Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Banker to gangster: What are you gonna do, strong-arm me?
Gangster and Banker both laughing.
Gangster - You know, I think you've gotten the wrong impression about me. I think, in all fairness I should explain to you exactly what it is that I do. Tomorrow morning I'll get up nice and early, take a walk to the bank and walk in and see, and, uh, if you don't have my money for me I'll crack your f*ckin' head wide open in front of everybody. And just about the time that I'm comin' out of jail hopefully you'll be comin' out of your coma. And guess what? I'll split your f*ckin' head open again. 'Cause I'm f*ckin' stupid. I don't give a fuck about jail. That's my business. That's what I do. We know what you do. You fuck people out of money and get away with it.
Banker: - You can't talk to me like that.
Gangster: Hey, you fat Irish prick! You put my money to sleep.- Get my money, or I'll put your brain to sleep.
Gangster’s friend: - Sam!
Gangster: Never mind Sam. This is personal. I'll be there in the morning. You can try me, Fatso. You f*ckin' try me. You think he got the point?
"Harry S. Truman who was not afraid to use the bomb or to get tough with the Russians. In becoming president following Franklin Roosevelt's death on April 12, 1945, Truman knew nothing about the bomb and little about foreign policy, but he was capable of independent and decisive action. As the British historian Paul Johnson described him: "The new President, Harry Truman, was not a member of the wealthy, guilt-ridden East Coast establishment and had none of Roosevelt's fashionable progressive fantasies. He was ignorant, but he learned fast; his instincts were democratic and straightforward."Determined to push his point on Poland as a symbol of Soviet-American relations, Truman had his first personal exchange, tart and brusque, with Vyacheslav M. Molotov, the Soviet Foreign Minister, in Washington on April 22 and 23, 1945. The President used "words of one syllable" to convey his insistence that Poland be "free and independent."
"I have never been talked to like that in my life," Molotov complained.
"Carry out your agreements, and you won't get talked to like that," his host retorted.
Monday, April 19, 2010
The man running it throws around names like Hayek, Friedman and Rand - and then dismisses the right-wing folks as too vulgar, too simplistic for his taste. Which reminds me of a quote from Vladimir Putin, who said some time ago that he was truly missing Mahatma Gandhi - he just could not find anyone else who could satisfy this thirst for a meaningful discussion.
Of course, I could not walk by this blog without spitting - and this is the message I've left (minus the spelling errors) in response to his response to my response. I have a feeling the readers may enjoy it.
CL: You don't say why you found the post strange, actually you don't say much at all
I've been to a Tea Party demonstration, and I saw people who were genuinely upset about the growth of the government. Somehow, you missed them. Moreover, I've spent a lot of time arguing on slate - and it was a normal situation that the right-wingers stood for smaller government, while the left stood for larger government. In other words, all my personal experience directly contradicts what you have written. I thought it was obvious from my post - but I assume some things have to be said more than once to be understood.
CL: You do say Obama is a socialist and then assert that somehow the location of your birth makes that statement true.
If this is how you understood my post, then it makes sense why you missed all the people who are against expansion of the government.
1. I did not say that Obama was a socialist because I had been born in the USSR.
2. I did say that Obama is a socialist, and that I say so as a man who was not only born in the USSR, but who was also raised and educated there. In other words - I've lived in a socialist nation, and you cannot simply dismiss my view - you are talking to a real life expert here, comrade. This surely does not prove that I am right - but it should make you think twice.
CL: Socialism is the collective ownership of the major means of production.
Yes, it is - or more accurately - it's society's ownership of the means of production. But it is a generic definition, and there are different ways on how society (read government) exercises its control over the property. For example, in Yugoslavia, the labor unions officially controlled the factories - this was Yugoslavian socialism. In Germany, the state nationalized people - and it was called national-socialism. In Italy, the top Italian communist Mussolini (the former editor of the communist newspaper and Lenin's pet darling) built soft-socialism, which he called "fascism". And then we can talk about French socialism advocated by aristocracy - the one that Karl Marx hated - which is why he preferred the term communism. Or we are talking about Venezuela's socialism? Maybe you are talking about socialism in Nasser's Egypt?
All in all, there are a lot of flavors of socialism - I presume your lack of knowledge is explained by the lack of actual experience.
CL: Are you saying that is what Obama is proposing?
