The Secret Blue State Plan To Steal The 2012 Elections

The deep Blue states above all have something in common. They're all ruled by solid Democrat majorities in their State Legislatures and they've all passed legislation designed to favor Democrat urban strongholds, disenfranchise less populated Red States and have a decisive effect on the 2012 election.

And very few people know about it.

The legislation is known as The National Popular Vote bill, and there's an ongoing attempt to get it passed in as many states as possible. It's mainly being championed by Democrats, with a sprinkling of Republicans to give it the aura of 'bi-partisanship'.

The states above control 138 electoral votes. Because they've all signed on to The National Popular Vote Act, those electoral votes will automatically go to the candidate who gets the most popular votes nationally - regardless of how the citizens of these states actually vote.

For instance, let's say that in 2012 the largely Republican voters in downstate Illinois and some of the suburbs manage to outvote the Democrats, corpses, illegal aliens and vagrants put together by the ward bosses and the machine in Chicago and Cook County. Because the Democrats in the Illinois Legislature have managed to push the National Popular Vote Act through, Illinois' 20 electoral votes would go not necessarily to the Republican candidate the majority of voters in the state chose but to whichever candidate got the majority of votes nationally. If Barack Obama were to win the popular vote nationally by even as little as 100 votes, Illinois' 20 electoral votes will automatically go him.

This scenario is also known as Al Gore's wet dream.

None of these states held a referendum on this. It was all done by legislative fiat.

It's also interesting to look at some of the people behind this.

The Chairman, Dr. John Kozas of Los Altos California is a wealthy lefty who made his money from co-inventing the scratch-off lottery ticket and then lobbying state governments to sell them. Among many other far Left and socialist groups and candidates he's supported as a donor and/or bundled for is Howard Dean's Democracy For America ( DFA) political organization, Berkeley nut case Rep. Barbara Lee, Senator Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, Keith Ellison, The Democratic Farmer/Labor Party, the DNC, Senator Boxer's PAC for a Change, and of course, Barack Obama. The list is a long one.

Tom Golisano is a prominent business man with deep pockets who was the co-counder of the Independence Party of New York, a party split between Perotistas and a strong Marxist element. He was also a Kerry donor. Forbes estimates his personal wealth at $1.2 billion.

Barry Fadem, the president, is a long-time Democrat operative in California, who worked for Governor Jerry Brown and Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally arguably one of the most incompetent and perhaps racist public officials in state history. He's another Boxer donor, as well as to ActBlue, an organization that seeks to organize boycotts to penalize businesses thought to be too 'Republican'.

Jason Roe was a Republican operative in the northeast with all that implies until he got a little too close to Jack Abramoff.

National Popular Vote Secretary Chris Pearson is another long time far Left Democrat operative who worked with admitted socialist Bernie Sanders and the Progressive Party.

Larry Sokol is a longtime Democrat legislative staffer and lobbyist in California. His connections were instrumental in shepherding the Nation Popular Vote Bill through the California Legislature.

Former Minnesota GOP Representative Laura Brod is something of the odd person out here.While the cast of the group is overwhelmingly Left- leaning, Brod says there is a conservative argument for NPV.

She claims that this is a state's rights prerogative according to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, that the current system means that national candidates spend their time and resources and craft policy based on the needs of battleground states while ignoring states with little electoral clout and states they feel they have no chance of carrying. Brod's argument is that NPV will make every vote count and force National candidates to campaign in every state. These arguments all have some validity. Democrat nominees usually give Utah and Texas a pass and Republicans do the same to Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Where she's mistaken, in my opinion is the ultimate outcome. Widespread adoption of the NPV would simply give the Democrats an opportunity and the incentive to build up huge vote tallies in the corrupt urban strongholds they control by means fair or foul in an attempt to simply overwhelm voters in smaller Red states.

Voting illegal aliens, dead people, 'activists' being carted from state to state taking advantage of same day registration and felons in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York City and similar areas wouldn't just affect those states anymore...it would infect the voting process throughout the country and ultimately make the Electoral college irrelevant.

This is a Trojan Horse. And that's exactly why this group is mainly led by Left wing Democrats and why legislatures dominated by Democrats in Blue states are in love with it.

Make no mistake about it. This is a well-funded, highly organized group and could have a major impact in 2012. And hardly anyone knows about it.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

WH Spokeshole Carney Refuses To Criticize Obama's Approval Of Hoffa's Remarks

This is really worth watching. Reporter Jake Tapper corners White House spokeshole Jay Carney on President Obama's reaction to Jimmy Hoffa Jr.'s "War" and "take out those sons of bitches" comments when he was introducing the president at that Detroit labor rally yesterday, asking whether the President disavows that rhetoric.

Carney absolutely refused to comment on that,spinning instead that the president spoke, oh, a whole ten minutes later and had nothing to do with it, even though Obama praised Hoffa afterwards.

Tapper then reminds this ferret that when someone introducing John McCain made a few remarks about then Senator Obama in 2008, the Obama campaign had a major meltdown and asked for an apology, which they received.

"So is this the new standard now?" Tapper asked Carney. "Are Republicans candidates only responsible for what they say, not those who introduce them or their surrogates?"

Of course Carney won;t agree to that, anymore than he would criticize what Hoffa said. But the look on his face as he bites into that particular sandwich is priceless. He's been pwned in front of the entire White House Press corps, and Carney knows it.

Full transcript here.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Obama To Lower Troop Levels In Iraq To Below Safety Levels

The Obama Administration has ordered the Pentagon via new SecDef Leon Panetta to lower troop levels by the end of the year down to 3,000, a figure most commanders on the ground consider too small to ensure the safety of the U.S. troops who would remain there.

Originally, the administration wanted to reduce the number to 10,000, less than half of what commanders said they need to continue counterinsurgency warfare, training and aiding in Iraqi security. The field commanders said they could possibly make that work "in extremis," in other words, meaning it was a push to make that level of forces work security-wise and manpower-wise.

Now they're faced with a third of the minimum number they insist they need.

"Discussions with the Iraqis on our post-2011 strategic relationship are ongoing, and no decisions on troop levels have been made," said Panetta spokesman George Little. "We continue to proceed with troop withdrawals as directed by the president."

On Tuesday, the head of the three-province Kurdish autonomous region in the north of Iraq, warned that if American troops leave sectarian violence might resurface. Massoud Barzani urged the central Iraqi government to sign an agreement with the U.S. to keep forces in the country.

