Friday, 06 March 2009
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER ON THE OBAMA DECEPTION
I've talked about a lot of what Charles Krauthammer has in his latest
column. But, frankly, he says it so much better than I do that it would be
a shame not to put it up here.
My writing might suffer by comparison, but readers will get a brilliant
explanation of just how completely President Obama and his hard-left accomplices
are lying to us about what they are doing -- and how much damage it is going to
Here is Mr. Krauthammer's column:
March 06, 2009
Deception at Core of Obama
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- Forget the pork. Forget the waste.
Forget the 8,570 earmarks in a bill supported by a president who poses as the
scourge of earmarks. Forget the "$2 trillion dollars in savings" that "we have
already identified," $1.6 trillion of which President Obama's budget director
later admits is the "savings" of not continuing the surge in Iraq
until 2019 -- 11 years after George Bush ended it, and eight years
after even Bush would have had us out of Iraq completely.
Forget all of this. This is run-of-the-mill budget
trickery. True, Obama's tricks come festooned with strings of zeros tacked onto
the end. But that's a matter of scale, not principle.
All presidents do that. But few undertake the kind
of brazen deception at the heart of Obama's radically transformative economic
plan, a rhetorical sleight of hand so smoothly offered that few noticed.
The logic of Obama's address to Congress went like
"Our economy did not fall into decline overnight,"
he averred. Indeed, it all began before the housing crisis. What did we do
wrong? We are paying for past sins in three principal areas: energy, health
care, and education -- importing too much oil and not finding new sources of
energy (as in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental
Shelf?), not reforming health care, and tolerating too many bad schools.
The "day of reckoning" has now arrived. And
because "it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we'll be
able to lift ourselves out of this predicament," Obama has come to redeem us
with his far-seeing program of universal, heavily nationalized health care; a
cap-and-trade tax on energy; and a major federalization of education with
universal access to college as the goal.
Amazing. As an explanation of our current economic
difficulties, this is total fantasy. As a cure for rapidly growing joblessness,
a massive destruction of wealth, a deepening worldwide recession, this is
perhaps the greatest non sequitur ever foisted upon the American
At the very center of our economic near-depression
is a credit bubble, a housing collapse and a systemic failure of the entire
banking system. One can come up with a host of causes: Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac pushed by Washington (and greed) into improvident loans, corrupted
bond-ratings agencies, insufficient regulation of new and exotic debt
instruments, the easy money policy of Alan Greenspan's Fed, irresponsible
bankers pushing (and then unloading in packaged loan instruments) highly dubious
mortgages, greedy house-flippers, deceitful homebuyers.
The list is long. But the list of causes of the
collapse of the financial system does not include the absence of universal
health care, let alone of computerized medical records. Nor the absence of an
industry-killing cap-and-trade carbon levy. Nor the lack of college graduates.
Indeed, one could perversely make the case that, if anything, the proliferation
of overeducated, Gucci-wearing, smart-ass MBAs inventing ever more sophisticated
and opaque mathematical models and debt instruments helped get us into this
credit catastrophe in the first place.
And yet with our financial house on fire, Obama
makes clear both in his speech and his budget that the essence of his presidency
will be the transformation of health care, education and energy. Four months
after winning the election, six weeks after his swearing in, Obama has yet to
unveil a plan to deal with the banking crisis.
What's going on? "You never want a serious crisis
to go to waste," said Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. "This crisis provides the
opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."
Things. Now we know what they are. The markets'
recent precipitous decline is a reaction not just to the absence of any
plausible bank rescue plan, but also to the suspicion that Obama sees the
continuing financial crisis as usefully creating the psychological conditions --
the sense of crisis bordering on fear-itself panic -- for enacting his "Big
Bang" agenda to federalize and/or socialize health care, education and energy,
the commanding heights of post-industrial society.
Clever politics, but intellectually dishonest to
the core. Health, education and energy -- worthy and weighty as they may be --
are not the cause of our financial collapse. And they are not the cure. The
fraudulent claim that they are both cause and cure is the rhetorical device by
which an ambitious president intends to enact the most radical agenda of social
transformation seen in our lifetime.
