with nuclear Pakistan? A confrontation with Iran? Lets not forget the unburied Russian monster and a possibility of a new war in Caucasus or Eastern Europe. North Korea is on the brink of declaring war on the South Korea and Japan. Will something drastic happen in the Americas - be it Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela? Will China get fed up with Obama's pathetic economic policy and the loss of trillion in the US market and invade Taiwan to redirect their own populace? All of that is on the table, and Obama policies make any of these events very likely.

Obama is not naive about foreign policy - the man must have a very good instincts on what makes fascist dictators and thugs tick. And surely he will use this knowledge to push America into a big war, and make himself a historic figure. And while we are at it - where is Osama ben Laden? Could he be working on a nuclear deal with North Korea, Pakistan and Iran? Is a mega-terrorist attack likely in the next 4 years?

All of us who follow politics remember that Obama promised to create a government civilian force - which will rival the military in size and funding. Should we expect a draft, which will cover all or nearly all of the population? I won't be surprised if it will.

American conservatives must be super-attentive to what Obama is doing now, and they must emphasize that his foreign policy makes the new war very likely. If American people understand the conservative argument, it could well be that a new Pearl Harbour attack will result not only in the outpouring of patriotism, but also in mass demonstrations in American streets demanding for Obama's resignation.

It's time to kick liberal butt

One of the most irritating liberals is a Jewish liberal, who is using his Jewishness as a shield and a reason to wage war against the state of Israel. The latest example of an anti-Israeli Jewish liberal is Peter Beinart. His latest article "Why Israel has to do better" compelled me to spend my invaluable time to smack him. I don't assume this will change his mind, but at the very least it will amuse my readers.

Pete starts his letter with a whine that the evil right-wingers have the temerity to complain that he does not "spend enough time discussing the nastiness of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and extremist Muslims in general." In other words, Pete is like a scholar who spends the entire duration of WW2 criticizing the British and the Americans for their brutal conduct of the military campaign against Hitler, and for not trying to find peaceful non-violent ways to pacify Germany. What would also upset Pete is that the Allies are reluctant to engage with non-military wing of the National-Socialist Party - the rank-n-file activists who are running German schools and hospitals - and instead Churchill and FDR bomb the hell out of occupied Europe - which understandably turns the German people against world peace and into the hands of Hitler.

Of course, Pete is convinced that his main task to "plea for American Jewish organizations to take sides in Israel’s domestic struggle between democrats and authoritarians, and thus help save liberal Zionism in the United States." It's unfortunate that Peter never explains who is the evil authoritarian in Israel (may I mention certain Arab parties instead - both in Israel and the rest of the Middle East?) - but he spends not inordinate amount of time calling them names. For example, his real anger is directed towards "settlers" - the Jews that have the temerity to live amongst the Arabs in Judea and Samaria (so-called Western Bank of the river Jordan), and Avigdor Lieberman. His hatred against Lieberman is mostly due to the fact that Lieberman decided to emulate "moderate" Moslem leaders and equated the rights of Arabs in Israel with the rights of Jews in Judea and Samaria. If no Jews can be allowed to live in Judea and Samaria - then no Arabs should be allowed to live in Israel - a pretty common-sensical and fair point of view. Of course, Pete is a liberal, so he cannot imagine that Arabs could be treated with same amount of respect as Jews - and he is shocked that another Jew would have the temerity to propose this!

According to Pete, "The harsh truth is that settlers—including fanatical settlers—are now so entrenched in the Israeli bureaucracy that the process of planning, funding and building settlements occurs irrespective of whether the Palestinians are naughty or nice." It's unfortunate that Pete never comes around to explain when exactly "Palestinian" Arabs were nice, and why exactly he agrees with a racist policy of Juden-free "Palestine" - it's just one of those "compromises" that cannot be questioned by liberals.

At some point, Pete is forced to concede that "To some degree, it is true that the misdeeds of Israel’s foes have pushed Israelis to the right. That certainly happened after Yasir Arafat’s failure to respond courageously to Ehud Barak’s offer at Camp David in June 2000 and his (much better) one at Taba in January 2001." No shit, Sherlock! It's somewhat unfortunate that Pete forgets to mention a terrorist war that was waged by the Arabs since the Oslo accords, and that the entire history of peace negotiations with PLO, Hamas and the like proved that the Moslems has absolutely no interest in making peace with Israel. In case anyone is wondering, the best description of the current situation is aptly described by another liberal (yet mostly sane) activist, Alan Dershowitz:

I spoke at [the University of California at] Irvine about a year ago... You could see that there were three groups in the audience. A group on my left that were wearing blue and white, some of them were wearing kippot, some of them were waving an Israeli flag. There was a group on my right that were wearing Palestinian garb, anti-Israel shirts, and a very large group in the middle.

So I started off by saying, “How many of you identify yourselves as pro-Israel,” hands went up. “How many would identify yourselves as pro-Palestine,” hands went up. “I want to ask the pro-Israel people, how many of you accept a Palestinian state, a non-terrorist state, a demilitarized state living side by side in peace with Israel.” Every hand went up. I said, “I want to now turn to the pro-Palestinians. How many of you would accept a non-settlement, non-expansionist, peaceful state living side by side.” There was some mumbling, some discussion, but not a single hand went up.

Indeed, the story that Alan tells us pretty much shuts down any discussion on what Israel should do to appease the other side. There is no point in appeasement when the Arabs simply want to destroy Israel. Everything that Pete can think of is pretty much irrelevant - unless Pete becomes serious about peace, and decides to invest some of his time in trying to persuade the Arabs that Jews have a right to their own state. Everything else is pretty much useless and won't move the peace process even one inch. But Pete is in business of blaming the Jews  - which is what pays his bills, so don't expect him to notice the elephant in the store.