What's going on of course is that Barack Obama is running for re-election.He'll want to campaign as the president who 'ended Bush's wars' and brought our troops back from Iraq. At the same time, by leaving what amounts to a skeleton force there he'll be able to say he's 'continuing the mission of securing Iraq' and pound his chest as a national security watch dog.

The fact that he's leaving a token force in country that could be overwhelmed if things get hot is secondary to the president's political agenda.

The smart thing to do would either be to withdraw our troops altogether so as not to leave a vulnerable small force behind or to leave at least enough troops to be able to defend themselves effectively and carry out their mission successfully.

Our president wants to vote present on this one and have it both ways, and that could end up being both dangerous and counterproductive if things get hot.

Lately, President Obama has been styling himself lately as the new Harry Truman, at least on the campaign trail. He probably never learned history at Harvard, but someone ought to tell him that Truman's withdrawing everything but a skeleton force from Korea led to much greater problems than he bargained for.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Breaking: US Caught Spying On Israel,Lefty Bloggers Involved

It's common knowledge that even the best of allies conduct espionage on each other, and this breaking story provides a window on how the US spies on Israel.

What's particularly egregious about this one is that there were two notoriously anti-Israel bloggers involved and only one of them is sitting in jail for violating the Espionage Act.

Shamai K. Leibowitz, a contract FBI Hebrew translator was sentenced to 20 months in prison for releasing classified information and raw, unredacted transcripts obtained from FBI eavesdropping on the Israeli Embassy in Washington to blogger Richard Silverstein. Those overheard by the eavesdroppers and listed on the transcripts included American supporters of Israel and at least one member of Congress, according to Silverstein.

For most eavesdropping on embassies, federal law requires the F.B.I. to obtain an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which meets secretly at a federal courthouse in Washington. By law, if an American citizen calling an embassy turns up on a recording, the F.B.I. is required by law to redact the American’s name from intelligence reports, substituting the words “U.S. person.” That didn't happen here, and Leibowitz simply stole the unredacted material to give to Silverstein.

What Leibowitz saw was an opportunity to injure Israel's position in the United States.The link between Leibowitz and Silverstein is that they are both anti-Israel Lefty bloggers, with Leibowitz holding forth on his blog Pursuing Justice and Silverstein on the far better known anti-Israel blog Tikun Olam ( sorry, I won't link to these).

Leibowitz was born in Israel, retains dual US and Israeli citizenship and is the product of a far Left academic family. To give you an idea on how far off the charts and self-hating he is, Leibowitz acted as pro bono lawyer for 'Palestinian' Fatah terrorist Marwan Barghouti, who was convicted in Israeli civil court of masterminding the murder of five Israelis and is now serving a life sentence. Leibowitz described Barghouti as 'like Moses'. Leibowitz used to be a lawyer in the state of New York as well, but his law license was yanked for some of his activities and has not been reinstated.



As you can imagine, he and Silverstein had a real man crush on each other.

“I see him as an American patriot and a whistle-blower, and I’d like his actions to be seen in that context,” Mr. Silverstein said. “What really concerned Shamai at the time was the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran, which he thought would be damaging to both Israel and the United States.”

Silverstein removed the blog posts containing the illegally released material from his site and says he burned the transcripts in his back yard once Leibowitz came under investigation.

A couple of questions remain. For instance, since Leibowitz was actively associated with terrorists, how did he get a job as an FBI translator? Was it because he was already a US asset while he was still in Israel? It's pretty safe to assume he was.

Silverstein, by his own admission also violated the Espionage Act by receiving classified intel, disseminating it, and not informing the authorities until Leibowitz gave him up as part of a plea bargain. Silverstein thus was a co-conspirator in the events that sent Leibowitz to jail. Why wasn't Silverstein prosecuted?

I'll bet you my dollar to your dime it's because the Obama Administration is aware of Silverstein's point of view and considers him a 'friendly' when it comes to Israel. I doubt they'd be so accommodating if Silverstein were a pro-Israel conservative.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

The Rumblings Among Progressives Get Louder: Obama Must Go!

Yes, the rumblings on the Left about dissatisfaction with the president and the need for a primary challenge continue to grow on Prez Zero's approval ratings head south with no end in sight.

Über-Lefty Matt Stoller at Salon argues that President Obama is wrecking the Democrat party and is headed for a Carter-esque defeat:

Obama has ruined the Democratic Party. The 2010 wipeout was an electoral catastrophe so bad you'd have to go back to 1894 to find comparable losses. From 2008 to 2010, according to Gallup, the fastest growing demographic party label was former Democrat. Obama took over the party in 2008 with 36 percent of Americans considering themselves Democrats. Within just two years, that number had dropped to 31 percent, which tied a 22-year low.{...}

If would be one thing if Obama were failing because he was too close to party orthodoxy. Yet his failures have come precisely because Obama has not listened to Democratic Party voters. He continued idiotic wars, bailed out banks, ignored luminaries like Paul Krugman, and generally did whatever he could to repudiate the New Deal. The Democratic Party should be the party of pay raises and homes, but under Obama it has become the party of pay cuts and foreclosures. Getting rid of Obama as the head of the party is the first step in reverting to form.

So why isn't there a legitimate primary challenger to Obama to make this case? Forty years ago, primaries were instituted in the Democratic Party as a response to party insiders having too much influence over nominations. These reforms were implemented before the prevalence of money in politics was as extreme as it is now. At this point, primary challenges are so expensive that a serious 2012 campaign would ironically require support of party insiders for viability. The party, inflexible as it was in 1968, is perhaps even more rigid today. As a result, no candidate has stepped up to challenge Obama in a primary, even though 32 percent of Democratic voters want one.

This is an institutional crisis for Democrats. The groups that fund and organize the party -- an uneasy alliance of financiers, conservative technology interests, the telecommunications industry, healthcare industries, labor unions, feminists, elite foundations, African-American church networks, academic elites, liberals at groups like MoveOn, the ACLU and the blogosphere -- are frustrated, but not one of them has broken from the pack. In remaining silent, they give their assent to the right-wing policy framework that first George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama, cemented in place. It will be nearly impossible to dislodge such a framework without starting within the Democratic Party itself.

