Wednesday, February 06, 2013

Senator Rand Paul Talks Sense On Foreign Policy

 https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRHk1i55z548T1YIzRBKMWiKC-rfHZJM3rs5vIWN0rINC1C0XUgNg


Senator Rand Paul ( R-KY) gave an important speech at the Heritage Foundation today. It's one of the more intelligent  expostions on Foreign Policy I've seen come out of Congress in quite some time. The more I see of Senator Paul, the more I'm impressed with his common sense and his understanding of the Founder's principles. And he clearly understands the threat of radical Islam.  Here's a slice:

Foreign policy is uniquely an arena where we should base decisions on the landscape of the world as it is . . . not as we wish it to be. I see the world as it is. I am a realist, not a neoconservative, nor an isolationist.

When candidate John McCain argued in 2007 that we should remain in Iraq for 100 years, I blanched and wondered what the unintended consequences of prolonged occupation would be.  But McCain’s call for a hundred year occupation does capture some truth: that the West is in for a long, irregular confrontation not with terrorism, which is simply a tactic, but with Radical Islam.

As many are quick to note, the war is not with Islam but with a radical element of Islam - the problem is that this element is no small minority but a vibrant, often mainstream, vocal and numerous minority. Whole countries, such as Saudi Arabia, adhere to at least certain radical concepts such as the death penalty for blasphemy, conversion, or apostasy. A survey in Britain after the subway bombings showed 20% of the Muslim population in Britain approved of the violence.

Some libertarians argue that western occupation fans the flames of radical Islam – I agree. But I don’t agree that absent western occupation that radical Islam “goes quietly into that good night.” I don’t agree with FDR’s VP Henry Wallace that the Soviets (or Radical Islam in today’s case) can be discouraged by “the glad hand and the winning smile.”

Americans need to understand that Islam has a long and perseverant memory. As Bernard Lewis writes, “despite an immense investment in the teaching and writing of history, the general level of historical knowledge in American society is abysmally low. The Muslim peoples, like everyone else in the world, are shaped by their history, but unlike some others, they are keenly aware of it.”
Radical Islam is no fleeting fad but a relentless force. Though at times stateless, radical Islam is also supported by radicalized nations such as Iran. Though often militarily weak, radical Islam makes up for its lack of conventional armies with unlimited zeal.

For Americans to grasp the mindset of radical Islam we need to understand that they are still hopping mad about the massacre at Karbala several hundred years ago. Meanwhile, many Americans seem to be more concerned with who is winning Dancing with the Stars.


Read the rest here

Hagel Refuses To Disclose Foreign Funding To Senate



President Obama's pick for Secretary of Defense has a new problem.

Former Senator Chuck Hagel is reportedly refusing to release any details on foreign funding or disclose other necessary financial information to the Senate Armed Services Committee:

"President Barack Obama's nominee for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, has informed the Senate Armed Services Committee that he will not provide foreign financial details for the corporate and nonprofit organizations he was affiliated with since he left the Senate in 2009," reports BuzzFeed.

Hagel maintains that he has a "fiduciary duty" to keep "confidentiality" of his and his organization's donors.

A Senate aide tells BuzzFeed, "Senators are not reacting well to [Hagel's] response."

The aide details, "Committee members have specific concerns with regard to foreign contributions to the Atlantic Council by Saad Hariri (or the Hariri family), Dinu Patriciu, Kazakhstan, Bidzina Ivanishvili (his supporters/network) – and the nexus between Chevron's investments in Kazakhstan and their involvement with Hagel at the Atlantic Council."


I'll just bet he can't reveal who's paying the bills. As one of my Notorious Lil' Birdies e-mailed me, Hagel is so far in the tank for Iran that he ought to be forced to register as a foreign lobbyist.

Corrupt as well as clueless. Is the Senate really going to actually confirm this man for a cabinet position? Unfortunately, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Watcher's Council Nominations - Progressive Fruit Edition

 https://s3.amazonaws.com/healthtap-public/ht-staging/user_answer/reference_image/1104/large/Food_poisoning.jpeg?1349132341

Welcome to the Watcher's Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the 'sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday.

Council News:

Congrats to the following Council members for making the list of the 200 top conservative sites: Rhymes With Right, The Noisy Room, Gay Patriot, The Right Planet, The Mellow Jihadi, Bookworm Room, JoshuaPundit and Great Satan's Girlfriend..Council Akbar!!

By the way, let me remind you that there's now a seat available on the Watcher's Council up for grabs.

We're currently looking at candidates, so if you're interested, think you qualify or want to find out more about what's involved in being part of the longest established blogging group of its kind, simply leave a comment with site URL and your e-mail address (which won't be published) on any article over at Joshuapundit.

These don't come up all that often and when they do they usually fill up quickly, so don't snooze.

This week, Ask Marion, Lefty Begone and The Pirate's Cove took advantage of my generous offer of link whorage and earned honorable mention statuswith some killer articles.

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

Simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address ( which won't be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category, and return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week.

It's a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members. while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

So, let's see what we have this week....

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions

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

Tuesday, February 05, 2013

Adolf Hitler - Progressive Pioneer


http://victoriawilson13.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/ah.jpg


President Obama's second inaugural was a speech that the Obama Media literally drooled over as a straight forward and forceful expression of progressivism unmatched in American history. I agree, it was, but there was one thing that bothered me...the tendency of these media personalities to ignore the sources of many of the ideas the president expressed so well.

In the interest of fairness and as a debt to history, I think it's important that we take a minute to give due credit to one of the greatest progressives in history, someone who undoubtedly should be an inspiration and influence to all progressives - former German leader Adolf Hitler, who against strong odds rose to power and fundamentally changed Germany and for a while, the world.

Like our president, Adolf Hitler came from humble beginnings, the son of an Austrian civil servant in Linz whom died when he was fourteen. Some biographers have said that Alois Heidler provided the young Adolf with his first example of government in action and how it could affect people's lives. Young Hitler's early years also undoubtedly gave him a sense of the importance of education and how government could strengthen it. As a young student, Adolf Hitler was frequently at odds with his non-unionized teachers, who seemed content to teach by rote and lacked strong support from government.

When Adolf Hitler gravitated to Vienna as a young man to pursue a career as a painter, not only was he influenced by other progressive thinkers like Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Heinrich Gotthard von Treitschke, but also by an extraordinary activist progressive politician, Karl Lueger, the Burgomaster (Mayor)of Vienna, whom Hitler later called 'a genius' and claimed as a model. Lueger, whose Christian Socialist Party was organized along many of the same lines that Hitler would later adopt for his National Socialist Party could best be described as a early practitioner of Saul Alinky's political ethics, balancing one special interest group against another for his own political advancement. At one point, when some of his anti-Semitic supporters questioned his taking campaign contributions from wealthy Jewish donors, Luegar famously shut them down by telling them that he was the one whom would decide who was a Jew! Lueger is also credited with municipalizing utilities and instituting public transportation in Vienna,along with a number of other shovel ready public works projects.