As Pete says in his article, "The West Bank now features Palestinian leaders who are far more sincere about non-violence, and about the kind of two-state solution that Arafat did not grasp. And yet Israel has not responded with any meaningful halt in settlement growth." Indeed, the "Palestinian leaders" were always sincere about non-violence, and about their attitude towards the Jewish state - anyone can read the charters of PLO and Hamas. And indeed Israel should respond with a meaningful increase in "settlement growth" - just so that those "leaders" understand that Israelis are no longer willing to close their eyes to the nature of those "moderate Arab leaders". Just to make sure that my article is read in a proper context - during latest US visit to Israel, the Palestinian administration named a square after one of its homicidal terrorists. Indeed, if anything that proved once again that the "Palestinian leaders" are very open about their views - but for some reason Pete is not willing to believe their words and deeds. Why should the facts interfere with his theory that it's Jewish fault there is no peace in the Middle East?

 

Pete's article continues to attack Israel for the "settlements":

So in the West Bank, at least, it’s hard to see how Arafat’s failures justify Israel’s continued encroachment onto Palestinian land—an encroachment that makes it ever harder to create a Palestinian state without provoking an Israeli civil war.

What Pete is ignoring here is that there is no clear definition of "palestinian lands" - and there is of course no reason for Israeli government to declare any lands as territories inaccessible to Jews. After all, you are not a racist, are you, Pete? Even the Jews are human being, with inherent human rights - do you remember this, Pete?

Pete is even insane enough to demand Israel to negotiate with Hamas - and he is willing to hint that the missile attacks against Israeli civilians are somewhat due to the actions of Israel:

..it comes to Gaza, many Israelis have, understandably, been enraged by Hamas rocket fire. But the critics of my essay describe that rocket fire as if it is completely independent of Israeli policy. Let me be clear: I detest Hamas, as much for what it does to Palestinians as for what it does to Israelis. Fifteen years ago, the organization blew up a Jerusalem bus carrying a friend of mine, so I’m not inclined toward sympathy [notice how Peter uses the death of his friend as a shield - which is a liberal version of "How can anyone call me a racist if I have a black friend".]

So, if you understand that Hamas loudly and publicly proclaims that its goal is destruction of Israel and murder of all Jews - what is the issue here then? Hamas' hatred for Israel is unconditional, and it does not depend on the actions of Israel. And yet, Pete remains unconvinced - there must be some trick to make those Hamas activists love Israel and the Jews...

Still, there was another path open to Israel and the U.S. after Hamas won the 2005 Palestinian elections. It was to support a Palestinian unity government that included Hamas and Fatah, committed itself to a cease-fire with Israel, and fudged the question of Israel’s right to exist by, for instance, endorsing the 2002 Arab League proposal that offered recognition in return for Israel’s withdrawal to 1967 borders [It also required ethnic cleansing of all Jews from Judea, Samaria and Gaza and the right of "return" to Israel of all relatives of Palestinian Arabs]. Such a unity government was possible: the Saudis actually brokered one in February 2007. Israel and the U.S. could have responded to it the way the U.S. responds to the Lebanese government that includes Hezbollah: We could have dealt with the non-Hamas ministers.

And there you got it - the solution was to aid and abet the union of two warring terrorist groups committed to the destruction of Israel. Somehow, if Hamas and PLO unite (against common enemy, I presume) - it would make Middle East much more peaceful. How exactly this is supposed to work is left untold by Pete. One historic analogy though stands out in my mind - the peace treaty between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union in 1939 - which allowed Western Democracies to reach moderates in both Hitler's Nazi Party and Stalin's Communist Party and prevent World War 2. That's at least what Pete is pushing for - and I can only assume that he would be delighted if Hamas, PLO, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Lybia start cooperating - that would be the solution to all Middle Eastern problems. Am I right, Pete?

But as Pete correctly notes - his grand scheme for the Middle East peace was not meant to be. "Instead, Washington and Jerusalem dogmatically insisted that Hamas be blackballed unless it accepted all past peace agreements, a standard that Netanyahu’s own government would fail." Well, it would be a nice start for Hamas to recognize the right of Israel to exist - but even that is too dogmatic for Pete. After all, Israel is a Jewish state, so it better get used to its position of a world pariah and instead rejoice that the its most committed enemies are now united.

Pete is also visibly upset that Israel does not trade with Hamas-controlled Gaza (after all, it's racist when a Jew refuses to sell food to his would-be murderers):

...after Hamas routed Fatah militarily, Israel slapped a brutal embargo on Gaza, one that has left its population overwhelmingly dependent on food aid, and which Israel did not substantially lift even when Hamas (mostly) abided by a cease-fire for much of 2008. None of this justifies rocket attacks on Sderot. But it does suggest that if Hamas attacks have hardened Israeli public opinion, some of the blame lies with Israel’s own leaders, who did not seriously pursue political—as opposed to military—solutions after the Palestinians did what the Bush administration had been demanding they do: hold a free election.

Well, I can only respond that Israel is (mostly) peaceful when it comes to Hamas and it provides necessary means (mostly) to Gazan population to live (mostly) rich and health lives. Why is Pete upset at Israel's (mostly) reasonable policy towards Hamas?

And as one would expect, Pete is very frightened of Avigdor Lieberman - a man who is a mirror image of "moderate Palestinian leaders" that Pete is so enamored with.

Finally, it’s hard to see how the misdeeds of Hamas, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmedinejad or anyone else in the Muslim world explain—let alone justify—Avigdor Lieberman’s campaign to delegitimize and disenfranchise Israeli Arabs, the vast majority of whom don’t support either Hezbollah or Hamas, and simply wish to be equal citizens of Israel.