In other words, party inflexibility has a price. If the economy worsens going into the fall, and the president continues as he has to attempt to cut Social Security, Democrats might be facing a Carter-Reagan scenario. Reagan, at first considered a lightweight candidate, ended up winning a landslide victory that devastated the Democratic Party in 1980. Carter wasn't the only loss; many significant liberal senators, such as George McGovern, John Culver and Birch Bayh, fell that year.{...}

If a few of the key constituency groups in the Democratic Party publicly wondered whether Obama should run for reelection, rumblings would start. Some organized constituency groups -- say some components of the AFL-CIO -- would need to announce that their support is up for grabs, based on a clear set of criteria. Given the Obama administration's rampant anti-labor policies, this wouldn't be an unreasonable posture. And then a senior politician, like, say, a Tom Harkin, would need to decide that he would want to encourage robust intra-party debate about the party's future.

Believe it or not, I have to give Stoller credit. What he's talking about is an end to 'triangulation' - most of us would call it lies and deception - and for the Left to honestly present its program to the voters. Of course, that won't happen because if the Left was actually honest about how it felt about America and what it wanted for the country, they would remain at permanent minority fringe status.

Actually Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), that well-known war hero and proponent of seizing private pensions, high taxation and ObamaCare would be a perfect candidate for the Democrats as Stoller envisions them.

There are a great many progressives that agree with Stoller,based on the comments and the Facebook likes. Alas, there are also a few problems.

The Democrats and their supplicants in the media have spent a lot of time and energy demonizing anyone who criticized or opposed President Obama as a racist, and that even included the Clintons. It's going to be almost impossible for any figures of importance within the party to oppose Obama without having that two-edged sword turned right back on them unless they run someone like Maxine Waters or James Clyburn, which would certainly provide an interesting spectacle. I'd certainly be interested in hearing from progressives on potential candidates.

The Democrats also need an almost monolithic black turnout with decent numbers in order to be competitive in the urban districts where their strength is concentrated thanks to years of racial gerrymandering. Taking on President Obama would not only alienate a part of that vote, it might even get a number of black Americans questioning the status quo and thinking about where their best interests and opportunities lie, get them, to paraphrase the words of Rep. Alan West 'off the plantation'.

Another problem, as Stoller alludes to lies with the established power brokers in the party. Take the unions for instance. If the SEIU or Truka's AFL-CIO or the public employee unions put their bankroll behind a challenger to the president, not only are they essentially flushing the millions they've already spent to get Obama elected and buy influence but if their chosen protege' loses, his or her backers are going to face the wrath of a president who has already shown how thin-skinned, nasty and vindictive he can be.

Finally, if there's going to be a serious primary challenge, the new candidate is going to have to convince the party insiders. Barack Obama got the nomination in 2008 because the super delegates were unwilling to lose the black vote,George Soros' money and organizations and the support of the rabid progressives who saw in Candidate Obama all that hopey-changey good stuff. If the super delegates weren't a factor, Hillary Clinton would likely have been the nominee.

For all that, dumping Obama may be the only way to save the Democrats, even if it means losing an election. Stoller at least realizes that, but understands that it might preserve the party's validity so they can fight another day.

All kudos to Matt Stoller for espousing an honest progressive stand in politics. I agree with him on that, even if we probably wouldn't agree on much else.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Bill Whittle On How 'Progressives' View Truth

Well done, and if you don't mind me saying so, oh so true!

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Labor Boss Hoffa: "President Obama, this is your army... Let's take these son of bitches out."

Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa Jr. had some illuminating words that explicitly encouraged violent class war when he was warming up the heavily union crowd in Detroit for President Obama:

"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war."

"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong."

Given the pattern of union violence and intimidation , especially over the last two years or so, this is not mere rhetoric, especially coming from the likes of Hoffa.

President Obama followed Hoffa and did not disavow any of the violent language coming from him or from AFL-CIO head and self-proclaimed Marxist Richard Trumka. Instead, he praised them, just like it said on the teleprompters. In fact, the president's remarks, aside from being notably ignorant of reality were designed to further inflame mob passions and gave a pretty good clue as to the vile and divisive campaign he intends running.

The president once again showed that he is going to run away from his own abysmal record by blaming it on Congress, even though he had a super majority in both houses for the first two year of his term. He quoted an old Harry Truman speech from 1948 that condemned the Congress of that time as anti-Labor and said that when working men and women have decent wages, it helps the economy.

Truman was undoubtedly right in that sentiment...but what President Obama didn't say and likely is clueless about is that punitive taxes and over regulation on the companies that create those jobs means people don't get hired, period. The president would never admit that the economic policies and the massive debt he and his Democrat enablers have created are responsible for crippling the American economy. That's what has weakened our currency, raised prices on food and energy for working families and led to the high unemployment we have today.

Nor would he dare to mention how the Obama Administration's support for admitting illegal aliens to the United States and his using executive orders to apply the DREAM Act rejected by Congress three times has contributed to joblessness by the very Union members dutifully chanting 'four more years."

This is by no means an isolated attack. Here's Joe Biden, addressing a union crowd in Cincinnati and using the same kind of rhetoric:



Not only is the opposition to Obama 'sons of bitches', we're 'barbarians' as well.

A real leader would seek to bring his people together. President Obama is taking exactly the opposite course using simple minded rhetoric designed to gin up a mob.

This is exactly the sort of campaign President Obama intends to run. Shamelessly.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Israel Philharmonic Performance in London Disrupted By 'Palestine' Groupies

There was an interesting occurrence last week at London's Royal Albert Hall.

The Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra,led by Zubin Mehta was playing at the annual BBC Proms Concert.

But as the IPO began Webern’s Passacaglia, a dozen people unfurled a banner reading “Free Palestine” and started to chant and sing about “Israeli apartheid” and “violations of international law and human rights”. As the orchestra played over the protests and the 'protesters' were removed by security guards, other groups situated at different points on the audience broke out with anti-Israel chants.As Gil Shaham, an Israeli violinist, prepared to play an encore after the Bruch violin concerto, another group of 'protesters' began shouting slogans and scuffling with members of the audience.

Throughout the entire episode, the IPO and Zubin Mehta maintained their dignity and continued playing.

The chanting and mock singing disrupted the concert to the extent that BBC decided it could not continue with the live broadcast of the concert and pulled the plug because of what the Beeb genteelly called 'audience disturbances'.

