Sunday, 18 May 2008
ISRAEL PEACE PARTNER UPDATE
This comes to us via Arutz Sheva (the Israel National News Agency):
Arabs Torch Jewish Wheat Fields
(IsraelNN.com) Arabs burned Jewish-owned wheat
fields in the Samaria town of Yitzhar Friday. The regular vandalism has led
residents to ponder soliciting assistance from humanitarian groups.
The most recent fire was set Friday, minutes
before the onset of Shabbat. A volunteer fire brigade made up of Yitzhar
residents succeeded in extinguishing the fire, but were then attacked by Arabs
rioting and throwing stones at them.
A contingent of IDF soldiers
arrived on the scene and used non-lethal riot-control methods to restore
order, but residents say their complaints usually result in no response
whatsoever from security forces.
The fields, which were sown before the onset of
the Shemitta (sabbatical) year, have been burned by local Arabs in the
past. Local farmers say that in addition to their livelihood being impacted,
the pain of seeing their crops repeatedly burned just before harvest time is
too much to bear. The Arab residents of a neighboring village succeeded in
burning the entire year's crop two and a half years ago and the fields were
set ablaze five times during the course of a single summer last year. In
another incident, most of the fence installed around one farmer's
fields was stolen.
In 2005, Yitzhar resident Akiva Cohen spotted
the raging fire and fired shots in the air to frighten the arsonists
away. About 100 dunams of wheat were burned in the blaze. IDF troops
conducted a search for the arsonists in the adjacent village of Atzira
al-Kabliya to no avail.
Cohen was brought into the Ariel Police station
for questioning and had his weapon confiscated. It still has not been returned
Residents Consider Humanitarian
Yitzhar residents facetiously suggested that perhaps the
Kibbutz movement, which regularly sends volunteers to accompany local Arabs
during the olive harvest, would be interested in sending volunteers to guard
Jewish agricultural crops as well.
"Is the assistance of [Kibbutz movement head]
Yoel Marshak withheld from Jews who are trying to make a living through
farming?" Cohen asked. "Is such assistance reserved only for the
That's peace for you. Wait until Jewish farmers are preparing for the
sabbath, and burn the wheat fields. Do it repeatedly. For years.
Make the food go away.
These are the people Israeli Jews HELP with THEIR food. This is
the payback. They are the lovely folks Israel is supposed to
peacefully co-exist with.
ANGRY CONSERVATIVES AGAINST MCCAIN
Michelle Malkin, writing for her own blog (www.michellemalkin.com), has provided
us with a look at how at least some Republican/conservative people feel about
It isn't very encouraging for Mr. McCain, to say the least:
The spanking they deserve: NRCC gets an
All week long, you and I have been blasting the
Beltway GOP leadership for their empty sloganeering and Obama-esque change obsession.
Now, the NRCC is hearing it directly on its
website. Reader Fritz e-mails that the comments section in the NRCC blog post by
chairman Tom Cole is sizzling hot with aggravated grass-roots conservative
Go check it out. A sample:
This is not the message I am looking to support.
The message of the Replican Part should be fundumentally different than the
Democrats. We dont need to fix the government. We need the Federal
Government to do wnat it is supposed to - protect our freedom. It should not
try to be eveyones Daddy Healthcare is not the Federal Governments
responsibility. If my new my situation, you might take these comments more
seriously. I am not some rich guy who wants to pay less taxes and who can
afford to pay for the high prices of healthcare. I just know that government,
in general, is inefficiant and wasteful and would like to see less governement
programs instead of more.
Posted: Steve Bryant on May 16, 2008 at 12:59
Republicians think the way to Win is to Out
Liberal the Liberals! McCain will be defeated by his views and disregard of
Values. Obama will win. If we put up with Jimmy Carter for 4 years.Let Obama
and the Dems take all the Credit for DESTRUCTION that will follow.I will
either not vote or vote for Ron Paul. NO McCain.
Posted: Greatdanes on May 16, 2008 at 1:07
PLEASE.you are kidding??!! John McCain is the
republican candidate for President. So, which LIBERAL should I vote for. Lets
see OBAMA(Marxist), CLINTON(Marxist), MCCAIN(Open border/amnesty liberal). I
have changed my party affiliation to independent. I will not vote for anyone
who says one thing during the primary and when they think they have the
nomination locked up, tell how they truly feel. John McCain DIDNT GET IT
So if the RNCC is going to support this liberal
RINO, then you and are at odds from here on out. No more money, no more
Posted: Terry on May 16, 2008 at 1:08
No conservative American gets up in the morning
looking for a government handout. They go to work and support their families.
