Sunday, November 4, 2012

In The News - Sunday: Syrian Tanks Move Into Golan Heights




Syrian Tanks Cross Into Golan Demilitarized Zone


The Israel Defense Forces raised its alert level in the Northern Command area, and a military spokeswoman said Israel complained to the U.N. peacekeeping force in the area after the tanks entered.

Hebrew news site Ynet said there were reports that two Syrian armored personnel carriers also crossed into the zone.
The Syrian army vehicles were deployed just a few miles away from Israeli military positions.

Several mortar shells from the Syrian fighting have reportedly fallen in the same area in recent days, and one of them may caused a small fire.
Marco Carminjani, an official with the U.N. body supervising the zone, said he could not immediately confirm the entry of the tanks. But if the report is true, he said, it would be a violation of the 1974 disengagement agreement between Syria and Israel. He said it would be the first such move in the zone since the accord.

There have long been concerns in Israel that violence from Syria’s civil war could spill across the long-quiet frontier. Misfired Syrian shells have exploded inside Israel on several occasions in recent months, and the Mount Hermon tourism site was briefly closed after suspicious movements in the area.

Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, touring the Golan Heights last Tuesday, said the territory would stay in Israeli hands, calling it non-negotiable under a Likud-Yisrael Beytenu government.

“The Israeli Law, which applies to the Golan Heights, has been in place since the days of former prime minister Menachem Begin, which means the Golan Heights are like Tel Aviv or Holon,” he said.
There is concern in Israel that if the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad is toppled, the country could fall into the hands of Islamic extremists or descend into sectarian warfare, destabilizing the region. Still, Israel has expressed empathy for Syrian citizens caught up in the vicious fighting.


Islamist rebels are invading Christian communities in Syria – fighting to capture Aleppo’s mostly Christian neighborhoods of al-Syriaan al-Jaddie and al-Syriaan al-Qadime.
Reports from Middle East analysts say the battle for the Christian neighborhoods started last week.

Religious Freedom Coalition President William Murray said there’s a reason the Free Syrian Army chose to fight over the Christian neighborhoods.
“The Islamist rebels invaded Christian neighbors to force government troops to destroy homes there,” Murray said. “They want the government troops to shell the neighborhoods in an effort to recapture it.”

“I have seen this tactic in the so-called West Bank during the Intifada,” he said. “Muslims would fire mortars from a Christian neighborhood to draw Israeli fire there. This is a win-win for the Islamist rebels supplied by Turkey. Syrian government troops can be fired on and Christian homes get destroyed.”Clay also said Christians are experiencing the most hardship because they have the most to lose if Assad is overthrown.

“While many Christians have publicly denounced the brutality of President Assad and by no means support the regime, many Christians still desire greater freedoms and political reform to be enacted by the current government,” Clay said.
Christians’ hopes for reform are growing dim.

“That, of course, will never happen as Assad has chosen time and again to use brutal force in response to peaceful protests, killing thousands of civilians,” Clay said. “At the same time, however, most Christians see little hope in an alternative government which, they fear, will be led by Islamists who will hinder or outright abolish the religious freedoms long experienced by Christians in Syria.

“Due to ongoing violence and fears of radical Islamic factions, church leaders in Aleppo have reported that many Christians have already fled the city. According to Agence France-Presse, Syrian rebels have openly stated their goal of transforming Syria into an Islamic state while proclaiming that Christians have no connection to the country.



They seized power in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia following the notorious Arab Spring revolutions. They are determined to do the same in Syria and Jordan. They are the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most influential modern Islamist organization. But what do we actually know about them? Is their reach limited to the Middle East, and what threats do they pose to Israel and Europe? Israel Today uncovers.

Despite these divisions, Brotherhood members around the world are united by a set of common goals.

One of those goals is “to be the ultimate leaders of their Muslim societies,” explained Vidino. “Muslim expatriates are usually divided and disoriented by the impact of life in non-Muslim countries. Very often they lack any knowledge about Islam, which makes them an ideally receptive audience for the Muslim Brotherhood’s message.”
Vidino continued by noting that the Muslim Brotherhood would also like to become the “official representative of the Muslim community in the eyes of the European politicians. They want to be able to interfere with decision-making circles on issues ranging from domestic policies to international affairs, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
The Brotherhood’s effort toward achieving those goals have born fruit.