The idea, of course is to make Israelis persona non grata in Britain, and that well-organized campaign now extends past governmental figures, academics and businesses to cultural figures like the members of the IPO.

It's also obviously directed at them because they're Jews. No similar protests have ever been directed at musicians from Iran, Turkey, China, Russia, or any other countries accused of human rights violations.And singling out Jews in this way is de facto anti-Semitism, something that has become quite acceptable in many circles in Britain under the mask of 'anti-Zionism'.

On the plus side, the tactic appears to have failed at this particular concert. The Proms audience turned on the 'protesters', chanting “Out, out, out” and applauding as the scum were booted out of the hall.And any time the IPO finished a piece of music, they received extended standing ovations from the crowd, a tribute to the musician's courage and professionalism as much as their musical skills.

The money quote came from Ed Vaizey, the Culture Minister,who was in the Royal Albert Hall for the concert. He tweeted: “Demonstrators seem to have turned [the] entire audience pro-Israel.”

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Soccer Dad's Mideast Media Sampler 9/4/11‏

Today's sampler and analysis of Mideast media content from my pal Soccer Dad:

1) The administration panics

The New York Times reports U.S. Appeals to Palestinians to Stall U.N. Vote on Statehood (h/t Jim Roberts)


Steven Lee Myers and Mark Landler write about Obama administration efforts to thwart a Palestinian statehood declaration at the UN. Early on they report:

The administration has made it clear to Mr. Abbas that it will veto any request presented to the United Nations Security Council to make a Palestinian state a new member outright.
But the United States does not have enough support to block a vote by the General Assembly to elevate the status of the Palestinians’ nonvoting observer “entity” to that of a nonvoting observer state. The change would pave the way for the Palestinians to join dozens of United Nations bodies and conventions, and it could strengthen their ability to pursue cases against Israel at the International Criminal Court.

This goes into the "no kidding, Sherlock" file as this is something that Mahmoud Abbas wrote about in an op-ed in the New York Times back in May

Palestine’s admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice.

Aside from the dishonest telling of the creation of Israel it was this threat that marked the op-ed less as a plea for peace than a declaration of belligerence. But what's more troubling is the following paragraph.

Senior officials said the administration wanted to avoid not only a veto but also the more symbolic and potent General Assembly vote that would leave the United States and only a handful of other nations in the opposition. The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic maneuverings, said they feared that in either case a wave of anger could sweep the Palestinian territories and the wider Arab world at a time when the region is already in tumult. President Obama would be put in the position of threatening to veto recognition of the aspirations of most Palestinians or risk alienating Israel and its political supporters in the United States.

Is this the way the administration wished to be portrayed? They sound panicked. But worse than that, the administration effort is doomed to failure. Abbas got what he wanted when President Obama prevailed upon PM Netanyahu to freeze building in communities in Judea and Samaria. Abbas still refused to negotiate until the last few weeks of the freeze and, by then, nothing would come of those negotiations. The PA's strategy is based on the belief that they are not going to get what they want from negotiations, so they're looking to get what they want by forcing it from Israel - using the UN. So how is pushing for negotiations going to forestall the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI)?


And the final sentence of the paragraph pits the aspirations of the Palestinians against the wishes of Israel and its supporters. What a clever way to express sympathy for one side against the other. Why didn't Myers and Landler write "risk alienating the powerful pro-Israel lobby" so they could be clearer?

Maybe instead of seeking to placate its enemies the administration should be seeking to pressure them?


Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen has introduced a bill that would threaten American funding for the UN if the Palestinian measure passes.Of course the New York Times didn't mention this effort in the article about the administration's efforts to thwart the UDI.


In a rather hostile article in Foreign Policy Josh Rogin writes:

Ros-Lehtinen spokesman Brad Goehner told The Cable today that the expected Palestinian statehood drive at the U.N. General Assembly next month was a major factor in the timing of the bill's introduction.
"Chairman Ros-Lehtinen felt it was important to introduce the bill, which includes a title withholding U.S. funding to U.N. entities which upgrade the status of the Palestinian mission, in advance of the Palestinian Authority's statehood push at the U.N.," Goehner said.
The bill would also withhold funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which aids Palestinian refugees, call for the United States to lead a high-level U.N. effort for "the revocation and repudiation" of the Goldstone Report, and pull the United States out of the U.N. Human Rights Council, which commissioned the Goldstone Report and has historically been critical of Israel.
More broadly, the bill would shift U.S. contributions to the United Nations to a "voluntary basis," rather than have them follow the compulsory assessed fees system that is in place now. If the United Nations doesn't get 80 percent of its money from voluntary contributions, the bill would then require the United State to cut its contribution by 50 percent.
The bill would also halt new U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping missions until reforms are implemented, and institute a new regime of reporting requirements and auditing powers for examining U.S. contributions to the United Nations.

Defenders of the UN are quoted saying that Ros-Lehtinen's bill would reduce American leverage at the UN. The same argument was used by the administration for participating in the UN Human Rights Council. American participation exerted zero influence over that body. Why should America fund a corrupt institution that works against its interests?

Ros-Lehtinen wrote that there's a historical precedent for her bill.

In 1989, Yasser Arafat’s PLO also pushed for membership for a “Palestinian state” in UN entities. The PLO’s strategy looked unstoppable until the George H.W. Bush administration made clear that the U.S. would cut off funding to any UN entity that upgraded the status of the Palestinian observer mission in any way. The UN was forced to choose between isolating Israel and receiving U.S. contributions, and they chose the latter. The PLO’s unilateral campaign was stopped in its tracks.
This example demonstrates a simple but needed lesson: At the UN, money talks, and smart withholding works.
With Arafat’s successors up to the same tricks today, the U.S. response must be as strong. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has consistently refused to use our strongest leverage — our financial contributions — to advance U.S. interests at the UN. If the executive branch will not demonstrate leadership on this issue, Congress must fill the void.

Unsurprisingly the editors of the National Review agree with the Congresswoman.