I have 2 questions for you. When everyone is collecting who will be paying?
Why are we not using the resources for energy here in America that God gave
us? STOP BEING RINOS. Either LEAD,FOLLOW, OR GET OUT OF THE WAY.
Posted: Maureen McInerney on May 16, 2008 at
All you guys have shown us is how to loose. The
Republicans had the Congress and the Presidency and you debated flag burning!
Where is our energy policy? Why are we burning our food supplies? Where is the
debate on global warming? I cant support you, you all need to
Posted: 19852 on May 16, 2008 at 1:16
Its rather evident, the Real Republicans are
telling you the GOP, the RINOs are in charge, they are no better than the
libs and their values are not those of conservatives. We want the Republican
platform adhered to and the speeches to reflect our values as Republicans, not
fence sitting RINO ways.
Real Republicans do not have barb wire
Posted: ONTIME on May 16, 2008 at 1:17
Your message sounds like more big government. I
am conservative and want a conservative message. I want to support
conservative candidates. The three congressional seats that the democrats just
won were won by democrats that had a conservative message. Republicans have
lost their way. The party has gone back to the good old boy party of elite
country club moderates. That is not the way to win elections or raise money. I
will certainly read your e-mails but will not support any candidate that does
not espouse a conservtive agenda. I hope the party will adopt that philosophy
and then carry through.
Posted: Lynda Shackelford on May 16, 2008 at
Ive got a Republican Solution for you: Tighten
the belt or lose the pants. And heres a Positive Agenda Item for you: I
Positively DO NOT need a Nanny and am tired of you thinking that I do.
Heres a thought: Why dont you figure out what
you stand for? Youre starting to sound like youre falling for anything. I
wont be following you there.
Posted: Colleen on May 16, 2008 at 1:31
Im sorry, but there is no way I can/will
contribute until I hear the Republican party taking on the fight against the
global warming HOAX, drilling in ANWAR, and absolutely protecting our borders
against illeagal immigrants. As an example of what I would like to hear, every
Republican senator should have jumped on Dick Durbins comment we cant drill
for lower prices after the amendment to drill in Anwar was defeated. In the
circumstances we find ourselves, that is one of the most stupid comments I
have ever heard from any politician. To the best of my knowledge, the laws of
supply and demand have not been overturned by the liberal judgesyet.
Just one example of many that could turn the
Posted: Rod on May 16, 2008 at 1:42
Im a middle-class conservative business owner
who is still outraged that the GOP leadership in this country decided to make
medications part of the entitlements available for all medicare recipients.
Ive reached that golden age when I am eligible
for medicare myself. A lot of us can and should pay for our own prescriptions.
For those that are unable to pay, there is a place for this largesse.
Since the government got in the business, the
price of my meds has increased 30% across the board. I live on the Canadian
border and have friends and family on both sides of the border. Heaven protect
us from the kind of free healthcare they must endure.
When has the government ever done anything as
cheaply and efficiently as the free market?
I come from 3 generations of straight ticket
Democrats. Jimmy Carter was the last time I voted for a democratic candidate.
I doubt Ill be able to stomach voting for
McCain unless he gives me some solid reasons why I should. His reaching
across the aisle only demonstrates a big lack of judgment.
Celeste Colson May 16,2008 12:51 CDT
Posted: Celeste Colson on May 16, 2008 at 1:45
So let me get this straight - I have a choice
between McCain or Hillary or Obama? Did I just say I have a choice? I think I
just had a 52 yr-old brain cramp. I do not vote for RINOs. None of these 3 are
qualified to run this country. If the Repubs are not different than the
Demoncrats then what is the use? We speak with our votes - we vote for someone
else. Vote for a spoiler? No, we vote our conscience. If the MSM or the NRCC
want to consider them a spoiler - so be it. Get a clue already!. Abandoning
conservatism means no money, no support, no vote from me.
Posted: PEPPER on May 16, 2008 at 1:49
In case you were wondering whether the dislike of Mr.
McCain by a good many Republican/conservatives has dropped off, this should give
you a pretty good idea that it has not.
The McCain strategy is (given his positions, it has to be) that most disgruntled Republicans and./or conservatives will wind up voting for him
anyway because they are fearful of an Obama (or possibly Clinton)
presidency. Meanwhile, at the other end of his spectrum of opportunity, McCain
will pick up plenty of moderate Democrats. This, it is hoped by
the McCain people, will result in a net gain.
Maybe that will happen. But maybe it won't.
What if, for example, Bob Barr winds up the
Libertarian candidate for President? Barr is revered by many conservatives as a true, purist keeper
of the flam.