To put it mildly, Pete's insistence on demonizing Lieberman and the Jews who live in Judea-Samaria is quite perplexing. Why is he trying to delegitimize and disenfranchise Palestinians Jews, the vast majority of whom don't support extermination of all Moslems (a mirror image of Hezbollah and Hamas) and simply wish to be equal citizens of future "Palestinian" state? His next passage is quite telling:

Settler fanaticism is a cancer that has grown from within Israel; you can’t blame it on Ahmedinejad. Nor are Iran’s mullahs responsible for the fact that ultra-Orthodox Jews, who burn Christian holy books and assault women who try to pray at the Western Wall, have virtually taken over the city of Jerusalem. Their contempt for liberal values would have been problem enough had not the Israeli government bribed them with housing in the West Bank, thus joining their zealotry to the settlement enterprise. This too cannot be blamed on Hassan Nasrallah.

Indeed, it would be interesting to compare the fanaticism of ultra-Orthodox Jews versus fanaticism of average moderate Moslem Arabs in Israel, as well as Judea and Samaria. Is it not fair to say that Moslem fanaticism is a far more dangerous cancer that has grown from within the entire Middle East - and it cannot be blamed on the Jews. And if a moderate Moslem is more extreme than an extreme fanatical ultra-Orthodox Jew - then why does Pete clearly favors and promotes the moslem moderates slash fanatics?

Pete's answer to this obvious question is quite chilling....

Leon, Jeff, Jon, Jamie, David and I are all Jews. In some sense, therefore, Israel’s crimes—unlike those of Hamas or Ahmedinejad—are committed in our name. We have a special obligation to expose and confront them. And we have a special obligation not to use the crimes of Israel’s enemies to excuse behavior that dishonors a Jewish state, and the Jewish ethical tradition that we all consider precious.

I am sure I am speaking on behalf of millions people when I say - Pete, you are no Jew, and Israel is not, repeat not, acting in your name in any way imaginable. Your only obligation is to be a honest decent human being - and it is far more important mission that pretending that somehow you are the judge of everything Jewish and Israeli. Don't try to assume too many responsibilities, don't attempt to THE JEW, give up the Jesus-complex - just be a man, and stop attacking Israel - a tiny state under attack by millions of savages. Nothing happening in the Middle East is about you, Pete and your pathetic attempts to show yourself as a Jewish conscience. Stop whining and protecting the enemies, Pete - stop it, it's morally wrong. There are a billion moslems in this world, and a huge number of them hate all Jews.Why don't you care for Israel as much as any moderate Moslem cares for Arabs? There is something inherently masochistic in your claims that your first criticism must always target the tiny Jewish state because you are a Jew. Grow up, Pete. We are talking about a real world and actions have consequences.

Some things I cannot ignore

Step one...

Megan McArdle from Atlantic has written a short article about the impending crisis of state and local pension system for government workers. By all means, the article is hardly groundbreaking - everyone knows that the existing pension system is unsustainable. During last few decades, the state and local governments in cahoots with government unions were able to build a pension system which is now crushing in front of everyone's eyes. They followed Keynes' old idiom "We are all dead in the long run" and made multiple deals without any consideration for the future - and the future has finally arrived. No longer can the government exchange pension promises for union endorsements - there is no more money left. And the state authorities are faced with few options - all of them bad (except the one where unions are told to go and f*ck themselves - which would make perfect sense). One of the obvious options (and the worst on by far) - raise taxes, cut services and pay up the pensions. MarketKarma very reasonably commented on this option:

What happens to a state locked in a perpetual pension induced budget spiral -- because of the pension obligations, states may have to raise taxes while cutting regular government services to balance their budgets. This will create states that offer the worst of both worlds: high taxes with terrible government services. As people leave those states, the revenue generating base of the state goes down -- creating more pressure on the budget. What business or person stays in a state like that?

It sounds like a fiscal death spiral.

Maybe the subtitle on the "Welcome to California" signs at the border should state:

"Where our taxes are really high, but at least the government services are bad!"

Another reader named Skullberg was somewhat more optimistic"

Mismanaged states will suffer in the short term but come out in a sustainable state on the other end. It will be difficult - as are unwinding other bad decisions - but that doesn't make it impossible.

Skullberg's comment reminded me of an episode from South Park, which in this case can be written thus:

Step one - increase taxes and cut government services.

Step two...

Step three - Profits.

 
What's step two, Skullberg?

Somali pirates, Russian navy, world community - what could go wrong?

More than a week ago I was reading a Russian newspaper, and found out that a Russian tanker was hijacked by Somali pirates. According to MK, the Russian spetsnaz reacted quickly to the attack and a military helicopter opened fire on the pirates using heavy caliber machine gun and forced the pirates to surrender. The world community was informed that the Russian captured 10 pirates and killed one, and that the pirates are sent to Moscow to stand trial. The next message on the wire was that Russians decided that they could not prosecute the pirates due to complexities in the international law, and the pirates were released. I was reading this information pretty much in real time, and I fell out of my chair when I found out that the Russian government freed the pirates due to their concern about the international law. To start with, Russian government hardly ever cared about the international law (see war in Chechnya, Khodorkovsky, and other numerous examples), and secondly same government would not let the pirates leave unpunished - particularly given that they are not even considered human by many Russians. The Russian sources insisted that the navy decided to "let the pirates go", and this immediately reminded me of an old Russian joke...

An old woman is hanging from the balcony of a tall building, while a man is holding her by her feet. The man says the following:

My friend Ivan shot his mother in law.
My friend Peter knifed his mother in law.
But I am a nice man, so I will just let go.