HATRED OF ISRAEL

Apart from targeting Jews, the Brotherhood is fundamentally hostile toward Israel, rejecting its right to exist, opposing the peace process, and obstructing all efforts at normalization between Israel and the Arab states (especially Egypt and Jordan). Blaming all Middle East problems on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Brotherhood also helps to raise money for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, which has the blood of hundreds of Israelis on its hands.

To promote anti-Israel sentiment, the religiously conservative Muslim Brotherhood has even joined forces with extremist liberal left-wing groups that make it their aim to delegitimize Israel through various media stunts.
In fact, London has turned into an important media hub for the Brotherhood, which operates the Arabic publication Risalat Al-Ikhwan and the satellite channel Al-Hiwar TV, boasting more than two million viewers, out of the British capital. Apart from broadcasting programs with Islamic themes and anti-Israeli propaganda and incitement, Al-Hiwar gives stage to various extremists (like Muhammad Sawalha, a Hamas operative) who use the media as a tool to spread their toxic messages.


TARGET: EUROPE

But the Muslim Brotherhood is not only dangerous to Jews or Israel. “The movement promotes agendas that encourage their followers to think of themselves first and foremost as Muslims, thus hindering their assimilation in Europe. Even though they say the opposite, their messages are clearly incompatible with European values,” said Vidino.
Moreover, constant radical preaching (that’s forced down the throats of European Muslims from an early age) makes it easier for extremists to recruit operatives able to carry out suicide attacks either in the Middle East or on European soil.
“If [the Muslim Brotherhood continues to pursue this path] and if these teachings are absorbed by the Muslim masses in Europe, this could prove dangerous for the European society,” Vidino summed up.



The Institute for National Security Studies held a war game recently in which players representing regional actors simulated the first 48 hours after an IDF strike on the Islamic Republic.
The simulation was based on the scenario of a unilateral Israeli strike without US participation, after midnight on November 9.


This is actually very interesting - take a look at the following in light of biblical prophecy:

The Tel Aviv University-based institute began the game with the following “announcement”: “Al Jazeera reported that Israeli planes attacked nuclear sites in Iran in three assault waves. Following the reports, Israel officially announced it attacked nuclear sites in Iran, since it had no other choice.”
As part of the exercise, Iran responded with full force, firing some 200 Shihab missiles at Israel in two waves, and calling on its proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas and other radical organizations, to attack Israel. At first, Iran refrained from striking US targets in the Persian Gulf region in the war game.

The international community remained paralyzed due to Russia’s attempts to exploit the situation to advance its strategic interests.“After two days, the Iranians, and to a lesser extent, their allies, continue to attack Israel. The crisis did not appear to be approaching a solution,” the INSS concluded at the end of the war game.

The US stayed out of the fighting, based on a policy that it would only become involved if Iran were to shut off the globally important oil route of the Strait of Hormuz, or if Iran attacked US assets in the Gulf.

Within the INSS, there are two competing schools of thought regarding the outcome of an Israeli strike on Iran. The first foresees a major regional war that could develop beyond the area. The second believes that, due to the presence of restraining mechanisms, Iran’s ability to set the Middle East alight is limited.





Having lived in the Tornado Alley for 30 years, I have learned many valuable lessons. After many raging tornadoes, straight line winds, and hurricanes I understood that churches and other Americans near and far, not the big government, were the first line of defense after a disaster.

Mennonites, Baptists, Mormons, and the National Guard came by truckloads with bulldozers, shovels, and chain saws to extricate their fellow Americans from trees and debris. Utility trucks from places as far away as Utah helped restore our power.
We were never so arrogant to claim, in shameless hubris, that humans were in control of Mother Earth. We did not cause global warming and we are not responsible for cycles of disastrous weather. Bad weather events such as Sandy have occurred periodically throughout our planet’s history. Soil samples prove that massive tsunamis and hurricanes had occurred long before humanity reached the industrial age. Time and effort would be better spent to find a way to minimize the damaging effect of natural events. Destroying our way of life and returning to pre-industrial age is not a rational answer.

Mayor Bloomberg was eager to point out, “Our climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be – given this week’s devastation – should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.”

I would prefer that leaders take immediate action and reduce our national debt, the number one threat to our national security. Taxing us more is not a solution.
Bloomberg, a rich urbanite, cannot fathom the idea that climate has changed for millennia and people had to adapt or die off. Rural residents are not deluding themselves and others that the power of nature can be controlled by man. You can ask the dinosaurs that even a 100 percent tax to offset carbon footprint cannot change global events. It is just a scheme to make money and to make people like Al Gore rich.

