Wednesday, 08 April 2009
AS THE WORLD SLEEPS AND PRESIDENT OBAMA BEGS.....
Here, excerpted from a Reuters
article, is what Iran is up to these days:
Iran to say mastering final stage of
TEHRAN (Reuters) President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected to announce Iran
has mastered the final stage of nuclear
fuel production when the Islamic state celebrates its National Nuclear
Day on Thursday.
"I will have good nuclear news for the honored
nation tomorrow (April 9)," Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday in a televised
speech at the central city of Isfahan.
Foreign nuclear analysts believe Tehran has yet to
prove it has mastered industrial-scale enrichment of uranium, the key to making
fuel in large, usable quantities and the most technically difficult aspect of
churning out nuclear
Tehran has slowly expanded its Natanz enrichment
plant in defiance of U.N. resolutions demanding it stop over concerns Tehran's
goal is atomic bombs, something
But analysts expected Ahmadinejad to say that Iran
has perfected the last of several phases of fuel output.
Isn't ahmadinejad the one who said that he wanted to wipe Israel off the face
of the earth?
And doesn't Israel literally risk its existence by allowing ahmadinejad
to acquire nuclear weapons?
So doesn't it stand to reason that, in the absence of some other country,
countries, or world organization intervening, Israel is like to attack Iran's
And doesn't it follow that, if this were to happen, there could be a
regional war which quickly could become a world war, maybe even a nuclear
So what is the UN doing? Sleeping.
And what is President Obama doing? Begging Iran to chat with him (and
being told where to go by Iran when he did the begging).
When do these people wake up?
THE NEW YORK TIMES LETTERS ABOUT "ISRAEL ON TRIAL"
When george bisharat's scurrilous, dishonest screed about Israel
was published in last Saturday's New York Times, it pushed my father to cancel
his subscription (it had been his paper of choice for over 40 years).
Since there was little doubt that the Times would publish a number of letters to
the editor about bisharat's commentary, I promised I would tell Dad (and you)
about what they said.
Given the Times' moral equivalency between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs
who want to vaporize it, I assumed the letters would be about equally for both
sides. I was wrong in that assumption.
Of the 7 letters published by the Times this morning, one
is definitively supportive of Israel, two complain that Israel was singled out
and that Palestinian Arabs commit atrocities as well (i.e. both sides do it) and
four are definitively supportive of Palestinian Arabs.
You can read them all by clicking
here. Or you can read the following synopis of what you'll
-Letter 1, from Peter A. Pettit. Key line: "If Hamas is also
guilty of war crimes, as Mr. Bisharat alleges, why does he call only Israel to
-Letter 2, from Barry Salwen. Key line: "Where is the Op-Ed
article detailing the crimes of Hamas? Why should only Israel be on
-Letter 3, from Joel Abramson. Key line: "The charge of
criminal intent is more appropriately leveled at Hamas".
-Letter 4, from Benjamin Solomon. Key line: "Americas
steadfast political, financial and arms support has enabled Israel to pursue
its unique and destabilizing territorial expansion against the opposition of
much of the international community".
-Letter 5, from Maha Mehanna. Key line: "...Israels closest
if not sometimes only ally is awakening to the crimes against humanity that
are being carried out by Israel with American weapons against Palestinians in
-Letter 6, from Emily Crawford. Key line: "George Bisharats
April 4 Op-Ed article was a refreshingly clear call for holding the Israeli
Army accountable for the crimes that have been documented in Gaza" .
-Letter 7, from Garth Massey. Key line: "The words and program
of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman
bring to an end the Israeli public relations success in hiding the
colonialization process driving Israels militarism and ethnic
There you have it. By percent, 57% are anti-Israel, 29% are in the
middle and 14% are pro-Israel.
Do you in your wildest dreams think that this in any way represents the
readership of the New York Times?
Nope, these letters were intentionally selected to oversample anti-Israel
sentiment. They bespeak an attitude toward Israel that the Times has had
for as long as I can remember - an attitude that finally pushed my father over
the edge and caused him to dump the paper.