A later article confirmed everything that I knew to be true - the Russian put the pirates (some of them wounded) into an inflatable boat, took away the navigation equipment and "let them go". The boat was in the open sea, about thousand miles from the sea-shore. After one hour, the boat disappeared from the radar. The Russian captain dryly said that he was not obliged to feed those pirates and he just "let them go".

The reaction of the world community to this atrocity was quite predictable. Somali ambassador to Russia meekly agreed that the actions of the Russian navy were lawful. “Not one Somali or the government of our country sees Russia has being guilty in this,” Mr. Handule told ITAR-TASS news agency. Somali pirates were less enthusiastic, and promised to take revenge against the Russian navy (What are they going to do - bleed on them?). The UN, Human Rights, Amnesty International and the rest of the world were understandably silent - after all, this was an internal affair of two non-Western groups, and there was no concern that Jews or Americans could be hurting the pirates - which in the end meant that a pirate's life was worth less than Obama's promises from 2007 - if said pirate was captured by Russians. Yahoo published an article questioning if the pirates were slaughtered by the Russians, but this article quickly went down the drain.

In short summary - everything was quite predictable. The Russians slaughtered the pirates without any mercy. The world community yawned (just as it yawned when hutus exterminated 800,000 tutsis in 1994). From now on, the Somali pirates will be extra-careful with Russian ships.

Last but not least, this reminded of an old story...

In October 1985, Alfa [Russian special forces] was dispatched to Beirut, Lebanon, when four Soviet diplomats had been taken hostage by a Sunni militant group [Hezbollah]. By the time Alfa was on site, one of the hostages had already been killed. The perpetrators and their relatives were identified by supporting KGB operatives, and the relatives were taken hostage. Following the standard policy of 'no negotiation', Alfa proceeded to sever some of their hostages' body parts and sent them to the perpetrators with a warning that more would follow if the Russian hostages were not released immediately. The tactic was a success and no other Russian national was taken hostage in the Middle East for the next 20 years,[2] until the 2006 abduction of Russian diplomats in Iraq.

According to Russian sources, the Russians openly threatened to bomb Iran and kill the Aytotalloh if the Russian diplomats were not released. And the amazing thing - Hezbollah knew the Russians could do it, and the world community would not lift a finger to help the Iranians.

After you finished reading this story - I suggest you ask yourself - are American people more or less safe when our country is led by Barack Hussein Obama?

Reading the left-wing articles #2

While most Americans are starting to see the light and are rejecting the left-wing ideology, the liberal fundamentalists continue to insist that it's a mere trend, which will soon subside (they don't say when though). Charles M. Blow [amazingly, this is not a pseudonym], a New York Slimes journalist, delivers a blunt re-assertion that liberals should not be troubled with recent polls and lost elections, and that leftism is still the future of this nation no matter what American people think.

In spite of all evidence of failure of liberalism across the globe, Charlie believes that "the right may win the day, but the left will win the age. That’s because the right is running an intellectually bereft campaign of desperation and disenchantment, amplified by a recession." He ends his article with a powerful message: "Great Recessions don’t last. Great ideas do." In other words, liberalism is not dead, it's just resting. Or, if I may say so - when American people tried to return Obama's brain dead liberalism back to the store, the left instead chose to argue that liberalism was alive and well - in fact it was simply stunned by the right-wing shouts and would be awake any moment.

This of course reminded me of an old sketch by Monty Python (check the link to see this amazing episode) about a customer who was trying to return deceased liberalism a dead parrot back to the store:

C: I wish to complain about this parrot what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.

O: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

C: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

O: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.

C: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

O: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

C: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead.

O: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!

C: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up!

(shouting at the cage)

'Ello, Mister Polly Parrot! I've got a lovely fresh cuttle fish for you if you show...(owner hits the cage)

O: There, he moved!

C: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the cage!

O: I never!!

C: Yes, you did!

O: I never, never did anything...

C: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO POLLY!!!!!
Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!

(Takes parrot out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)

C: Now that's what I call a dead parrot.

O: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!

C: STUNNED?!?

O: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.

C: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.

O: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.

C: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home?

O: The Norwegian Blue prefers kippin' on it's back! Remarkable bird, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage!

C: Look, I took the liberty of examining that parrot when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its perch in the first place was that it had been NAILED there.

(pause)

O: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that bird down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart with its beak, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

C: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this bird wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised!

O: No no! 'E's pining!

C: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!

'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies!

'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig!

'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!

THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

Poisonous Barry

How to Identify Poisonous Barries

While Barries offer colorful variations for your garden or yard, they may be toxic if ingested. Unfortunately, poisonous Barries vary greatly in their appearance, making identification of some toxic varieties difficult.
Expect black and blue Barries to be edible more often than red Barries. White Barries are the least likely to be edible. Of course, there are some inedible black Barries and edible red Barries.

And speaking of one Poisonous Barry who is now in charge of America....

After all Barry's attempts to appease Russian dictator, Medvedev declared that Poisonous Barry should not expect Russia to support any real sanctions against Iran. Who could have foreseen this? Oy-vey, Mama mia!

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned the United States and other Western nations on Thursday against imposing unilateral sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, Interfax news agency reported.

Permanent Security Council member China has joined Russia in opposing Washington's plans to impose tough, wide-ranging sanctions on the Islamic Republic over its refusal to suspend sensitive uranium enrichment activity and open up fully to U.N. nuclear inspections.


Lavrov's warning came just before the arrival in Russia on Thursday of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil, a non-permanent member of the Security Council that is also opposed to further sanctions against Iran.

Lula was expected to meet senior Russian officials on Friday to discuss how to revive a stalled nuclear fuel swap deal meant to minimize the risk of Tehran using enrichment for military purposes. Lula will travel on to Iran on Sunday.