We are spending ourselves into near-hopeless oblivion, based on a combination
of lies - lies about the amount of money, lies about the reasons it is being
spent, lies about what it will do and lies about when it will affect
These lies are being driven by a President in way over his head, who is being
manipulated by a combination of far more savvy leftists (think Emanuel, think
Begala) and ignoramuses like Pelosi.
I'm not comfortable being an alarmist. But unless and until we wake up
and stop this insanity we literally may lose our country as we know
WRONG CONDO? $30,000 GONE-DO!
What happens when you look at a condo, like what you see, buy it, you're given
the keys to it by the real estate agent, you live in it for 6 months,
you spend $30,000 renovating it --- and then find out it isn't the condo you
As incomprehensible as this may seem, it actually happened. Here, from
KDVR TV in Denver, are the details:
Condo owner finds out he's been living and
renovating in the wrong unit
DENVER - He bought his first home, poured $30,000.00 into it to fix up,
now 6 months later Jonathon Kyte has learned his home doesn't belong to
"I froze, I just pointed at it, my wife was there, we were just
According to the city and county of Denver, Jonathon owns
the dump, next door. He found out about the mistake almost by accident when he
recieved a map which showed the unit he's living is actually unit number
But he owns the deed and title to unit number 5. Jonathon blames the
Coldwell Banker listing agent for the mistake. She marketed the property and
provided the key to the unit Jonathon and wife have been living in. He called
the listing agent again and again but she wouldn't return his calls. He also
called the title company, " Colorado American Title, " and an employee promised
to get back to him, but never did.
So Jonathon called Fox 31 News. We
confronted the listing agent's supervisor, but he would not comment on camera.
He said their lawyers were looking into it.
Jonathon is now considered a
squatter in the condo --he thought he bought.
And all the people who were
so willing to sell it to him, are unwilling to help.
I shook my head in amazement at this. But I won't laugh. Because it isn't funny. Johnathon
Kyte and his wife are out $30,000 for renovating someone
And that's just the start of it.
You can make a pretty good argument that the Kytes owe 6 months' rent to the owner
of the condo he lived in and renovated. You can also make
a pretty good argument that they are 6 months in arrears on the condo they
According to the report, KDVR/Fox 31 is going after the real estate
agent, who is clearly ducking them. No surprise there.
But what about Kyte's LAWYER? What about the person(s) in charge of
the TITLE SEARCH? It seems to me that these are the first
people to go after.
If I hear more about this incredible story I'll let you
MORE ON OBAMA'S INSULT TO GORDON BROWN
In my previous blog I noted that the Obamas - and the people around them -
showed a staggering level of incompetence, even contempt, during this
week's visit by UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown - a world leader who
also happens to be one of our most important allies.
I mentioned that this inexcusably poor behavior created a firestorm in
the UK. In case you're wondering how much of a firestorm, read Iain
Martin's piece in today's edition of tghe London Daily Telegraph:
President Barack Obama dislikes Britain, but he's
keen to meet the Queen
Posted By: Iain
Martin at Mar 6, 2009 at 12:44:22
This was coupled with Michelle Obama's casual
choice of gifts for the Brown sons - matching models of the helicopter which
ferry her husband around. While Sarah Brown had spent time choosing gifts for
the Obama girls, Michelle had clearly sent an aide to the White House gift shop
at the last moment.
All in all, he doesn't think much of us, as I
explained in my post here earlier this week.
But what's this? Something, suddenly, seems to
have made the Obama White House perk up and start to take an interest in the
Brits. The Queen has invited the President to tea when he's here for the G20 in
April. And he's in through the front door of Buckingham Palace faster than a
Harley Davidson roaring along Route 66.
Note how the coolness of Team Obama disappears
when a bit of regal glamour is introduced into the equation. He might not like
the Brits, but he can recognise a global superstar when he encounters one. He
wants to be associated with her. He's shameless.