I have no doubt that Dad isn't the only one. Not by a long
THE TODAY SHOW AND SELECTIVE PARTY AFFILIATION
I was going to write about this anyway, but since Geoffrey Dickens of www.newsbusters.org did such a good job of
it, why duplicate? Here is his piece:
'Today' Double Standard: Only
GOP Governors Caught In Sex Scandals Get Party Label
Just this past Monday, NBCs
"Today" show studiously avoided mentioning disgraced Governor Eliot Spitzers
Democratic affiliation during his interview with Matt
Lauer, but fast forward to Wednesdays
"Today" and a story about another governor embroiled in a sex scandal -- in this
case Nevada Republican Governor Jim Gibbons -- and NBCs Michael Okwu
was careful to note he is a Republican at the very top of the story:
MICHAEL OKWU: If voters in Nevada were betting
on a nasty gubernatorial divorce, this week they hit the jackpot.
That's Republican Governor Jim Gibbons. There's his future ex-wife,
Dawn. After 23 years of a polished political marriage to Dawn Gibbons, a
former state assemblywoman, the governor has filed for divorce citing
incompatibility in what's become a very public war of the roses.
Back in March of 2008, when they first covered
Spitzers prostitution scandal "Today" devoted an entire 4-hour program to
ignoring the "D" next to Spitzers name
and in that same month "Today" also bypassed the party
affiliation of yet another Democrat caught
in compromising position, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.
The following is a complete transcript of the Okwu
story as it was aired on the April 8, "Today" show:
MEREDITH VIEIRA: And now to what could be one of
the nastiest divorce battles in America right now. Nevada's First Lady
accusing her husband Governor Jim Gibbons of having multiple, extramarital
affairs. NBC's Michael Okwu has the latest.
MICHAEL OKWU: If voters in Nevada were betting
on a nasty gubernatorial divorce, this week they hit the jackpot. That's
Republican Governor Jim Gibbons. There's his future ex-wife, Dawn. After 23
years of a polished political marriage to Dawn Gibbons, a former state
assemblywoman, the governor has filed for divorce citing incompatibility in
what's become a very public war of the roses.
KATHLEEN TURNER IN WAR OF THE ROSES MOVIE CLIP:
Was it as good for you as it was for me?
OKWU: In the divorce papers unsealed this week,
Dawn Gibbons says her husband wanted out, to pursue his dalliances and accused
him of having affairs with at least two married women, including a former
Playboy model seen here two-stepping ahead of the governor at a Reno rodeo.
JOHN SMITH, LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, COLUMNIST:
Is the divorce a big deal here? Sure, it is. This is a three-ring circus and
all three rings are full.
OKWU: The other, other woman, according to Dawn
Gibbons, was a state employee. Last year when news broke, the governor had
reportedly sent the worker more than 800 text messages over several weeks,
sometimes in the middle of the night. It was a scandal.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER TO GIBBONS: Is this an
affair as your wife claims through your attorney?
GOVERNOR JIM GIBBONS: Absolutely not.
SMITH: The only response is OMG, are they
OKWU: Tuesday the governor's lawyer told NBC
News the allegations are not worthy of a response, "Continuing infidelity is
not relevant to anything in Nevada. We're a no-fault state." In the court
documents, Dawn Gibbons says she is devastated and feels like a cast-away wife
after standing by her man. Standing by him, even in 2006 after Las Vegas
cocktail waitress accused Gibbons, then a five-term U.S. Congressman running
for the state house, of making unwanted sexual advances.
GIBBONS: I unequivocally deny that I ever
engaged in any inappropriate or offensive behavior.
OKWU: No criminal charges were filed, ruling in
the civil suit is pending. In the meantime, Dawn Gibbons has moved out of the
governor's mansion and into a one-room apartment on the property. For his part
the governor says his wife has been overly aggressive. In one legal motion,
the governor's lawyer said, "Being in close quarters with such a volatile
person was like being locked in a phone booth with an enraged ferret." For
"Today," Michael Okwu, NBC News, Los Angeles.
If this happened once, or once in a while, or some of the time that would be
one thing. But on Today - and the Associated Press, NY Times and many
other mainstream media - it happens just about all the time. If
you read this blog you've seen me give example after example.
Simply stated, it is disgraceful. It is bias posing as
journalism. And they just don't seem to care, do they?
