School holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartners
Parents outraged at public elementary's secretive 'coming out' event
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Some parents are shocked to find their children are learning to be homosexual allies and will participate in "Coming Out Day" at a public elementary school tomorrow – and they claim the school failed to notify parents.
One mother of a kindergartner who attends Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, a K-8 charter school in Hayward, Calif., said she asked her 5-year-old daughter what she was learning at school.
The little girl replied, "We're learning to be allies.
"
The mother also said a Gay Straight Alliance club regularly meets in the kindergarten classroom during lunch.
According to a Pacific Justice Institute report, Faith Ringgold opted not to inform the parents of its pro-homosexual activities beforehand. The school is celebrating "Gay and Lesbian History Month" and is in the process of observing "Ally Week," a pro-"gay" occasion usually geared toward high school students.
The school is scheduled to host discussions about families and has posted fliers on school grounds portraying only homosexuals. According to the report, a "TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud" will take place Nov. 20. Students will listen to traditional stories with "gay" or transgender twists, to include "Jane and the Beanstalk.
"
Some parents only recently noticed posters promoting the school's "Coming Out Day" tomorrow – celebrated 12 days after the national "Coming Out Day" usually observed on Oct. 11. When WND contacted the school to confirm the event, a female representative replied, "Yes, it is scheduled on our calendar.
"
When asked if the school made any efforts to inform parents, she refused to answer and said Hayward Unified School District would have to respond to additional questions. However, the district did not answer its phones or e-mails, and a voicemail recording would not take messages. "Coming Out Day" is not listed on the district's online school calendar.
Some of the parents contacted Pacific Justice Institute for representation when they learned the school was pushing pro-"gay" events for young children without warning.
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, said opponents of California's proposed ban on same-sex marriage, or Proposition 8, often say the measure would not have an effect on public schools – but this is one of many recent developments that prove otherwise.
"Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible?" he asked. "Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners, and we can only imagine how much worse it will be if Prop. 8 is defeated. This is not a scenario most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools.
"
Concerned individuals may contact Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science by e-mailing Principal Diana Levy or calling (510) 889-7399. The Hayward Unified School District can be reached at (510)784-2600 or by filling out the district contact form.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Saturday, November 1, 2008
LISTEN TO RUPERT: Obama Win Could Worsen FInancial Crisis
Global media tycoon Rupert Murdoch has warned that a win by Democratic hopeful Barack Obama in next week's US election could worsen the world financial crisis, a report said Saturday.
In an interview with The Weekend Australian, owned by Murdoch's News Corporation, the newsman said if the Democrats implemented protectionist policies it would be "a real setback for globalisation".
Murdoch said he did not know whether an Obama administration would deliver on all the Democrats' stated policies, saying "presidents don't often behave exactly as the campaign might have suggested."
But he warned that an increase in protectionism in the US as suggested by some Democrats in Congress, would risk retaliation from China and could threaten world trade.
"For the past three or four years, some Democrats have been threatening to do things like put on extra tariffs (against Chinese imports) if they don't change their currency," Murdoch said.
"If it happened, it could set off retaliatory action which would certainly damage the world economy seriously."
The Australian-born mogul, who controls media interests around the world, also criticised Obama's proposed tax policies which include granting rebates to most US workers.
"Forty percent (of the US population) don't pay taxes, so how can he give them a tax cut?" he said.
"But you can give them a welfare cheque which he has promised -- a grant of 500 dollars -- which will disappear very fast. It's not going to turn the economy around at all."
Murdoch, who is in Australia to deliver a series of lectures, rejected the suggestion that the ousting of a Republican administration in the US would be a circuit breaker which automatically boosted financial markets.
"To some extent it is beyond the power of politicians," he said of the current crisis.
"You are going to find that the politicians are very limited in what they can do: they can make it worse but they can't stop it."
Murdoch said Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had been "sure-footed" in handling the crisis, deflecting criticism that the centre-left Labor leader had been too quick to offer a blanket guarantee on bank deposits.
But Murdoch said all politicians should be careful not to worsen the situation by "alarming people more than they should be alarmed".
In an interview with The Weekend Australian, owned by Murdoch's News Corporation, the newsman said if the Democrats implemented protectionist policies it would be "a real setback for globalisation".
Murdoch said he did not know whether an Obama administration would deliver on all the Democrats' stated policies, saying "presidents don't often behave exactly as the campaign might have suggested."
But he warned that an increase in protectionism in the US as suggested by some Democrats in Congress, would risk retaliation from China and could threaten world trade.
"For the past three or four years, some Democrats have been threatening to do things like put on extra tariffs (against Chinese imports) if they don't change their currency," Murdoch said.
"If it happened, it could set off retaliatory action which would certainly damage the world economy seriously."
The Australian-born mogul, who controls media interests around the world, also criticised Obama's proposed tax policies which include granting rebates to most US workers.
"Forty percent (of the US population) don't pay taxes, so how can he give them a tax cut?" he said.