(*) If Obama, or someone in his inner circle, had
spent two minutes thinking about what present to get Brown then they could
easily have come up with something appropriate. He likes books. He loves
American history. Get him a signed first edition of a good Robert Dallek book
such as the brilliant Flawed Giant on LBJ. Come to think of it, Obama should read it
too, if he hasn't yet, as it reveals a great deal about how a Presidency can go
I guess it's not enough to spend us into oblivion by propping up the
sub-prime mortgages and financial institutions which put us there in the first
place. We also have to insult our allies.
Can you even begin to imagine what our wonderful "neutral" media would have
said about this if the President were George Bush?
Would they have barely reported it at all? Would they have given
Mr. Bush a virtual free pass on covering this debacle - as they have with
Sure. And your check is in the mail.
INSULTING OUR ALLY
Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of the UK, has just completed a visit to the
United States. Now he's back in London. I wonder what he will say
about the major firestorm over how Barack Obama treated Mr. & Mrs. Brown
while they were here.
Ed Morrissey of www.hotair.com
Obama the Cheapskate: 25 DVDs for Gordon
posted at 2:10 pm on March 5, 2009 by Ed
The British have begun to worry about the
special relationship in the Anglosphere since the election of Barack
Obama. First, the visit from
Gordon Brown failed to get the usual Rose Garden joint-presser treatment from
the White House this week. Now the Daily Mail reports
that Obama cheaped out on the traditional gift exchange, rustling up some DVDs
in exchange for a thoughtful gift from Brown:
Gordon Brown has been given a collection of 25
classic American films on DVD as his official gift from Barack
The Prime Minister flew home from his successful
trip to Washington this morning with the special collectors box of films
hidden in his luggage.
No 10 had tried to keep the present a secret,
refusing to answer reporters who asked what President Obama had given to mark
the reaffirmation of the special relationship.
Wow. You know, Amazon often sells
collections like that at steep discounts, even in Blu-Ray. Thankfully,
Obama saved the US taxpayers a few bucks. Im sure that Brown put a
similarly negligent amount of thought into his gift, right?
Mr Browns gifts included an ornamental desk pen
holder made from the oak timbers of Victorian anti-slaver HMS Gannet, once
named HMS President.
Mr Obama was so delighted he has already put it
in pride of place in the Oval Office on the Resolute desk which was carved
from timbers of Gannets sister ship, HMS Resolute.
Another treasure given to the U.S. President was
the framed commission for HMS Resolute, a vessel that came to symbolise
Anglo-US peace when it was saved from ice packs by Americans and given to
Finally, Mr Brown gave a first edition set of
the seven-volume classic biography of Churchill by Sir Martin
Brown also brought gifts for Obamas daughters, a
rather gracious act, especially considering the reciprocity. The Daily
Mail also notes that Brown isnt a film buff anyway, which makes the DVD set
People objected when Obama returned the bust of
Winston Churchill to the British Embassy, which had loaned it to George Bush
eight years ago. I didnt find that surprising, especially given the
history of Obamas grandfather, or at least how Obama understands it. Id
not likely keep a bust of Oliver Cromwell in the West Wing if I were President,
gift or not, for similar reasons. (Im an admirer of Churchill,
However, this seems like a rather deliberate
insult, or at best diplomatic incompetence. Its one thing to cheap out on
a gift for a friend or relative at Christmas, but the British have stood by the
US for many long decades, through some very dark times. Despite
unpopularity at home, they remained at our side in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They deserve a little more effort from this administration, and a hell of a lot
Update: Ace and Moe Lane have more
thoughts about the thoughtlessness, which extends to the First Lady as
well. Two plastic replicas of Marine One from the White House gift store
for Browns sons? Wow. Dont strain a biceps with that effort, Mrs.
You have to wonder if there are any adults in this administration.
Would Mr. (and Ms.) Obama have treated a Palestinian Arab leader as
THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE FRAUD
First it was Mr. "Hope over fear" using raw fear tactics to scare
us all into accepting his stealfromu...er, stimulus package. The one that
has driven the stock market from 7,900 the day it was signed to 6,500 just weeks
That worked. So now he is doing it again, this time
with fraudulent health care data.