During this period,Hitler also experienced first hand what happens when government does not institute an adequate social safety net. After falling into dire poverty in Vienna, Hitler was forced to live in a homeless shelter for some time, and later a men's hostel for the disadvantaged. He remained a socialist and a champion of the 99% ever after, although rejecting pure Marxism as being unworkable and unsuitable to those who favored strong, nationalist views and German exceptionalism.

In WWI, Hitler served in the German Army, suffered combat wounds and was a decorated veteran.

He later decided to truly make a difference in his adopted homeland by entering the public sector via the National Socialist Democratic German Worker's Party (NSDAP in German, or Nazi using the typical German diminutive).

Hitler,being a spell binding orator and a charismatic speaker soon took over the party and refined its progressive agenda and message. With the exception of calling for a strong military and a renunciation of the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty, two issues unique to that place and time, Hitler and the Nazi's message hardly sounds out of place in our political climate of today.

The German Hyperinflation and resulting economic crisis of 1921 occurred just as the Party and Adolf Hitler came of political age.




It destroyed the savings of Germany's middle class, created massive unemployment and was blamed by most Germans on the financial establishment, poor governmental fiscal management, profiteers, and speculators. Or as today's progressives call them, 'banksters', 'Wall Street' and the 'one per cent'.

In this 3 year period, 1921-1923, Hitler's political star rose as he became a vociferous champion of the middle class and Germany's 99%. He and the Nazis called for reining in German financial institutions, job creation, making the fat cats pay their fair share and for increased spending on social welfare programs. The main difference in Hitler's program as opposed to main stream socialists and communists was his championing of a resurgent German military and his  fierce opposition to the restrictions and the huge reparations demanded by the Versailles Treaty. Hitler's patriotic message, particularly coming from a decorated war hero resonated with a surprising amount of the German people.

The Nazi Party also won friends and influenced people by community organizing. They ran soup kitchens, promoted youth programs and championed the 99% in issues like landlord tenant relations, particularly in their main base of Munich.

And it was in Munich that Adolf Hitler made his first serious political miscalculation, misjudging his popular support in Bavaria with an attempted 'putsch',  a takeover. It failed, but Hitler's personal popularity ensured that he received an extraordinarily light sentence of 8 months in comfortable circumstances, where, like a lot of other revolutionary figures, he used the time to refine his message further and wrote his political testament, Mein Kampf ('My Struggle').

After he was released in 1924, Hitler used the rest of the 1920's to consolidate the Nazis and turn them into a nationwide movement. The SA (known colloquially as Brownshirts) were reorganized into an effective force of street activists, Hitler established his own national daily newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, and continued to build his following and spread his message of nationalism mixed with progressive social policies. The Nazi banner is a superb symbol of Hitler's ideology - the red banner of socialism with the Aryan nationalist symbol of the swastika in the middle.

 



Hitler was one of the first modern politicians to recognize how important media and messaging were to popularizing progressive policies:

"The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses." [...]

"This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood."

"Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula."


What Adolf Hitler wrote about messaging in Mein Kampf predates and almost exactly mirrors what Sol Alinsky wrote many years later in Rules For Radicals, a book that many progressives consider their political bible, but with one exception...Hitler was much more open about referring to what he was doing as propaganda for political purposes.

In fact, Hitler could be said to be the originator of Alinsky's famous Rule 13: 'Pick the target, freeze the target, personalize it and polarize it.'

Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's moment came with the worldwide depression of the 1930's which devastated Germany's economy. The chancellor at that time, the Catholic Centre Party's Heinrich Brüning attempted to stave off some of the worst effects with various austerity measures, similar to those of President Hoover in America. However, the measures were unsuccessful and only added to dissatisfaction with the Weimar government, which many Germans felt had been forced on them by the victorious allies anyway.

The same sentiments ordinary Germans had voiced during the Hyperinflation were repeated..that the misery was due to the government's policies, the fat cats, the speculators. This was amplified by the failure of several large banks.

Such an environment was almost tailor made for Hitler, his Nazis, and their message, targeting the 99% and assuming the mantle of the champions of the middle class and social justice. In the 1931 elections, the Nazis gained 18.3% of the votes and became the second largest party in the Reichstag.

In the years between 1931 and 1933, The Nazis increased their share of the German electorate, getting to 43.9% of the vote. Germany's government was ineffectual and unable to act because of partisan politics and the difficulty in consensus between the Nazis, the Communists, The Catholic Centre Party, President Paul Hindenburg's German National People's Party (DNVP) and some of the other smaller parties. In those conditions, Hindenburg was convinced to appoint Hitler as Chancellor in 1933 as part of a coalition of the Nazis, DNVP, And Catholic Centre Party. The idea was to unify and take action for the good of the nation, or as a group of influential German politicians, industrialists and military figures wrote to President Hindenburg, to appoint Hitler as leader of a government "independent from parliamentary parties", which could turn into a movement that would "enrapture millions of people".

Hope and change with a gemütlichkeit flavor, nicht wahr?

After the burning of the Reichstag ( which, really, can be considered street theater and legitimate protest designed to provoke a public response) Adolf Hitler wasn't one to let a good crisis go to waste. He promptly brought the Ermächtigungsgesetz (Enabling Act) to a vote in the newly elected Reichstag. It was designed to bypass partisan gridlock in Berlin, gave Hitler's cabinet full legislative powers for four years and allowed Hitler's cabinet to bypass Germany's constitution. After the Catholic Centre Party agreed to support it, it passed by a vote of 441–84.

Adolf Hitler was now in power to enact a number of important reforms and institute his progressive program without being impeded by a set-in-stone constitution or partisan bickering. He promised Germans a new society and his word for this was 'volksgemeinschaft', a 'people's community.'

He ended labor abuses and a number of strikes plaguing Germany by creating the German Labor Front as an umbrella organization to represent all workers, administrators, and company owners. He banned strikes, firings without government approval and lockouts. This ensured that government would be the ultimate protector of worker's rights and the arbitrator of all labor disputes, something American labor leaders like Richard Trumka and Jimmy Hoffa Jr. have been advocating for years.

Farmers received subsidies and guaranteed prices for their crops in exchange for increased government supervision over what they grew and how they did it, and were given loans for tools, livestock and seed, as well as  labor to work their farms by the state if needed.

While Hitler recognized the sanctity of private property, he also was emphatic that the government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation since it had been acquired with the help and use of public personnel and infrastructure, thus anticipating Elizabeth Warren by over seven decades.

At Hitler's direction his finance minister Hjalmar Schacht instituted Keynesnian policies with large deficits and and low interest rates combined with stimulus programs of pubic works to reduce unemployment. Hitler also mandated price freezes to prevent a recurrence of inflation. He started numerous public sector programs that actually got built, including the construction of dams, the autobahns, railroads, and public buildings as well as a military build up that later superseded the public works policies while maintaining high employment and job creation.