"But you can give them a welfare cheque which he has promised -- a grant of 500 dollars -- which will disappear very fast. It's not going to turn the economy around at all."
Murdoch, who is in Australia to deliver a series of lectures, rejected the suggestion that the ousting of a Republican administration in the US would be a circuit breaker which automatically boosted financial markets.
"To some extent it is beyond the power of politicians," he said of the current crisis.
"You are going to find that the politicians are very limited in what they can do: they can make it worse but they can't stop it."
Murdoch said Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had been "sure-footed" in handling the crisis, deflecting criticism that the centre-left Labor leader had been too quick to offer a blanket guarantee on bank deposits.
But Murdoch said all politicians should be careful not to worsen the situation by "alarming people more than they should be alarmed".
Friday, October 31, 2008
How's Obama Going To Raise $4.3 Trillion???
by Alan Reynolds
Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.
Added to cato.org on October 24, 2008
This article appeared in the The Wall Street Journal on October 24, 2008
The most troublesome tax increases in Barack Obama's plan are not those we can already see but those sure to be announced later, after the election is over and budget realities rear their ugly head.
The new president, whoever he is, will start out facing a budget deficit of at least $1 trillion, possibly much more. Sen. Obama has nonetheless promised to devote another $1.32 trillion over the next 10 years to several new or expanded refundable tax credits and a special exemption for seniors, according to the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center (TPC). He calls this a "middle-class tax cut," while suggesting the middle class includes 95% of those who work.
Mr. Obama's proposed income-based health-insurance subsidies, tax credits for tiny businesses, and expanded Medicaid eligibility would cost another $1.63 trillion, according to the TPC. Thus his tax rebates and health insurance subsidies alone would lift the undisclosed bill to future taxpayers by $2.95 trillion -- roughly $295billion a year by 2012.
But that's not all. Mr. Obama has also promised to spend more on 176 other programs, according to an 85-page list of campaign promises (actual quotations) compiled by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. The NTUF was able to produce cost estimates for only 77 of the 176, so its estimate is low. Excluding the Obama health plan, the NTUF estimates that Mr. Obama would raise spending by $611.5 billion over the next five years; the 10-year total (aside from health) would surely exceed $1.4 trillion, because spending typically grows at least as quickly as nominal GDP.
A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. Altogether, Mr. Obama is promising at least $4.3 trillion of increased spending and reduced tax revenue from 2009 to 2018 -- roughly an extra $430 billion a year by 2012-2013.
How is he going to pay for it?
Raising the tax rates on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $200,000-$250,000, and phasing out their exemptions and deductions, can raise only a small fraction of the amount. Even if we have a strong economy, Mr. Obama's proposed tax hikes on the dwindling ranks of high earners would be unlikely to raise much more than $30 billion-$35 billion a year by 2012.
Besides, Mr. Obama does not claim he can finance his ambitious plans for tax credits, health insurance, etc. by taxing the rich. On the contrary, he has an even less likely revenue source in mind.
In his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention on Aug. 28, Mr. Obama said, "I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime -- by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens." That comment refers to $924.1 billion over 10 years from what the TPC wisely labels "unverifiable revenue raisers." To put that huge figure in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office optimistically expects a total of $3.7 trillion from corporate taxes over that period. In other words, Mr. Obama is counting on increasing corporate tax collections by more than 25% simply by closing "loopholes" and complaining about foreign "tax havens."
Nobody, including the Tax Policy Center, believes that is remotely feasible. And Mr. Obama's dream of squeezing more revenue out of corporate profits, dividends and capital gains looks increasingly unbelievable now that profits are falling, banks have cut or eliminated dividends, and only a few short-sellers have any capital gains left to tax.
When it comes to direct spending -- as opposed to handing out "refund" checks through the tax code -- Mr. Obama claims he won't need more revenue because there will be no more spending. He even claims to be proposing to cut more spending ending up with a "net spending cut." That was Mr. Obama's most direct answer to Bob Schieffer, the moderator of the last debate, right after Mr. Schieffer said "The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CFARB) ran the numbers" and found otherwise.
When CFARB "ran the numbers," they relied almost entirely on unverifiable numbers eagerly provided to them by the Obama campaign. That explains why their list of Mr. Obama's new spending plans is so much shorter than the National Taxpayers Union fully documented list.
But nothing quite explains why even the vaguest promises to save money are recorded by CFARB as if they had substance. Mr. Obama is thus credited with saving $50 billion in a single year (2013) by reducing "wasteful spending" and unnamed "obsolete programs." He is said to save Medicare $43 billion a year by importing foreign drugs and negotiating bargains from drug companies. Yet even proponents of that approach such as the Lewin Group find that cannot save more than $6 billion a year. So the remaining $37 billion turns out to depend on what the Obama campaign refers to as undertaking "additional measures as necessary" (more taxes?).
The number of U.S. troops in Iraq will decline, regardless of who the next president is. Yet the CFARB credits John McCain's budget with only a $5 billion savings from troop reduction in Iraq, while Mr. Obama gets an extra $55 billion.