The fact that millions are crowded into high-rise apartments in densely populated areas, leaving people exposed, more vulnerable, with more casualties in the wake of a weather related event, escapes the liberal mind. We now track and keep very accurate records of catastrophic weather events. In the past the data was scarce, records sketchy, and news did not travel so fast without the Internet.


And below one can find the bottom line. Worth printing in bold red print:


I understand need, pain and suffering – I’ve lived through many hurricanes, a few earthquakes, and many tornadoes. I hope Democrats use this painful lesson to ponder the fact that immediate help and relief does not come from Big Government, it comes from ordinary fellow Americans who do extraordinary things.


Liberals have always lived in the capitalist lap of luxury but have yearned for the poverty of communism. As they ardently advocate and support utopia at all costs, liberals are finally getting painful lessons from a hurricane, of what everyday life is like under communism - power goes out for weeks on end, water is turned off, hot water is seldom available, heat is anemic, wood, coal, gasoline, and heating oil are hard to find and expensive, and food is very scarce, distributed in long lines, with rationing coupons, or on the black market. The only difference between communism and a natural disaster is the culprit that causes all the pain and suffering – irrational control freaks or Mother Nature.




What separates barbarism from civilization? About 96 hours without power, it turns out. The plight of a few New Yorkers left without food, fuel, or power — and increasingly without public services — has provided a cautionary tale into what happens when the infrastructure which supports 21st century megacities collapses. It shows what occurs when the design margin runs out. The signs in the disaster area abound. “Looters will be shot.” “Block proteced by Smith and Wesson.”

Perhaps more so than in any other place in the city, the loss of power for people living in public housing projects forced a return to a primal existence. Opened fire hydrants became community wells. Sleep-and-wake cycles were timed to sunsets and sunrises. People huddled for warmth around lighted gas stoves as if they were roaring fires. Darkness became menacing, a thing to be feared.But where the memory of the human birthright had not been wholly extirpated, the residents looked to themselves. Gone in an instant was the idea that “guns” are bad. Unmentioned was the once sacrosanct principle that nothing is settled by force. Few things transform a surfer — like the man above — into a caveman faster than need.

Of course the inconveniences in New York are temporary. Give it a few weeks and things will be back to normal. Then we can be our old generous and humane selves again. But before we entirely forget a few unpleasant days of deprivation, let’s spare a moment to reflect on how fragile is our civilization. How fleeting are our scruples.

The United States has presided over the longest peace in modern history. It did not achieve this on the back of “moral superiority.” It attained this because it had sufficient strength and wealth to plant the flowers. We ought not to let people persuade us that weakness is good; that poverty is virtuous; that a dull sameness is all we must aspire to. We ought not to think that to disarm ourselves before evil is virtue. It is folly. We will all learn that lesson at one time or another in our lives. Only some will learn it too late.



Remember Cindy Sheehan?

You know, the grieving mother who camped out at George Bush’s ranch demanding to see the president — for a second time — so she could express her unhappiness about the war in Iraq that killed her son? The woman who inspired the media to more madness than usual in support of a leftist cause? The woman who Pulitzer-winning doyenne of cheap Beltway gossip Maureen Dowd wrote at the time had “absolute moral authority”?

It wasn’t just MoDo who went gaga over Cindy. Reporters from every network were tripping over themselves and each other in Crawford to stick mics and cameras in their heroine’s face. As Brent Baker noted in August of 2005:

Before and after Cindy Sheehan’s announcement Thursday that she was leaving Crawford to attend to her ill mother, the networks celebrated her supposed achievements and hoped they’d re-invigorate the anti-war movement. “Did just one grieving mother spark the beginnings of an anti-war movement? We’ll give you the ‘Inside Story,’” CBS anchor John Roberts promised before Wyatt Andrews trumpeted: “Her movement seemed to catch fire Wednesday night as tens of thousands of people in more than a thousand places attended vigils in support.” He insisted that it’s “very clear Cindy Sheehan has tapped the public’s frustration.” ABC anchor Elizabeth Vargas saw “a campaign born of sadness and resolution.” Thursday morning, ABC’s Charlie Gibson championed: “All across the country protests against the war in Iraq, inspired by the mother standing her ground at President Bush’s ranch.” On screen, GMA put “MOM ON A MISSION: IS ANTIWAR MOVEMENT GROWING?” George Stephanopoulos claimed “a lot of Republicans would say” that “this is the president’s swift boat moment.”