Hitler financed much of Germany's rearmament and rebuilding with promissory notes known as MEFO bills, which ensured that the 1% contributed their fair share of the cost. While Hitler's government like FDR's here in America ran a deficit, the MEFO bills allowed the German government to defer payment on goods and materials for needed projects while keeping Germans working and moving the economy forward. Another progressive idea was Hitler's creation of the "Reinhardt Program" for growth that combined indirect incentives like tax credits and reductions with government investments in infrastructure.

Hitler and the Nazis also were very involved in picking winners and losers among Germany's corporate and manufacturing concerns, swapping preferential treatment,government contracts and loans  and policies that benefited specific well connected and supportive companies in exchange for political and financial support for Hitler and his policies.In essence, Hitler made sectors of German business his partners in building the Third Reich while suppressing other, non-supportive players..certainly a tactic we've seen used recently with great success.

Another aid to the German economic recovery was the gradual removal of Jews and other political enemies from business, the arts. the professions and civil service, about which more later. German unemployment, which stood at six million in 1932 had been reduced to one million by 1936, the year the world saw a refurbished and invigorated Germany first hand as it hosted the Olympics.

Like his economic program, many of Hitler's social programs also struck a resounding progressive chord.

Hitler revamped Germany's healthcare system and made it truly universal as well as state subsidized.Hitler and the Nazis considered healthcare to be the right of all Germans, and there were numerous public-health campaigns in Nazi Germany urging healthy eating and exercise, and even no smoking campaigns at a time when cigarettes and cigars were being puffed with abandon worldwide. Water supplies were cleaned up, lead and mercury were removed from consumer products, and women were urged to undergo regular screenings for breast cancer.

Strict gun control? Ja, richtig!  Hitler enacted the Weapons Law in 1938 under the pretense of ending crime and unrest, effectively disarming almost all of Germany's private citizens from owning firearms except under strictly limited circumstances. As a matter if fact, the Nazi Weapons Law was so exciting to one of America's progressives that it became the template for the Gun Control Act of 1968, championed by Democrat Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut ( former Senator Chris Dodd's father). The late Senator Dodd, who served as a member of the Judge Advocate Corps was part of the prosecution team at Nuremberg and owned personal copies of this and other laws.Unfortunately for Dodd, Hitler's law got watered down quite a bit in congress, but once again, Hitler's gun control law anticipates today's progressives and remains an inspiration and something for them to shoot for, if you'll excuse the pun.

Hitler enacted strong environmentalist legislation, such as the 1935 "Reich Nature Protection Act" which sought to control air and water pollution, reduce the use of coal and promote forest management and preservation.While the necessities of WWII eventually overrode many of these laws, it's no exaggeration to refer to Adolf Hitler as a staunch environmentalist. And an outspoken champion of animal rights. As an animal lover and a  strict vegetarian whom PETA would have been proud of, Hitler saw to it that extensive animal rights laws were passed, and even made an effort to ban hunting.He was a pioneer in this regard also. Many of the current animal welfare laws in Germany are adapted from laws originally introduced by Hitler and the Nazis.

 

But where Adolf Hitler showed himself a true progressive in his interest in education and children. All teachers were required to join the German Teacher's League (Nationalsozialistischer Lehrerbund) and were required to attend seminars and classes in teaching progressive values in the classroom.All German university professors were required to be members of the National Socialist Association of University Lecturers.

For Germany's children, Hitler formed two compulsory organizations, the Hitler Youth for ages 14-18 and the Jungvolk, for ages 10-14. They were trained in Hitler's progressive national Socialism, wore uniforms, performed public service, did physical fitness and were given meals and other benefits by the State. For girls, there were the League of German Maidens and the Young Girls League where girls along with similar activities to the boy's groups were taught homemaking skills. Both the German Maidens and the Hitler Youth had to complete a year of 'land service' working on Germany's farms or performing other public service.German women were encouraged to be mothers and homemakers, and had their own organizations, the National Socialist Women's League and the Strength Through Joy movement.

 


Hitler deviated from the progressive ideal in that he was not a feminist, although he employed women as secretaries and was universally remembered by all of them as an ideal, courteous and sympathetic employer.Nor did he favor abortion on demand. But you have to consider both the prevailing social climate and morals of that time and place,the fact that much of Germany was Catholic, and the fact that he knew Germany needed a larger population to fulfill his political and territorial ambitions. To Hitler, Germany's children were its future.




But in reality  Hitler actually did introduce  certain progressive policies in this regard as well.

The Nazis enthusiastically embraced eugenics  and had no qualms about abortion and sterilization for those they considered unfit, weak minded, or inferior. In this, they agreed with progressive heroine Margaret Sanger,  likewise a strong believer in eugenics who formed Planned Parenthood expressly with the idea of limiting non-white births and the reproduction of 'the unfit'.

The Nazis were also were quite open about the need to ration healthcare when it came to what they called 'useless mouths', This included the mentally ill, the disabled and handicapped, and in many cases people whom were simply terminally ill.Almost 300,000 people - that we know about - were killed by lethal injection in this way, not in concentration camps but in German medical facilities. Horrific as this may seem to some, this bears remembering when we look at the conversations about healthcare in our own time and examine the views of some of President Obama's healthcare appointees. Hitler may once again come to be proven to be a pioneer.

One of the major problems progressives have with embracing Hitler totally are his racial policies, particularly the ones directed at Jews. He also was anti-gay, although several prominent Nazis are rumored to have been gay or at least bi-sexual. Yes, these policies  were problematic, even horrible. But if we examine these policies in detail, we find them to be largely a product of the existing political and moral climate of that time. Certainly that shouldn't stop progressives from celebrating Hitler's achievements while disapproving of some of his excesses and mistakes.

Anti-semitism in Germany has a long history and was a mainstream attitude in Germany's social and  political culture, as it was in much of Europe and perhaps remains so even in our own time. When Germans talked about profiteers, speculators and the financiers they blamed for the Hyperinflation and the miseries of the Depression, not a few of them meant 'Jews', and certainly not just in Germany.
Some of the progressives here in America like Father Coughlin and his Silver Shirts, among others, certainly employed similar language and code words.

Our own times are certainly not divorced from this.As the idealistic protestors of the OWS movement and other parts of the progressive movement have shown us, many of them use terms like 'banksters', 'Wall Street', 'neocons', 'zionists' and the like  as code words for 'Jews' today, and mask actual anti-semitism under the cover of 'anti-Zionism'.

Obviously, these particular progressives in America have never gone quite as far as Hitler did when it came to Jews, but it's also true that they've never had the power to do so either, and that anti-semitism in America was never as much of a mainstream popular belief as it was in Europe.