A Barr candidacy can't win anything. But what it can do is siphon
off enough votes in a number of states - particularly in the south - to turn
them from Red to Blue.
This is something McCain's people better keep an eye - maybe both eyes -
on. It has the potential to make him a loser in
THE PELOSI PING PONG POLITICAL POSITION
Don't you love it when politicians bounce back and forth between
positions? If so, you'll be orgasmic over this one, which comes to us from
the Associated Press and politico.com, via www.sweetness-light.com:.
May 17th, 2008
From a dismayed and confused Associated Press:
US House speaker Nancy Pelosi visits
By SINAN SALAHEDDIN, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD - U.S. House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi, a top Democratic critic of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, expressed
confidence during a visit to Iraq on Saturday that expected provincial
elections will promote national reconciliation.
Pelosi, who led a bipartisan congressional
delegation to Baghdad, spoke after the group met with Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, the top
American commander in Iraq.
She welcomed Iraqs progress in
passing a budget as well as oil legislation and a bill paving the way for
provincial elections in the fall that are expected to more equitably
redistribute power among local officials.
She said the visit was to pay our respects to
our troops and at the same time learn more about what the situation is
on the ground here.
Pelosi was hopeful about the upcoming elections
after meeting with Iraqs Sunni parliamentary speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani.
Were assured sure the elections will
happen here, they will be transparent, they will be inclusive and they will
take Iraq closer to the reconcilation we all want it to have, she said.
Pelosis visit comes a day after she led a
bipartisan congressional delegation to Israel to mark the 60th anniversary of
This is quite a shock, coming as it does from
surrender at any price Pelosi. Quite a change in tune.
It seems like only three months ago this same
Solon was calling Iraq a failure, a disaster on CNN.
As we noted at the time, via the Politico:
Pelosi calls Iraq a failure
By Mike Allen
Feb 10, 2008
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
said twice Sunday that Iraq is a failure, adding that President Bushs troop
surge has not produced the desired effect.
The purpose of the surge was to
create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change
to bring reconciliation to Iraq, Pelosi said on CNNs Late Edition. They
have not done that.
Pelosis comment came during a discussion of her
call for the redeployment of our troops out of Iraq.
Anchor Wolf Blitzer asked: Are you not worried,
though, that all the gains that have been achieved over the past year might be
There havent been gains, Wolf,
the speaker replied. The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is
the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failur
Cindy Sheehan must not be polling well.
Too bad Ms. Pelosi will now be far to the right of
her partys standard bearer.
This reminds me of the joke about a guy who is driving with his friend, and
asks the friend to check to see if his directional signals are working.
The friend gets out of the car to look. The guy puts on the directional
signal. And the friend says "It's working. It's not working.
It's working. It's not working. It's working. It's
This seems to be the Pelosi view of Iraq. It is a failure, disaster,
etc. but with a photo-op trip to Iraq she's suddenly noticing the progress and
accepting the prospect of another free election (just like the first one,
remember those purple fingers?).
It's not working. It's working. It's not working.
It's working. It's not..... ping pong ping pong ping
OBAMA'S SAME OLD-SAME OLD POLITICAL GAME
Here we go again.
Anyone who thought Barack Obama would run a campaign differently than what,
lamentably, we have become used to over the years, is delusionary.
In a nationally televised debate, when Barack Obama was asked if he would
meet with the leaders if Iran, Syria and Korea without preconditions, his
answer in two words was "I would" (he then went on to explain why he felt that
way). You can't get clearer than that.
When John McCain was asked what he would do with regard to Hamas, he
said "you have to deal with them one way or another". Does that sound
the same to you? Of course it doesn't.
But Mr. Obama accuses McCain of saying the same thing he said, and calls him a hypocrite.
Well, you just saw the two comments; is he right?
And here is the kind of coverage that is being given to us about this BS
comparison. There are many examples to pick from. I've chosen one
from Sky News:
McCain Accused Of Hamas
Barack Obama has accused John McCain of hypocrisy
after the Republican appeared to do an about turn on the question of negotiating
In an interview on Sky News two years ago, McCain told James Rubin he was
willing to negotiate with the militant Palestinian group Hamas.
The Republican presidential contender told the
former Clinton State Department official: "They (Hamas) are the government,
sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or
He went on: "I understand why this administration
and previous administrations had such antipathy toward Hamas because of their
dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice,
"But it's a new reality in the Middle East. I
think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future,
that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."
But yesterday McCain criticised
Senator Obama for being naive after expressing a willingness to meet with rogue
leaders like Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, suggesting it reflects a
"lack of judgment".