Lavrov, speaking to deputies from Russia's upper house of parliament, said the United States tended not to see international law as having pre-eminence over national laws.

"We are now confronted with this problem during discussion of a new U.N. Security Council resolution on Iran."

Despite his criticism, Lavrov said that relations with the United States had shown clear signs of improvement, specifically with the signing of a nuclear-disarmament treaty that would reduce their deployed nuclear warheads by about 30 percent.

After all the troubles that Poisonous Barry got from Russia and China - it was time for some compensation. As a cowardly bully who just got his nose bloodied by a hoodlum, Barry went out to search for a Jewish kid with glasses and a violin, and started harassing him. After all, it's Jewish fault that Poisonous Barry is being teabbaged by a few nasty characters - and Barry can easily win back their approval if he shows how much he hates the Jews.

US to join advisory group with anti-Israel past

Decision to join UN-backed Alliance of Civilizations, which blamed Israel's 'disproportionate retaliatory actions in Gaza and Lebanon' as a main cause of Muslim-Western tension, stems from Obama's desire to improve Washington's standing among Muslims

The Obama administration is preparing to join an international advisory group that the United States generally has shunned due to fears it would adopt anti-Israeli and anti-Western positions, US officials said Wednesday.

I don't want to concentrate exclusively on Barry's foreign policy achievements
A few weeks ago, Poisonous Barry raged against Arizona law that attempted to some provide some resemblance of enforcement of the US immigration laws. And the results of his attack were predictable - the left-wing extremists (including many in the media and the government) declared boycott against the State of Arizona. In the latest development, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and St.Paul are officially boycotting Arizona. One school in Chicago cancelled the trip of the school basketball team to the offending state. It's only a matter of time, before American states and cities start the counter-boycott of liberal-occupied cities. If anything, this resembles the beginning of a civil war. Ironically, liberals are outnumbered by about 7 to 3 when it comes to Arizona law, which means their chances of success are minimum if Americans start paying attention.

All this trouble brought to America by Poisonous Barry. How much venom, hatred and poison can one man carry? 2013 cannot come soon enough!

Hyphenated American interviewed by Jimmy Z Show

Dear Comrades,

Jimmy Z was kind enough to interview Hyphenated American this weekend, and the interview can be heard on Jimmy's website. I've listened it today and I am very satisfied by the final product. Jimmy is an excellent enterviewer, and I was able to express myself much better than the first time. Please visit Jimmy's website and listen to the interview.

Shalom!

Reading the left-wing articles #1

Sometimes I feel masochistic enough to read left-wing articles and report on them - I believe it is my attempt to give back to community, as some liberals would say. In the next few installments, for public amusement, I will dissect 4 articles written by liberals - and this post will be the first entry in the series.

Article #1. "Red Family, Blue Family" by By ROSS DOUTHAT, the New York Slimes.

This is an article devoted to an explosive topic of broken families, divorces, out-of-wedlock childbirths and the like. The author attempts to show his cleverness, unparalleled worldliness and ability to understand the complexity of the world - the traits so lacking by the primitive brutes aka conservatives. The article starts with the truth (don't forget that the greatest propagandists and thieves always taught that at first you need to find the common ground with audience - and only then you can sneak in a bunch of baloney):

Fifty years ago, American family structures were remarkably uniform. The rich married at roughly the same rate as the poor and middle class. Divorce rates were low for the college educated and high school graduates alike. Out-of-wedlock births, while more common among African-Americans, were rare in almost every region and community.

That was a long time ago. The intact two-parent family has been in eclipse for decades now: last week, the Pew Research Center reported that in 2008, 41 percent of American births occurred outside of marriage, the highest figure yet recorded. And from divorce rates to teen births, nearly every indicator of family life now varies dramatically by education, race, geography and income.

The beginning was actually quite good, and I was ready to find out if this New York Slimes' journalist actually had decided to analyse the family issues seriously. But alas, the next passage proved to me that his brain could not handle the burdens of hard intellectual labor and gave up. According to Ross, both conservatives and liberals agree on how the break up of American family had come about. Of course, this is utter nonsense, and it is clearly demonstrated by Ross' aversion to list the reasons that are cited by conservatives. According to Ross:

First, the sexual revolution overturned the old order of single-earner households, early marriages, and strong stigmas against divorce and unwed motherhood.

The most remarkable feature of the article, is that this highly celebrated, Harvard educated journalist, does not realize that the list that starts and ends with "First" is nonsensical. Indeed, an attentive reader would notice that nothing follows Ross' proposed first step in the family break up. For some reason, he forgets to mention the welfare system, which supports, promotes and allows single-parenthood. He also left unmentioned the systematic glorification of single-parenthood by Hollywood. Last but not least, the liberal controlled education system bans any attempts to depict single-parenthood as abhorrent. All three of these developments undoubtedly increased the rate of out-wedlock childbirths, broken families and teen-pregnancies, and all three are widely acknowledged by conservative experts. Did Ross miss these reasons due to ignorance - or should we presume that the NY Slimes editor took his job titles too seriously and simply edited them out? And moreover and once again - why did his count ended so mysteriously with number One - what happened with number Two, Three and even Four?

The next passage in his article proves once again that liberalism is a mental disorder:

Today, couples with college and (especially) graduate degrees tend to cohabit early and marry late, delaying childbirth and raising smaller families than their parents, while enjoying low divorce rates and bearing relatively few children out of wedlock.

For the rest of the country, this comfortable equilibrium remains out of reach. In the underclass (black, white and Hispanic alike), intact families are now an endangered species. For middle America, the ideal of the two-parent family endures, but the reality is much more chaotic: early marriages coexist with frequent divorces, and the out-of-wedlock birth rate keeps inching upward.