But in Germany in the 1920's and 1930's, it definitely was.And Adolf Hitler,  as a populist progressive  gave voice to those feelings, just as he  also reflected the popular attitude in the Germany of his time towards homosexuals. If Hitler were alive here in America and say, running as a Democrat for the Senate in California or Massachusetts,  would  gay bashing even be one of his issues, at least on the surface? Would opposition to abortion? Of course not. Hitler was a pragmatic and canny politician. If anyone asked,or even pointed to something he'd written or said, he's simply say his views had evolved on the subject. And if he had, shall we say, certain views on Jews, he would undoubtedly be able to express them in vague terms about the need for a two state solution, a public embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood and its various front groups,  endorsing military aid to anti-semitic Arab regimes  or maybe even a few quips about the Jewish lobby or the need for daylight between America and Israel.There's no doubt in my mind that in many respects, a modern Adolf Hitler with evolved positions on abortion and gay rights  would be an acceptable candidate for office in our own era.I could certainly see the New York Times endorsing him!

Without the unfortunate history,  the errors and excesses that stigmatized him, today's progressives would feel much better about embracing a true pioneer of their movement - Adolf Hitler.


http://vanfullofcandy.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/hitler28-300.jpg


New Numbers On ObamaCare - 7M Americans to Lose Current Plan, Amnesty To Increase Costs $2T



Remember when President Obama and his friends were selling ObamaCare as a savings? Remember when we were told that if you liked your current insurance, you'd be able to keep it?

Suckahs!

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget office, up to 7 million Americans who now have health insurance could end up losing their current care because  new regulations make it cheaper for many employers to pay the mandated penalty rather than pay the increasing health premiums and administrative costs. And as the IRS has now revealed, thanks to those sharply rising premiums ObamaCare has created, getting your own ObamaCare  insurance isn't going to cost $2,000 as you were previously told. For a family of five, two adults and three children, the lowest level of coverage, the Bronze is going to cost - wait for it - $20,000.

It will be more, a lot more if you need Silver, Gold or Platinum coverage because of your particular circumstances.

Since the mandated penalty is capped at either the annual average Bronze premium, 2.5 percent of taxable income, or a minimum of $2,085.00 per family in 2016, guess what? A lot of people will be forced to go without healthcare whom now have it and pay the penalty instead.

Here's the IRS giving us an example of how this works:

“Example 3. Family without minimum essential coverage.

"(i) In 2016, Taxpayers H and J are married and file a joint return. H and J have three children: K, age 21, L, age 15, and M, age 10. No member of the family has minimum essential coverage for any month in 2016. H and J’s household income is $120,000. H and J’s applicable filing threshold is $24,000. The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000.

"(ii) For each month in 2016, under paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(iii) of this section, the applicable dollar amount is $2,780 (($695 x 3 adults) + (($695/2) x 2 children)). Under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the flat dollar amount is $2,085 (the lesser of $2,780 and $2,085 ($695 x 3)). Under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the excess income amount is $2,400 (($120,000 - $24,000) x 0.025). Therefore, under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the monthly penalty amount is $200 (the greater of $173.75 ($2,085/12) or $200 ($2,400/12)).

"(iii) The sum of the monthly penalty amounts is $2,400 ($200 x 12). The sum of the monthly national average bronze plan premiums is $20,000 ($20,000/12 x 12). Therefore, under paragraph (a) of this section, the shared responsibility payment imposed on H and J for 2016 is $2,400 (the lesser of $2,400 or $20,000).”


Where does all that money go? The penalties (the always humorous IRS still insists on calling them that, even though the Supreme Court ruled that they were a 'tax')go right to Bog Government to fuel other shovel ready projects.

Bottom line,if you now have a healthcare plan you can live with but your employer decides they can't afford it any more and opts to pay the tax penalties instead, your choice is going to be to either somehow come up with $20,000, pay an extra $2,085 plus per year or put the kids up for adoption.And that's for the minimum amount of coverage, the Bronze level.


Needless to say, the Leftist elites from President Obama on down who lied to you aren't going to be faced with this choice...they have their own plan that covers themselves and their families that's far cheaper, better and more inclusive.

And you though only the 'rich' were going to get soaked! As you were warned, ObamaCare was never about healthcare...it was always about higher taxes and a major transfer of wealth.

But wait, there's more. Aside from destroying MediCare so that care to the elderly can now be rationed, there's another landmine just around the corner designed to make the program even more of an expensive failure - the illegal imigrants President Obama want to legalize.

Any bill that provides amnesty for the 11 to 12 million illegal aliens now in the U.S. and gives them access to Obama Care (and it's difficult to see how they can or should be excluded)is being estimated by budget analysts on the Senate Budget Committee to increase costs to the federal government by between $120 billion to $200 billion in its first decade.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 7 million illegal immigrants lack healthcare insurance now, and something like 85 percent of them have incomes low enough to qualify for subsidized ObamaCare benefits.

Obamacare is already calculated by the CBO to increase unfunded mandates by $17 trillion over 75 years, or from $65 trillion to $82 trillion.

Legalizing the illegal immigrants and adding them to ObamaCare is estimated to add another $2 trillion to those unfunded mandates.

The answer of course will be to drastically cut benefits to patients, severely ration care and cut salaries for medical professionals, which will exacerbate the problem by leading to a shortage of doctors, nurses and technicians willing to service ObamaCare patients.

That's what's happened in the UK since the Labour Party brought in their own version of ObamaCare. If you're in Britain and you have money, insurance is no problem and you can go to a private doctor. If you don't, you're covered by National Health but you'll wait months to see a physicians even for ordinary procedures.

There's a glimmer of hope here. Since the ridiculous expense is now becoming obvious and the pain starts in 2016, one can only hope that the next president and a congress with adults in it will repeal this unworkable nonsense before it causes too much damage.

And it's a long shot. but just maybe we will have learned as a nation not to take a face value any slick talking political con man promises us.

Just maybe.


Monday, February 04, 2013

John McCain Seals The Deal For Hagel To Be Made SecDef

Sen. John Mccain (left) and Chuck Hagel (right) are shown. | AP Photos

Yes, you have that right.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was making progress piecing together a bi-partisan coalition to filibuster the obviously unqualified Chuck Hagel's appointment as Secretary of defense when he ran into - who else- Senator John McCain:

“I do not believe that we should filibuster,” McCain told POLITICO. “To vote against is entirely the judgment of each individual senator, but a filibuster I think would be inappropriate.”

Asked if he would vote for cloture if a filibuster were mounted, McCain answered, “Yes.”

The White House and Democratic leadership are already confident that a solid majority exists for the Hagel to be confirmed on a simple majority vote. McCain’s opposition to a filibuster should make it easier to get the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture.


Senator McCain considers himself someone who is actually interested in America's defense, but that's absolutely impossible to square with this decision of his. The Democrats need 5 Republicans to vote for cloture to put Hagel's appointment to a simple majority vote, With McCain and Republican Senators Mike Johanns of Nebraska and Thad Cochran of Mississippi, they already have three.

I hope I'm wrong, but I stand by what I said when Hagel was first nominated...he was almost certain to be confirmed, along with John Brennan and John Kerry. So we're gong to wind up with a trifecta of appeasement oriented apparatchniks who support Islamists and like the president, figure that doing so along with creating daylight between America and Israel President Obama has spoken of wil but us peace and quiet.