BUMBLE H. (FOR HUMBLE) OBAMA
As Barack Obama stumbled and bumbled through the world, I heard the applause
from people in countries which, as a rule of thumb, do not like the USA
very much. I also heard and read the mostly fawning love letters from our
media about what a great job he was doing. But I have a
WHO is reacting well to Mr. Obama - the citizens mesmerized by his rock-star
celebrity status or the heads of state? WHAT did he
accomplish? HOW did it help us?
Ralph Peters, writing for the New York Post, has the answers. And they
aren't very pleasant, I assure you. Here is what Mr. Peters has to
By RALPH PETERS
April 8, 2009 --
THE real climax of President Obama's Spring
Apologies Tour wasn't his photo op with our troops in Baghdad or even his
"American Guilt" concerts in Western Europe.
While fans in the press cheered wildly at every
venue, the real performance came in Turkey. And it was a turkey.
Obama means well. Just as Jimmy Carter, his policy
godfather, meant well. But the road to embassy takeovers and strategic
humiliation is paved with good intentions -- coupled with distressing naivete.
On every stage, Obama draped Lady Liberty in
sackcloth and ashes, drawing plentiful applause but no serious economic or
security cooperation in return. Then, in Turkey, he surrendered our national
pride, undercut our interests and interfered in matters that aren't his
On the latter point: Suppose the European Union
president went to Cuba and insisted that the world's sunniest concentration camp
should be welcomed into NAFTA? That's the equivalent of what our president did
in Ankara on Monday when he declared that he supports Turkey's bid for EU
The Europeans don't want Turkey in their
club. Because Turkey isn't a European state, nor is its culture
European. And it isn't our business to press Europe to embrace a huge, truculent
Muslim country suffering a creeping Islamist coup.
The Europeans were appalled by Turkey's
neo-Taliban tantrum on-stage at last week's NATO summit. The Turks fought to
derail the appointment of a great Dane, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, as the new NATO
secretary general. Why? Because he didn't stone to death the Danish cartoonist
who caricatured Mohammed.
Which brings us to the even bigger problem: Obama
has no idea what's going on in Turkey. By going to Ankara on his knees, he gave
his seal of approval to a pungently anti-American Islamist government bent on
overturning Mustapha Kemal's legacy of the separation of mosque and state.
Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party, the
AKP, means headscarves, Korans, censorship and stacked elections. The country's
alarmed middle class opposes the effort to turn the country into an Islamic
state. Obama's gushing praise for the AKP's bosses left them aghast.
Obama's embrace of Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan (now orchestrating show trials of his opponents) was one step
short of going to Tehran and smooching President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
What was Obama thinking? He wasn't. He relied on
advice from State Department appeasement artists who understand neither Turkey,
Islam nor the crises raging between the Bosporus and the Indus. State's answer
is always "More love, more humility, more aid."
Well, I, for one, don't think our country has
anything to apologize for, either to Turkey or to Europe.
Insisting that America's always guilty, Obama
omitted any mention of Turkey's wartime betrayals of our troops, its continuing
oppression of its Kurd minority or the AKP's determination to turn a state with
a secular constitution into a Wahhabi playground.
When it came to the Armenian genocide, Obama
bravely ducked: He never dared use the g-word.
And Obama's disdainful remarks about President
Bush were just shabby.
After those overpriced tour T-shirts have shrunk
in the wash (trust me -- they will), what will we have gained from Obama's
He told the Europeans that the global economic
crisis is all our fault. No mention of European greed, overleveraged
governments, destructive Euro-loans or Chinese currency manipulation.
We did it. Whip us, please.
In return, the Europeans gave him . . . nothing.
Even though Obama was right when he said that
Europe faces a greater terror threat than we do, the entire continent only
ponied up 2,500 short-term non-combat troops for Afghanistan. The Europeans know
we'll do the heavy lifting.
He gave the Russians yet another blank check, too.
(Meanwhile, in Moscow, Putin's thugs beat an aging pro-democracy dissident to a
pulp.) In return, the Russians promised to . . . well, actually, they didn't
Then Obama went to Turkey, undercut secular
political parties, infuriated the Europeans -- and disclaimed our country's
Judeo-Christian heritage. (Did Turkey's leaders respond by denying Islam's
importance to them? Naw.)