It would be interesting to understand what Harvard educated Ross meant by the term "remains out of reach". Not having kids out of wedlock is not same as flying to the Moon - you can easily reach it if you want to. Not sticking a penis into a woman's vagina before marriage would achieve 100% certainty that you won't have a baby - how exactly is this "out of reach" for the rest of the country? I can distinctly sense at least half a dozen possible ways to play word games with his expression "out of reach" - but none would let me reach the conclusion that chastity, modesty and a moderate attempt to control one's urges are "out of reach" to the underclass. Are we supposed to believe that the underclass is inherently incapable of self-control? And if so - how can we let them vote? These are not people, these are animals - if we follow Ross' insane ramblings. What if we tie them all up - would that make family stability more reachable for them - or they will still find a way to push normal marriage out of reach and knock up everyone in sight? Is this underclass filled with sexual supermen who can impregnate women through air?

And then comes the passage that really pisses me off - because of its explosive combination of intellectual laziness, stupidity and arrogance:

The authors [of a "provocative new book by two law professors, Naomi Cahn and June Carbone" which blindly repeats all liberal cliches] depict a culturally conservative “red America” that’s stuck trying to sustain an outdated social model. By insisting (unrealistically) on chastity before marriage, Cahn and Carbone argue, social conservatives guarantee that their children will get pregnant early and often (see Palin, Bristol), leading to teen childbirth, shotgun marriages and high divorce rates.

To start with - what is the basis to conclude that conservative vision of the family is outdated? Mind you, I am no prude myself, and I have a really hard time imagining that someone would abstain from sex before marriage - but still, I cannot conclude that this model is outdated. I may say that this idea is insane - but I have no reason to conclude that it is outdated.

Moreover, the idea that a normal couple should wait until marriage before having children, that a divorce is a horrible trauma to children and should be avoided at all costs - such an idea cannot possibly become outdated because it is undoubtedly correct. Lastly, neither Ross, nor his partners in crime (even their names - Naomi and June are clear indications of dysfunctional families) attempt to correlate the rate of divorce, single-parenthood and out-of-wedlock childbirths to family's political beliefs (liberal or conservative). All three proclaim that "socially conservative states have more family instability than, say, the culturally liberal Northeast" but refuse to examine if the broken families in the conservative states tend to vote for liberals or conservatives. Why the sudden lack of curiosity? Is it because authors are stupid or they are trying to fit their conclusions into an outdated (there's a correct use of this word!) liberal ideology?

In short, the New York Slimes article is written by an idiot for idiots (a standard occasion for the aforementioned newspaper) - and I felt quite foreign among the readers of this paper. And still, I believe my efforts were not in vain, and I hope I saved the readers of my blog a tone of time and a mega-tone of brain cells by writing this review.

It's time for civil disobedience.

There are a few things that anyone can notice about American so-called "liberal activists". They often proclaim their moral and intellectual superiority over the middle-class, dismiss any one disagreeing with them as stupid and racist, while demand everyone to notice their non-conformism and they delight in "getting in your face" - whether through insulting "art" or "civil disobedience". It's fair to notice that liberals hate nothing more than their own weapons are turned against them.

Among the many tools that absolutely infuriate the left is, of course, civil disobedience used against them. If the Tea Party activists can show themselves as the working men fighting the oppressive establishment, while painting the left-wing activists as the establishment storm troopers slash mercenaries - you will most likely provoke the left to become hysterical if not outright violent. And if we can show ourselves as people struggling for basic human rights - well, I believe the left will implode from the impotent rage.

So, lets take a few real life examples and check how we can use the Alinsky's tools to our advantage. In the last week, American people were treated to a couple of rather nasty cases of left-wing racism and intolerance. The first example concerns a left-wing school principal in Michigan who organized a school space science tour exclusively for black kids, while kids of all other races were forbidden to participate. When the privileged kids returned from the segregated tour, they were booed by all other kids. The school principal who was responsible for the segregation screamed at the kids who dared to question his racist policies. The school officials stood behind him and the principal is unapologetic.

I believe this is a very good teaching moment both for the privileged kids who were taken to the tour, and for the kids who were forbidden from the tour due to their race. The kids that went to the tour made a decision to support the oppressive racist power structure. Everyone should ask himself - if I were a white man in the South during the segregation time - would I have chosen to sit with the black people in the back of the bus, or would I  have used my white privilege? Would I have patronised the restaurants that did not serve the black people? These are basic moral questions that each kid has to ask himself.

And these questions should not be directed only to white people - but to people of all races. Would you choose to profit from racism? The kids that went to the segregated tour made their choice, and they must be fully explained what this choice means to them. For one, all other kids should demonstrate their outrage by the behaviour of their classmates, and this could mean boycotts and other non-violent means of civil protest. Every kid that chose to go to a segregated tour should apologize to his classmates for his betrayal of decency.

On the other side, the real culprit of racism is the school's principal. The goal of the community must be his immediate dismissal. It's unlikely that the establishment powers will allow this happen without a fight, which means the parents of all affected kids as well as civil rights activists must stage a peaceful take over of the school, particularly of the Principal's office. The non-negotiable demand must be immediate firing of the principal, and tolerance training for all teachers. This action must be taken with massive publicity - I believe it is possible to invite the journalists from around the nation - and I would be very surprised if Fox News would not send their TV crews to broadcast to the entire country what is happening in one little school, where people said enough to racism.