Rest assured, it won't.

McCain ought to know better, but as I've said before he's a great American but a lousy and egotistical excuse for a Senator.

Committee vote on Hagel ought to come along around this Thursday.

Karl Rove Launches Effort To Become GOP Gatekeeper And Oust Tea Party Candidates



Some interesting news, as self-appointed GOP Guru Karl Rove announced that his American Crossroads PAC was starting a new project called Conservative Victory to weed out 'unacceptable candidates'. By whom, of course, Rove means anyone associated with the Tea Party/populist wing of the GOP.

This is really just an extension of the GOP establishment's war on candidates and office holders they deem too conservative and not willing to go along with the flow of our elite political class.

This would be fascinating stuff if it had a real basis. But of course, it doesn't.

Aside from spending millions backing Mitt Romney,much of which was misspent or poorly allocated, Rove's two political outfits, American Crossroads and Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies spent megabucks backing the wrong horses consistently in congressional elections. 10 of the 12 Senate candidates and four of the nine House candidates the Rove groups supported lost their races.

Senator Mitch McConnell and Speaker John Boehner are probably on board as well. Both face likely primary challenges and both would very much like to be able to have enough RINO's on board to continue their leadership positions. But for Rove, the real game isn't 2012, but 2016.

Rove's ultimate idea here is to get into position to foist Jeb Bush or another RINO if Jeb isn't running on the GOP as the party's candidate in the next presidential race. When once again, rather than any concern about principles or even who wins, the chief objective for Rove is his share of those millions of dollars spent that ultimately ends up in the hands of the consultant class.

If this nonsense continues, we will almost certainly see a new party arise. The peons are not in the mood to just settle any more. Watch what happens

The Real Story On Obama's Shooting Picture

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8331/8436110735_5ec05750a2.jpg

I have no plans to repro some of the genuinely funny photo shops of this one, but one thing's obvious to me and probably anyone else...contrary to his statements, the president has never shot skeet in his life and has rarely if ever fired a gun.

1) A skeet shooter would have his rifle or shotgun pointed up at least to a 45 degree angle when firing , so the president wasn't shooting skeet.

2) I guarantee you that assuming the smoke wasn't photo shopped,  President Obama would probably have ended up with  a nasty sore shoulder from the recoil, based on how he's holding his weapon.

3) The picture shows a smoke plume coming from the right side of the gun much too far back from the muzzle. No over/under sporting shotgun has a muzzle brake, and even if it did, the brake would not port gases as far back as this White House photo shows.

4) President Obama's form and method of holding the gun is totally unnatural, especially the position of his hand - on the barrel (?!!) . Here's how you actually hold a gun for skeet shooting:

Embedded image permalink

By the way, you don't actually fire at this level, Mr. President...this is the 'set' position and you swing the gun upwards when the clay target is released. Learn to shoot like a girl, sir. Here are a few more models to study from:



http://homestudy.ihea.com/shootingskills/sharon.jpg


 

Finally, one more thing Mr. President. The Founders didn't create the Second Amendment so people would be free to shoot clay targets. They created it because they understood that people who can choose to be armed and defend their lives and property are free, and those whom aren't are slaves.

Forum: What Is Your Reaction To The Obama Administration's Recent Policy Change To Allow Women In Combat ?




Every week on Monday morning , the Council and its invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day. This week's question:What Is Your Reaction To The Obama Administration's Recent Policy Change To Allow Women In Combat ?

The Razor: If it’s fine for the Israelis, it’s fine by me. As far as I’m concerned in the battle with militant Islam we are all on the frontlines – men, women, old and young.

GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD:Combat girls? Reckon all girls should sign up for Selective Service, then...

 The Noisy Room:I know that many women will disagree with me, but I think allowing women in combat and on the front lines is a horrific decision on several fronts. First of all, it is instinctual for a man to protect a woman, no matter what they say. If a man sees a woman in distress during combat, he is much more likely to put himself at risk (and the mission) and run to her aid. Physically, women are just not as able to handle the rigors of combat as men are either. War is hell and it is brutal business. It tends to haunt men for the rest of their lives as it did my father, who never spoke of WWII and the Kamikaze attack on his ship. An attack which killed everyone on the deck but my father and many of those deaths were from sheer shock. He suffered nightmares the rest of his life and woke up swinging at remembered enemies. Is it wise to subject the mothers of children to such horrific circumstances? It changes you. These men, many times, come home broken physically and emotionally. It is a sacrifice men have carried for millenia and it is a role that is meant for men to lead in. It is not a matter of sexism, it is a matter of survival. The brotherhood of the special forces shouldn't be diminished by mixing the genders, exposing the ranks to sexual situations and tensions and feminizing our warriors. Men have always put women first, it is our heritage and we shouldn't mess with that instinct. Let the guys be the badasses and handle the enemy - hand to hand, up close, with at least a chance of survival.

If a man is captured, he may be tortured and killed. If a woman is captured, especially if it involves Jihadists, her fate will be a thousand times worse. She would not only be raped over and over, but her death would not come quickly. She would be used as bait to kill others. Whereas this ploy does not generally work with male prisoners, it is far more likely to succeed with a female as females strike a deeper chord in our subconscious. This is why females are used as suicide bombers. While Israel's IDF forces require women to serve three years, one can understand this because they don't have the breadth and depth of soldiers to draw from. Until 2000, these women served in non-combat roles, but since 2000, as I understand it, they instituted an Equality amendment that provides that women can serve in any position men do. Currently about 3% serve as combat soldiers and the military leadership is having some of the same discussions we are. This does not change my viewpoint of women being on the front lines.

All of this is unnecessary. Women are great in command positions and under stress. They are great as pilots and in other positions. But on the war front, in my opinion, they are an unnecessary distraction from the task at hand. This is a further weakening of our military. It is par for the course for Leon Panetta. It is meant to appease the liberal base for Barack Obama, without an eye to the rigors of combat and the realities of war. Women now truly have an equal opportunity to be drafted and a greater opportunity to die. This is a move guaranteed to get more people killed - but hey, the elites making the rules aren't on the front lines are they? Not yet any way.

 The Glittering Eye:Since the laws capping the number of women and restrictions on rank in the military in the United States were
repealed in 1967 and women were allowed in jobs in which combat was likely to be seen starting in the 1990s, women in combat have been a foregone conclusion. The challenges now are in preserving force readiness.

The scholarship on women in combat is ambiguous at best. Some indicates few issues; other scholarship suggests the possibility of extreme problems in morale. I guess we'll need to learn to deal with them.

I have little doubt that some women will be able to deal with the physical and psychological issues of combat. The challenge will be to avoid the temptation to lower the requirements to allow more women to qualify.

Experience in civilian life with police and fire departments suggest that doing so will be quite difficult.

JoshuaPundit: The example a lot of proponents of this use is the Israeli Defense Forces, where women have been in combat situations for some time. What most people don't take into account is that Israel's situation is very different in  many ways, and the IDF has some fairly stringent rules on the matter.