Straining to add credibility to Mr. Obama's fantasy about discovering $75 billion in 2013 from "closing corporate loopholes and tax havens," CFARB assures us that "the campaign has said that an Obama administration would look for other sources of revenue." Indeed they would.
In one respect, CFARB is more candid than the Obama campaign. Mr. Obama favors a relatively draconian cap-and-trade scheme in which the government would sell rights to emit carbon dioxide. The effect on U.S. families and firms would be like a steep tax on electricity, gasoline and energy-intensive products such as paper, plastic and aluminum. Whenever Mr. Obama claims he has not (yet) proposed any tax increase on couples earning less than $250,000, he forgets to mention his de facto $100 billion annual tax on energy. (The McCain-Lieberman cap-and-trade plan is more gradual and much less costly.)
CFARB assumes Mr. Obama's cap-and-trade tax would raise $100 billion in 2013 alone, but the actual revenue raised would be much lower. Like every other steep surge in energy costs, the Obama cap-and-trade tax would crush the economy, reducing tax receipts from profits and personal income.
The Joint Tax Committee reports that the bottom 60% of taxpayers with incomes below $50,000 paid less than 1% of the federal income tax in 2006, while the 3.3% with incomes above $200,000 paid more than 58%. Most of Mr. Obama's tax rebates go to the bottom 60%. They can't possibly be financed by shifting an even larger share of the tax burden to the top 3.3%.
Mr. Obama has offered no clue as to how he intends to pay for his health-insurance plans, or doubling foreign aid, or any of the other 175 programs he's promised to expand. Although he may hope to collect an even larger share of loot from the top of the heap, the harsh reality is that this Democrat's quest for hundreds of billions more revenue each year would have to reach deep into the pockets of the people much lower on the economic ladder. Even then he'd come up short.
This commentary was adapted from a paper for Hillsdale College's Free Market Forum.
Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.
Added to cato.org on October 24, 2008
This article appeared in the The Wall Street Journal on October 24, 2008
The most troublesome tax increases in Barack Obama's plan are not those we can already see but those sure to be announced later, after the election is over and budget realities rear their ugly head.
The new president, whoever he is, will start out facing a budget deficit of at least $1 trillion, possibly much more. Sen. Obama has nonetheless promised to devote another $1.32 trillion over the next 10 years to several new or expanded refundable tax credits and a special exemption for seniors, according to the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center (TPC). He calls this a "middle-class tax cut," while suggesting the middle class includes 95% of those who work.
Mr. Obama's proposed income-based health-insurance subsidies, tax credits for tiny businesses, and expanded Medicaid eligibility would cost another $1.63 trillion, according to the TPC. Thus his tax rebates and health insurance subsidies alone would lift the undisclosed bill to future taxpayers by $2.95 trillion -- roughly $295billion a year by 2012.
But that's not all. Mr. Obama has also promised to spend more on 176 other programs, according to an 85-page list of campaign promises (actual quotations) compiled by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. The NTUF was able to produce cost estimates for only 77 of the 176, so its estimate is low. Excluding the Obama health plan, the NTUF estimates that Mr. Obama would raise spending by $611.5 billion over the next five years; the 10-year total (aside from health) would surely exceed $1.4 trillion, because spending typically grows at least as quickly as nominal GDP.
A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. Altogether, Mr. Obama is promising at least $4.3 trillion of increased spending and reduced tax revenue from 2009 to 2018 -- roughly an extra $430 billion a year by 2012-2013.
How is he going to pay for it?
Raising the tax rates on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $200,000-$250,000, and phasing out their exemptions and deductions, can raise only a small fraction of the amount. Even if we have a strong economy, Mr. Obama's proposed tax hikes on the dwindling ranks of high earners would be unlikely to raise much more than $30 billion-$35 billion a year by 2012.
Besides, Mr. Obama does not claim he can finance his ambitious plans for tax credits, health insurance, etc. by taxing the rich. On the contrary, he has an even less likely revenue source in mind.
In his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention on Aug. 28, Mr. Obama said, "I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime -- by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens." That comment refers to $924.1 billion over 10 years from what the TPC wisely labels "unverifiable revenue raisers." To put that huge figure in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office optimistically expects a total of $3.7 trillion from corporate taxes over that period. In other words, Mr. Obama is counting on increasing corporate tax collections by more than 25% simply by closing "loopholes" and complaining about foreign "tax havens."
Nobody, including the Tax Policy Center, believes that is remotely feasible. And Mr. Obama's dream of squeezing more revenue out of corporate profits, dividends and capital gains looks increasingly unbelievable now that profits are falling, banks have cut or eliminated dividends, and only a few short-sellers have any capital gains left to tax.
When it comes to direct spending -- as opposed to handing out "refund" checks through the tax code -- Mr. Obama claims he won't need more revenue because there will be no more spending. He even claims to be proposing to cut more spending ending up with a "net spending cut." That was Mr. Obama's most direct answer to Bob Schieffer, the moderator of the last debate, right after Mr. Schieffer said "The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CFARB) ran the numbers" and found otherwise.