Now, compare and contrast to someone that many have never heard of: Chuck Woods, bereaved father of Tyrone Woods, one of the SEALS killed in Benghazi a couple months ago.

Whatever the reason, he is an invisible man. When one does a search for “Chuck Woods Benghazi,” the only links that come up are to Fox News, or links to other places that link to Fox News. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and the rest of the alphabet soup are conspicuous by their absence (though interestingly, the current top link is a Slate story by Dave Weigel asking if “conservatives” will be able to “Swift Boat” Obama over the issue).

Maybe if he really wants to get the nation’s attention, Mr. Woods will have to take a page from Cindy Sheehan’s book, and perhaps chain himself to the White House fence. I’d bet that, plus a mass rally by the Tea Party in Lafayette Square to support him, might force the other networks to finally take note of someone who has even more “absolute moral authority” than their erstwhile heroine and speaker of “truth” to power.





Saturday, November 3, 2012

Saturday's Headlines











"They're Still Persecuting Jesus"





They're Still Persecuting Jesus




This has to be posted in full:




The nineteenth century French painting, Christian Martyrs' Last Prayer--today hangs in the Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore. It has not lost its capacity to shock. In the Roman Circus, the small flock of Christians is huddled in the sand, kneeling around their aged pastor. We see weeping little children, whole families gathered.In the stands are tens of thousands of people, none of whose faces are visible, but they are colorfully dressed, awaiting a special entertainment. The scene is eerily lighted by flaming crosses.

Looking more closely, however, we see those crosses bear Christians, covered in pitch and set aflame. Their suffering, at least, will be brief. Out of the depths beneath the Circus stride lions and a single tiger. The lead lion advances menacingly toward the Believers.Jean-Léon Gérôme, the painter, may have wanted Christians of his time to remember the sacrifices necessary to build the magnificent civilization he and his contemporaries then enjoyed. The sky in this painting is dark and threatening. It symbolizes an age in classic antiquity that was both technologically advanced-look at architecture!-and spiritually stunted.

For France in 1883, it was the Belle Epoque. That was when Paris was being rebuilt as the beautiful City of Light we know today. In that year, steamships traveled the world's oceans and Europeans sought to bring the benefits of railroads, schools, medical clinics, and the Gospel to many lands around the world.

All of that "imperialism" is today viewed with unalloyed horror by the intelligentsia of the West.

The cultured despisers of religion think that persuading Indians to give up suttee-the practice of burning living widows on their husbands' funeral pyres is cultural imperialism. Teaching native peoples in Africa not to kill newborn twins and chase their mothers into the bush to be devoured by lions is seen as imposing an alien values system on others.It's not surprising, therefore, that so little attention is being paid to Christian persecution in the Third World today. 


Our modern world-so technologically innovative-is morally and spiritually closer to that Roman Circus than we might like to admit.

World Magazine, an Evangelical publication, is almost the only national news outlet that takes Christian persecution seriously. In the current issue, journalist Jamie Dean has provided a broad view of Christian persecution in the Mideast. It leads us to ask: Why should Christians anywhere view the "Arab Spring" with approval? Why should American Christians, in particular, join with the Obama administration in hailing every step they think they see toward greater democracy? Democracy requires more than people voting. In Egypt, there has been a sharp increase in the murder of Coptic Christians.This administration entered office pledging to deal more openly with Iranian mullahs. These are the same men who jailed Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, 32, for the "crime" of sharing his faith with others. Reporter Dean makes clear that the recent release of Pastor Nadarkhani may have had more to do with the mullahs trying to avoid more stringent Western economic sanctions than with any lessening of their cruelties toward Christians.Christians are familiar with the Bible passage in the Book of Acts where Jesus speaks to Saul. "Why do you persecute me," Jesus asks. Saul is on his way to Damascus. How very appropriate this passage is to our own day. For it is in Damascus that Christians are being newly endangered. And when that is the case, it is not just Jesus' followers who are being persecuted, it is Jesus Himself. We have His word on that.