Sky's Washington analyst Jon-Christopher Bua says:
"It seems that John Mc Cain's Campaign tour bus - the Straight Talk Express - is
veering off course once again searching for any opportunity to gain some media
attention and pander to the US electorate.
What an interesting "news" report. All you have to leave out is the
part about preconditions. Then McCain is a hypocrite and Obama has the
same position as he does without the hypocrisy.
Of course if you leave in that troubling little part about preconditions,
then McCain is not a hypocrite, did not do an "about turn" and Obama is lying
when he claims, as he now does, that he never said it.
This teaches us two
-Media are capable of manipulating the news right in your face
-Mr. Obama is capable of lying right to your face.
Just like a Chicago Democratic machine politician. What a
OBAMA PERPETUATES THE APPEASEMENT ISSUE
Does anyone in Barack Obama's campaign staff know enough to tell him to shut
up about something?
Another day, another defense against President Bush's
comment about "appeasement" at the Israeli Knesset - a comment the
President received a long, loud ovation for, let's remember. And
a comment in which he did not
Barack Obama's name.
Mr. Bush said you cannot appease terrorists and radicals. He was 100%
right about that. Mr. Obama has now spent the better part of a week
defending himself against that statement, thereby assuring us it was aimed at him
personally. From a political perspective, this is exactly, precisely what
his opponent, John McCain would want him to do.
Who is running the Obama campaign? The McCain '08 team?
But wait, it gets worse. Not only is Mr. Obama perpetuating this issue
to his obvious detriment, but his defense is becoming increasingly
bizarre. Read this excerpt from yesterday's New York Times and see (bold print
To maintain, as the White House and the McCain
campaign have done, that Mr. Bushs remarks about appeasement were not aimed
at administration critics like him is being disingenuous, Mr. Obama said.
He addressed Republican contentions that he was
willing to meet unconditionally with Mr. Ahmadinejad. Mr. McCain has said
several times recently that he could not conceive of sitting down and talking
with a foreign leader who has called for Israels extinction, and he has
described Mr. Obama as all too willing to do so.
The criticism is clearly meant to stoke unease
that some Jews have expressed over Mr. Obamas candidacy, a problem Mr. Obama
has been trying to address.
Mr. Obama drew a distinction, saying his
administration would start negotiations with Iran without preconditions and
being directly involved himself. For that to occur, he added, Iran would have
to meet benchmarks or conditions.
That reiterates remarks he has made
numerous times in the past year, though not in a YouTube debate last July that
the McCain campaign has repeatedly cited.
Agreeing to begin talks without preconditions
does not mean we would not have preparations, Mr. Obama said.
Those preparations would involve starting with
low-level diplomatic contacts like National Security Council or State Department emissaries, he said.
Wah??? Did we just read that right? Did Barack Obama say he would
meet with Iran without preconditions, but there would have to be
conditions? Did that actually appear in print???
Well, yes it did. And the next paragraph mentions, in passing, Mr. Obama's totally contradictory statement during the so-called "Youtube"
debate. (Interesting how the Times wordsmiths this
by reporting that Obama didn't say there would have to be conditions during
the Youtube debate, instead of reporting that he did say the exact
of it. Media bias? Naaaahhh).
What kind of person would say this? What kind of
person would stick his chin out and tell you the exact opposite of what he was
telling you just a short time ago? What kind of person would say the exact
opposite of what he was telling you earlier in the very same statement?
Y'know, this is exactly the same kind of guy who would...wait, let me think
about this....who would sit in a church for 20 years listening to a pastor spew
hatred and then stick out his chin and tell you he never heard any such
TOM HARKIN'S ATTACK ON JOHN MCCAIN
This comes to us from www.powerlineblog.com. It is
short, complete and needs no embellishment from me:
Over the Top and
Around the Bend
The Democrats' attacks on John McCain are getting
more outrageous on a daily basis. The latest outrage comes from Tom Harkin, who
attacked McCain for coming from a military family and, apparently, for
volunteering to serve his country in the U.S. Navy:
Republican presidential candidate John
McCain's family background as the son and grandson of admirals has given him a
worldview shaped by the military, "and he has a hard time thinking beyond
that," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., said Friday.
"I think he's trapped in that," Harkin said in a
conference call with Iowa reporters. "Everything is looked at from his life
experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be
Harkin said that "it's one thing to have been
drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of
military people and that's just how you're steeped, how you've learned, how
you've grown up."
So it's OK to serve in the military, but only if
you're drafted. Given that we now have an all-volunteer military, that standard
will rule out everyone currently serving.
For what it's worth, it's hardly correct to say
that McCain has "always...been in the military;" he retired from the Navy 27