When CFARB "ran the numbers," they relied almost entirely on unverifiable numbers eagerly provided to them by the Obama campaign. That explains why their list of Mr. Obama's new spending plans is so much shorter than the National Taxpayers Union fully documented list.
But nothing quite explains why even the vaguest promises to save money are recorded by CFARB as if they had substance. Mr. Obama is thus credited with saving $50 billion in a single year (2013) by reducing "wasteful spending" and unnamed "obsolete programs." He is said to save Medicare $43 billion a year by importing foreign drugs and negotiating bargains from drug companies. Yet even proponents of that approach such as the Lewin Group find that cannot save more than $6 billion a year. So the remaining $37 billion turns out to depend on what the Obama campaign refers to as undertaking "additional measures as necessary" (more taxes?).
The number of U.S. troops in Iraq will decline, regardless of who the next president is. Yet the CFARB credits John McCain's budget with only a $5 billion savings from troop reduction in Iraq, while Mr. Obama gets an extra $55 billion.
Straining to add credibility to Mr. Obama's fantasy about discovering $75 billion in 2013 from "closing corporate loopholes and tax havens," CFARB assures us that "the campaign has said that an Obama administration would look for other sources of revenue." Indeed they would.
In one respect, CFARB is more candid than the Obama campaign. Mr. Obama favors a relatively draconian cap-and-trade scheme in which the government would sell rights to emit carbon dioxide. The effect on U.S. families and firms would be like a steep tax on electricity, gasoline and energy-intensive products such as paper, plastic and aluminum. Whenever Mr. Obama claims he has not (yet) proposed any tax increase on couples earning less than $250,000, he forgets to mention his de facto $100 billion annual tax on energy. (The McCain-Lieberman cap-and-trade plan is more gradual and much less costly.)
CFARB assumes Mr. Obama's cap-and-trade tax would raise $100 billion in 2013 alone, but the actual revenue raised would be much lower. Like every other steep surge in energy costs, the Obama cap-and-trade tax would crush the economy, reducing tax receipts from profits and personal income.
The Joint Tax Committee reports that the bottom 60% of taxpayers with incomes below $50,000 paid less than 1% of the federal income tax in 2006, while the 3.3% with incomes above $200,000 paid more than 58%. Most of Mr. Obama's tax rebates go to the bottom 60%. They can't possibly be financed by shifting an even larger share of the tax burden to the top 3.3%.
Mr. Obama has offered no clue as to how he intends to pay for his health-insurance plans, or doubling foreign aid, or any of the other 175 programs he's promised to expand. Although he may hope to collect an even larger share of loot from the top of the heap, the harsh reality is that this Democrat's quest for hundreds of billions more revenue each year would have to reach deep into the pockets of the people much lower on the economic ladder. Even then he'd come up short.
This commentary was adapted from a paper for Hillsdale College's Free Market Forum.
Obama's Opposition to "Born Alive Infant Protection Act"
In this audio Obama coldly claims two doctors helping a baby born alive after a botched abortion would be a burden for the aborting mother when he is arguing against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act at the Illinois state legislature April 2002.
Obama and Israel
Excellent commentary from pajamasmedia.com:
October 29, 2008 - by Kyle-Anne Shiver
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
“I want to remind those of you … who don’t know me and those of you who do know me what my record has been. It has been unstinting in the defense and support of Israel,” he said at a community center, having discussed at length his travels there and work as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “I give you my word as a Biden, I would not have given up that job to be Barack Obama’s vice president if I didn’t — in my gut, and in my heart, and in my head — know that Barack Obama is exactly where I am on Israel.”
– Vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden, September 2, at a Jewish community center in Florida
Please, dear reader, do call me a skeptic; I am one. I started learning the price of gullibility in first grade. I traded my chocolate chip cookies to a third grader for his promise of a new pencil sharpener at recess. He lied; I learned.
My grandfather helped. He taught me to “always consider the source” before believing a promise and to never place my trust in an untrustworthy person. I lived and I learned.
Now that I’m well into my sixth decade of life, I’m a very hard sell. And the higher the stakes riding on the promise, the more care I put into my decision to proffer my trust.
When it comes to Israel and her survival as a free nation, the stakes are so high that it behooves even the most trusting American to examine closely the words and records of our candidates in this regard. And, sadly, we are forced to admit that the only reason Joe Biden had to make the reassuring statement above to Jews in Florida is that his candidate, Barack Obama, has the most tenuous, nearly nonexistent, and utterly unreliable “record” of any candidate ever to seek the presidency.
Especially in the arena of foreign affairs. Especially with regard to Israel and the Palestinians.
Scores of articles have already been written about Barack Obama’s rubbery rhetoric, the kind that stretches credulity to the popping point. As it stands now, this untested knave has made so many contradictory statements regarding Israel — a divided or undivided Jerusalem, the threat of radical Islamic terrorists, and on and on and on — that one must pinpoint the date of a statement to even attempt to figure out where Obama actually stands on anything whatsoever.
But Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is absolutely certain of one thing. He’s certain — certain — that the unreliable Obama will be tested within his first six months by other leaders around the globe. Where Americans have utterly failed to properly vet and test this candidate for the presidency, rogue regimes and terrorists and leaders bent on flexing their military muscle will not fail to test and terrorize in their attempts to find the limits of Obama’s mettle.
Not surprisingly, John McCain agrees.
But no American voter need take the word of the Republican candidate, John McCain, for any of this. We have the words of Hillary Clinton. We have the words of Joe Biden. We have the words of Joe Lieberman.
What’s even more startling to me is the fact that Barack Obama has laid out his specific plan to weaken America’s defenses — piece by piece — in the hope that countries like Iran, Russia, North Korea, and a host of other threatening, hell-bent regimes will see our example and follow suit.
Candidate Obama even made a video, in which he states unequivocally his plan to stake the security of the entire peace-loving world upon his own completely untested skill as a diplomat.
From where I sit, this isn’t a job for a diplomat; it’s the job of a messiah.
Nevertheless, Obama makes the following pledges regarding defense:
“I will cut tens of billions of dollars of wasteful defense spending.”
This makes me nervous.
“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”
Actually these systems are proving quite capable of protecting against attack.
“I will not weaponize space.”
Even if Russia and China do?
“I will slow our development of future combat systems.”
Letting enemy regimes catch up with us helps preserve the peace? How?
“I will not develop new nuclear weapons.”
Well, it might be diplomatic to let Iran, Syria, North Korea, and others catch up with us. But is it safe?
“I will seek a global ban on the development of fissile material, and negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”
Obama’s grandfather clearly did not teach him to consider the source and not to put one’s trust in untrustworthy people.
It is very sad to say, but of all our allies, Israel is by far the most vulnerable. Yet, candidate Obama, who still seems to believe in the tooth fairy, plans to sit down and talk with Ahmadinejad, albeit with “preparation” but still “without preconditions” in the first year of his presidency.
Whether this little pow-wow will take place before the anticipated “international crisis” or after is anybody’s guess. Eerily enough, a possible international crisis involving Israel was recently stopped accidentally by a group of Somali pirates.
According to the Israel National News website, an Iranian ship was hijacked by Somali pirates in August, an event which made barely a blip in the mainstream press.
U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials maintained a tight-lipped silence on the alleged incident. However, Russian intelligence sources reportedly said the ship was “an enormous floating dirty bomb, intending to detonate after exiting the Suez Canal at the eastern end of the Mediterranean and in proximity to the coastal cities of Israel.”
“The entire cargo of radioactive sand,” said the Russian sources, “[was] obtained by Iran from China (the latter buys desperately needed oil from the former) and sealed in containers which, when the charges on the ship are set off after the crew took to the boats, will be blasted high into the air where prevailing winds will push the highly dangerous and radioactive cloud ashore.”
Several military web blogs have noted that had the ship’s crew succeeded in reaching Israel’s coastal waters with their deadly cargo, it would have been quite easy to escape the vessel in small boats and then detonate explosives on the vessel. The radioactive powder, which would have been blown into the air, would have been carried by the wind straight to Israel.
Of course, the report goes on to say that it’s impossible to verify this with complete certainty, but if we consider Iran as the source, then we know without doubt that this scenario is certainly very plausible.
This simple deductive reasoning ought not be above anybody’s pay grade.
Of course, Americans sitting safely ensconced continents away from the evil masterminds of the Middle East can easily turn a blind eye towards the death and destruction that continues on a daily basis in our sister nation, Israel. But a great many American Jews have abandoned the safety of home to make aliyah and I could not help but shudder when I read this article by Naomi Ragen, who has made Israel her home since 1971 and has learned the hard way to consider the source of all promises.
Ms. Ragen writes passionately of living through the never-ending quest for peace in her adopted homeland, of trusting and voting for “peace now” candidates against her better judgment, of giving into the fantasies of her countrymen over the Oslo accords, of watching men, women, and children she knew get exploded into bits, and even of her own narrow escapes from death at terrorist hands.
On our presidential election, she makes this anguished plea:
The presidential election of the most liberal and inexperienced politician in America — a man with strong Muslim ties and a strong Muslim background; a man who is linked to domestic terrorism through Bill Ayers, and to numerous pro-Islamic and anti-American advisors, all of whom side with Israel’s leftist enemies (including Israelis), as well as to anti-American anti-Semites like Reverend Wright; a man whose supporters are among the same people who brought down the American economy with their “liberalism” in money-lending — is just about a fait accompli. I have no idea what has happened to the America I knew. I have no idea what happened to the American Jewish community’s support for Israel, how it has been washed away by deceptive self-interest and propaganda lies. But when I think what is in store for the America which is doing this to herself, and the American Jewish community that thinks by selling out Israel it will somehow achieve “change” that will benefit it, my heart aches.