Which one do you think he wants to build? Rev.Wright's fascistic socialism with distinct Marxist themes? Ayers' communism? Van Jones' communism? The Maoism that people in his administration like? Or maybe we can just call him a vulgar socialist and be done with this triviality?
Based on Obama's past history - would you tell me what you think...
CL: Or are misusing the term socialist to mean statist?
Or maybe you don't see that statism and socialism are virtually indistinguishable?
CL: So far Obama is not advocating government ownership of the means of production, just government control.
Firstly, Obama is advocating state control - and he is openly saying that he needs special circumstances for that. Freddie and Fannie are nationalized. Same for GM. Now he wants the law that would allow him to nationalize any financial company. And he wants to nationalize medical insurance. Are these actions not socialistic by definition?
CL: He is a statist, and a welfare sate advocate but he is not a socialist, at least not openly or in direct policy decisions.
No, nationalization of GM was not socialist, it was - well, I don't know, he nationalised a company. And his appeals to nationalise medical insurance in the future - that's not socialism. Right?
CL: That is not to say his policies are good. They aren't What Obama is closest to is a fascist. Fascism allowed private ownership, but had state control. That seems more in line with Obamanomics.
Yugoslavia allowed private ownership. So did Hungary and Czechoslovakia. And so did USSR from 1922 to 1930. This just the most basic things. But really, fascism is just an advanced and more effective version of socialism - compared to Pol Pot's Cambodia or North Korea.
BTW, do you know that Soviet people were allowed to own gardens and to sell the produce on the market? It's all a matter of degree, comrade.
The most important thing is not who nominally runs the company - but who has the power to shut it down if he wants to. In Nazi Germany the CEOs were private, but Hitler could change them at will. In USSR, the CEOs were directly chosen by the communist Politburo. The real difference was that German capitalists were better managers than Soviet Party Leaders - but there was not much of a difference from a position of power.
You talk about Hayek in your post, but I am getting a distinct feeling that you did not read his "Road to Serfdom" too diligently. I suggest you re-read it.
The story continued...
The owner of the blog refused to post my reply in full, and refused to engage me in a discussion.
Instead, he wrote the following to me: Normally I reply one on one but when people inundate the site with multiple long posts I do not. Very few people do that because it is not polite. So I won't reply, nor can I afford the time to go through and read that many messages from one person. Since I can't do that much work for one person I can't moderate it and thus it doesn't get posted.
Well, color me non-surprised.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
As one would expect, Obama's policy of appeasing state sponsors of terror is bearing bitter fruits. Both Iran and Syria are now busy arming Hezballah, a Lebanese terrorist group. According to British sources, Iranian government recently transferred a large number of new missiles to Lebanon. According to Israel, Syria in turn has supplied Hezballah with Scud missiles - the same kind that Saddam Hussein had used against Saudi Arabia and Israel in the 1991 war. All the while, Iran is rushing to produce nuclear weapons.
Obama's response to this leaves nothing to imagination. On one side, he does absolutely nothing to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weaponry. On the other side, he is pressing and isolating Israel. A recent report stated that when Israel was considering to use its air-force to prevent the delivery of Scuds to Hezballah (such a delivery breaches the cease-fire agreement of the latest Israel-Lebanon war and Israel lcan treat this as an act of war) - Obama's regime pressured Israel to ignore the violation and instead rely on John Kerry's negotiating skills. The exact quote from the US official would be downright hilarious if we were not talking about actual human lives that will be lost because of this stupidity: "The White House had to talk them [Israel] down and promised that Kerry would use strong language with the Syrian president". I can imagine that Syrian dictator is trembling...
What's even more hilarious is the response of the pro-Syrian elements in the US governments. According to one such "expert", Mr.Tabler, "The move is bizarre, and certainly not the sort of move [the former president and Bashar's father] Hafez al Assad would have made". This reaction reminded me of Jimmy Carter astonishment when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Back in 1979 he too was puzzled by Soviet militarism.
Clearly, the Middle East is rapidly becoming a far more dangerous place - and we should thank Barack Hussein Obama for this. In the last year he enabled the enemies of the West and dissuaded the US allies. There will be hell to pay for this.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.