 Israel  has always fought defensive wars on its borders and they have been wars that have been of fairly short duration, not huge overseas deployments that go on for months. And the U.S. has an all volunteer military, not universal conscription.Having troops, reserve and regular in the field for a week or two relatively close to home is far different than the current American military experience. The IDF also has restrictions on where women may serve (Israel's elite units like the Sayaret, which sometime perform missions behind enemy lines are closed to them). With near universal conscription, the IDF's rate of female participation is around 34%, about double ours.But only 3% serve in active combat roles,mostly in recon, signals, artillery, field intelligence, and communications, although there are infantry positions open to women. My point here is that the Israelis understand the nature of the enemy they're dealing with and assign all but a very small fraction of  women accordingly.

Also, the culture's different. Being a small country , a lot of people whom know each other  tend to serve together in the same units. Aside from the fact that Israel's armed forces contain a lot of Jews whose religious beliefs prohibit them from even touching a woman not a family member or a spouse, the fact that men may be serving with a woman who lives in the same neighborhood or whose family they know, along with the short, relatively close to home deployments and the extremely strict IDF regs on the matter tends to minimize harassment and sexual assaults. In the IDF, every unit with women serving in it has its own female officer assigned who women can go to if they have complaints about how they're being treated.

In comparing this with America's situation, several questions arise.

Given the political clout of radical feminists in America, are standards going to be relaxed simply to be politically correct? Are promotions going to be given based on gender merely to look good? There are already problems with sexual harassment, pregnancies  and rape in the military because of the long foreign deployments, differences in culture, and the simple nature of human beings.Are women in combat going to have access to someone they can easily report harassment or assault to?

At  a time when our military is being severely downsized and soldiers and marines with 10 and 15 years service are being pushed into early 'retirement' that gives them a reduced pension, does this new position mean that experienced, battle tested male troops are going to be replaced by inexperienced female troops simply because of political correctness?

The way we answer these questions will determine how successful this is. Given whose ultimately  in charge of the military  and instituting policy today, I'm not optimistic, but hope to be pleasantly surprised.

Bookworm Room: I think it's a terrible idea, and I say this despite knowing that there are women out there who are incredibly strong and have military accomplishments that are equal to those you'll find in ordinary infantry troops. I also say this despite knowing that, in various wars, when the enemy came right to the doorstep, the women grabbed their weapons and fought.

The exceptions, however, should not create the rule. On average, women are smaller and weaker than men. The only response the military can have to meet the reality that women are weaker and smaller than man is to lower standards, which puts all front-line troops at risk.

On average, men feel honor bound to protect those who are smaller and weaker, which will severely compromise overall unit safety. Guys will make stupid decisions when they see the "little sister" of the unit in danger -- especially if she's in danger of rape and sexual torture from an enemy that believes all Western women are whores.

Not on average, but every darn time, women pee standing up and, unless they allow the military to sterilize or drug them, they have periods. Another biological reality is that women get pregnant -- and they're a lot more likely to get pregnant in adrenalin-rush situations with lots of equally adrenalinized young men around. And here's another reality: sexual rivalries will also work to tear apart unit cohesion.

No matter how you look at it, putting women on the front line is a dreadful idea, one that ignores biological imperatives and realities. In another words, it's an idea that only a Leftist could love.

The Colossus of Rhodey  : Never having been in the military, my position is the same as it was when gays in the military was being debated: I'll defer to those with the actual experience ... and NOT the politically correct politicians. As it is currently, I've no issue with women serving in combat roles as long as physical (and other) standards are not lowered for them. If any woman can meet the standards required for combat roles, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to serve in such a role.

The Independent Sentinel: Well they wanted equality and they got it.

From the male perspective, I don't like it. Two of my sons are former marines and they both said the physical for women is about half what it is for men. That does not equate for me. They either do what the men can do or they are out.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?


Sunday, February 03, 2013

London Times Apologizes For Anti-Semitic Cartoon

The UK's London Times has finally seen fit to apologize for the horrific cartoon that appeared on Holocaust Memorial Day showing a gargoyle-like hook nosed Benyamin Netanyahu building a wall with Palestinian blood and bodies. Here's what they had to say for themselves:

"It is one thing for a newspaper to attack and caricature a leader — and it is as legitimate to attack Israeli leaders in cartoons as anyone else. But it is another thing to reflect in a caricature, even unintentionally, historical iconography that is persecutory or anti-Semitic," the Sunday Times said.

"The image we published of Binyamin Netanyahu which appeared to show him reveling in the blood of Palestinians, crossed a line. The image would have been a mistake on any day but the fact that last Sunday was Holocaust Memorial Day compounded the error."

"We realize that we caused grave offence, however unintended, which detracted from a day that marks one of the greatest evils in human history.

It was further stated that "The Sunday Times abhors anti-Semitism and racism of any type and we would never set out to offend the Jewish people — or indeed any other ethnic or religious group. The publication of last week’s cartoon was a very serious mistake."


As I pointed out in the update to the link above, the Times initially refused to apologize at all and defended the cartoon as 'robust'. What changed their minds was undoubtedly a major blast from the Times' very pro Israel owner, Rupert Murdoch, whom personally apologized the day after the vicious cartoon appeared and apparently banged a few heads together.

"Gerald Scarfe has never reflected the opinions of the Sunday Times," he wrote on Twitter while apologizing for what he called a "grotesque, offensive cartoon." .


Why Does Someone Need A high Capacity Magazine?

http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/whydoessomeone.bmp

Courtesy of my pal Greg over at Rhymes With Right

Hot, Naked Chicks All Ready For The Superbowl!!

http://www.waterfrontrestaurant.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/chicken-spit.jpg


Made you look!

SecDef Panetta Admits Enhanced Interrogation Works, Led Us To Bin-Laden



Well, well.

Remember all of the noise from Democrats about waterboarding being torture? Remember how President Obama released confidential memos after the entire intelligence community begged him not to,because it would tell our enemies exactly the techniques we'd be using to interrogate them? Remember how Attorney General Eric Holder and the president were going to prosecute the CIA interrogators involved and the government attorneys who wrote legal opinions for the Bush Administration used to authorize waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques?

Remember how President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and a slew of other Democrats used this issue to play partisan politics and the media amplified it?

Today on NBC's Meet The Press, ex-SecDef Leon Panetta admitted that those techniques provided the intelligence that led the U.S. to Osama bin-Laden.

(h/t, Jim at Gateway)

Of course Panetta was quick to try to qualify it with a quick remark that 'we worked out most of it without resorting to those techniques', but he admitted that waterboarding and enhanced interrogation got the results we needed. And it's not the first time he's said it.

This is the same man who, at his 2009 CIA confirmation hearing conformation hearings called waterboarding "torture" and said it was something he would never use. Until he needed to, I suppose.