I’m not Jewish. I cannot even pretend to know how it feels to have real relatives who miraculously survived the Holocaust. I cannot pretend to know the realities of living under the ever-present threat that the Israelis endure day in and day out every week, every month, every year. And I cannot pretend that I know the frustration that Israelis like Naomi Ragen have with their sister communities of Jewish Americans.
But I am a passionate lover of Israel. Not because of any creed or faith or bloodline. I love Israel simply because it is the right thing to do. Always has been. Americans once knew this without thinking. The Israelis have demonstrated again, again, again, and again that if the Muslim states want to live side by side in peace, then an everlasting peace will be immediate. Only people blinded by foolish gullibility or misplaced loyalties could possibly see it any differently, in my opinion.
Iran is a proven evil in this world. Ahmadinejad states over and over again his intention to bring about the “real Holocaust.”
This is one lesson the world simply cannot afford to learn again the hard way. But if we don’t vote for the wise hand of John McCain on the national tiller next month, then we may very well learn once again how brazen evil can be in the face of weak-kneed leadership.
Never again? One must never say “never” without the necessary conviction to make it so.
October 29, 2008 - by Kyle-Anne Shiver
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
“I want to remind those of you … who don’t know me and those of you who do know me what my record has been. It has been unstinting in the defense and support of Israel,” he said at a community center, having discussed at length his travels there and work as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “I give you my word as a Biden, I would not have given up that job to be Barack Obama’s vice president if I didn’t — in my gut, and in my heart, and in my head — know that Barack Obama is exactly where I am on Israel.”
– Vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden, September 2, at a Jewish community center in Florida
Please, dear reader, do call me a skeptic; I am one. I started learning the price of gullibility in first grade. I traded my chocolate chip cookies to a third grader for his promise of a new pencil sharpener at recess. He lied; I learned.
My grandfather helped. He taught me to “always consider the source” before believing a promise and to never place my trust in an untrustworthy person. I lived and I learned.
Now that I’m well into my sixth decade of life, I’m a very hard sell. And the higher the stakes riding on the promise, the more care I put into my decision to proffer my trust.
When it comes to Israel and her survival as a free nation, the stakes are so high that it behooves even the most trusting American to examine closely the words and records of our candidates in this regard. And, sadly, we are forced to admit that the only reason Joe Biden had to make the reassuring statement above to Jews in Florida is that his candidate, Barack Obama, has the most tenuous, nearly nonexistent, and utterly unreliable “record” of any candidate ever to seek the presidency.
Especially in the arena of foreign affairs. Especially with regard to Israel and the Palestinians.
Scores of articles have already been written about Barack Obama’s rubbery rhetoric, the kind that stretches credulity to the popping point. As it stands now, this untested knave has made so many contradictory statements regarding Israel — a divided or undivided Jerusalem, the threat of radical Islamic terrorists, and on and on and on — that one must pinpoint the date of a statement to even attempt to figure out where Obama actually stands on anything whatsoever.
But Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is absolutely certain of one thing. He’s certain — certain — that the unreliable Obama will be tested within his first six months by other leaders around the globe. Where Americans have utterly failed to properly vet and test this candidate for the presidency, rogue regimes and terrorists and leaders bent on flexing their military muscle will not fail to test and terrorize in their attempts to find the limits of Obama’s mettle.
Not surprisingly, John McCain agrees.
But no American voter need take the word of the Republican candidate, John McCain, for any of this. We have the words of Hillary Clinton. We have the words of Joe Biden. We have the words of Joe Lieberman.
What’s even more startling to me is the fact that Barack Obama has laid out his specific plan to weaken America’s defenses — piece by piece — in the hope that countries like Iran, Russia, North Korea, and a host of other threatening, hell-bent regimes will see our example and follow suit.
Candidate Obama even made a video, in which he states unequivocally his plan to stake the security of the entire peace-loving world upon his own completely untested skill as a diplomat.
From where I sit, this isn’t a job for a diplomat; it’s the job of a messiah.
Nevertheless, Obama makes the following pledges regarding defense:
“I will cut tens of billions of dollars of wasteful defense spending.”
This makes me nervous.
“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”
Actually these systems are proving quite capable of protecting against attack.
“I will not weaponize space.”
Even if Russia and China do?
“I will slow our development of future combat systems.”
Letting enemy regimes catch up with us helps preserve the peace? How?
“I will not develop new nuclear weapons.”
Well, it might be diplomatic to let Iran, Syria, North Korea, and others catch up with us. But is it safe?
“I will seek a global ban on the development of fissile material, and negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”
Obama’s grandfather clearly did not teach him to consider the source and not to put one’s trust in untrustworthy people.
It is very sad to say, but of all our allies, Israel is by far the most vulnerable. Yet, candidate Obama, who still seems to believe in the tooth fairy, plans to sit down and talk with Ahmadinejad, albeit with “preparation” but still “without preconditions” in the first year of his presidency.
Whether this little pow-wow will take place before the anticipated “international crisis” or after is anybody’s guess. Eerily enough, a possible international crisis involving Israel was recently stopped accidentally by a group of Somali pirates.