George Bush's decision merely to eavesdrop on American citizens without oversight, or to detain without due process Americans such as Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, provoked years of vehement, vocal and intense complaints from Democrats and progressives. All of that was disparaged as Bush claiming the powers of a King, a vicious attack on the Constitution, a violation of Our Values, the trampling on the Rule of Law. Yet here you have Barack Obama not merely eavesdropping on or detaining Americans without oversight, but ordering them killed with no oversight and no due process of any kind. And the reaction among leading Democrats and progressives is largely non-existent…
Anwar al-Awlaki is embarrassing Obama - so the Dear Leader ordered Anwar to be killed. In no way this proves that Obama is betraying his principles or changing his mind on civil liberties or losing his idealism. Obama is not 12 years old, and he is unlikely to change his views willy-nilly. Obama is as Obama does. Don't tell me that you believed all that hope-n-change crap for a second. Obama is a boringly normal traditional fascist - think Mussolini, Nasser or Putin. If you are surprised at what Obama is doing I can only conclude you are/were not watching Fox News and/or listening talk radio. If you want to know what happens tomorrow - close the NYT, turn off MSNBC and start reading what the right-wingers have to say.
Don't mistake Obama's assassination of moslem terrorists (who happens to be US citizens) with betrayal of "progressivism". Just like Lenin and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Castro did not betray progressivism - neither did Obama. It's naive to think that progressivism is somehow akin to non-violent Buddhism. The use of union thugs, government oppression and the like are normal middle of the road leftist policies. If you doubt me - just check out how ACORN (Obama's alma mater) was dealing with corporate executives - and yes, it included violence and threats of violence. And poor liberals thought that Obama would only use violence against the "enemies of the people"? Don't forget - if you piss off Obama, you will become the enemy of the people and you will be dealt with. The world did not start with the election of the One.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
"But I'm a superstitious man. And if some unlucky accident should befall him - If he should get shot in the head by a police officer, or if he should hang himself in his jail cell - or if he's struck by a bolt of lightning, them I'm going to blame some of the people in this room, and that I do not forgive. But, that aside, let me say that I swear, on the souls of my grandchildren, that I will not be the one to break the peace we've made here today."
Don Corleone to the other Dons in the movie "The Godfather"
Lech Kaczynski was not educated in the post-modern politically-correct Ivy League schools of soft sciences - he learned how the world worked under the Soviet regime in the Poland - and he never forgot the lessons he was taught by the regime. Lech Kaczynski spent a big part of his life living in Obama's Utopia, in a country which was run in accordance to "Dreams From My Father" - and he knew the insides and outs of Obama-paradise - probably better than Obama knows them himself. The "Glorious Future" that some liberals hope will come 100 years from now to US was Lech Kaczynski's horrible past. This could not be forgiven. Lech Kaczynski objected to Western liberals and Russian plutocrats - and it was dangerous - and in the end this is what killed him.
The most likely scenario is that the Russian bear (with tacit Obama approval) decided to demonstrate to the Eastern European democracies that the Empire is back with a vengeance. It is no accident that this happened a few days after Obama agreed to disarm America in order to appease the Russian despots. No reasonable observer can neglect to notice that US president is openly resentful of the US allies, and Russian elites fully understand that the entire Europe is now ripe to bend under the pressure from Moscow.
As vice-president Joe "dumbass" Biden astutely observed in 2008 - the enemies of America will come to test the new president - and 2010 is the year when his prophesy will be realized. Putin-Medvedev clan is now showing to all Eastern European leaders than they can assassinate anyone without fear of revenge. The Putin's policy of killing Russian dissidents now spilled outside of the Russian borders - the gang is now killing foreign heads of state. Obama's posturing made the world a much more dangerous place.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Barack Obama - from the plains of Chicago to the White House just on charm. Arrogance and hubris.
Barack Hussein Obama! Although I never saw anyone comparing Obama with a lion. I do think someone compared Obama with God.
Barry! Barry! Barry!
Need I say "Obama's stash"?
Obama is some kind of God - so says one liberal. Or, as Obama said - we are the ones we were waiting for.
That does not sound like Obama, though. He is not into America...
Does Obama respect anyone?
No, that's not the Obama we came to love. Deficits, spending never bothered him.
Well, Obama hired a dozen Lances - and it never bothered him a bit.
Barack Obama is known to say the following: "We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine. Don't worry about us. That's not leadership."
And now, back to Jimmy Carter.