As we approach this Sunday's International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church, it is good to remember that we are citizens, too. We should pray for our brethren suffering all over the bloody crescent. And we should recall that when Saul became Paul he did not give up his Roman citizenship. He used that citizenship to advance God's purposes on earth.

As Christian citizens of this great republic, we can certainly cry out against persecution at home and abroad. And we can make our voices heard. John F. Kennedy said it well: "Here on earth, God's work must truly be our own."












Looking At The Future

As a result of liberal policies, America hasn't been keeping up with population growth in terms of our growing energy needs as a nation - and this situation has been created by the lack of any new oil refineries, any new coal plants, as coal plants have actually been closing at an alarming rate (remember Obama's promise to cripple the coal industry? It is no secret) and no new nuclear power plants over the past 3 decades. All of this has been an open agenda of the far left and our current administration and the people of this nation are suffering as a result - but we are just in the early stages of this suffering. Under the false and irrational promises of wind power and solar power, we, as a nation have neglected the most basic needs supplied by coal, oil and gas. Liberals have done everything in their power to prevent our energy needs from being met and we are now seeing some early results of these 'policies'. Hurricane Sandy has opened the door to looking into the future. Worse - for any thinking human, this has been done under the false premise of mythical 'global warming' - even though the planet has been cooling for the last 15-16 years - but don't let facts get in the way or dogma. 

The pictures below should serve as a look into the future - thanks to the irrational, unrealistic and patently ridiculous policies we have seen for the last 3 decades in this country. This is exactly where we are headed. Anyone my age or older recalls waiting in lines for gas for hours during the Carter years, when similar policies were in effect. 

Look at these pictures because this is where we are headed - and this bleak future won't be due to a hurricane, it will be due to the liberal policies regarding energy. Notice, there are no lines for solar panels or windmills, and one has to wonder how many of these people have voted for the same liberal policies which have given us this situation:







More of the same awaits:






Federal agencies are sitting on a pile of major health, environmental, and financial regulations that lobbyists, congressional staffers, and former administration officials say are being held back to avoid providing ammunition to Mitt Romney and other Republican critics.Despite looming legislative deadlines in the Affordable Care Act, court deadlines requiring environmental-protection rules, and a financial industry awaiting clarification on key reform details, the pace of regulatory release has slowed by almost half. The drop-off stands out not just compared to earlier years of Obama’s term but also compared to other years in which presidents are running for reelection, according to analyses from experts at George Mason and George Washington universities.The administration has also failed to release a required regulatory outlook document, describing its regulatory agenda. Such documents are supposed to be published every six months; the most recent one was published in January, making this the longest lag between outlooks since the deadline schedule was created in 1994.




And this:





News wires across the spectrum are filled with harrowing signs of unfolding social collapse in the wake of Sandy that could exacerbate in the days to come as power outages are expected to last a week, pitting residents against each other over access to gasoline, food and other necessary supplies in large pockets of the most densely populated area of the nation.That desperation is sure to further intensify in proportion with strained resources, as order has already started to dissolve under reported limits on cash and commerce as electronic payment is suspended and those on food stamps are unable to use EBT payments.

Images of hungry people diving for food in dumpsters make clear that neither individuals nor governments were prepared to keep things running and meet basic needs despite the hype over the “superstorm” leading up to Sandy.

Shocking accounts of eroding civility have cropped up across social media and in reports. As Breitbartdemonstrated, numerous threats were made at gun or knife point, while long lines for gasoline saw fights and high tension. Gas stations continue to be guarded by armed police, as supplies are rationed.

Meanwhile, it’s politics as usual on the campaign trail – not in trading blows between the Obama and Romney camps just days ahead of the scheduled election – but in praising FEMA and endorsing more power and billions more in money for the bloated agency.

GOP Governor Chris Christie, presiding over the heavily affected state of New Jersey, has been most notable in embracing federal disaster relief in force – and with full federal funding – even praising President Obama despite the tense election season reaching crescendo, irking many GOP politicos.

Mainstream media have echoed this uncritical endorsement, giving FEMA preemptive praise for its efforts in Sandy. ‘FEMA is the solution,’ and other bold claims are made to ensure the public does not break out of theillusion that FEMA is its loving savior.But FEMA remains an agency capable only of a mismatched response, too slow to handle the most immediate needs to contain potential chaos, but always on pace for a gradual power grab after the fact, actually feeding off a greater disaster.

Once again, this bloated government agency can’t and won’t help the masses in a disaster.