According to the Israel National News website, an Iranian ship was hijacked by Somali pirates in August, an event which made barely a blip in the mainstream press.
U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials maintained a tight-lipped silence on the alleged incident. However, Russian intelligence sources reportedly said the ship was “an enormous floating dirty bomb, intending to detonate after exiting the Suez Canal at the eastern end of the Mediterranean and in proximity to the coastal cities of Israel.”
“The entire cargo of radioactive sand,” said the Russian sources, “[was] obtained by Iran from China (the latter buys desperately needed oil from the former) and sealed in containers which, when the charges on the ship are set off after the crew took to the boats, will be blasted high into the air where prevailing winds will push the highly dangerous and radioactive cloud ashore.”
Several military web blogs have noted that had the ship’s crew succeeded in reaching Israel’s coastal waters with their deadly cargo, it would have been quite easy to escape the vessel in small boats and then detonate explosives on the vessel. The radioactive powder, which would have been blown into the air, would have been carried by the wind straight to Israel.
Of course, the report goes on to say that it’s impossible to verify this with complete certainty, but if we consider Iran as the source, then we know without doubt that this scenario is certainly very plausible.
This simple deductive reasoning ought not be above anybody’s pay grade.
Of course, Americans sitting safely ensconced continents away from the evil masterminds of the Middle East can easily turn a blind eye towards the death and destruction that continues on a daily basis in our sister nation, Israel. But a great many American Jews have abandoned the safety of home to make aliyah and I could not help but shudder when I read this article by Naomi Ragen, who has made Israel her home since 1971 and has learned the hard way to consider the source of all promises.
Ms. Ragen writes passionately of living through the never-ending quest for peace in her adopted homeland, of trusting and voting for “peace now” candidates against her better judgment, of giving into the fantasies of her countrymen over the Oslo accords, of watching men, women, and children she knew get exploded into bits, and even of her own narrow escapes from death at terrorist hands.
On our presidential election, she makes this anguished plea:
The presidential election of the most liberal and inexperienced politician in America — a man with strong Muslim ties and a strong Muslim background; a man who is linked to domestic terrorism through Bill Ayers, and to numerous pro-Islamic and anti-American advisors, all of whom side with Israel’s leftist enemies (including Israelis), as well as to anti-American anti-Semites like Reverend Wright; a man whose supporters are among the same people who brought down the American economy with their “liberalism” in money-lending — is just about a fait accompli. I have no idea what has happened to the America I knew. I have no idea what happened to the American Jewish community’s support for Israel, how it has been washed away by deceptive self-interest and propaganda lies. But when I think what is in store for the America which is doing this to herself, and the American Jewish community that thinks by selling out Israel it will somehow achieve “change” that will benefit it, my heart aches.
I’m not Jewish. I cannot even pretend to know how it feels to have real relatives who miraculously survived the Holocaust. I cannot pretend to know the realities of living under the ever-present threat that the Israelis endure day in and day out every week, every month, every year. And I cannot pretend that I know the frustration that Israelis like Naomi Ragen have with their sister communities of Jewish Americans.
But I am a passionate lover of Israel. Not because of any creed or faith or bloodline. I love Israel simply because it is the right thing to do. Always has been. Americans once knew this without thinking. The Israelis have demonstrated again, again, again, and again that if the Muslim states want to live side by side in peace, then an everlasting peace will be immediate. Only people blinded by foolish gullibility or misplaced loyalties could possibly see it any differently, in my opinion.
Iran is a proven evil in this world. Ahmadinejad states over and over again his intention to bring about the “real Holocaust.”
This is one lesson the world simply cannot afford to learn again the hard way. But if we don’t vote for the wise hand of John McCain on the national tiller next month, then we may very well learn once again how brazen evil can be in the face of weak-kneed leadership.
Never again? One must never say “never” without the necessary conviction to make it so.
Local Palm Springs Newspaper Endorses McCain!
What a pleasant surprise, especially considering that this is not the most Republican-friendly place on earth . . .
McCain has the ability to bring about change
The Desert Sun endorses Republican candidate John McCain for president of the United States.
McCain has a long and documented record of leadership. He has taken courageous positions in opposition of his party's leaders, he has fought and sacrificed dearly for this country, and he has the political experience, both foreign and domestic, needed to bring about the type of change Americans want during one of the most uncertain times in our history.
The challenge ahead
The country faces critical challenges. It is embroiled in two wars, national debt is $10 trillion and growing, foreclosed homes pepper neighborhoods across the country, the unemployment rate is climbing and the current president and Congress just passed a $700 billion bailout — money the nation doesn't have — in an attempt to end the credit crisis.
Yes, Americans demand change in the White House. But the issues facing the country are far too momentous to leave in the hands of anyone other than a proven leader. McCain is the only candidate in this presidential race with the experience and proven track record as a leader to deliver that change for all.
We know how McCain has voted in the past and it is not simply in lock-step with the Republican Party. He votes for what he believes is best for the nation, even if that puts him at odds with President Bush and other GOP leaders.