In Turkey, Obama got . . . nothing we didn't
Then he went to Iraq and told its prime minister
that Iraq would get nothing.
I believe that our president wants to do the right
thing. But he doesn't have a clue how. For now, he's enraptured by the applause.
But he hasn't tried to charge his fans for their tickets. And they've already
made up their minds they won't have to pay.
Ralph Peters is Fox News' strategic analyst
and the author of "Looking for Trouble."
Is Mr. Peters right? If so, we have a stumbling,
bumbling amateur of a President who essentially is playing house in front of the
world. A man who humbles the United States on our behalf and gives the people he's humbling us to a
free pass on their actions.
There is no country in the history of the world that has
ever done more good for more people over a longer period of time than the USA --
often in spite of roadblocks put up by some of the same countries President
Obama was busy apologizing to this past week.
The time is way overdue for him to act
as if he knows this.
THE LATEST SHARPTON SHAKEDOWN
From Reuters, via the redoubtable Steve Gilbert of www.sweetness-light.com:
April 7th, 2009
From his (Mr. Sharptons, that is) fans at
Vice President Joseph Biden, left and Rev. Al
Sharpton wave to the audience as they arrive on stage at the National Action
Networks 11th annual convention in New York, Friday April 3,
Al Sharpton calls for Arizona sheriff to step
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. civil rights activist
Al Sharpton weighed into a fight over an Arizona sheriffs immigration sweeps
on Tuesday, accusing him of racially profiling Hispanics and urging him to
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has
dispatched deputies into Hispanic communities in the Phoenix area, where they
stop people and arrest anyone who cannot prove he or she is a legal U.S.
Under a deal allowing them to
enforce federal immigration laws, the deputies have arrested more than 1,500
people who they determined were in Arizona illegally, triggering
street protests and condemnation from Latino activists who accuse him of
"I am first calling for the resignation and or
removal of Sheriff Arpaio harassment based on color is nothing short of
racial profiling, which many of us helped to fight to make against the law,"
Sharpton told reporters.
U.S. Department of Justice
officials recently launched an inquiry into Arpaios activities. The U.S.
House Judiciary Committee also held hearings last week about the federal
program that allows for such enforcement tactics.
"Arpaio needs to be confronted, he
needs to be removed. We also need to suspend the law that he is using. We
must stand with our brown brothers and sisters," Sharpton said.
Sharpton said he would travel to Arizona to make
Arpaio, who has held the job since 1992, called
charges he carries out racial profiling of Hispanics ridiculous.
"Im never going to resign," he said.
"The guy is living in a fantasy land if he thinks he is going to pressure me
into anything. He doesnt even know where Arizona
We suspect that for once Mr. Sharpton will not get
away with his race-baiting shakedown routine.
And we say that knowing he also has the moral
weight of Mr. John Conyers and the rest of the Democrat Congress and Mr.
Holders Department of Justice and even apparently the Vice President behind
At least we hope Mr. Sharpton and the rest of
these thugs wont get away with it.
Let's think for a moment about the idiocy of sharpton's contention that
this is racial.
Indigenous Mexicans (Mayans and Aztecs, for example) tend to be
darker-skinned than Caucasians. Thus if the preponderance of illegals are
poor indigenous Mexicans, they will be darker-skinned than Caucasians. That
isn't racism, that is who they are.
Put another way, suppose that half of the Mexicans illegally crossing over were
Caucasian and half were Mayan, but Arpaio's people were only stopping Mayans.
Then sharpton would have a point. But that isn't the way it is at
all. It's just typical sharpton BS.
Now let's think about the consequences of wholesale illegal "immigration" of
poor indigenous Mexicans into the USA.
If Mexican illegals take jobs, whose jobs will they be taking?
Obviously the jobs of people at lower economic levels. Well, which
racial group is disproportionately at those lower levels? The answer, as
we both know, is Blacks. Therefore, sharpton is actively petitioning
for a way that illegal Mexicans will disproportionately take the jobs of his
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding, but that sounds a helluva lot
more racist to to me than stopping, identifying and deporting illegals.
I have to believe that, somewhere in this, sharpton smells a pile of
$$$. And he's perfectly willing to hurt the Black people he professes to
advocate for, to get it.
Sadly, that sounds exactly what sharpton would do.