The Ros-Lehtinen bill stipulates that the lion’s share of the U.N. budget be moved from mandatory to voluntary funding. This would fundamentally alter the current system, under which the United States simply is informed what it must pay each year. Under the one-country, one-vote procedures at the United Nations, the United States has no more say over the budget than does tiny Tuvalu. The budget can be passed by two-thirds of the U.N. General Assembly (129 nations) that collectively could pay less than 1 percent of all dues over the objection of the United States, which pays 22 times that amount. Moving toward voluntary funding would lessen the likelihood that United States taxpayers’ dollars could be used to support anti-Israel initiatives such as the Durban conference or the notorious Goldstone report.
Moreover, voluntary dues would encourage more efficiency at U.N. agencies that have become accustomed to automatic funding and lack any real incentives to economize or compete. On Monday, a U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Joseph M. Torsella, complained that plans to increase the salaries of U.N. employees by 3 percent were “inappropriate at this time of fiscal austerity.” Apparently, no one at the United Nations understands the meaning of the word “austerity.” Incredibly, the U.N.’s budget has increased faster than the federal government’s in the last ten years, despite the United States’ bearing the majority of the cost for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The bill would also withhold funds from the embarrassing Human Rights Council until it removes from its committee those nations listed as human-rights abusers, known sponsors of terrorism, violators of religious freedom, and those currently under sanctions — a commonsense initiative that could only possibly be controversial at the world body, which sees nothing amiss in North Korea’s serving on the proliferation committee.

When explained like that it makes lots of sense. Is the administration listening?


2) International law and the ham sandwich


Former Judge Saul Wachtler of the New York Court of Appeals, apparently coined the phrase that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Wachtler's point was that a prosecutor had enormous influence over the grand jury.


I wonder if the same could be said about the UN and international law. When members of the UN declare that something is against international law, that seems to be accepted as a truism.


The original New York Times report about the Mavi Marmara Deadly Israeli Raid Draws Condemnation
recounted:

The flotilla of cargo ships and passenger boats was carrying 10,000 tons of aid for Gaza, where the Islamic militant group Hamas holds sway, in an attempt to challenge Israel’s military blockade of Gaza.
The raid and its deadly consequences have thrown Israel’s policy of blockading Gaza into the international limelight; at the Security Council on Monday voices were raised against the blockade, and the pressure to abandon it is bound to intensify.
Israel had vowed not to let the flotilla reach the shores of Gaza, which Hamas, an organization sworn to Israel’s destruction, took over in 2007.

And a followup article U.N. Security Council Condemns ‘Acts’ in Israeli Raid reported:

Nawaf Salam, the Lebanese ambassador, said even the laws of war require the delivery of humanitarian aid.
Several envoys said Israel was in violation of international law, not least because Security Council resolution 1860, passed in January 2009 during the Gaza war, had called for ending the blockade and opening unfettered access to humanitarian assistance throughout the strip. The diplomats also demanded immediate access to their citizens, with some 32 different nationalities among the estimated 600 to 700 people on the flotilla. Israel seized all six ships and forced them into port.

Now the UN commissioned Palmer report are known and the New York Times reports in Report Finds Naval Blockade by Israel Legal but Faults Raid

A long-awaited United Nations review of Israel’s 2010 raid on a Turkish-based flotilla in which nine passengers were killed has found that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is both legal and appropriate. But it said that the way Israeli forces boarded the vessels trying to break that blockade 15 months ago was excessive and unreasonable.

I wonder if the UN would ever be as eager to declare a ham sandwich in violation of international law as it is to declare the same about Israel?

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

LATMA's Latest - SOTA Israeli Satire!

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Turkey Expels Israeli Ambassador,Cuts Military Ties

Turkey began implementing what its foreign minister Ahmet Davutoğlu called"plan B' in his ultimatum yesterday demanding Israel apologize and pay compensation to Turkey over the May, 2010 raid on the flotilla ship Mavi Mamara, which occurred when the ship was attempting to break the Israeli naval blockade on the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

Davutoğlu announced that Turkey was was expelling Israeli Ambassador Gabby Levy from Ankara and that Turkey's diplomatic representation in Israel would be further reduced to second-secretary level...a kind of diplomatic insult. All Israeli diplomatic personnel above the second-secretary level have also been expelled.

The Turkish government also announced that they are rejecting the UN's Palmer Report which investigated the Mavi Mamera affair. The report stated that Israel's blockade of the Hamas ruled Gaza-Strip is legal under international law and criticized Turkey for its support of the flotilla and the IHH 'activists' who violently attacked Israeli Naval Commandos when they boarded the ship after the Mavi Mamera refused Israeli orders to sail into the port of Ashdod to have their cargo inspected.

Turkey also announced that they are severing all military trade and ties with Israel.

Both the expelling of Israel's ambassador and the cut off of military trade by Turkey are pretty much meaningless in practical terms. Turkey already recalled its own ambassador from Israel long ago, Israeli Ambassador Levy was already out of the country and at the end of his assignment, and military trade was ended a long time ago as well - by Israel. "Military trade with Turkey was suspended a while ago… we didn’t want to risk any weapons made in Israel falling into the wrong hands," said one unnamed Israeli government source.

As strained as relations between Israel and Turkey already were this simply makes official something the Islamist Erdogan government has wanted to do ever since it took power. The Turks refused any Israeli attempts at compromise and insisted on a formal apology, huge compensation and the removal of the Gaza Blockade,which would be suicidal for Israel. And there was never any guarantee from Turkey that normal relations would be restored anyway...for the very good reason that Turks really weren't interested, which is why they insisted on conditions Israel could not accept without severely damaging her security.


please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Obama Forced To Shelve Harsh EPA Cap n' Tax Dictats

President Obama hastily shelved his EPA's plans to implement harsh regulations to force companies to comply with new regulations designed to penalize businesses to supposedly force reductions in ozone and lessen global warming.

The announcement came just after the new government report on private sector employment showed that businesses essentially adding no new jobs last month, the unemployment rate stuck 9.1 percent and zero growth in the economy.Factor in the U3 figures, which includes people whose unemployment benefits have run out, people like small business owners who are looking for work and not collecting benefits and people who have stopped looking for work ( 'discouraged workers' in DC policy speak) that the feds never figure into the official unemployment rate and it's more like almost 15%.

And that's no coincidence.

The EPA's harsh new regs were based on California's, the most onerous in the entire country and perhaps the world. Businesses and the most productive citizens are fleeing the state in droves and the 'official' unemployment rate is 12%, 3 points above the national 'official' rate. The real rate is close to 18%.

Obama may continue to peddle the happy horse manure about green jobs to the True Believers, but he understood that what his EPA director Lisa Jackson was planning with his avid encouragement was a job killer that would have led to nationwide unemployment at California levels and higher prices on energy, food and most goods manufactured in America. Nor could he have blamed it on Congress, since it would have been entirely implemented through the EPA's regulatory apparatus and executive order.