And then, we got Obama crawling before world dictators, bowing before tyrants and hugging US enemies.
Friday, April 9, 2010
1. Jewish scholars were denied visa to the US
As one would expect, Obama decided to prove once again how much he cared about Israel - and denied visas to Jewish scholars. None of the scholars had any criminal record, ties with terrorists or made any pro-terrorists statements. Surely this was enough to have them banned from US.
2. Hamas supporting Islamic scholar granted visa to the US
Reversing the decision of Bush's administration, Hillary Clinton personally granted an entry visa to Tariq Ramadan. His previous visa was denied because of his ties to Hamas. Tariq is known for his extreme views of Islam, and he was often critisized in Europe for anti-semitism, support of barbaric Islamic practices and the like. Tariq is also known for sugar-coating extreme Islamic views. Read this article and find out how this poor fellow was forced to run away from reporters, who were not afraid to ask him carefully designed questions.
3. Obama administration is bargaining on behalf of PLO
Obama officials are now bargaining with Israel on behalf of the terrorist outfit PLO. The PLO is very pleased with Obama. Israel - not so much. "A senior PA negotiator, speaking on condition of anonymity, said rather than act as an intermediary, the U.S. has been negotiating with Israel on behalf of the PA, assuming all Palestinian positions and bargaining with Israel from the Palestinian side."
4. Obama increases pressure on Israel
Obama's representatives are sending number of people to spy on Jews who build houses in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. If any changes are noticed, Obama administration makes angry calls to the Israeli government.
5. Bibi Netanyahu abruptly cancels plans to attend a nuclear summit in Washington
After Obama humiliated Israel's prime-minister, Bibi decided there was no reason to meet with Obama's officials. After all - what was the point of listening to hours of anti-semitic propaganda coming from Obama regime? Moreover - who in a sane mind would voluntarily listen to Obama's lecturing?
6. Obama bans all references to Islam in security documents
If Obama were the US president , he would have banned any references to Germans and Japanese in the war documents. After all - it could make them mad, right?
My intuition is telling me that there is a common theme in all of these news from one day, but I fail to link them all together. Could someone help me?
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Back in June 2002, Harold Meyerson from liberal American Prospect declared that "California is the only one of the nation's 10 largest states that is uniformly under Democratic control." In the Golden State, Meyerson said, "the next New Deal is in tryouts."
During last few decades, California was known as a state where all new liberal policies originate. From uber-high taxes to uber high spending and uber tough regulations, California is known as an outlier in the nation, and probably the most European part of the United States. Even when California elects a nominally Republican governor, it continues its left-wing drift.
For example, according to George Will “If, since 1990, state spending increases had been held to the inflation rate plus population growth, the state would have a $15 billion surplus instead of a $42 billion budget deficit, which is larger than the budgets of all but 10 states. Since 1990, the number of state employees has increased by more than a third. In Schwarzenegger's less than six years as governor, per capita government spending, adjusted for inflation, has increased nearly 20 percent”
In spite of all budgetary issues, California continued to push for costly environmental regulation. The liberal media could not hide its delight with the process of Europezation of California. Time magazine lauded Schwarzenegger as a hero for ignoring all the financial problems in California and instead allying himself with liberals and spending 3 billion dollars on stem cell research as well as signing a multi-billion dollar “Democratic bill capping greenhouse-gas emissions.”
But now the fun is over and California is forced to pay for the decades of experimenting with liberalism. According to LA Times, “The state of California's real unfunded pension debt clocks in at more than $500 billion, nearly eight times greater than officially reported. “The state of California's real unfunded pension debt clocks in at more than $500 billion, nearly eight times greater than officially reported.”
Of course, this situation did not materialize overnight. According to same newspaper, “In California's case, past pension underfunding means reduced funding of current programs. This explains why pension costs rose 2,000% from 1999 to 2009, while state funding for higher education declined over the same period.”
The market could not fail to notice the downfall of the mighty California, and the state bonds started approaching the status of the Enron stocks after the 2000 crash. The state Treasurer Bill Lockyer was not amused, and he filed a formal complaint that “Data reported in the news media and other sources show that the prices, or spreads, on California CDS wrongly brand our bonds as a greater risk than those issued by such nations as Kazakhstan...”
A liberal newspaper Financial Times could not miss the opportunity to stick a knife into Billy and had this to say: "The real Kazakhstan, although not problem-free, looks fairly solid compared to California and many other states - a fact that should spook investors in America's $2,800bn municipal bond market."