The second event that happened this week is no less bizarre. According to pajamasmedia, "Five students at a California high school were forced to leave school and then face disciplinary action yesterday for the crime of wearing clothing printed with American flag designs." The school Vice- Principal who made the decision to punish kids who wore American flag to American school funded by American taxpayers, claims that American flag was hateful. Pajamasmedia continues:

“They said we could wear it on any other day, but today is sensitive to Mexican Americans because it’s supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today,” Daniel Galli said. The boys said the administrators called their t-shirts “incendiary” that would lead to fights on campus. “They said if we tried to go back to class with our shirts not taken off, they said it was defiance and we would get suspended,” Dominic Maciel, Galli’s friend, said.

The response of school officials to threats of violence from the school anti-American bigots of Mexican origin was swift - they forbade the wearing of American flag. Some of the haters did not hesitate to go on record. “I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day,” Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak High student, said. “We don’t deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn’t do that on Fourth of July.”

As the reader can see, the school is not only permissive of anti-American racist attitude of some students - they even nurture and protect it. It's very unlikely that the school's failure to combat racism is accidental. At the very least, the school's principal, vice-principal and all responsible figures must be immediately fired. The kids who exposed themselves as racists must be required to take tolerance classes, which should include American history, American Constitution and the like. The current leadership will not do what is necessary without being forced by the local progressive community and activists. Again, as in the case with segregated space tour - parents, community leaders and the civil rights activists must occupy the school (particularly the Principal's office) and demand the immediate resignation of all responsible for this travesty. It is also necessary to bring in the mass media, and to get some support from the rank-n-file local police. In both cases, the Tea Party activists and the local Republican Party must provide all necessary aid in order to organize the acts of civil disobedience against the education establishment.

In case someone is wondering how serious I am about these proposals - I want to share a little bit of my personal story. Both my grandfathers and my grandmother were sent to Stalin's forced labor camps in the USSR. Both of my parents experienced racism and anti-semitism in the USSR due to the ethnicity - they are both half-Jewish - this involved discrimination for school admission, jobs, etc. I was born, raised and educated in Russia, so the story of racism in my native country is quite personal for me. After I had come to the USA, I was dumbfounded that instead of freedom and equal rights I saw exactly same attitude - except this time I and my children are discriminated not because of their Jewish heritage, but because of their skin color. In other words, I have absolutely no guilt feeling about the black history in America - and I have all the outrage and anger of an innocent man who is been discriminated against solely due to his skin color. Any race monger from the DNC will get zero concessions from me on the subject of race and "affirmative action". So, if any liberal comes to my website and tries to guilt me - I can say only one thing - he will get more cooperation from a rock than he will ever get from me.

The best and the brightest

Obama and Clinton reveal the number of nuclear missiles

The Obama administration disclosed the size of its atomic stockpile going back to 1962 as part of a campaign to get other nuclear nations to be more forthcoming, and to improve its bargaining position against the prospect of a nuclear Iran. [These people are f*cking kidding me.]

"We think it is in our national security interest to be as transparent as we can be about the nuclear program of the United States," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters at the United Nations, where she addressed a conference on containing the spread of atomic weapons. [How the f*ck would that improve US national security? Did Obama's opening his university records, his SAT and LSAT scores help his presidential election?]

Clinton said the disclosure of numbers the general public has never seen "builds confidence" that the Obama administration is serious about stopping the spread of atomic weapons and reducing their numbers. [Yap, no doubt about it now.]

"You can't get anywhere toward disarmament unless you're going to be transparent about how many weapons you have," said Sharon Squassoni, a nuclear policy analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. [That's exactly how we disarmed Japan and Germany.]

The U.S. revelations are calculated to improve Washington's bargaining power with Iran's allies and friends for the drive to head off what the West charges is a covert Iranian program to build a bomb. [Yes, take off your pants, that improves the bargaining powers all right. Just go to the closest car dealership and ask for a discount. When they refuse, take off your pants - it worked like magic for Obama when he dealt with Iran.]

As a result of this unprecedented openness, North Korea and Iran stopped their nuclear programs and agreed to destroy the nuclear weapons and equipment. Just joking...

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahamadinejad spoke ahead of Clinton at the conference, denouncing U.S. efforts to pressure his regime to abandon its nuclear program.

When Ahmadinejad took the podium, he responded to Ban. "The secretary general said that Iran must accept the fuel exchange and that the ball is now in Iran's court," Ahmadinejad said. "Well, I'd like to tell you and inform him as well that we'd accepted that from the start. . . . Therefore, we have now thrown the ball in the court of those who should accept our proposal." Iran has repeatedly said it is willing to do the fuel swap, only to reverse course or add conditions. Jabbing his finger in the air, the Iranian leader accused the United States and other nuclear states of manipulating the international arms-control system to preserve their nuclear privileges and to keep others from getting peaceful energy. [Maybe Obama should disclose his SAT and LSAT scores - that would give him enough bargaining power to persuade Iran and North Korea to stop their nuclear programs. And even it this does not - then at least it will stun the leaders of those countries.]

Anyway - let me ask a common sense question - if you were really concerned about Iranian nuclear program - did Obama's announcement truly prove to you that "Obama administration is serious about stopping the spread of atomic weapons"? And if so - explain why your fears about the prospects of nuclear armed Iran were lightened today?

Obama and Clinton try to engage Syria - the results are puzzling - to some people

After multiple gestures from the Obama regime, the Syrian dictator remains hostile to America. In just recent months it transferred dozens of long-range missiles Scud to Lebanese terrorist group "Hezballah". The Foreign Policy advisor Josh Rogin is puzzled by this behaviour. Why would Syrian's strongman refuse to befriend America - after all didn't Obama bow to every fascist dictator?