The president listened to that little voice in his ear that keeps repeating 'elections coming up' and
punted.

Just as King Putt was willing to sell out his black constituency to pander for votes to those Hispanics who favor amnestia rather than concern himself about black unemployment, he cynically decided to toss his environmentalist extremist allies aside for now to avoid worsening the already dire economic situation right before people are getting ready to cast their ballots.

In the case of both black voters and environmental extremists, he figures he can take their votes for granted anyway, so the president has nothing to lose.

Of course, once he's safely in for a second term, watch out.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Soccer Dad's Mideast Media Sampler 9/2/11‏

Today's sampler and analysis of Mideast media content from my pal Soccer Dad:

1) Darth Friedman

Lando: Lord Vader, what about Leia and the Wookiee?
Darth Vader : They must never again leave this city.
Lando : [outraged] That was never a condition of our agreement, nor was giving Han to this bounty hunter!
Darth Vader : Perhaps you think you're being treated unfairly?
Lando : [after a pause; nervous tone] No.
Darth Vader : Good. You know it would be unfortunate if I had to leave a garrison here.
Lando : [to himself] This deal is getting worse all the time!

Darth Vader: Calrissian. Take the princess and the Wookie to my ship.
Lando: You said they'd be left at the city under my supervision!
Darth Vader: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further

Dialogue from The Empire Strikes Back

A few months ago, in End of Mideast Wholesale, Thomas Friedman wrote:

For the last 30 years, Israel enjoyed peace with Egypt wholesale — by having peace with just one man, Hosni Mubarak. That sale is over. Today, post-Mubarak, to sustain the peace treaty with Egypt in any kind of stable manner, Israel is going to have to pay retail. t is going to have to make peace with 85 million Egyptians. The days in which one phone call by Israel to Mubarak could shut down any crisis in relations are over.

It was an outrageous judgment then; the recent terror attacks from Egypt exposed the perniciousness of this viewpoint. Just as Darth Vader expected Lando Calrissian to accept his changing circumstances with equanimity, so does Thomas Friedman expect Israel to act. By Friedman's logic, Israel must keep Egypt happy, but Egypt need not reciprocate.

Guy Bechor questions this ideology in Mideast Rules must Change (h/t Love of the Land)

While Israel paid with hard, irreversible currency when it handed over land to the Arab side, the Arabs paid with soft, completely reversible currency - that is, words and agreements. Now we are hearing claims that these deals were made with the regimes rather than with the “people”; that is, they lack any legitimacy.

In Egypt there are many voices, including among presidential candidates, declaring that the Camp David Accord with Israel must be annulled or at least changed. That is, change the aspects that pertain to “peace” with Israel. Yet if the Egyptians wish to annul the Camp David Accord, will they return the Sinai desert to Israel? After all, they received this territory through the peace treaty between the two states, after failing to secure it through war. Yet for some reason, this is unthinkable for them.

Why is Israel responsible to make everyone else happy for there to be peace?


2) Can Libya teach us anything?

Many are treating the apparently overthrow of Qaddafi as a clearcut victory, though it may be too early to pop the corks. Still Reuel Marc Gerecht wonders if there's a lesson for Syria.

Syria will be his real test. The arguments for supporting Syrian protesters are easily as strong as those mustered to save the people of Benghazi. After months facing the regime snipers’ machine guns, tanks and torture, demonstrators are openly calling for foreign intervention. And the regime’s strategic sins against the United States are far greater than those committed by the Libyan Nero. Iran and the Lebanese Hezbollah — the two terrorist powerhouses of the Middle East — are Damascus’s closest friends. Almost every Arab terrorist group, spawned in the hothouses of Islamic militancy and Arab nationalism, has had a presence in Damascus. The ruling Assad family has been the great enabler of terrorism against the United States — from the 1983 Beirut bombings to the 1996 attack on Khobar Towers, and quite possibly to Sept. 11 via the operational carte blanche given to Imad Mughniya and Hezbollah. Mughniya, Iran’s dark Arab prince who served as Tehran’s liaison with Arab terrorists, and Hezbollah likely aided al-Qaeda in the 1990s. More so than any Sunni-led Arab state, the Assad regime has reveled in its “front-line” hostility toward Israel.
For decades foreign policy “realists” dreamed of severing the Assads and Syria’s ruling Shiite Alawite clan from Iran and marrying them to the peace process. This delusional aspiration — it ignored the sectarian and religious reality of Syrian politics — appears dead. Addicted to viewing the region through a Palestinian-Israeli lens, Obama may finally look strategically at Syria.

Gerecht clearly believes that the United States needs to get involved because the Syrian government isn't just turning its guns against its own people but has been an enemy in war to the United States and its allies.

3) 1 million on the 3rd?

A funny thing with the protests in Israel, reality intruded. Isabel Kershner reports:

After six weeks of tent encampments and rallies featuring popular singers that drew as many as 300,000 people into the streets on the first Saturday in August, the Sept. 3 rally has been described by its promoters as a million-person march.
But for now the movement is in a kind of hiatus, with nagging questions about where it will go. The mid-August attack by Palestinian militants that killed eight Israelis near the southern city of Eilat, close to the Egyptian border, followed by Israeli airstrikes on Gaza and Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza, proved to be a major interruption, abruptly changing the public discourse back to the more familiar mode of Israeli security in hostile surroundings.
In addition, disagreements have emerged among the groups that make up the leadership of the protest movement, along with increasing grumbling about some of the higher-profile leaders themselves. The giddy festival atmosphere that first enveloped the social protest has dissipated. The rows of tents at the flagship encampment lining Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv are gradually emptying.

I wish that Kershner had provided more details about the dissatisfaction with the leadership of the protests. Of course the emptying of the tents may just be a sign that summer's over and that protesters no longer have the time.
Despite Kershner's generally positive portrayal of the protests, Challah Hu Akbar pointed out that a feeder demonstration did not go well.

Some 20 activists from southern Israel marched to Jerusalem from the south and are protesting against the cost of living in front of the prime minister's residence.

If the million protesters don't show it won't be the only recent underwhelming protest.