Yet politicians throughout the corporate-owned two party system are lining up to meet any request for FEMA funds, already approaching $12 billion plus, despite its track record of failure.While nearly 5 million people are without power for perhaps another week, the Huffington Post, among others, has identified 17 million living in FEMA’s disaster relief zone, soon to be occupied by an inefficient, top down control mechanism.

Notoriously, FEMA botched any meaningful relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina in terms of its primary mandate to quickly rescue and care for the needs of displaced victims, yet went over the top in creating an occupied martial law zone where guns were confiscated even in dry areas, the needy and vulnerable were placed in a hotbed of criminals at the Superdome and people were shot for trying to cross the bridge and exit the disaster zone.

Congressman Ron Paul weighed in as a lonely voice willing to critique FEMA’s history of inefficiency and naked power grabs, while defending the centuries of local aid organized within the community in simply helping each other:






Yea - just keep repeating the mantra "the government will take care of you, the government will take care of you". Maybe if that is repeated enough it will actually come true. 





Friday, November 2, 2012

Evening Update: Electronic Voting Troubles - All In One Direction



This story is becoming more and more troublesome:





Imagine you go to the polls and choose Mitt Romney on an electronic machine, but your vote comes up 'Barack Obama.' So you re-enter your choice, but the president's name still stubbornly appears. Then a third try. Ditto.



Innocent malfunction... or something else?


Whatever the case, this has already happened to voters in states such as Nevada, Ohio, Kansas, North Carolina, Missouri, and Colorado -- four of which are swing states.
This hasn't escaped the notice of the Republican National Committee, which has just sent a letter outlining its concerns to the secretaries of state of the aforementioned. The RNC's chief counsel, John Phillipe, wrote that he understands how "the causes of this problem are varied, and include miscalibration and hyper-sensitivity of the machines," verbiage diplomatic enough to avoid being branded a (paranoid) life-form from another "inhabited planet," as a complaint-barraged and incredulous North Carolina elections official put it. As for where this puts me, I guess I'm suspicious enough to be targeted by the Men in Black.

I'll make my case. First, all these stories about uncooperative machines involve votes switched in only one direction: Barack Obama's. Would this be possible if at issue were merely innocent errors?

If it isn't true that these malfunctions are curiously monolithic in favor of the president, then where are the news stories to that effect? After all, if Obama votes were switched to Romney ones anywhere, the reliably liberal mainstream media would certainly make it front-page news. But have you gotten wind of such happenings? If so, I'd like to hear about it -- honestly. It would be mind-easing.

Next, we've all used ATMs, and most everyone (except my quasi-Luddite self) has something such as an iPod. Now, have you ever, anytime, anywhere, had one of these electronic devices switch data input on you? So how is it that in our high-tech universe of flawlessly functioning electronic gadgets, voting machines are the only ones prone to humanlike "error"? If there's an explanation other than human meddling, again, I'd truly like to hear it. Experts, feel free to weigh in.

Lastly, while electronics may not be my forte, what I do know something about is man's nature. And the nature of the man known as the leftist has been on full display this election cycle. Consider the OWS protesters who vandalized property, littered grounds, and committed rape and theft; the Democrat partisans who key people's cars, steal Romney/Ryan signs (happened to someone close to me), and beat up Republicans; the Democrat operative caught on video facilitating vote fraud; the liberals who wanted to kill a conservative 6-year-old; and the progressive septuagenarian who told a conservative 12-year-old he should have been aborted. These actions -- just a small sampling of many -- reflect well the situational-values set, people who are beneath contempt and above nothing.Now let's apply logic. Some of the technicians calibrating electronic voting machines are liberals, and it follows that some percentage of them must be cut from the above stone. After all, does anyone really think that leftist political manipulation and bullying stop at the border separating low-tech and high-tech crime?

This election is within the margin of fraud, and I've already made my predictions and written that vote manipulators can, with little question, steal it for Obama. And here is how we could know on Nov. 7: watch the exit polls. Exit polling is a precise enough science so that states can be called for one candidate or another based on it. Thus, if this data shows a Romney win in a state but it nonetheless goes for Obama, we can bet that the living-constitution types have given us a living vote count along with a dying republic.