Of course, California is not alone in its financial struggles. According to Forbes, the “bluest states (are) spilling the most red ink.” The article declared that “The five states in the worst financial condition – Illinois, New York, Connecticut, California and New Jersey – are all among the bluest of blue states.”
According to Tax Foundation, the top ten for state-local tax burdens in 2008: 10.) Rhode Island 9.) Wisconsin 8.) Vermont 7.) Ohio 6.) California 5.) Hawaii 4.) Maryland 3.) Connecticut 2.) New York 1.) New Jersey.
Notice that excluding Illinois, the states in worst financial condition also have the highest taxes in the nation. It’s quite apparent that if anything, the current problem with liberal states is not low taxation – but rather exorbitant spending and regulations.
Of course, the problem with over-taxation and over-spending is not limited to states. Some local epicenters of liberalism experience same consequences. For example, this liberal county in the otherwise conservative state has spent itself into oblivion by “going green”.
Today we can confidently say that Obama is following the example of the governors of failed liberal states. At this point it remains an academic exercise to predict when America will face high inflation and even higher unemployment with possible bankruptcy of the federal government. I don’t think this can be stopped – but I believe it will be a very useful teaching moment for the entire nation.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
How to slash medical costs in 8 steps
1. Allow the sale of all medical drugs and medical equipment, which are legal in EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and Japan. Make their FDA approval optional.
2. Everyone who has a doctor’s license in those countries should be allowed to practice medicine in US. Moreover, US policy must encourage and aid immigration of doctors from those countries to America. Immediate permanent residency to all practicing doctors from developed countries who want to come to the US.
3. Abolish state limitations on minimum medical insurance coverage.
4. Give private doctors and hospitals same protection from lawsuits as the government entities currently enjoy.
5. Strengthen control of US borders in order to prevent the entrance of illegal immigrants.
6. Permit hospitals and emergency rooms to refuse service to illegal immigrants.
7. Provide equal tax deductions to group and individual buyers of medical insurance as well as for any purchase of medical care.
8. Start privatization of Medicare and initiate gradual cuts to Medicaid.
In his recent speech Barack Obama complained about the existence of 50 million people without medical insurance after the historic Obamacare bill had been voted upon by Congress and had come into effect. Amazingly, this number is much higher than the number he reported months ago – which was only 30 million people. It seems that the passage of Obamacare resulted in immediate loss of insurance for about 20 million Americans. Of course, Obama is the man who a few weeks ago predicted the drop in insurance price by a whopping three thousand percent – so it’s fair to say that mathematics is not the subject that Obama understands or cares about.
So, what is happening here – is Obama gone completely insane, is he on some kind of mind bending medications – or there is a method to his madness? My answer to this question – all of the above. A 3000% man (and a former cocaine addict) is responding to a new political situation. When Obama was trying to push through the deeply unpopular Obamacare, his main task was to convince as many people as possible that the new legislation would not subsidize tens of millions of illegal immigrants, and that it will not break the US treasury.
Today, when the bill was voted into law, Obama’s first task is to extend its application to as many people as possible – including the illegal immigrants. Apparently, Obama decided that at this stage it is more beneficial to appeal to illegal immigrants than to persuade Americans – and so the number of uninsured went up by 20 million.
Of course, another explanation is that 3000% Obama does not distinguish between 30 million and 50 million (it’s all Greek to him) – and this explanation may be correct. What do you think?
A very funny response on-line
This blog answers a girl's question on how to deal with a racist mother of a boyfriend. According to the story, the black mother of a boyfriend hates all white people, and she is upset that her son is dating a cracker. One of the readers left this advice for the suffering girl:
Learn to speak Ebonics. When you see his mother, throw down comments like "Yo! Momma!! Wha'sup wif dat? We be gettin' it on, baby!!What do you think - does this approach has a chance of mending the great divide between the white girl and a black mother?
EPA commissars choose to ignore their own regulations
In a startling development, EPA administrators chose to ignore their own predictions of impending Global Warming – and instead of cutting down the CO2 emission – chose to increase their carbon-dioxide footprint on the suffering planet. Moreover, these shenanigans caused American taxpayers additional $13,000. I am shocked – this sounds completely impossible. It is almost as unthinkable as a US president demanding American people to turn down their thermostats to save the planet – and then turning the White House into a hothouse for orchids during a chilly DC winter.