Read Gary Langer's piece from ABC News and see for yourself. Pay special
attention to the paragraphs I've put in bold print:
Medical Bankruptcies: A
March 05, 2009 12:37 PM
(3 p.m. update: See italicized items with
responses from the lead author of the Harvard study, Dr. David
President Obamas kicking off his health care
reform today in the worst possible way: with a mischaracterization of
The cost of health care now causes a
bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds," Obama said at the opening of his
White House forum on health care reform. The problem: That claim, based on a
2001 survey, is simply unsupportable.
The figure comes from a 2005 Harvard
University study saying that 54 percent of bankruptcies in 2001 were caused by
health expenses. We reviewed it internally and knocked it down at the time; an
academic reviewer did the same in 2006. Recalculating Harvards own data, he
came up with a far lower figure 17 percent.
A more recent study by
another group, approaching it another way, indicates that in 2007 about
eight-tenths of one percent of Americans lived in families that filed for
bankruptcy as a result of medical costs. That rings a little less loudly than
one every 30 seconds.
The extrapolation of Harvards data to a
bankruptcy every 30 seconds, which Obama also mentioned in his address to a
joint session of Congress last month, comes, per the White House, from a 2005
Washington Post op-ed by Prof.
Elizabeth Warren, a co-author of the Harvard paper. Fact-check.org has noted that even using
Harvards numbers, its more like a bankruptcy every minute; indeed if you add
up all bankrputcies in a year you barely get one every 30 seconds.
(I've e-mailed Warren for comment.) But more to the point is that the Harvard
data are clearly inflated, or at best, mischaracterized.
Himmelstein tells me that the reason for the
difference is a change in federal law that sharply reduced the number of
bankruptcies. In 2005, the year he and Warren wrote their op-ed, there were just
over 2 million bankruptcies. Data out just today say that in 2008 there were 1.1
million (up sharply, by the way, over 2007). So this error in the White House
claim stems simply from the fact that it's using out-of-date information. The
next question is whether the estimate of medical bankruptcies is reliable in
the first place.
A good part of the problem is definitional. The
Harvard report claims to measure the extent to which medical costs are the
cause of bankruptcies. In reality its survey asked if these costs were a
reason potentially one of many for such bankruptcies.
Beyond those who gave medical costs as a
reason, the Harvard researchers chose to add in any bankruptcy filers who had
at least $1,000 in unreimbursed medical expenses in the previous two years.
Given deductibles and copays, thats a heck of a lot of
Moreover, Harvards definition of
medical expenses includes situations that arent necessarily medical in common
parlance, e.g., a gambling problem, or the death of a family member. If your
main wage-earning spouse gets hit by a bus and dies, and you have to file,
thats included as a medical bankruptcy.
When I asked the lead author, Dr. David
Himmelstein, about his definitions of medical bankruptcy back in 2005, he said,
Its a judgment call, and added that any death, for example, to our mind is a
A last problem was sampling: The Harvard
researchers surveyed bankruptcy filers in five federal court districts
accounting for 14 percent of bankruptcies nationally; projecting this to the
other 86 percent is sketchy. Said Himmelstein: Obviously the extrapolation is
Of such rough extrapolations are presidential
Himmelstein today told me that hes
comfortable saying medical costs, as his study defines them, are a cause but
not the cause of bankruptcies. In his view, Its accurate to say medical
problems cause half of bankruptcies. There may be other conditions as well but
medical problems were causal. I wouldnt be comfortable with it as the only
Worth keeping in mind is the fact that no one
(apparently) disagrees about the pain medical expenses can cause to uninsured
Americans. Prof. David Dranove of Northwestern University, who wrote the
2006 paper picking
apart the Harvard study, noted that he has a new paper in the works showing that
uninsured people who have a severe illness lose a substantial portion of their
"There is general agreement: Being uninsured and
getting sick in the United States is really a bad thing, Dranove told me today.
But for academics the validity of the research matters. In the Harvard paper,
he says, "The methods were so poor they gave cover to those who want to dismiss
the problems of the uninsured they can say the only paper out there uses a
Theres been a fair amount of academic back-biting
about this issue. On one hand Himmelstein, the lead Harvard researcher, is a
co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, created to promote a
government-run single-payer health system. On the other, Dranove took $5,000
from the nations health insurance industry for his report, which he says he now
regrets for the criticism of his impartiality its engendered. Both papers were
It stinks to be uninsured. I dont want to be
quoted saying anything else, Dranove says. But there are correct studies, and
incorrect studies. For academics, the validity of the research methods
It should for the rest of us, too.