4) Yelling "fire"

The new editor of the Jerusalem Post, Steven Linde defends his decision to fire Larry Derfner:

By trying to rationalize the murder of his fellow Jews by terrorists, Derfner – who has always been the consummate journalist for the Post – went beyond the pale. Consequently we terminated his employment.

The move, I stress, had nothing to do with threats to cancel subscriptions or advertisements; it was an editorial decision taken on moral grounds. While politically independent, the Post is a quintessentially Zionist newspaper priding itself on its patriotism and credibility, as well as its balanced reporting and diverse commentaries.

If I'm understanding Linde he's arguing that Derfner's post was similar to yelling "fire" in crowded movie theater. So he, in turn said, "you're fired." A rabbi was recently arrested for incitement, so I wonder if there may have been a legal concern too.


5) Followup

Yesterday I wrote that Ehud Olmert was Netanyahu's successor, which is technically correct, since Netanyahu served as PM from 1996-1999 (I didn't write "immediate"), given the context, I meant "predecessor." Thank to Carl for pointing it out!

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

The Council Has Spoken!! This Week's Watcher's Council Results

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week, carved eternally in the akahshic records of cyberspace.

The problem with race-baiting and identity politics as practiced by the Democrats is that different groups eventually have conflicting and competing goals and each one demands its pound of flesh..which results in problems satisfying everyone.

This week's winner, Do Blacks Realize They've Been Played By Obama? by Joshuapundit examines this problem in detail, and also reveals the new narrative being used to try and paper over the conflict by creating a brand distraction - hatred directed towards ' racist Tea Party Republicans.' Here's a slice:

It was a fairly tense scene at a Congressional Black Caucus- sponsored event in Miami, where President Obama's executive director of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, Don Graves had to dodge heated questions from the likes of Maxine Waters ( D-CA) and Laura Richardson (D-Ca) in front of a fairly hostile crowd.

In his remarks, Graves said that the president is “focused on every community across the country” but when he attempted some careful race pandering, saying that “certain communities have been hit harder than other communities,” Waters pushed him. “Let me hear you say ‘black,’” the California Democrat yelled.

As the crowd cheered, The Washington Post said in its report on the event that Graves tried backtracking, saying: “black, African-American, Latino — we’re going to focus on getting people back to work.”

Notice what groups this fine public servant, who gets paid a handsome salary by all of the American people left out.

Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Calif.), who being an expert practitioner herself knows a lie when she hears it referred to Graves' remarks as “a bunch of bull.” She later asked Graves to bypass Congress and shuttle dozens of pieces of special interest legislation authored by CBC members to the president so he could enact them using executive authority.

“Let’s be honest", Richardson said. "We have met with the president. We are asking you in the capacity of your position [at the council on] jobs, are you willing to review our bills, to work with us?”

“You may not feel like the president is listening to you, but he hears you loud and clear,” Graves said. And of course, he blamed “folks who are going to stand in the way and block the legislation that the Congressional Black Caucus has proposed.”

Waters interrupted him. “What people are you talking about?” she said, according to the Miami Herald. “Say tea party. Say it!”

Graves did, though the Post described him as doing so “reluctantly.” “It was tea party Republicans,” he said.

In our Non-Council category, the winner was Walter Russel Mead's piece over at Via Meadia – New Blue Nightmare: Clarence Thomas and the Amendment of Doom submitted by The Glittering Eye.

Interestingly enough, it bookended theme wise in some respects with our winner in the Council category. It was Mead's interesting dissection of Jeffry Toobin's piece in the New Yorker, where after years of racist claptrap from the Left declaring Supreme Court Justice Clarance Thomas an idiot and an Uncle Tom,the Left is slowly waking up to the fact that Justice Thomas has become a forceful intellectual leader of the Court who could become the Left's worse nightmare.

Here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners

• *First place with 3 2/3 votes! Joshuapundit–-Do Blacks Realize They've Been Played By Obama?


• Second place *t* with 2 votes – Bookworm Room-Learning curves, intelligence and Rick Perry


• Second place *t* with 2 votes – The Razor-The Hype Over Obama's Intellect


• Third place with 1 2/3 votes – Right Truth-What If The US Had Not Responded As We Did After 9/11?


• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD -The Adventures Of Abu Muqawama


• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – The Noisy Room – Panetta and R2P to Usher in the American Fall


• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote – The Colossus of Rhodey – Al Gore: climate change skeptics are like old southern racists


• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Simply Jews – On The Booming Apology Business


• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – Rhymes With Right – First Amendment Prevails In Florida Teacher Case!


• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – VA Right! – RedState, Erick Erickson and Jamie Radtke Have Explosive Breakup


• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote -The Political Commentator- Barack Obama's Billy Carter? Meet Uncle Omar!


• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – Snapped Shot – Hate Scouts

Non-Council Winners

• First place with 2 2/3 votes! – Via Media- New Blue Nightmare: Clarence Thomas and the Amendment of Doom submitted by The Glittering Eye


• Second place with 1 2/3 votes – The Contentious Centrist – About Teachers And Moral Courage submitted by Simply Jews


• Third place *t* with 1 1/3 votes -Gun Powder And Lead – On 'Women and the commentariat' submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD


• Third place *t* with 1 1/3 votes - Sister Toldjah – Quote of the Day: Melissa Clouthier on pundits worried about political “form” – plus commentary submitted by Right Truth


• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote - Accuracy In Media – Ron Paul Reportedly Cuts Ties to Russian Channel submitted by New Zeal


• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote -The Chive – Not Cool, Best Buy (1 Photo) submitted by Rhymes With Right


• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote -Caroline Glick – Glenn Beck's Revealing Visit submitted by The Noisy Room
  


• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote -Open Market.Org – No, the Government Didn't Cut Spending During the Great Depression, and More Government Spending Won't Fix the Economy submitted by The Colossus of Rhodey


• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote -Barry Rubin – A Lesson from Egypt for American Politics submitted by Joshuapundit


• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote -Naked Capitalism/Matt Stoller – What Eric Schneiderman Reveals About Obama submitted by The Razor


• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote -American Thinker – Virginia's Political Earthquake, and Its Little Hurricane submitted by VA Right!


• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote -Daniel Pipes – Obama's Pretend Counterterrorism Policy submitted by The Watcher


• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote -Pajamas Media/Roger L. Simon – Krugman Against Science submitted by Bookworm Room


• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote -Ace of Spades HQ – Extremely Well-Rested and Relaxed President Cuts 10 Day Vacation Short By One Day s submitted by Snapped Shot


• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote -Doug Ross – Mission Accomplished! submitted by The Watcher

See you next week! And don't forget to follow us on Facebook and Twitter..'cause we're cool like that!