Nancy Pelosi against Woody Allen
As you may have heard, the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi recently proclaimed "We have to pass the bill [Obamacare] so that you can find out what is in it.” Nancy’s insane ramblings joke reminded me of a good quote from Woody Allen’s movie “Love and Death”. In the movie, Woody Allen is a Russian, who is conscripted against his will to fight the French army. In one of the scenes, he marches with the Russian troops and they enter the field laden with corpses from the previous battle. The frightened soldiers observe the gruesome scene, and the following dialogue ensures:
-Oh, God is testing us.This is exactly how I feel about Obamacare – could we find out what is in this bill by actually reading it – instead of having to experience it on our backs? Wouldn’t it be a little bit cheaper?
-If he's gonna test us, why doesn't he give us a written?
It’s official now - Barack Obama is a Kenyan
Michele Obama recently said – Kenya is Obama’s home country. So, anytime any leftie tells you that it’s racist to say that Obama is a Kenyan – point to this video and ask if Obama’s wife is a racist
Monday, April 5, 2010
CBS jouralist Harry Smith decided to go savage against Obama and truly push our affirmative action president to the limit. As comrade Smith said in his interview “People in the mainstream media have been accused of being afraid to speak truth to power. I've got some truth to power for you."
Alas, old habits die hard, and when Obama agreed to an interview with CBS, and Harry Smith saw our commander in chief, his legs went wobbly and he dropped on the knees in awe. In the presence of Greatness, Harry did what every loyal subject would do – he railed against the enemies who dare to dissent against the Emperor. According to Harry, some ungrateful scumbags called His Majesty “Socialist” – surely our president is ready to chop off the heads of these heretics and put on them on the stick. And when our Liege mentioned the names of rebellious serfs – Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, Harry Smith went into barking mood and begged Obama to just whisper an order – and Harry would personally find those ungrateful sons of pigs and tear them apart with his own teeth. As Barack Obama said in the interview – he likes his dog to have some spirit in it – but it is beyond doubt that he prefers the media to be neutered. President Truman some time ago quipped “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog” – but president Obama need not worry about getting himself a dog – he got the media on the leash – and ready to die for the One. In the meantime, they are busy licking his balls.
Some Jews are waking up to Obama’s hatred of Israel
The most promising story this week was the awakening of Former New York Mayor Ed Koch. In his recent interview he said that Obama was clearly hostile to Israel and that recent treatment of Israel Prime-Minister was outrageous. Koch indirectly apologized for telling American people in general, and American Jews in particular that Obama was a friend of Israel. At the end of the interview, he conceded that Obama was ready to throw Israel under the bus in order to please the Moslem nations.
My first impulse when I heard this story was to mock Ed Koch for his stupidity and ignorance. How come that everyone with IQ above room temperature knew that Obama hated Israel – and Ed did not? Should we believe the impossible and conclude that not only he reads the New York Times – but he also trusts what is written in this left-wing propaganda outlet? I mean, how low can one go? But as a wise man I am inclined to follow Talleyrand famous advice “Mistrust first impulses; they are nearly always good” and proceed with caution.
A bigger issue is not the apparent “What the f*ck is wrong with Ed Koch?” A really good idea would be to tell Ed Koch that though he misjudged Barack Obama – it was not Eddie's fault. Somehow, someone in the mainstream media misinformed him about our future president, and either did not study Obama’s anti-Israeli history or lied about it. Can Ed Koch list the media outlets that convinced him that Obama was the friend of Israel? Moreover, we should remind Ed that Fox News, AM radio and conservative newspapers provided plethora of information on Obama’s anti-Israeli history – and yet he was clearly unaware about it.
The only conclusion that Ed Koch must make – if indeed he is truly heartbroken about being misinformed about Obama’s true intentions towards Israel (and also misinforming other Jews about same) – is to remember once and for all that even though he may disagree with conservative media, he needs to listen to them very carefully from now on and not dismiss their claims out of hand. The second thing he should remember is that mainstream media should not be trusted. If he learns these two lessons, and if he is brave enough to teach other liberal Jews to do same – then maybe indeed it was not his fault that he misjudged president Obama.
Eddie-baby, what do you say to that?