This is a very insightful and timely report from Caroline Glick, and it takes an interesting turn around the mid-point of this article - see below (I was having trouble with the link, so here is the entire article):


"Your first time shouldn’t be with just anybody. You want to do it with a great guy.”
So begins the now famous official Barack Obama for President campaign ad that was released last week. The ad depicts a young woman named Lena Dunham, who is apparently a celebrity among Americans in their teens and 20s.


After that opening line, Ms. Dunham continues on for another minute and a half discussing how having sex for the first time and voting for Barack Obama for president are really the same thing, and how young women don’t want to be accused of either being virgins or of having passed up on their chance to cast their votes for Obama next Tuesday.


I’ve never been particularly interested in so-called “women’s issues.” It never seemed to me that any party or politician was particularly good or bad for me due to the way they thought of women. That all changed with the Dunham ad for Obama.
With this ad, Obama convinced me he is a misogynist.


The Obama campaign’s use of a double entendre to compare sex – the most personal, intimate act we engage in as human beings, with voting – the most public act we engage in as human beings – is a scandal.
It is demeaning and contemptuous of women. It reduces us to sexual objects. When called on to vote, as far as Obama is concerned, as slaves to our passions, we make our decisions not based on our capacity for rational choice. Rather we choose our leaders solely on the basis of our sexual desires.


Beyond the ad’s bald attempt to impersonalize, generalize and cheapen the most personal act human beings engage in, the ad is repulsive because it takes for granted that what happens in our private lives is the government’s business.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a totalitarian position.
The whole point of liberal democracy is to put a barrier between a person’s personal life and his or her government. A liberal democracy is founded on the notion of limited government. It assumes there are a lot of places where government has no role to play. And first and foremost among those places is the bedroom.


The theory behind limited government is that if the government is permitted in our private space then we are no longer free. When – as in the case of the Dunham ad – a political campaign conveys the message that there is something personally wrong with not actively supporting its candidate, it communicates the message that it sees no distinction between personal and public life, and therefore rejects the basic notion of freedom from government. And this is repugnant, not just for women, but for everyone who values freedom.


One of the oddest aspects of the Obama sex ad is that to believe that this sort of message can be effective, the campaign had to ignore mountains of data about the demographic group the ad targets – young college-educated women.
According to just about every piece of survey data collected over the past 20 years, young women in America today are more accomplished, more professionally driven, and more intellectually successful than their male counterparts. That the Obama campaign believes the votes of this successful, smart group of women can be won by appealing to their basest urges rather than their capacity to reason is demeaning and perverse and, one would think, counterproductive.
But it isn’t surprising.


The fact is that the Obama campaign – and indeed, the Obama presidency – has treated the American people with unprecedented arrogance and contempt. On issue after issue, Obama and his minions have eschewed intellectual argumentation.
On issue after issue they have preferred instead to attack Obama’s detractors as stupid, backwards, bigoted, bellicose and evil.


For instance, however one feels about current events in the Middle East, there is a legitimate – indeed critical – argument to be had about the nature of the Islamist forces the Obama administration is supporting from Cairo, Egypt, to Alexandria, Virginia.
The Muslim Brotherhood is the most popular movement in the Islamic world. It is also a totalitarian, misogynist, anti-Jewish, anti-Christian and anti-American movement. It seeks Islamic global supremacy, the genocide of Jewry, the subjugation of Christianity and the destruction of the United States.


There is an intellectual case to be made for appeasing these popular, popularly elected forces.
There is a (stronger) intellectual case to be made for opposing them. But rather than make any of the hard arguments for appeasing the Muslim Brotherhood, the Obama administration has deflected the issue by castigating everyone who opposes its appeasement policies as racist, McCarthyite warmongers.


If women who don’t support Obama are prudish geeks, Americans who oppose his appeasement policies are bloodthirsty bigots.
Then there was the attack in Benghazi on September 11 and the general Islamic assaults on US embassies throughout the Muslim world that day.


The acts of aggression that Muslims carried out against several US embassies on September 11 and since have all been acts of war against America.
The rioters who stormed the US embassies in Egypt, Tunis and Yemen and replaced the American flag with the flag of al-Qaida all violated sovereign US territory and carried out acts of war. The US had the right, under international law, to repel and respond with military force against the rioters as well as against their governments. Instead the White House blamed the acts of war on a US citizen who posted a video on YouTube.
Then there was Benghazi. In Benghazi, jihadists took this collective aggression a step further. They attacked the US Consulate and a US government safe house with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. Their goal was to murder all the US citizens inside the compounds. In the event, they successfully murdered four Americans, including the US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.