Himmelsteins referred me to a 2006 paper in which he
replied to Dranove, whom he accuses of several out and out errors. Says
Himmelstein: They were paid by the insurance industry to make this critique
They were hired guns out to try and make a point, and used a variety of
illegitimate techniques to make that point.
Science marches on.
(...and a 4 p.m. update: Elizabeth
Warren, Himmelstein's co-author, is serving as chair of the Congressional
Oversight Panel on TARP. Per spokeswoman Shanan Guinn, she's not currently
giving interviews on her previous research.)
This is what is being used as the basis for spending untold billions of
dollars WE DO NOT HAVE. Lies and fraud.
And one of the co-authors of this BS is chairing the congressional
oversight panel? She won't talk about the research?
My compliments to ABC News for telling us about this. Between articles like this and the fairness
of Jake Tapper, ABC has emerged as the only network among the big
three making even a nominal attempt at presenting both sides.
Now, how much more do we take before the other two
networks, and some of the other mainstream media venues, decide it's time to
unmesmerize the people? How much more before they decide it's time to unconvince us that Barack Obama
is a demigod to be loved unconditionally, no matter what
he does and how much it hurts us?
LYING FOR OBAMA
I admit that it
isn't exactly hold-the-presses news when our wonderful "neutral" media lie for Barack Obama. But
this lie is in a class by itself.
Michael M. Bates of www.newsbusters.org explains below. Please
pay special attention to John McCain's comments, which I've put in bold print
(say, where was this guy during the campaign?):
CNN'S Heidi Collins: Monstrous
Spending Bill 'Is a Hold-Over From the Last Administration'
this morning's CNN Newsroom, anchor Heidi Collins gave Barack Obama some cover
by characterizing the omnibus spending
bill, larded with thousands of earmarks, as left over from the Bush
A controversial $410 billion spending
bill hits a snag in the Senate. This is the bill we've been talking about with
about $8 billion in earmarks. Republicans and a few Democrats are mad about
all that pork barrel spending. That led members from both parties to push
President Obama to veto the bill.
Senate majority leader Harry Reid says the
measure will be opened up for changes next week in an effort to gain more
support. The bill is a hold-over from the last
Collin's reporting comes straight from the Obama
playbook. Last Sunday on "This Week," Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag
defended his boss's support for the
"This is last year's business. We
want to just move on. Let's get this bill done, get it into law and move
Time's Michael Grunwald got it right in explaining why the budget from last year is still
pending, and it isn't President Bush's fault:
It was originally drafted last year,
but congressional Democrats didn't want to send it to President Bush, so it
will only fund the government from April through September.
Paul Kane at The Washington Post points out that the bill is "leftover from last year's congressional
And the Associated Press reported yesterday on Senator John
McCain's attempts to defeat the spending
McCain took aim at the $410 billion
spending bill to keep the government running, specifically Obama's willingness
to accept thousands of pet projects that it would fund. Orszag, McCain noted,
called the so-called earmarks "last year's business."
"Last year's business? Does that mean
last year's president will sign this pork barrel bill?" McCain railed from the
Senate floor. "It is the president's business. It is the business of the
president of the United States."
No, Heidi, the omnibus bill working its way
through Congress isn't a hold-over from the Bush administration. Your
saying so is evidence of what's become increasingly apparent: When it comes to
covering up for Obama, the news readers at CNN are shovel
Like I said earlier, this is no ordinary lie. It is a lie of special magnitude. To
believe this lie requires that you forgo logic, reasoning and brain function
I don't give a damn if the spending bill started last year. I
don't give a damn if it started in Millard Fillmore's administration.
The spending bill is in congress right now.
This congress is voting on it. This congress
can accept it or amend it. This President will either sign or veto it.