These same people demonized President Bush for making the same decision, one that, according to then Vice President Cheney, prevented subsequent al-Qaeda attacks and saved American lives. After all the obscene noise from the Left, no one has ever provided any evidence whatsoever that Cheney was wrong.

And of course, you're never going to hear Panetta, Mrs.Clinton or the president admit they were badly mistaken.

In other remarks in today's interview, Panetta touted Chuck Hagel's appointment as the new Secretary of defense, saying he had no doubt Hagel was 'ready to take over his job.'

If by that he meant being a clueless sycophant with no understanding or appreciation of national defense who would cheerfully carry out the orders for the hollowing out of America's military, Panetta might be right.

Friday, February 01, 2013

Sen. Rand Paul Is 100% Right On Failure To Ban Transfer Of F-16s From U.S. To Egypt



The more I see of Senator Paul, the more I like. And his remarks on pro-Israel leadership on Capitol Hill are spot on, as I can personally testify.

Money quote: "We don't have to pay Eng;and to be our friend...why do we have to pay Egypt?"

Justice...Tawana Brawley Finally Served To Pay Defamation Suit On Racist Rape Hoax

EXPOSED: Tawana Brawley had been living in hiding in Virginia until The Post tracked her down.

25 years ago, America's race pimps used a 15-year-old black teenager as a willing tool in an exercise in political theater that could easily have come out of Hollywood.

Tawana Brawley of Wappingers Falls in Dutchess County, New York was found in a trash bag covered in feces with the words “n- - - -r” and “bitch” scrawled on her body and “KKK” carved on her shoes.With the prompting of Al Sharpton, then largely unknown outside New York, she claimed she had been gang raped by a group of white men.

A week later, a local police officer, Harry Crist Jr., committed suicide and Sharpton used his death as an excuse to libel the dead man as one of the participants. And when former Dutchess County prosecutor Steven Pagones, a friend of Crist came to his defense, he was likewise accused of being part of the gang that 'raped' Tawana Brawly by Al Sharpton and his crew, and they used the media to amplify their bogus accusation.

When the case went to court, Brawley's lies were totally disproved, and she, Rev Al and her lawyers Alton Maddox and  C. Vernon Mason were all slapped with hefty defamation verdicts. Sharpton, Mason  and Maddox, of course, never had even the common decency to apologize to Pagones or to Crist's family, and in Sharpton's case his $66,000 judgment was finally paid to Pagones by a group that included OJ Simpson's lawyer Johnny Cochran.And Sharpton now had nation-wide fame. But the group didn't deem Tawana Brawley important enough any more to pay off the $190,000 judgment Pagones won against her for essentially trying to ruin Pagones' life and career.

So she simply ducked out, changed her name, kept on moving and forgot about it.

Pagones has finally found her, 25 years later. She was living under the name Tawana Vacenia Thompson Gutierrez in Hopewell, Va., and working as a licensed nurse at a nursing home in nearby Richmond.

That $190,000, with court ordered interest now totals $431,492, and wage-garnishment papers have been filed in Virginia’s Surry County ordering Brawley, a single mother, to pay for what she did a quarter century ago.That garnishment could amount to 25% of her wages according to Virginia State law.

Pagones, for his part, has signaled that he might be willing to forgo the money  in exchange for something that he's never received in all that time - the truth.

“There is a feeling of unfinished business to it,” he said of the case that ended his career and cost him his marriage. “I look at this as another opportunity for her to tell the truth.

“People criticize me for going after a hardworking single mother trying to support herself and child. My argument has been she has not been held accountable.

“If she is not going to tell the truth, then it is about the money. That is the only way to hold her accountable,” said Pagones, who is now principal owner of a private investigations firm.

But Pagones said he wonders if Sharpton will again try to rush to her aid and bail her out.

“I’ve got to believe since he is primarily responsible for all the damage done, I would think he would come to her aid. That’s what I expect,” Pagones said.


Actually, Rev Al - or more likely, those close to him - might very well do that. Faced with the prospect of finally having her own life affected by the scam she willingly participated in 25 years ago, Brawly might actually choose to go public and give us details on exactly how Sharpton manufactured this sordid scenario. We'll see.

Another thing I'm quite interested in is whether one of Sharpton's good friends and intimates, President Barack Obama is going to weigh in on this. President Obama has been noted in the past for commenting on matters where he felt racial injustice was involved, even when it concerned an obscure disturbing the peace bust in a college town.

This is a pretty clear case of racial injustice perpetrated on Steven Pagones by someone the president knows quite well. Is the president going to say anything? Or are we to conclude that his concern for justice is segregated and has a racial color line?

Chuck Hagel's Confirmation Hearings..And What They Tell Us About President Obama



There was some real comedy gold in the Senate conformation hearings on Obama's choice for Secretary of Defense today, Chuck Hagel.And some other things  that were decidedly not funny.

Okay..we know Hagel was appointed  because like the president, CIA appointee John Brenner and newly confirmed Secretary of State John Kerry, he thinks the solution to America's problems with Islamist fascism lies in retreat from the region while appeasing and empowering the Muslim Brotherhood and its various affiliates at home and abroad and creating what the president called 'daylight' between America and Israel. We know that like them, Hagel is  soft on Iran, thinks Hamas and Hezbollah shouldn't be labeled terrorists and is a big fan of trying to force Israel back to indefensible borders.

And mostly, we know that Hagel is President Obama's 'Republican' fig leaf for the the huge cuts the president wants to make in our military.

But until today, there were three things we didn't know for sure.

The first one is that Hagel, aside from his dark fantasies about the Evil Jewish Lobby, aside from being clueless on most foreign policy questions, is someone who makes Joe Biden look well informed and articulate.To mangle an apt quotation from Vergil, Hoc opus, hic labor est..to descend to that level is no big thing, but coming back is a tough row to hoe.

Even Lefties who were touting Obama's pick as the sharpest tool in the foreign policy shed since Otto von Bismarck or William Gladstone were shocked at Hagel's disastrous outing today.


The highlights? Well let's start with Hagel's stammering non-reply when Senator Lindsay Graham asked Hagel to back up his famous statement about the 'Jewish Lobby' and to name one Senator who'd been pressured into doing anything stupid by that 'Lobby'. And the repeat performance when Hagel was asked  to name anything he considered stupid that the Senate had done because of 'Jewish pressure'.



I know, the Lefties were screaming at their television sets '"Say Iraq! Say Iraq, dammit!" Ah, the myths die hard, although it would have been amusing to watch Hagel get taken apart by other senate questioners if he had.

Then there was his stumbling and refusing to  answer a direct question over whether Hagel agreed that the Iraq surge worked:



Then, there was  Texas Senator Ted Cruz catching him in a lie over an interview Hagel did with Al Jazeera where he agreed with host Riz Kahn that America was 'the world's bully' and slapping him upside the head with it:



(by the way, here's the actual interview...so that the Left can't lie about the quote from Hagel being out of context)

There was also Hagel's inability to explain his constant shilling for his pals, the Iranian government. In the first clip, he gets asked by Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe why the Iranian government has cheered his appointment and endorsed him as our next Secretary of defense:



Actually, the Iranians are not the only anti-semites backing Chuck Hagel. Here's well known anti-semite,  anti-Israel shill and former member of George Soro's Media Matters M.J. Rosenberg, who tweeted: "I spent a couple of hours with Hagel a few years ago. Talked about Israel. Happily, he is lying today & knows it. He'll be a good SeDef".