He survived five years as a POW in Hanoi and fought numerous battles in Washington.
Reaching across the aisle
He collaborated with iconic Democrat Sen. Edward Kennedy on a solution to illegal immigration and sponsored campaign finance reform through the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which is commonly referred to as the McCain-Feingold Act. It is considered McCain's greatest legislative achievement.
We can't say the same for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. He has not been tested. He is three years into his first term as a U.S. senator. He's not been a governor or the CEO of a major corporation. Obama's record is short and it does not transcend party affiliation — that we all know for certain.
An Obama presidency would coincide with Democratic control of both houses of Congress, meaning unfettered control of federal policy by the Democrats for at least the next two years. That is not what's best for the country. The American people have shown election after election that they want a balanced government.
Obama has eloquence
No one can take away from the fact that Obama is an inspirational figure and a skilled orator. He does bring a sense of hope to many. Not since John F. Kennedy have we seen such a charismatic candidate with a keen ability to touch people's emotions. It was these reasons that we endorsed him in the Democratic primary.
But delivering a good speech is not enough for the presidency. We need experience, a record of service and bipartisan leadership. With Obama, the American people have no guarantee that he will govern from the center. McCain has proven he is a centrist.
McCain has substance
McCain's record shows he is willing to regulate when necessary and deregulate when necessary. He supports banking regulations now, but he also has a record of deregulating industries that become mired in government bureaucracy. He is the right Republican for this point in American history.
Obama has pledged repeatedly he will tax the rich and spread the wealth. By contrast, McCain has supported many moderate policies in his career. As he said, he is no George Bush. We agree.
McCain does have shortcomings. We disagree with his policy on health care reform and with his choice for vice president. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin does not have the experience to match McCain's. We also dislike the defensive tone McCain has exhibited in the final weeks of this campaign. These disagreements, however, do not change our position on McCain as the best choice for president.
We support McCain because his leadership is proven and he best reflects the values of this part of California.
The Desert Sun urges voters to elect John McCain as president.
McCain has the ability to bring about change
The Desert Sun endorses Republican candidate John McCain for president of the United States.
McCain has a long and documented record of leadership. He has taken courageous positions in opposition of his party's leaders, he has fought and sacrificed dearly for this country, and he has the political experience, both foreign and domestic, needed to bring about the type of change Americans want during one of the most uncertain times in our history.
The challenge ahead
The country faces critical challenges. It is embroiled in two wars, national debt is $10 trillion and growing, foreclosed homes pepper neighborhoods across the country, the unemployment rate is climbing and the current president and Congress just passed a $700 billion bailout — money the nation doesn't have — in an attempt to end the credit crisis.
Yes, Americans demand change in the White House. But the issues facing the country are far too momentous to leave in the hands of anyone other than a proven leader. McCain is the only candidate in this presidential race with the experience and proven track record as a leader to deliver that change for all.
We know how McCain has voted in the past and it is not simply in lock-step with the Republican Party. He votes for what he believes is best for the nation, even if that puts him at odds with President Bush and other GOP leaders.
He survived five years as a POW in Hanoi and fought numerous battles in Washington.
Reaching across the aisle
He collaborated with iconic Democrat Sen. Edward Kennedy on a solution to illegal immigration and sponsored campaign finance reform through the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which is commonly referred to as the McCain-Feingold Act. It is considered McCain's greatest legislative achievement.
We can't say the same for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. He has not been tested. He is three years into his first term as a U.S. senator. He's not been a governor or the CEO of a major corporation. Obama's record is short and it does not transcend party affiliation — that we all know for certain.
An Obama presidency would coincide with Democratic control of both houses of Congress, meaning unfettered control of federal policy by the Democrats for at least the next two years. That is not what's best for the country. The American people have shown election after election that they want a balanced government.
Obama has eloquence
No one can take away from the fact that Obama is an inspirational figure and a skilled orator. He does bring a sense of hope to many. Not since John F. Kennedy have we seen such a charismatic candidate with a keen ability to touch people's emotions. It was these reasons that we endorsed him in the Democratic primary.
But delivering a good speech is not enough for the presidency. We need experience, a record of service and bipartisan leadership. With Obama, the American people have no guarantee that he will govern from the center. McCain has proven he is a centrist.
McCain has substance
McCain's record shows he is willing to regulate when necessary and deregulate when necessary. He supports banking regulations now, but he also has a record of deregulating industries that become mired in government bureaucracy. He is the right Republican for this point in American history.
Obama has pledged repeatedly he will tax the rich and spread the wealth. By contrast, McCain has supported many moderate policies in his career. As he said, he is no George Bush. We agree.
McCain does have shortcomings. We disagree with his policy on health care reform and with his choice for vice president. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin does not have the experience to match McCain's. We also dislike the defensive tone McCain has exhibited in the final weeks of this campaign. These disagreements, however, do not change our position on McCain as the best choice for president.
We support McCain because his leadership is proven and he best reflects the values of this part of California.
The Desert Sun urges voters to elect John McCain as president.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)