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Get a College Degree In Five Minutes For $20

Father Guido Sarducci's solution to the high cost of education....very funny!

Cheerfully swiped from my Pal Michael at The Political Commentator

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Turkey Issues Apology Ultimatum To Israel On Mavi Mamara As UN Report Is Leaked

Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has issued a one day ultimatum to Israel for an apology and compensation for the May, 2010 raid on the flotilla ship Mavi Mamara, which occurred when the ship was attempting to break the Israeli naval blockade on the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

Davutoglu said that if Israel did not comply immediately, the country would "resort to Plan B."

The ultimatum was apparently sparked by the leaking of the UN's Palmer Report investigating the incident, in which nine crew members on the Mavi Mamera were killed when they attacked Israeli naval commandos attempting to board the ship. The Mavi Mamera's crew had refused to follow Israeli orders to proceed to the port of Ashdod to have their cargo inspected.

The Palmer report, which is scheduled for release tomorrow was leaked by the New York Times today. Surprisingly for a UN document, it seems to be somewhat fair to Israel.

The report found that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is legal and appropriate but that the way its forces boarded a Turkish-based flotilla trying to break that blockade was "excessive and unreasonable. "

The report, also found that when Israeli commandos boarded the ship they faced “organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers” and were therefore required to use force for their own protection. But the report called the force “excessive and unreasonable,” saying the loss of life was unacceptable and the Israeli military’s later treatment of passengers was abusive.

Turkey is particularly upset by the conclusion that Israel’s naval blockade is in keeping with international law and that its forces have the right to stop Gaza-bound ships in international waters, which is what happened here. That conclusion oversteps the mandate of the four-member panel appointed by the United Nations secretary general and is at odds with other United Nations decisions, Turkey argued.

The report does recommend that Israel should make “an appropriate statement of regret’ and pay compensation, but the Turks say that formula does not express sufficient remorse.

The report asserts that Israel’s sea blockade of Gaza is necessary fo r Israel's security.

“Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza,” the report says in its opening paragraphs. “The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.”

The report criticizes the flotilla,saying that it “acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade.” It said that while the majority of the hundreds of people aboard the six vessels had no violent intention, that could not be said of IHH, the Turkish aid group that primarily organized the flotilla. It said, “There exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH.”

The IHH were the primary element of the crew on the Mavi Mamera. There was no violence that occurred on the other five ships, all of whom followed the orders of th eIsraeli navy to proceed peacefully into Ashdod to be inspected.

Regarding the boarding of the ship, the Palmer Report also said Israel should have issued warnings closer to the moment of action and should have first turned to nonviolent options.

Hard to say exactly what they mean here. The videos clearly show that warnings were issued and the Israeli Naval commandos boarded the ship armed with paintball guns and beanbag rounds, one reason a number of them were injured. They walked into a planned ambush. In fact, the second Israeli who came aboard was shot.

Still , all in all this is a fairly balanced report for the UN, which is one reason the Turks have tried to keep it buried for months. They're reportedly furious especially over the Palmer report's legitimizing of Israel's Naval blockade.

As for the 'Plan B' the Turks are threatening to implement, it's hard to figure what that might be. Relations between Turkey and Israel have been deteriorating sharply ever since the Islamist Erdogan government took power, and there is no longer much if any military or security cooperation. Most of the pro-Israel secular elements in the Turkish military have already been purged.

Trade sanctions by Turkey might occur, but might hurt Turkey more than Israel. The Turks not only export more to Israel than they import, but much of what Turkey imports is high tech items and weaponry for its military that are harder to replace than the ready-made clothing, fabrics, and metals Turkey exports to Israel.

The only other factor on the table is Turkey's 23,000 Jews. There's no question that life could be made much more difficult for them by an angry AKP government,and Turkey has a long history of such persecution.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Obama On Jobs 'I Don't Need No Stinkin' Congress'

Some of the favored members of the White House's Vast Left wing Conspiracy have been given a sneak preview of what President Obama plan to announce on September 8th in his speech on jobs.

One of them is the Atlantic's Fawn Johnson ( hat tip memeorandum) who puts it pretty succinctly...the president is going to roll out a jobs plan that doesn't need Congress:

On Wednesday, Obama took a now-familiar path in adopting a program--this time a jobs and infrastructure effort--that can happen entirely within his domain. Obama directed several federal agencies to identify "high-impact, job-creating infrastructure projects" that can be expedited now, without congressional approval.

One week before he will make a major address to Congress on jobs, Obama is making sure they know he plans to move forward without them. The president has also directed the Education Department to come up with a "Plan B" updating the 2001 No Child Left Behind law in the absence of congressional action. The message to Congress is clear: Do your work or we'll do it for you.

Under Wednesday's order, the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and Transportation will each select up to three high-priority infrastructure projects that can be completed within the control and jurisdiction of the federal government. The effort is labeled as a "common-sense approach" to spurring job growth "in the near term." In practical terms, that means speeding up the permitting and waiver processes for green-building or highway projects to get the government out of the way. One of businesses' foremost complaints with government infrastructure projects is that the paperwork is too cumbersome and creates unnecessary delays, according to White House economic advisers.

Let's translate this. President Obama has decided once again to trash the Constitution and attempt to bypass Congress, who by law controls the purse strings on Federal spending. So much for his presidential oath.

Government doesn't create jobs, it can only create a climate of low taxes and regulation that stimulates private enterprise to do so. And we know how likely the president is to endorse something like that!

None of this is accidental, of course. As Obama's White House spokesmouth Jay Carney laid out, the new tactic is for the president to run against the evil, obstructive Congress that won't let him have his way.

Remember what I've always told you about understanding the Left. It's child psychology 101, something every parent will recognize: 'You're impeding what I want, therefore I hate you.'

In other words, President Obama is in full on tantrum mode.

I also might note that the president recently made his own 'contribution' to American unemployment by pushing through the DREAM act by executive order after Congress rejected it three times and having his DOJ decline to prosecute literally thousands of pending deportation cases.

Since black Americans are disproportionally affected by these measures, I have to wonder why they continue to support this president in the numbers they apparently do.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!