Whoopsie.

In the next clips, he refers to Iran as a 'legitimate government' in an attempt to explain why he refused to vote to classify Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group, even after the last bogus election and even though the Guards have  been indulging in terrorism against civilian targets for years..and then tries to walk it back a few minutes later in the third clip after an anxious consultation with someone:






The worst one is actually the second thing we found out today that we didn't know for sure. In spite of all his rhetoric to the contrary, President Obama has no intention of stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but is counting on containment working - and Hagel stupidly let the cat out of the bag, and then tried to walk it back:



The third thing? As CNN's Dana Bash pointed out, senators on both sides of the aisle were shocked at how ill prepared and dim witted Hagel appeared in the hearings, especially since he used to be on the other side of proceedings like this and knows how they work.

As you might imagine, for even mid-level cabinet positions, appointees are normally groomed carefully, given answers and told what to say to questions that are likely to come up, and for an appointment like Secretary of Defense, they go through rehearsals.

Hagel was not put through this regimen, or if he was, he wasn't well prepared at all. And that tells us something important.

It tells us that President Obama has total contempt for the office of Secretary of Defense if he feels this buffoon is the best our warriors deserve. Hagel was appointed not to actually contribute anything, but to do what he's told and be a reliable stooge in presiding over the hollowing out of our military and creating that closeness to Islamist regimes and that 'daylight' between Israel and America this president wants.

It also tells us that President Obama has total contempt for the Senate and the conformation process itself. He likely knows he has enough votes to get Hagel confirmed on a straight party line simple majority vote, and not only could care less how the conformation hearings go, but actually looks forward to forcing through an obviously unqualified and inappropriate nominee as an egotistic power game.

While the senate Republicans could filibuster, it's not going to be easy, and you would only need five Republicans - or four Republicans and one Independent - to vote for cloture to stop it.

There's also the remote possibility that President Obama is using Hagel as a political decoy to get Kerry and Brennan confirmed quickly, let Hagel take the flak and then nominate someone else just as bad for SecDef, but withut6 Hagel's public record to latch on to. It's not the first time something like that's been done in Washington, but if that's what's going down, it changes nothing about the nature of the contempt President Obama seems to be evidencing for our military, the office of Secretary of Defense, the Senate, and the American people he's supposed to be serving....not good.

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's Watcher's Council match up.

 Before we get started, let me remind you that there's now a seat available on the Watcher's Council up for grabs.

We're currently looking at candidates, so if you're interested, think you qualify or want to find out more about what's involved in being part of the longest established blogging group of its kind, simply leave a comment with site URL and your e-mail address (which won't be published) on any article over at Joshuapundit.

These don't come up all that often and when they do they usually fill up quickly, so if you're interested, don't snooze!

Even taking into consideration the normal high level of quality in both the Council and Non-Council entries, this was a tough call with some exceptional pieces to choose from, and the close vote tallies reflect it.

Some things never change, and one of them is that there are a lot of Europeans who will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz..especially with the convenient cover of ' anti-Zionism' to hide behind.

 

This week's winner by a nose, Joshuapundit's  How The UK Sunday Times Observed Holocaust Memorial Day... : is my look at how the UK's London Times chose to observe this year's Holocaust Memorial Day - with a cartoon that would have been right at home in Hitler's Der Stürmer.That something like this cartoon could appear in a mainstream UK paper on this particular day says volumes about the mindset of a great deal of British society, and about the nature of modern anti-Semitism itself. Here's a slice, and a little history of that a lot of Britons would probably prefer not to look at too closely:

 

Today, January 27th is Holocaust Memorial Day, when people throughout the world commemorate the six million  Jews who died at the hands of Hitler and his many willing assistants in all nations.

The  Times cartoon above,  showing a gargoyle like, hook nosed Benyamin Netanyahu 'cementing in a wall to peace' with the blood of those Arabs who identify as Palestinians is pretty much standard fare nowadays in the kind of country the UK has become. Or more accurately, as Caroline Glick recently pointed out, the kind of country Britain has been for some time but now feels increasingly comfortable with revealing openly.

While there are undoubtedly a number of sporadic commerative ceremonies in Britain today, the overwhelming thrust of the country's leadership and its policies are conveyed far more accurately by the cartoon above. And whether they want to admit it or not, that cartoon, and the fact that it was allowed to run today is not only overt anti-semitism, but craven cowardice. Can you imagine the Times ever running the Mohammed cartoons?

Just a day ago, Liberal MP David Ward compared Israel's policies with those of the Nazis at Auschwitz:

"Having visited Auschwitz twice - once with my family and once with local schools - I am saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new State of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza."

While he was eventually forced to make a pro forma apology by party leaders, subsequent remarks by Ward signal that he hasn't changed his views one iota.

The sophistry that people like David Ward and many other Britons indulge in is pretty wide spread these days...that there's a difference between 'Jews' - especially Left wing Jews willing to play along with the anti-Zionist narrative - and 'Israel'.

As the above cartoon reveals, what they really object to is Jews having the nerve to actually have the right of self-determination and to insist on defending themselves, something they wouldn't dare criticize for any other group.

What they're ultimately comfortable with, whether they admit it or not, is the idea of Jews as victims,perpetually dependent on their tolerance and goodwill. The cartoon underlines that hideous  comfort in Jews as victims by  using the motif of a wall to slam Israel's security barrier, which has saved countless Israeli lives from Islamist  terrorism. Holocaust Remembrance Day, if nothing else, should be a reminder of how quickly the winds can change when it comes to the Jews, and it is a strong and powerful Israel that makes sure that passively going along with those odious breezes is not an option anymore.

The 'anti-Zionist' is almost inevitably an anti-semite, and usually you don't have to dig too deeply at all.

Since this cartoon appeared in Britain's largest newspaper,and judging by the comments a lot of people found it appropriate, it's worth taking a moment to  review a little history. Because Britain's own record on the Holocaust is frequently glossed over.


Plus la change.....

In our non-Council category, the winner wa a wonderful piece by playwright, author and producer David Mamet with Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm submitted by The Noisy Room and it really is a must-read. The Fools of Chelm, by way of illustration,  is a well known piece of Jewish folklore popularized by Isaac Bashevis  Singer, about a town where a group of people lived in perfect amity and content until they started listening to the elites, the so-called Council of Sages.


OK,  here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners


See you next week! Don't forget to tune in on Monday AM for this week's Watcher's Forum, as the Council and their invited special guests take apart one of the provocative issues of the day and with short takes and weigh in...don't you dare miss it. And don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.....'cause we're cool like that!