As for why Syria seems to be playing such an unhelpful role, "that's the million-dollar question," the [Obama administration] official said...."We do not understand Syrian intentions. No one does, and until we get to that question we can never get to the root of the problem," the official said. "Until then it's all damage control."

After I read these comments from the heavy intellectual hitters of the Obama regime, I have only one question to ask myself - can these people chew gum and fart at the same time? And then I remind myself that this is a rhetorical question - of course they cannot. Heck, every time they take a breath, I am amazed they don't need a 2500 page manual to explain to them how to do this. Those guys are utter and complete imbeciles.

I always enjoy reading Washington [com]Post

One of the reasons why I enjoy reading Washington Post is that this alleged newspaper gives the liberal journalists a false feeling of security. As a result, they can spew their nonsense without a single worry in their minds - and provide a comic relief to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

Today, E.J Dionne Jr. wrote an article strongly advising the republicans to move to the left in order to win the elections. After all, he believes that the Tea Party movement, the widely popular Arizona law (70% approval) against illegal immigration will push American people to vote for Democrats. Here is the most appropriate passage:

Unlike the British Conservatives, our Republicans are forcing out big-tent politicians of Crist's stripe wherever they can. When as solid a conservative as Utah's Sen. Bob Bennett is in danger of being denied renomination, you know that the right-wing Jacobins are on the march.

There's also this: The angry, incendiary and sometimes racist tone that is being projected at party rallies -- and by legislation such as Arizona's Don't-Risk-Looking-Hispanic "immigration" law -- is starting to give Democrats real hope that they might avoid electoral catastrophe this fall.

No sentient Democrat expects this to be a good year. But the closer the Republican Party is to the fringe, the easier it will be for Democrats to win back middle-of-the-road voters who have strayed since President Obama's election.

He even quotes a liberal Democrat from Oregon to support his point of view:

"All this hyperbole and outrage and the Tea Party tiger the Republicans are riding are pushing them over the edge," Rep. Earl Blumenauer said last week. The independent-minded Oregon Democrat [more liberal than 84% of congressmen in 2007] is not given to partisan outbursts, but he sees the extreme posturing of Republicans combined with "the insanity of what's going on in Arizona"  as having the potential of changing the year's political trajectory.

In short, according to E.J. Jr, republicans are doomed because they are just too extreme for America:

In Britain, Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Labor Party is trying to hang on by insisting that Cameron's changes to the Conservative Party are merely cosmetic. Democrats don't have that burden. Here, moderate Republicans are being forced to plaster themselves with right-wing makeup just to survive. Or, like Charlie Christ, they're deciding to go natural, and leave.

Well, it's all fine and dandy, but same E.J. Jr. wrote an article in 2006 supporting the cleansing of moderates from the Democratic party in 2006. In case you don't remember - back in 2006, the liberal activists were victorious in throwing Joe Lieberman from the DNC - same Lieberman who was a reliable liberal vote on all legislations, same Lieberman who was a Vice-Presidential nominee in 2000. Joe's only sin - he did not agree with the liberal mantra that Bush was the father of all evil. According to E.J. Jr., the democratic activists were doing the job of God in moving the DNC  to the extreme left...

The opposition to Lieberman is motivated by an effort to reverse the trend to the right. It's true that Lamont's campaign has been energized by widespread opposition to the Iraq war and the fact that Lieberman has been one of the most loyal Democratic defenders of President Bush's Middle East policies.

But Lieberman's troubles are, even more, about a new aggressiveness in the Democratic Party called forth by disgust with the Bush presidency -- an energy comparable to the vigor that a loathing for liberalism brought to the Republican right in the 1970s and '80s.

Like the earlier generation of conservatives, today's Democratic activists are impatient with accommodating the powers that be. They demand that Democrats stop trying to chase a "center" that has veered ever rightward since 1980. Instead, they want to haul that center back to more progressive terrain. That's why so much of the political energy in Connecticut seems to be with Lamont. [If you switch "progressive" and right" you will get exactly what the Tea Party are saying today - and yet E.J. Jr. is strangely not buying it].

Lieberman's core problem was not even his support for the Iraq war. It was his eagerness to challenge the legitimacy of fellow Democrats who have called attention to the administration's mistakes. Lieberman, confident of Democratic support, seemed to crave the affection of Republicans most of all.

The statement that did more than anything to power this primary challenge was a comment Lieberman made in December.

"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years," Lieberman said, "and that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril." The implication that there is something wrong with criticizing George W. Bush is unacceptable to most Democrats, who believe that Bush himself has done the most to undermine his own credibility.

...

As for this primary, the lesson already is clear: A Democratic Party that has been on defense since the 1980s desperately wants to go on offense. Lamont understands that. If Lieberman is to survive this round, he needs to make clear between now and next Tuesday that he's gotten the message.

Any mentally stable person would see the inherent contradiction in E.J. Jr views. After all, if it was a good idea to purge a moderate liberal from the DNC in 2006 - why does he believe it's viciously evil to do same with liberal republicans in 2010? If anything, the nation is clearly upset about Obama's extreme left-wing policies - as well as politics-as-usual. And Arizona extremely controversial anti-illegal immigration law is supported by 70% of voters, while Obama's centrist HealthCare bill is opposed by about 60%. The country is surely ready for the right-wing turn which would make the re-alignment of 2006 seem insignificant. E.J. Jr. may be upset that the prols woke up, and are on the march to take down the leftist policies - but why does he not have enough brain power to detect his own bias? Can he at least recognize that if GOP were to emulate DNC success in 2006 and 2008, it must clearly distinguish itself from the ultra-left Democratic party and its lackeys in the GOP?

Of course, these are rhetorical questions, since E.J. Jr is not a terribly bright man - he is just another trailer park white trash trying to make money by licking the boots of his masters.