In the six weeks that have passed since the attack in Benghazi, despite administration attempts to stonewall, and despite the US’s media’s inexcusable lack of interest in the story, information has continuously dribbled out indicating that Obama and his senior advisers knew in real time what was happening on the ground. It has also come out that they rejected multiple requests from multiple sources to employ military power readily available to save the lives of the Americans on the ground.
There may be good reasons that Obama and his top aides denied those repeated requests for assistance and allowed the American citizens pinned down in Benghazi to die. But Obama and his aides have not provided any.
Rather than defend their actions, Obama and his advisers first sought to cover up what happened by blaming the acts of war on that YouTube video.
When that line of argument collapsed of its own absurdity, Obama shifted to blaming the messenger.


His campaign accused everyone asking for facts and truthful explanations about what happened in Benghazi of trying to politicize the attack.
Obama himself has twice struck the Captain Renault pose and declared himself “Shocked, shocked!” that anyone would dare to insinuate that he did not do everything in his power to save the lives of the Americans whose lives he failed to save.


The reason specific sectors of a society usually feel compelled to vote on the basis of their sectoral interests rather than their general interests as citizens of their country is that they feel that one candidate or party specifically endangers their sectoral interests. Hence, the Lena Dunham ad, which insults women specifically, compels women to vote as women against Obama.


In the case of Obama’s appeasement of the Muslim world, there is no specific group that is hurt more than any other group by his policies.
As we saw in Libya, Egypt, Tunis, Yemen and beyond, his appeasement policies endanger all Americans equally.


This is not the case with Obama’s treatment of Israel and Jews. Obama’s supporters always highlight statements he has made and actions he has taken in relation to Israel and Jews that are relatively supportive of both.
To be sure, like every other US president, Obama has made some statements, and taken some actions, that have been supportive of Jews and of Israel. But unlike most other US presidents, he has made far more statements and taken far more actions that have been contemptuous and hostile to Israel and Jews. And this is inexcusable. 

It is inexcusable that Obama uses coded anti- Semitic language to blame America’s economic woes on “fat cat bankers.” It is inexcusable that his secretary of state and his senior advisers have repeatedly made references to the so-called Israel Lobby to explain why America is supposedly hamstrung in its ability to sell Israel to the wolves.
It is inexcusable that Obama sends his surrogates before the cameras to refer to Israel’s prime minister as “ungrateful,” or to castigate Israel for permitting Jews to build homes in Jerusalem on land they own and for permitting Jews to exercise their legal rights to their property – simply because they are Jews.


Israel is the US’s most important ally in the Middle East. As such, it deserves to be treated well by the US – all the time. Any move to treat Israel with contempt is an unprovoked hostile act and therefore inexcusable.


So, too, US Jews have a right to make an honest living doing anything they wish – including working on Wall Street or owning a casino in Las Vegas. Jews have a right to be treated with respect by the US government. They should not have to be concerned about having their reputations maligned by politicians who use anti-Semitic tropes to gain political advantage.


Obama’s contemptuous vilification of Israel and successful American Jews make him bad for Jews specifically. Just as the Dunham ad exposes his underlying hostility towards women and so makes clear that women’s interests are imperiled by his presidency, so Obama’s repeated hostile treatment of Israel and American Jews make him a specific danger to Jewish interests.


Many would-be deep thinkers have proclaimed that the presidential election is a choice between two competing narratives. But that isn’t an accurate description of the race.
Only Republican nominee Mitt Romney is presenting a narrative. In his narrative, the US faces very difficult problems in domestic and foreign policy alike. Romney has laid out his priorities for which problems he wishes to contend with, and has presented policies he will adopt to do so if he is elected next Tuesday.


On the other hand, by Obama’s telling, the real problems America faces are all the result of the empowerment of his political opponents and America’s allies.
Benghazi wouldn’t be a problem if his political opponents weren’t talking about it. Jihadists aren’t a problem. The problem is the people who say they are a problem. The national debt isn’t a problem. The problem is the “fat cat bankers.”
Women will vote for him because we are dimwitted sex objects. And Jews will vote for him because we are taken in by his occasional Borscht Belt schmaltz platitudes about Hanukka.
God help us all if his contemptuous assessment of his countrymen is borne out next Tuesday.