Not the last congress and not the last
When congressional Democrats approve the final version of this absolutely catastrophic spending bill, with its 8,600
earmarks, and President Obama signs it into law, we
won't be going back in time to the Bush administration. It will
be the doing of the Obama administration, and the Obama
administration will be 100% responsible for it. Period. End of
As for the media people who are so blatantly lying about whose bill it is on behalf
of their beloved Saint Barack? They have irreparably destroyed
any claim to professionalism, neutrality and basic integrity they ever
HAS ROSEANNE BARR GONE INSANE?
Remember roseanne barr? She used to be a big star. Now she apparently is a
I have just read the blog barr
puts up for however many fans she still has left. In my opinion she is
non compos mentis. I'm not being sarcastic either. I really think
she's gone out of her mind.
As evidence, here are four consecutive blog entries of hers, verbatim,
right off her web site. Judge for yourself:
ohlmert you lie:
you say that twelve rockets were fired into israel
since the end of the "war" (ethnic cleansing). Not one Israeli was hurt or
killed by these rockets, and now you say you are going to go back and kill more
palestinians to teach them a lesson!!!
I think rockets are being fired by your own
sources, since less than ten israelis have been killed by them. You are
bullshitting the world as you pocket money made from arms sales, along with bibi
and your agents in Hamas. step down all men in power!
limbaugh is committing treason and
should be put in prison! He is a terrorist
whipping up armed white power militants against our democratically elected
African American President! Limbaugh is setting the stage for race war and
terrorism in post bush bankrupted america!!
He helped to bankrupt our country
with his bullshit and now he is using the damage as collateral to stir up the
crazies that think blacks and illegals should be filling up more prisons than
they already do! You are a traitor to america you fat bastard and you should be
hung by your heels in the town square like the little rat bastard musolini or
however you spell it!
by now you should have built a vessel
to withstand the flood. those of you who have not
built that vessel will continue to flounder. It's never too late to meditate! (
meditations that do not involve giving charity are false).
hell froze over
and Jindal is the proof of that! Hitler might have
been right when he said the Indian people are the original Aryans, cuz Jindal is
certainly the spokeman for the Aryan Nations here in America. His folk are from
a country that has the worst caste system on this planet. Ghandi kicked the
brits asses but he could not touch the feudal mind of the Jindali sort. Content
to live with a suffering permanent underclass of homeless children, but very
very particular in their choice of honoring oxen and female destructive deities,
they compartmentalize quite nicely! well, big mama has this to say to you mr.
and mrs. jindal...if i ever run into you in the international circuits of power
that we both inhabit at times, I will give you the evil eye like a
Let's forget the misspellings of names and words. Let's just try
sticking to what barr seems to be saying:
-hamas isn't firing rockets at Israel, Israel is firing rockets at
Israel. And they aren't killing any Israelis. And Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert has agents within hamas (I suppose they're the ones
firing the rockets);
-Rush Limbaugh should be put in prison because he's terrorist "whipping up
White power militants" against President Obama. Oh, and he helped
bankrupt the country;
-Build a vessel to withstand the flood (?????) At least there isn't
any mention of trying to gather up pairs of animals;
-First Bobby Jindal, a man of Indian ancestry who converted to Christianity in his teens, is a spokesman
for hitler's view of the Aryan nations. Then, several
utterly incomprehensible sentences later, if barr ever runs into Mr. and
Mrs. Jindal, "...I will give you the evil eye like a mofoger" - which I take
to mean motherfucker, but could possibly be a misspelling of something
You want nuts? That, baby, is nuts.
Was this always barr's state of "mind", or has it evolved (maybe
devolved is the right word) over time? Beats me. But you just
read her own words. If she isn't a lunatic, what is
WHAT IF SEC. OF STATE CLINTON WERE A REPUBLICAN?
What if Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were a Republican? How do you think our media
would react to what you are about to read in the following excerpt from a
story being carried in Reuters?
The incompetence is Ms. Clinton's. The bold print is mine:
Tongue-tied Clinton gets warm EU
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Hillary Clinton
raised eyebrows on her first visit to Europe as secretary of state when she
mispronounced her EU counterparts' names and claimed U.S. democracy was older
Clinton has set herself a grueling pace on visits
to Egypt, Israel and Brussels soon after touring the Far East, attending dozens
of meetings and giving speech after speech, with little time worked into her
schedule for sleep.
Tiredness appeared to show Friday when she
answered questions in front of 500 young Europeans at the European Parliament,
where she was the highest-ranking U.S. visitor since the late U.S. President
Ronald Reagan in 1985.
A veteran politician, Clinton compared the complex
European political environment to that of the two-party U.S. system, before
"I have never understood multiparty
"It is hard enough with two parties to
come to any resolution, and I say this very respectfully, because I feel the
same way about our own democracy, which has been around a lot longer than
The remark provoked much headshaking in
the parliament of a bloc that likes to trace back its democratic tradition
thousands of years to the days of classical Greece.
One working lunch later with EU leaders, Clinton
raised more eyebrows when she referred to EU foreign policy chief Javier
Solana, who stood beside her, as "High Representative
She also dubbed European Commission
External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner as
You can't say the EU folks weren't polite. Either that or they figured
Hillary Clinton was such a lost cause that they should patronize her out of
So let me ask you again: What would media say about this if Ms. Clinton
were a Republican - especially after her President (who would also be a
Republican) had so completely botched a state visit with the Prime Minister of
Assuming you are reasonably intelligent, let me compliment you on your
answer. You're right of course. That's what they'd say,
and maybe even worse.
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them
A BIGGER WASTE OF MONEY THAN THE STEALFROMUS PACKAGE
I found an even bigger waste of money than the Obama administration's
stealfromus package. How about $14 billion put into the hands of
Palestinian "leaders" in Gaza and Judea/Samaria (the west bank)?
article in Reuters:
The large sums announced at conferences in Paris,
Berlin, the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh and the West Bank over the last
15 months -- $12 billion from governments and $2 billion from investors -- were
unprecedented by Palestinian standards, eclipsing the amount the Authority
received in the previous 14 years since the 1993 Oslo peace
Combined, the pledges would be the equivalent of $3,500 for
every man, woman and child in the West Bank and Gaza, more than double per
capita Palestinian GDP. Half of Gaza's 1.5 million population live on less than
$3 a day, by Palestinian estimates.
It is unclear how much of the $4.5
billion in "new commitments", announced at Monday's conference in Sharm to help
rebuild the Gaza Strip after Israel's devastating offensive, were really new,
said Western diplomats who took part.
Diplomats and analysts pointed to
the large discrepancy between what the Palestinian Authority asked for at Sharm
-- $2.8 billion over two years -- and what was announced as an indication that
the numbers were not realistic.
Palestinian Planning Minister Samir
Abdallah dismissed doubts about the dollar-amounts, telling Reuters "most of the
pledges made in Sharm were new commitments" and did not overlap with previous
Diplomats said the biggest cash offers on Monday came from
a bloc of Gulf Arab states with a particularly spotty track record of fulfilling
commitments to Abbas's West Bank-based government.
Some of them were
reluctant to be seen as taking sides with the Authority's Western-backed leader,
who advocates peace with Israel, against Islamists with appeal on the Arab
Breaking with Western donors, the Gulf bloc has opted to channel
$1.65 billion through their own mechanism, angering some Authority officials.
Washington wants Abbas to accrue credit.
A lot of people think
that Israel gets more aid than any other country or territory. Not
so. Palestinian Arabs are given far more than Israel. Not just this
year, but every year.
And what do they do with it? Do they build roads? Businesses? Hospitals?
Science labs? Technology centers? Do they create anything
that could even charitably be called infrastructure?
Nope. You know where the money goes as well as I do. What doesn't
go to Swiss bank accounts goes to weapons that will be used to kill Israeli
Then, when Israel retaliates, we get the whining about Israel aggression, followed by still more billions in
aid. For what? For rebuilding what would have been intact if Palestinian Arabs were
engaged in something other than killing Israeli Jews.
So the true story is that these unheard-of sums are being handed over to
an entity that steals some of it and uses the rest to kill. And don't doubt
that the donors know what the money is being used for as well as you and I
Hmmm, maybe this isn't wasted money at all. If they know what it is
used for and give it anyway, I suppose they're getting exactly what they're paying